We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Does Europe face a resurging terrorist threat after the Moscow attack?
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics from Stockholm.
Is the terrorist threat to Europe back after what happened in Moscow?Well, the bad news is, yes, it's there. There's no question about it. It's still coming out. Central Asia, Afghanistan. We have a very disturbing situation in part of Africa with ISIS gaining ground in different ways, so not directly threatening Europe so far. And we should not forget that we have a situation in the Middle East with Gaza and all of the emotions that that is leading to, that is bound to be a recruitment possibility for these particular groups. The good news, if there is any, is of course that evidently the Americans were able to pick up advance warning of this particular terrorist attack. And that shows that we have intelligence capabilities combined with different countries that could give us somewhat more security than perhaps we had in the past. The bad news in this particular situation is, of course, the Russian authorities didn't listen and very many innocent Russians had to pay a very heavy price for that.
We have to learn all of these particular lessons as we move ahead.
US-Israel rift over UN resolution: More drama than long-term impact
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
How will the US-Israel relationship be affected by the US backing a Gaza cease-fire resolution at the UN?
Well, it was high drama yesterday when Prime Minister Netanyahu said he was going to immediately suspend an Israeli delegation that was going to visit the United States on the back of that decision.Very unhappy that the Americans decided to allow it to go ahead and abstain as opposed to by themselves vetoing. And keep in mind that all every other permanent and nonpermanent member of the Security Council has voted in favor. A lot of US allies there. And you know, that would seem to be a big deal, except Yoav Gallant, Minister of Defense, still stayed in the United States and had a series of very productive and high level meetings with his counterparts in the US. And there are still negotiations proceeding that are constructive between the US and Israel and Qatar to engage with Hamas and try to get a temporary cease-fire done and a bunch of hostages released also called for immediate release by the UN Security Council resolution. So I think there's a lot more drama here than there is actual impact on the US-Israel relationship. And certainly a lot of pressure that continues to mount on a very unpopular Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at home.
Will there be international consequences from the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse in Baltimore?
I mean, it wasn't terrorism. It was an accident, though. I mean, I guess if this was Russia, they'd say the Ukrainians were responsible for it. It is a major port on the Eastern seaboard that looks like it is going to be a real problem to get in and out of. And that means supply chain challenges, especially in terms of cars, millions of which go through Baltimore every year. But, you know, the United States has an economy that's doing quite well. A growth is significant, but not over whelming. And otherwise supply chain is working around the United States for imports. So I suspect that if there's an economic cost here, it's going to be relatively small and short lived.
What message is Russia sending by their public display of torture against accused terrorists?
Well, they're showing that they have a complete indifference to the well-being of any human being. They're also, of course, displaying that the Russian state will go after you with its full force if you are seen to be an enemy of theirs. That is true in terms of the way they treat opposition journalists and politicians. But it's also true in the way they treat suspected terrorists. And they, of course, have forced confessions. I suspect they do have strong evidence, given what we've seen of that over the last few days. But still, I mean, in a system of rule of law, you are innocent until proven guilty in Russia. Of course you are guilty when the government says you are guilty, in particular, when the absolute leader says you're guilty and then you no longer have rights and the state can do with you as they will. We saw that with Mr. Prigozhin, We saw that with Mr. Navalny. And now we're seeing that with four suspected and likely but not yet proven terrorists.
Putin using Moscow attack as excuse to intensify war on Ukraine
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take:
A Quick Take to kick off your week. Lots we could be talking about. But I want to go to Russia, where we have had a major terrorist attack with over 130 Russian citizens gunned down, killed by terrorists.
The United States has warned the Russians both publicly so that American citizens would know about the concern, but also with actionable intelligence privately over the past couple of weeks that ISIS was planning an attack on an area with major crowds in Moscow. Putin publicly dismissing that, kind of wish he hadn't, but that we are where we are. And Putin has now spoken to the nation. There have been a number of gunmen that have been rounded up and arrested four, that we know of, Tajik citizens and Putin did not mention that ISIS has taken credit for this terrorist attack, nor that they then released videos of some of the attackers as they were engaging in terrorism inside the rock concert venue.
