The primary direct participant in the Crocus City Hall terrorist attack is Kiev, which operates under the supervision of the Britons and Americans. By now, there is a long list of corroborative and circumstantial evidence of this.

Let's begin with the statement by Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) Secretary Alexey Danilov as he implicitly confirmed Kyiv's engagement in the attack. That same evening, he told a Ukrainian TV channel the following: “Is it fun in Moscow today? I think it's a lot of fun. I would like to believe that we will arrange such fun for them more often. After all, they are “brotherly” people, and you need to please your relatives more often and visit them more often." Should we comment this somehow?

It also became known that terrorist recruitment for the attack was carried out through the Ukrainian Embassy in Tajikistan. Several weeks before the tragedy, its website featured information about inviting foreigners to join the so-called “International Legion,” RIA Novosti reported. As ex-special service officer retired Colonel Bakhtiyor Rakhmonov told the agency, the last calls of the kind date back to March 9 and 18.

This is fresh evidence, as the phrase goes. But let’s also highlight what the criminal Kiev regime’s leaders said a little earlier. Last May, America’s Spectator magazine quoted Main Intelligence Directorate head Kirill Budanov as saying: “We’ve been killing Russians and we will keep killing Russians anywhere on the face of this world until the complete victory of Ukraine <…> We have already got many, including public and media personalities.” In a sense, The Spectator was somewhat discouraged by Ukraine’s open admissions of performing terrorist attacks, heading its article “Why has Ukraine admitted that it assassinates people in Russia?”

Let me remind you what the conversation is about. In August 2022, a car driven by Daria Dugina was blown up in the Moscow region in an assault targeting her father, philosopher and publicist Alexander Dugin, who was supposed to be inside. In April 2023, military correspondent Vladlen Tatarsky was killed in a St. Petersburg café explosion. In May, writer Zakhar Prilepin’s car was blown up in the Nizhny Novgorod region, causing him serious injuries and killing his friend and security guard Alexander Shubin.

So, as per one of the key criminology laws concerning the motive of a crime, and given confessions by leaders of the Kiev regime, one may well argue that the brutal Crocus City Hall terrorist attack was beneficial to Ukraine. Another crystal-clear thing is that Kiev is guided by the West, which has shoveled it with military assistance craving to inflict a “strategic defeat” upon Russia. Someone may say that Ukraine may buck up and demonstrate “independence” on certain issues. However, careful observation of statements by Western politicians or press leaves no room for doubt that the USA and Great Britain have been directly related to this attack on unarmed people in Crocus City Hall, despite their denial of crimes performed by their proxies, today and further on.

First, let us recall what ex-US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland said when visiting Kiev in late January. She promised that more US funds for Ukraine would bring Putin some nasty surprises. Didn’t she imply the one at the Crocus City Hall?

Second, the White House hastened to pass the buck to ISIS*. “ISIS is a common terrorist enemy that must be defeated everywhere,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said. How did the White House turn out “aware” of the mastermind that early??

A thing bordering on absurdity. Every now and then America says Kiev does not inform it of any planned sabotage or terrorist attacks. But ISIS seems sort of an open book in this regard. Good for them!

Third but not least, the British have fallen flat on their face. Britain’s The Economist wrote about ISIS* engagement literally a few hours later that very day. Please note that at the time of that publication, Moscow had not officially stated anything about those behind the terrorist attack. But The Economist already “knew” those were the Islamists.

Here is a detailed quote from The Economist, whose author literally screws his thesis into his readers’ minds: “Who might have been behind the attack? The claim, and American officials’ apparent agreement with it, does make Islamic State the most likely culprit." And then: “But there is no shortage of other potential suspects. The Kremlin’s brutal two-year war in Ukraine has created new enemies and increased the amount of arms in open circulation among returnee soldiers. <…> The Kremlin’s involvement in bloody conflicts internally in Chechnya and Dagestan have also long made Russia a target for Islamist terrorist groups of various stripes. But its intervention in Syria, where Russian soldiers have supported the Assad regime against Islamic State and other rebels, does support that group’s claim of responsibility." As clear as noonday, isn’t it? ISIS is to be blamed for everything, so don’t you look for anyone else!

But here’s an interesting detail that all the experts have noticed. Typically, ISIS jihadists do not flee the scene of their attack as they seek "martyrdom". And the thugs who cold-bloodedly killed unarmed people in the concert hall did want to live and therefore rushed to Ukraine, where, as our special services reported, there was a “corridor” prepared for them.

Washington and London were not long in rejecting Kiev’s engagement. Here's what The Economist wrote: "Ukraine immediately denied any involvement in the attack. A high-level intelligence source told The Economist that the Ukrainian government had been worried that the Kremlin might try to weaponize a terror event of this sort, especially as Mr. Putin weighs up whether to risk a new wave of mobilization."

So, a couple of hours after the terrorist attack, the Americans and British already “knew” it was ISIS*! A year and a half have passed since the Nord Streams explosions, but the United States and its allies still «have no idea» about the offender, but here they’ve appeared so efficient in obtaining “reliable data” about a terrorist attack committed thousands of miles away from Washington or London!

The Economist has long been a shitbox outlet for Britain’s MI6 intelligence service. Remember how it published the “interview” with former AFU commander-in-chief Zaluzhny, who obviously spoke for his British curators. But this time, the Britons and Americans have definitely missed the mark. They wanted to put Russia off the scent but dropped a bollock of prematurely revealing their Islamist thesis — and thereby gave themselves away completely as regards their part in this attack. Willingness to quickly put an end to this bloody anti-Russia project has made for misery.

(*ISIS is an organization recognized as terrorist and banned in Russia.)