Just hours before assailants executed the most lethal assault Russia has witnessed in 20 years, administrators added a new entity to their list of extremist and terrorist groups, including the global LGBTQ+ “movement,” surprising many.
The decision came on the heels of a Russian Supreme Court ruling that greatly restricted the rights of gay and transgender individuals within the nation.
While Islamist terror organizations such as al-Qaida and ISIS, whose affiliate has claimed the concert attack, are on the list, the addition of LGBTQ+ allies poses questions about Russia’s expansive security sector and its capacity to gauge the nation’s true security threats.
The March 22 calamity that resulted in the death of over 140 individuals signifies a critical security oversight in President Vladimir Putin’s tenure, whose rise to power was marked by a strong stance against Chechen insurgents.
The tragic event invokes skepticism regarding how effortlessly the attackers inflicted such carnage at a public venue, and one week later, analysts investigate the significant shortcomings that led to the failure to preempt the attack and the governmental confusion that ensued:
SHIFTING ATTENTION TO POLITICAL DISSENT
In recent years, the aggressive approach of Russia’s security machine has been to suppress political dissent, independent press, and civil groups in an unprecedented clampdown reminiscent of Soviet-era repression. The war in Ukraine has further intensified these efforts.
FAQ Section
- What groups were added to Russia’s register of extremist and terrorist organizations alongside al-Qaida and ISIS?
- Authorities included the international LGBTQ+ “movement” in their list of extremist and terrorist organizations.
- What did the U.S. warn Russia about, and how did Russia respond?
- The U.S. warned Russia of an imminent terror attack. The U.S. Embassy in Moscow also advised Americans to avoid crowds due to “imminent” extremist plans against gatherings. Russia dismissed this as “blackmail” and treated the tip with skepticism.
- How did Russian authorities initially react after the concert attack?
- Russian authorities detained people over social media posts they considered offensive, and President Putin sought to indirectly link the attack to Ukraine despite denials and the Islamic State’s claim of responsibility.
- Did President Putin publicly criticize security officials after the attack?
- No, during orchestrated meetings with officials, Putin avoided any criticism of their performance, indicating their jobs are secure for the time being.
Conclusion
The Moscow concert massacre exemplifies a significant lapse in Russia’s security paradigm. Instead of focusing on the real terror threats, the security services concentrated on suppressing dissent, which may have diverted essential resources and vigilance from genuine dangers. The misjudged priorities, sluggish response to the attack, and convoluted official narrative suggest systemic flaws within the security apparatus. As the Russian government continues to emphasize an external conspiracy potentially involving Ukraine, critical assessment of internal security mismanagement, it seems, is overshadowed by geopolitical narratives and power politics.