Instead, he spoke implausibly about links to Ukraine that don't actually exist. Why would ISIS-K do this? I mean, the main reason is because one of their two home bases, Syria and Iraq, in Syria, destroyed by Bashar al-Assad with the direct help from Putin and the Russian military. Nobody else doing that with Assad on the ground. And there have been many terrorist attempts against Russians as a consequence in that regard, but none with spectacular success for them like we've just witnessed.
Why wouldn't Ukraine be responsible? Well, first of all, because they haven't actually been targeting civilians at all. In fact, the one time that they engaged in terrorism and it was terrorism was an attempt to kill an individual, high level Russian extremist, but who was not a political figure. He had been informally an inspiration to the Kremlin and been calling for pogroms against Ukraine, which he said shouldn't exist as a nation. And they didn't get him. Instead, they got his daughter and the United States and other NATO allies were quite angry about the fact that Ukrainians were engaged in that. But aside from that, it's been attacks on critical infrastructure. That's another thing. And certainly, if you want to talk about the Nord Stream pipeline, highly unlikely the Russians would have blown up their pipeline. Much more likely the Ukrainians either by themselves with support would have been responsible for that. The investigations have been inconclusive. That strikes me as not enormously plausible.
Also, Ukraine has been hitting a lot of refineries, Russian refineries, and that's a pretty big deal. About 5% of Russian exports are now offline. Oil exports. That could go up a lot. It could be more than half easily in coming weeks to months of over 3 million barrels a day that the Russians export. If Ukraine starts hitting Black Sea facilities, which they're certainly capable of doing. So global economic impact of this war continues to be very significant. Ability and willingness of the Ukrainians to hit targets inside Russia as well as occupied Crimea, Ukrainian territory, but the Russians annexed it back in 2014 illegally, all of that is certainly par for the course. But the idea that the Ukrainians would be involved in large scale terrorism or support it is not only implausible on the basis of the evidence, but also implausible in terms of what they've been doing historically. But of course, that doesn't matter to Putin, who now intends to use this to drive more military efforts against Ukraine, more civilian casualties.
And that's what we saw in the initial 48 hours after the attack. Unprecedented levels of missiles being sent against the capital, Kyiv, with lots of civilian targets as well as west Ukraine, Lviv in particular. We are seeing that Putin is indifferent to civilian deaths, those of the Ukrainians and, of course, those of his own people. And we probably do now see a much more mobilization from Russia, especially now that the election, the so-called election, is over and more Russian weapons that are going to be used against the Ukrainian people.
The most concerning piece of all of this, I mean, leaving aside the fact that Russia now has a second front they need to fight on, they have, you know, a concern with radical Islamic terrorism that has grown in terms of the capabilities and whether or not Putin says he's going to fight it, he's going to need to fight it. And that's going to take away scarce resources for him and it's going to put more Russian civilians at risk. But the bigger concern, the global concern, of course, is the potential for this war to expand. And there are a couple of incidents that should raise those warning bells. First, the fact that just over this weekend, of all of the missiles that were launched by Russia against Ukraine, one went through Polish airspace for less than a minute, something like 40 seconds, but nonetheless, a Russian missile that actually went through the airspace of a NATO ally. Clearly wasn't targeting that NATO ally.
But Polish and other NATO allied aircraft scrambled. And that is not something we have seen so far since the war started a couple of years ago. Also, the fact that there were a missile explosion targeting Odessa just a couple of weeks ago when President Zelensky was there, in addition to Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. And it was literally only a few hundred yards away that this missile exploded while those two men, those two leaders were on the ground and exposed very clearly. I don't believe that Mitsotakis was targeted, but the fact that he could have been hit as an NATO leader would have also put us in unprecedented danger in terms of the geopolitical order.
