Who’s to blame? Dismantling the Russian disinformation machine in response to the Crocus City Hall attack 

Image source: Crocus City Hall sign after attack

On the evening of the 22nd of March 2024, the Russian rock band Picnic prepared to perform in front of a sold out crowd at the famed Crocus City Hall, one of Moscow’s largest music venues. Thousands  gathered in anticipation, however just as the concert was expected to begin, a series of masked gunmen stormed the building and fired multiple rounds of automatic gunfire. Pandemonium set in as the audience initially mistook the sounds of gunshots for fireworks, but the true chaos unfolding outside soon made itself known. Witnesses recall smelling smoke and burning as flames eventually took hold. The initial cause of the fire is still undetermined. Approximately 144 people were killed that evening, and a further 500 treated for injuries. The incident is one of the deadliest in Moscow’s recent history, and has left many asking who’s to blame. 

Blame games begin 

Initial reports labelled the shooting a terrorist attack, with Islamic State’s Khorasan Province (ISKP) claiming responsibility early on. The group, representing a faction of the Pakistani Taliban, implied it played a role in the events that unfolded in Moscow, with ISKP media taking ownership of Go-Pro footage filmed by the gunmen. ISKP has made similar claims in the past, fuelled by anti-foreign sentiments and motivations to establish an Islamic State in Central Asia. 

Despite this apparent admission, Russia continues to argue that ISIS did not play a role in the attack, and has instead looked to the West. In April, the Russian Foreign Ministry accused Western media of manipulation and attempting to distract the world from the truth. Russian media has asserted that Ukrainian nationalists and Western powers are bent on destroying Russia. A Russian investigative committee announced the commencement of a detailed investigation into the actions of NATO officials on suspicions of financing terrorism. The  Committee is yet to name specific officials or leads of inquiry, but the Ukrainian energy company, Burisma Holdings has been linked to their investigation – a company whose board, the US President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden served from 2014-2019. 

Instead of immediately addressing the nation and calling for calm, President Vladimir Putin appeared on X the following day, stating how he believed the attackers were captured preparing to make use of an opportune “window” – attempting to enter the town of Bryansk, on the Ukrainian border. He emphasised that the shooting was merely part in a series of attempts by those at war with Russia since 2014. Ukraine has denied any involvement in the attack, with President Volodymyr Zelensky saying that Putin has been quick to blame Ukraine, instead of dealing with his Russian citizens. 

Image source: Russian President Vladimir Putin addressing citizens following the attack. 

Russia’s approach 

Russian security officials have been attempting to associate ISKP’s claims with Western ambitions. Director of the Russian Federal Security Service, Aleksandr Bortnikov came forward the day after ISKP appeared to confess, stating that the attack must have been prepared by “both radical Islamists, and facilitated by Western perspectives”. By redirecting the international spotlight, it is hoped that Ukraine and Western nations including the US are left to answer for the series of events in Moscow. 

This is not the first time Russia has attempted to blame its military opponents for attacks on its own soil, with the Russian government initially blaming Georgia for the 2004 siege on a school in Beslan, which was later found to be the work of Chechen rebels. The motivation for both these redirections seems to be the same: Preserve Russia’s reputation and to simultaneously defame the ‘enemy nations’ in the process. Twenty years on, Russia is clearly hoping to avoid similar discussions that ultimately point to its lack of reliable security frameworks. In the case of Beslan, the European Court of Human Rights eventually caught up to the lies the country was hoping to continue propagating, ordering Russia to pay 2.9 million euros in compensation to the families of the 330 victims. 

How has the US responded?

On the 28th of March, the White House held a press conference to respond to the allegations made by the Kremlin: 

• 7 March: The US embassy to Russia passes written communication to Russian security services that they had been monitoring extremist activity in Moscow, that may target large crowds. This warning was apparently “one of many” passed on by the US government since September 2023. 
• 8 March: The US embassy posts public advice for its citizens to avoid large gatherings in Moscow
• 22 March: The Crocus City Hall is attacked 

The notion that the two states had maintained ongoing communication for so long came with more questions than answers, however National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby reminded audiences that the US was only attempting to uphold its duty to warn, an obligation upheld in the country’s intelligence community directive that requires officials to provide consistent and coordinated warnings when and if threats should arise. The effects of these revelations were in stark contrast to Russia’s arguments only a few days prior; clearing some of the ambiguity that had left many wondering who was to blame. 

Image source: Ukraine National Security and Defence Council secretary Oleksiy Danilov

The inner workings of the Russian disinformation machine

The Putin government’s opaque response to the events at Crocus City Hall are not out of character, and despite clarifications by Ukraine, the US and ISKP, Russia remains steadfast in its belief that Ukraine is behind the tragedy. To date, twelve suspects have been arrested in connection to the shooting, with various Telegram communications showing brutal interrogation tactics. The four initial suspects arrested only days after the attack are to be held in court custody until the end of May. 

Disinformation in Russia has also been relentless, with the most stark example played on national television the day after the shooting. In an apparent interview with newsreaders, Ukraine National Security and Defence Council secretary Oleksiy Danilov is shown implicating Ukraine and telling viewers: “Is it fun in Moscow today? I would like to believe that we will arrange such fun for them more often”. 

The clip was soon debunked by the Ukrainian Centre for Countering Disinformation, which found that the clip had stitched together previous interviews, and that Danilov’s facial movements and speech did not match what he was saying. Deepfake technology has to date played little role in political propaganda, but it is clear that Russia will preserve its position by any means necessary.

The future of these suspects remains unknown, and as Moscow mourns, the world is left with more questions than answers. It is clear from the tactics used by Russian media however, that preserving its national identity is Russia’s foremost priority. While it has become easier to draw back the Iron Curtain and search for answers, the international community will have to remain continuously vigilant in the face of the Kremlin’s disinformation machine.