St. Petersburg tragedy

The bomb blast on a St. Petersburg Metro train, killing 14 and wounding 49 during the first hour, was quickly followed by websites offering various explanations, including comparisons with the Moscow explosions, back in 1999, hinting at a provocation designed to distract public opinion from street rallies. This particular allegation sounds absolutely unrealistic. The last thing Vladimir Putin would want would be an act of terrorism in St. Petersburg, his home town. Such an act against Navalny, et al. – or against some of those who are taking part in the anti-corruption rallies – would be a different story, of course. The Russian in the street, brainwashed by official propaganda as he might be, wouldn’t be likely to buy this. There is another allegation – ISIS hand. This one sounds reasonable, the more so that the Russian authorities can’t possibly benefit from it. This explanation won’t help them rally the Russians round the idea of combating ISIS in Syria. Regardless of the number of bomb blasts or air crashes, there will be no Russians massing at volunteer action centers. Russians have also got used to the sluggish war in the North Caucasus.

The St. Petersburg Metro bomb blast isn’t likely to distract people from their problems caused by rampant corruption, inequality, and socioeconomic crisis. These unhappy phenomena aren’t interrelated in any way. If those “upstairs” wanted to intimidate the street protesters, such an “act of terrorism” would be staged during such a rally. Vladimir Putin learned about the bomb blast while meeting with Alexander Lukashenka at the Konstantin Palace [negotiating gas prices and other bilateral Russia-Belarus issues. – Ed.]. He had nothing to state, so he offered his condolences to the victims’ families. Later, he placed flowers at the Tekhnologichesky Institut Metro Station in St. Petersburg.

The Russian president has long been known for failing to quickly respond to natural or man-caused cataclysms. The fact that the bomb was activated while Vladimir Putin was in St. Petersburg, with maximum security arrangements, is proof that the [public] transport infrastructure in the big Russian cities is vulnerable [to terrorist attacks].

Three versions of the tragic event – domestic crime, a criminal case, and an act of terrorism – were promptly voiced by the authorities. And this considering that, in addition to the bomb activated between the Metro stations Tekhnologichesky Institut and Sennaya Ploshchad, another explosive device was found at the Ploshchad Vosstaniya station, disguised as a common fire extinguisher. This, of course, ruined the theory of a liquefied gas bottle exploding while being transported to a suburban dacha, or of any other “domestic” reasons behind the event. Ditto, criminal case – there were no hallmarks of a gang war. Of course, some of the local mafia groups could want to get even with another one by activating a bomb in a Metro car, and to hell with the number of casualties, but activating two explosive devices at the same time would be too much for any local mob.

This leaves only an act of terrorism. Needless to say, Moscow would be more than happy to point a finger at the “fascist Banderaites” [ a.k.a. “Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists” under the Soviets, with the notion consistently upheld by modern Kremlin propaganda. – Ed.], except that no one would buy this, not even in Russia. There is a Metro station security camera footage showing a man of Asian origin who is considered to be a prime suspect. Another possibility would be the Crimean Tatars’ involvement. Failing to recognize the event as an act of terrorism would be stupid, so [Vladimir Putin’s spokesman] Dmitry Peskov made a statement at midnight, Moscow time, to the effect that what had happened in St. Petersburg has every hallmark of an act of terrorism, but that the case must be investigated to make the final conclusion. (http://tass.ru/proisshestviya/4147827)

Will they detect and apprehend the perpetrators? I think they will make every effort to do so, just as I think that they will detect and kill them on the spot. This is a direct challenge to Vladimir Putin and he is expected to respond to it. However, the secret police and other law enforcement agencies, tasked with such a mission and ordered to carry it out ASAP, no matter what, will be tempted to stage an operation, leaving the bodies of several militants, previously killed in the North Caucasus, reporting mission effectively fulfilled. The big question is: Which of the terrorist groups will claim responsibility for what happened in St. Petersburg? I think that one of them will, but later, considering that the actual perpetrators need time to leave the city.

Is there a way to prevent an act of terrorism? There are more policemen per 100 residents of major urban areas in Russia than in any big city across the world. In my opinion, the only way is by stopping the wars in the North Caucasus and Syria. This would eventually mean recognition for the independence of the republics in the North Caucasus, and an end to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Vladimir Putin will never do so. In other words, further acts of terrorism are on the agenda, likely on an upward curve as the presidential election date is getting closer. The Islamists would never miss such an opportunity – otherwise they would have to wait another six years.

So far, there are two key suspects, a man and a girl, supposedly of Central Asian origin. The investigating officers say the explosive device was activated by a suicide bomber from Central Asia. This could also put the investigators off the scent. Something like this tends to happen in the early hours of working on a high profile case, so there is no denying the possibility of a bomb planted in a Metro car and detonated later.

Will they take political measures in the aftermath of this act of terrorism? There is no denying this possibility. Vladimir Putin de facto canceled the governors’ elections after the Beslan school hostage crisis [a.k.a. Beslan massacre]. Now the governors appear to be elected, but under rigid [government] control, so the president-okayed-candidates win the campaign in ten cases out of ten. In other words, there seems to be no reason for resuming the practice of assigning governors, rather than electing them. The more so that this case has nothing to do with security arrangements within a given subway network. Most likely, street rallies and other public demonstration procedures will be made more rigid, canceling recent cosmetic concessions. This, however, will have nothing to do with [public] transport security arrangements. The [Russian] authorities will be able to tighten the screws on security measures, not for fear of repeated mass rallies of protest. This would appear to be playing into the authorities’ hand. However, there are many other negative factors. Back in 2000, Vladimir Putin came to power under the slogan of waging a ruthless struggle against terrorism and for the security of Russian citizens. Seventeen years later, a year before the next presidential election, it looks as though living in Russia hasn’t become considerably safer since 1999. One might ask: What was the struggle for?

Boris Sokolov is a Moscow-based professor