Since yesterday evening, the Russian media space has once again exploded with news about the recent explosion in Magnitogorsk. The reason for this is that, almost simultaneously, news began to spread claiming that ISIS was responsible for the explosion, and unofficial investigations allegedly confirmed this. Let’s leave ISIS for dessert and focus on the investigation and its context for now. An article with the pretentious title «We know who is behind the terrorist attack» was published in the name of the publication «Baza». It is headed by Nikita Mogutin, the former head of «Life». The latter is a well-known source of leaks from Russian special services. The article published by «Baza» clearly appears to be an unofficial leak from one of them, as it contains references to numerous operational data that the journalists themselves could not have found.
As for the article itself, its data and conclusions, let’s try to be objective. Unlike its authors, we do not claim to have relevant inside information or access to the operational sources that provide it. For this reason alone, we will not unequivocally declare that the data from this «investigation» does not correspond to reality and is a fabrication.
At the same time, after reading the article, we were not convinced and had several questions. The participation in the terrorist attack of the persons accused in the article is not supported by the facts presented. All that the article presents as facts is information about the «religious radicalization» of these individuals, including their reluctance to celebrate the New Year, information that they communicated among themselves, including through phone calls, and that they collected money.
The fact that these individuals were in the apartment where the alleged explosion occurred, causing the structural collapse of the building, is also not proven by the facts presented in the article. Moreover, in order to explain the very strange version of why the terrorists blew themselves up, since someone was still in the apartment at the time of the explosion, the authors suggest that the readers believe that the explosion happened accidentally, earlier than planned.
Another rather intriguing snippet from the article reads: «Five independent sources have reported that hexogen was used in the terrorist attack on the Karl Marx Avenue building. This white crystalline powder is one of the most powerful explosives known. It is dozens of times more powerful than trinitrotoluene (TNT).»
Fact: Svetlana, a neighbor who lived next door to Yumaev, Kaimov, and the others at Lenin 93, stated that she saw packages of a certain «white mixture» confiscated by FSB officers during searches of her apartment. Svetlana’s words can be trusted because she was involved as an informant. Given the necessary reagents and experience, it is quite possible to produce hexogen at home. However, we doubt that Yumaev, Abitov, and Kaimov had such qualifications. This may mean that there was at least one other militant in their group with the appropriate training, or that someone else supplied them with hexogen.
The conclusion itself that the defendants were capable of organizing such an explosion is based on the fact that «Mahmud and Almir were familiar with electricity from their work on construction sites and in car repair shops. Almir also served in the Baltic Fleet in his youth, although we have not yet determined his specialization». In other words, watch out — according to the authors, anyone who works on a construction site or in a car repair shop, or who served in the fleet in his youth (!), possesses skills that allow him to assemble a bomb capable of demolishing a multi-story building. But the author already has vague doubts about hexogen, suggesting that its production would require a «militant with appropriate training» (as if blowing up a house is a piece of cake for any builder or car mechanic).
However, in the recent Russian history we well remember that both hexogen and the «Ryazan sugar» were not necessarily acquired by militants with appropriate training, and were sometimes obtained by specialists of a different profile…
By the way, about these specialists. The fact that the data published by «Baza» were provided by them does not raise any doubts, and in general the authors do not hide it. But who are they and what are their intentions? After all, today the Investigative Committee of Russia once again stated that the main version of the investigation is a gas explosion and urged not to believe the statements of terrorists, but to wait for the data of the official investigation. The same was said today by the FSB in the Chelyabinsk region.
In other words, there is a conflict within the ranks of the security forces themselves, with some continuing to deny or cover up information about the terrorist attack, while others are leaking relevant information. And in light of these leaks, let’s go back to the infamous ISIS claim. It raises several questions.
First, the reliability of the source itself, a certain newspaper called Al Naba, of which we know nothing about its official status as the press service of ISIS. Second, the information policy of ISIS itself in such cases, which has claimed responsibility for various terrorist attacks many times before, without being confirmed by any reliable evidence, such as video statements of its organizers, and refuted by the security forces of the respective countries. Lenta.ru, as the mouthpiece of another «tower» of the security forces, wittily reminds us today: «Terrorists try to claim responsibility for attacks not only in Russia, but all over the world. Last July, for example, 29-year-old Faisal Hussain opened fire in Toronto, Canada, wounding 14 people, one of whom later died in hospital. The ISIS version of the attack was quickly debunked by Canadian police — the suspect had mental problems. The same issues were present in 64-year-old Stephen Paddock, who opened fire on attendees at a Las Vegas music festival in the fall of 2017. His victims numbered 59, and about 500 were injured. Again, ISIS terrorists tried to take credit for this tragedy. ISIS’s endless false claims have spawned numerous jokes online, such as ISIS taking credit for the construction of the Zenit Arena. There have also been fake statements in which jihadists allegedly admitted to «stealing pork from a butcher’s shop and robbing a liquor store».
But the main question arises from the inconsistency in the logic with which the authors of the investigation try to explain the delayed nature of the ISIS claim: «The Islamists explained their long silence with concerns for the safety of those who carried out the attack. But this is a questionable explanation. After all, the security forces had already been working on the local extremists since December 31, and such a pause would not have affected the «security» of the entire cell. Most likely, ISIS kept quiet at first because the original plan of a series of attacks was significantly disrupted. They did not have all the information within their group, as the other militants went into hiding after the early explosion in the apartment. But then the pause, which was very convenient for the radicals, was prolonged both by the Russian investigators, who assured that it was a gas explosion, and by the Russian FSB in the Chelyabinsk region. This only played into the hands of the Islamists. They only had to choose a day to make a loud statement.
In reality, if we trust the «Baza» version, one simple thing follows from it: ISIS, which claimed responsibility for this explosion, or those who claimed it on its behalf, simply had no information about what happened in Magnitogorsk. Otherwise, they would know that its organizers were eliminated on the bus more than two weeks ago. Moreover, no evidence is provided in the form of a video statement with an ISIS pledge, as its supporters do in such cases, which can easily be filmed on a cell phone and sent to the appropriate contact today.
In conclusion, we are not presented with convincing evidence of the organization of the terrorist attack by the individuals mentioned in the article, nor of their connection to ISIS. Therefore, the only fact that remains is that while one part of the security forces and their propagandists are trying to silence the version of the terrorist attack, another part of the security forces and propagandists are inflating it. Opposition bloggers and some politicians have eagerly joined the latter, taking the opportunity to accuse the government of hiding the truth.
But the question is, why would the government do that? When has the chekist power ever been afraid of declaring terrorist attacks and blaming someone, especially «Islamists», for them? After all, it has always been their specialty, and today, in the midst of falling ratings due to unpopular social measures, such news would have been very opportune for them. This means that there must be a weighty reason for such a denial. And here we can assume one of two things — either the authorities are sticking to this version in order to play the Magnitogorsk card at the right moment, or we are witnessing the beginning of a war within the security structures, the logic, participants and goals of which will become clear as it develops…