Certainly since anything we'd seen since 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis. What's behind that? Well, I mean, I think the most likely thing behind is that Putin doesn't have complete and operational control over everything that's going on on the ground. His military is badly trained and organized. And this was probably a mistake. Woops. But, you know, the fact is that when you have lots of people go into Ukraine and borders, look, you know, they look very defined on a map, but they're very porous in real life. And the potential for mistakes to lead to extraordinary escalation, pretty high. And certainly the willingness to allow for those mistakes to be made is higher than you would like it to be. The checks and balances there don't seem to be all that concerning for the Kremlin or for Vladimir Putin. Of course, a worse explanation would be that Putin actually is prepared to take those risks to brush NATO back. And that, of course, would lead to much more likelihood that we would have escalation that would bring a NATO ally into the war, something that clearly nobody out there wants to see.
But it's worth talking about in the context of all of this, it's much more likely the Ukrainians are now going to get their 60 billion of support. That would be the largest piece of military support so far from the United States, approved likely in mid to late April. They're seeing more ammunition, more economic, more military support from the Europeans, even though the lion share of the military support is from the US and the war continues to be dangerous, continues to be unstable and continues to be no end in sight.
So that's where we are after some very unfortunate headlines and events over the last couple of days. And I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Russia is winning? Winning what? ›
- Putin "wins" Russia election, but at what cost? ›
- Ukraine drone attacks on Moscow imply they don't fear Russian response ›
- Moscow terror attack: What happens next? ›
- US-Israel rift over UN resolution: more drama than long-term impact - GZERO Media ›
- Does Europe face a resurging terrorist threat after the Moscow attack? - GZERO Media ›
Russian President Vladimir Putin lights a candle in memory of the victims of the Crocus City Hall attack, on the day of national mourning in a church at the Novo-Ogaryovo state residence outside Moscow, Russia March 24, 2024.
Moscow mourns amid international blame game
President Vladimir Putin declared Sunday a national day of mourning for the 137 people killed at the Crocus City Hall outside Moscow on Friday. Several gunmen opened fire at the popular music venue late Friday, injuring another 180 and leaving more than a third of the building on fire. Crews are still sifting through the debris for bodies.
The Islamic State group claimed responsibility for the attack, which came just weeks after Washington warned of possible terrorism at large venues in the Moscow area, which Putin notably ridiculed as fearmongering.
What motivated the militants? In a word: Syria. Russia has been helping the Assad regime ramp up its attacks on Islamic State strongholds in recent months, but the battles have been going on for years, with anger festering over Putin’s support for President Bashar al-Assad.
Still, Putin looks east. Despite the Islamic State’s admission, Putin tried to blame Ukraine. He also blamed “international terrorism” but said the perpetrators — 11 have been arrested, including four of the gunmen — were trying to flee to Ukraine after the attack.
Ukraine has repeatedly denied any role in Friday’s tragedy. Meanwhile, Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities intensified over the weekend, with drones hitting Kyiv and Lviv, along the Polish border. While no one was injured, Poland reported that Russian cruise missiles had entered its airspace.
"Pointing the finger at Ukraine and sidelining the ISIS-K angle — at least in official statements — serves the Kremlin’s purpose of rationalizing a potential escalation in its military operations against the adversary," says Eurasia Group analyst Tinatin Japaridze, possibly including a new round of conscription, though Putin did not mention mobilization specifically on Saturday.
Moscow terror attack: What happens next?
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics from Stockholm.
What's going to happen after the horrible terrorist attack in Moscow?
Well, obviously, the Russian authorities have great difficulties with it. The US gave advance warning that something could happen in Moscow. It was repeated by several other embassies. That was publicly dismissed by Putin. And, of course, Putin is saying that all of the danger that is there is Ukraine and the West. Nothing else. He has everything under control. And then suddenly, well over 100 people dead. And evidently the security authorities responding fairly slowly. So he has now to adjust his narrative.
- Ukraine is still standing two years after Russian invasion ›
- What follows the drone attack on Moscow? ›
- Are Ukrainian fighters hidden inside Russia? ›
- Mass shooting in Moscow leaves at least 60 dead ›
- Russia-Ukraine: Two Years of War ›
- Putin using Moscow attack as excuse to intensify war on Ukraine - GZERO Media ›
- Does Europe face a resurging terrorist threat after the Moscow attack? - GZERO Media ›