The Attack on a Russian Concert Hall Shows Putin’s Weakness in Controlling National Security

In a shocking turn of events, Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian promise of security has been shattered as the Kremlin faces both Islamist terrorism at home and a costly war abroad that they cannot win against a border country one-quarter its size.

In an arrogant move, Putin dismissed warnings from the U.S. of an imminent terrorist attack; instead, he diverted the focus of the country’s security services to catching supposed Ukrainian spies. Within days, chaos erupted as Islamic State gunmen unleashed terror on a concert hall outside Moscow, claiming the lives of over 130 people, marking the deadliest act of terrorism in decades.

The nation is shaken from the patent lack of security that resulted in the vicious assault on a prominent entertainment venue. This has seriously jeopardized Putin’s carefully constructed strongman persona but also sparked doubts about the authoritarian state’s ability to fulfill its pledge of security for the Russian populace. A pledge made 25 years ago that Putin has still been unable to fulfill.

This challenge unfolds amidst Russia’s grueling aggression against neighboring Ukraine and its losing battle to fend off Ukrainian forces targeting vital sites deep within Russian territory. Recent strikes on Russian oil refineries by Kyiv and the stunning success in sinking Russia’s prized naval vessels, without even having a naval fleet, have further exacerbated Putin’s waning strongman image.

The resurgence of Islamist terrorism poses a significant dilemma for the Kremlin, contradicting the narrative portrayed by Russian hyperbole. The stark reality of this threat clashes with the image of Russia leading an alliance with developing nations and the Muslim world in a battle against the American-led West.

Across the nation, Russians gathered to pay tribute at impromptu memorials while Putin, clad in black, lit candles in a chapel. At the same time, rescue teams meticulously combed through the debris at the Crocus City Hall, striving to recover any remaining victims of the tragic attack and subsequent blaze.

Before taking power in December 1999, Russia grappled with terrorist assaults attributed to Chechen Islamists. Putin’s infamous vow to “whack them in their outhouses” underscored his resolve to bypass legal formalities in the pursuit of terrorists and the restoration of the status quo of Russian communist life.

The terrorism in the late 1990s and early 2000s bolstered Putin’s image, as Russians demanded action to restore some semblance of order. Accusations by Russian opposition leaders and investigative journalists at the time pointed fingers at the Federal Security Service (FSB) for orchestrating bombings to consolidate Putin’s authoritarian regime.

The aftermath of the attack on the Crocus City Hall concert venue leaves a growing uncertainty in Russia’s domestic politics. Putin has linked the attack, claimed by the Islamic State, to Ukraine, raising concerns in Kyiv about the potential escalation of the conflict. Russians see this as ongoing propaganda aimed at bolstering Putin’s waning support for a war on Ukraine not supported by most Russians.

Critics view the attack as Putin’s failure to deliver on promises of peace and stability. The blame game involving Ukraine and the Islamic State challenges Russia’s foreign policy narrative, causing increased political tensions at home.

While Putin refrained from directly accusing Ukraine of involvement in the attack, his remarks on suspected terrorists fleeing toward Ukraine stirred unwanted controversy. Senior Russian officials dismissed the Islamic State’s claim, instead intensified threats towards Kyiv. Western governments and Ukraine rejected Russia’s false accusations as a video surfaced, purportedly from ISIS, claiming responsibility.

Russian media showcased doubts about Ukrainian involvement and questioned the abnormally delayed response to the Crocus attack by Russian security services housed only a block away. Russian news outlets revealed a concerning delay in the response to the shooting incident.

Specialized police units arrived over an hour later and hesitated for more than 30 minutes before entering the building, allowing the attackers to escape unchallenged. Russian Federal Security Service Director Alexander Bortnikov’s contradictory narrative about the attack has raised doubts as to what happened, highlighting serious flaws in Putin’s crack security service.

Political analysts emphasized the need to redefine security priorities and raised concerns about targeting public figures critical of the regime. The focus on terrorism shifted towards criticism of Russian authorities, prompting a reevaluation of law enforcement strategies and intentions.

Putin’s despotic rule in Russia has sparked debates about the impact of the war in Ukraine on the country’s security forces. Amidst the drone strikes and military actions, concerns arise about the overloaded military capabilities of Russian agencies dealing with multiple fronts. Many experts suggest a lapse due to the Ukraine conflict’s intensity is now having severe repercussions internally.

Moreover, the war has shifted Russia’s economic focus, drawing in migrant workers from Central Asia and swelling the defense sector workforce. With well over 300,000 Russian casualties in Ukraine, the strain is evident in all sectors of society. The recent attackers from Tajikistan underscore the complexities of integration and security risks posed by large migrant populations.

The narrative of the Central Asian workforce in Russia unveils challenges of assimilation and susceptibility to extremist influences. This demographic shift, comprising around 20 percent of the population, raises concerns about social cohesion and radicalization, emphasizing the emergence of isolated Muslim communities and the latent threat of extremist ideologies.

Dissatisfaction with immigration, once a focal point for Russian nationalists, has now permeated wider society. Many Russians acknowledge the country’s heavy reliance on Central Asian labor but feel unable to change course abruptly due to how communism regulates everything from the top down.

While Putin pledged to tackle corruption, the tragic fire and shooting at Crocus has reignited concerns about the ongoing unscrupulous use of a politician’s authority for personal gain. Under communism, corruption is typically viewed as government officials coercing money from private sector individuals. However, in Russia, there are numerous cases where officials go beyond, striving to seize control of businesses for themselves.

Two years ago, Russia’s central intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service (FSB), faced a major setback when it underestimated Ukrainians’ resolve to defend against a Russian assault. This miscalculation led to the failure of Russia’s initial takeover bid.

Since then, the FSB has shifted its focus to closely monitoring public dissent related to the conflict, whether expressed online or on the streets, as freedom of speech exists in theory in Russia, not in practice. Criticism of the Russian military under wartime laws can now lead to imprisonment, especially comments implicating Russian soldiers in civilian deaths in places like Bucha and Mariupol.

In response to targeted killings of prominent war advocates, the FSB has intensified efforts to track down individuals suspected of collaborating with Kyiv’s military intelligence while also cracking down on political dissidents within the country.

With escalating tensions, there are fears that the recent terror incidents will only tighten the grip on dissent further as Putin’s façade of power and control slips beyond his grasp. Russians are now seeing that Putin cannot win what was supposed to be an easy war against Ukraine; the economy is faltering because of it, and terrorism was never eradicated as promised 25 years ago.

Putin faces an almost insurmountable challenge as the country deteriorates. This decline is marked by lagging technological innovation, limited or no property rights, high levels of immigration, and economic stagnation. This paints a grim outlook for the strongman façade Putin sorely needs for the 2024 elections.

He may “win” the election, but he has lost public opinion.