Elīna Vrobļevska, Researcher at the Centre for East European policy studies
The terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall in Moscow on 22 March this year has served as a tool of information manipulation and deception to advance Russia’s political and informational agenda. In the immediate aftermath, Russian officials and law enforcement institutions issued statements about Ukraine’s involvement in the terrorist attack, while the subsequent Russian investigation gave “clear indications” of US involvement. Moreover, as usual, information manipulation activities, one of Russia’s most frequently used tools, were attributed to the collective West. The extensive information manipulation activities have served to maintain Russia’s inherent message of the collective West as an external enemy whose aim is to destroy Russia.
Guilty! Even if not proven
In the first hours after the terrorist attack, the Kremlin narrative pointed to Ukraine as the primary culprit, with some emphasis on the involvement of Volodymyr Zelensky and his administration. This information was presented almost as self-evident facts, without any need for verification or proof.
The Russian narrative of Ukraine as the mastermind of the attacks was reinforced by a selective collection of “evidence”. Claims of alleged Islamist units in the Ukrainian intelligence services were spread, as well as video confessions of detainees confirming the Ukrainian “order”, alongside images of the Ukrainian flag found on their phones, which served as proof of Russia’s initial theses.
This combination of disinformation and evidence from the Russian side has in turn created favourable conditions for subsequent official statements declaring Ukraine a terrorist state responsible not only for this but also for other terrorist attacks on Russian territory.
One of the aims of such statements and the results of investigations is to develop and maintain the idea that Ukraine is a threat to Russia. A statement issued by the Russian Ministry of Defence in early April indicates that more than 16,000 soldiers have enlisted in the military since the terrorist attack, attributing this activity to a desire to defend Russia in Ukraine and to avenge the Crocus City Hall terrorist attack.
Blaming the “Ukrainian regime” for the terrorist attack is thus intended to mobilise the public internally against Ukraine as an enemy of Russia and a terrorist state, deflecting criticism from those who might be tempted to blame the Russian security institutions.
A conspiracy against Russia
The narrative of US (and also British) involvement in the attack has been spread and perpetuated with increasing intensity. This informational “reality” is sought to be justified by the subordination of the Ukrainian special services to the US, as well as by the collective actions of the West in Ukraine, which have allegedly led to the country becoming a “hotbed of terrorism” over the past decade. US control of Kyiv is presented as a well-known fact, as is the fact that the US has allegedly created terrorist organisations such as ISIS-K. This is how the necessary link is found between the two “conspirators” – the US and Ukraine. The information space is also polluted with other revelations that “prove” that not only ISIS-K was responsible for the attack. The fact that the terrorists did not blow themselves up and were open-faced is cited as an example.
In April, the Russian authorities formally accused Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company previously linked to the son of US President Joe Biden, of financing a terrorist attack. In this way, the Kremlin’s information campaign is building a chain of “coherences” about the attack allegedly carried out jointly by the US and Ukraine. Officially, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has so far rejected US involvement in the investigation, thus placing all the power of drawing the “right conclusions” in the hands of the Kremlin and its subordinate institutions.
Russia’s conclusions, which have been presented by the responsible representatives in the course of the investigation, are directly aimed at demoralising the US and maintaining the image of an enemy, a threat and a main opponent in Russian society. It is unpalatable for Russia to accept the generally recognised version that ISIS-K was solely responsible for the terror attack, given that the general public knows that US warnings about the terror threat were ignored or at least not taken seriously enough.
It is easier to blame the Western-Ukrainian conspiracy because it creates an excuse for why Russia’s internal structures were unable to prevent the attack. Moreover, it continues to feed the Russian narrative of a conspiracy about the US and its allies to destroy Russia from within.
This threatening interaction with the West is contrasted with a partnership with China, which has been declared Russia’s main ally in the fight against terrorism, “putting” this cooperation in a box where, under this ideological cover, China can continue to support Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, as well as pursue its economic interests in Russia. This helps to dispel concerns about Russia’s close cooperation with China domestically and creates another point of contact in the foreign policy facade.
Western society’s measure of humanity
The emotional part of information manipulation is equally important, even if it is replicated further away from the official rhetoric. In an attempt to show the inhumanity of Western society in contrast to the support and sympathy expressed for the Russian tragedy, several stories have been circulated in the public sphere.
One of them is the manipulation of the Western media, or the claim of a ban on expressing sympathy for what happened or on reporting the ‘true circumstances’ of the terrorist attack, instead reinforcing the narrative of ISIS-K guilt, ignoring the findings of the Russian investigation into the involvement of ‘Ukrainian Islamists’ or Western intelligence agencies, while attempting to discredit the Russian investigation and promote conspiracy theories about the alleged involvement of the Russian special services.
Some accusations are also directed at the Baltic States, including Latvia, highlighting the indifference of the Baltic States and their official representatives, which is contrasted with the compassion of the “rest of the world”. It was pointed out that it is forbidden in Latvia to express condolences to those who died in the terrorist attack, which in turn shows that Latvia knows who organised the attack and supports that party. The West, however, has changed its attitude and has become much more active in expressing condolences, as it did not want to be “left behind” – after the rest of the world had allegedly expressed solidarity with Russia over its losses.
The fact that the terrorist organisation ISIS-K has claimed responsibility is manipulated in this line of information to suggest that the US and its allies are shifting the blame to Islamic terrorists in an attempt to obstruct the Russian Federation’s investigation. Moreover, the narrative of terrorist organisations, including ISIS-K, as being US-created and US-funded, and as being against Russia and its allies in Central Asia, has been revived. This manipulation of information is aimed at justifying Russia’s inability to prevent an attack, despite timely warnings from outside about its possibility. At the same time, it dehumanises Western society as a whole by showing the alleged degree of hostility that exists towards Russia.
One of the Kremlin’s disinformation tactics is information suppression – the information space is flooded with various mutually contradictory or factually inconsistent versions of what happened, “burying” the truth and pursuing multiple informational objectives simultaneously. For example, although Putin has endorsed ISIS-K as the perpetrator of the terrorist attack, this has not prevented the creation of several information streams, which identify the US and its allies or Ukraine as the real culprits. The unifying purpose of the information that has been spread in the public space since the terrorist attack is to highlight the West’s desire to undermine Russia and its unity, to motivate the Russian people to mobilise for war in Ukraine, and to reaffirm Russia’s humanity in contrast to the Western public indifference that is part of the Kremlin’s external enemy image.
* Material first published on Delfi.lv
* The creation of this fact-checking material was funded by the European Media and Information Foundation, managed by the “Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation”.
