Moscow attack shows terrorism endures

Opinion editor’s note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

We join the world in mourning the 137 Russians killed in Friday’s horrific attack on a Moscow concert hall.

The geopolitical implications of the terrorism are far-ranging.

For the rest of the world, it’s a reminder that the scourge of Islamic extremism is still a lethal threat. Yes, ISIS may have lost its self-described caliphate due to military action from a U.S.-led coalition, but it has not lost its twisted theology. In fact, an offshoot group claiming responsibility for the mass murder, the Islamic State in Khorasan (usually referred to as ISIS-K), has carried out attacks in several nations, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and, now, tragically, Russia. And it has its sights on Western targets as well.

U.S. intelligence agencies, which have failed in many Mideast analyses, seem to have a better read on ISIS-K. The U.S. government warned Russia of an impending terror attack. But Russian President Vladimir Putin waved off the warning as “open blackmail” and “an attempt to frighten and destabilize our society.”

Instead, the Russian president frightened and destabilized Russian society by not protecting it from a clearly identified threat. But unfortunately for the Russian people and the world, there won’t be any leadership recourse because the Kremlin has crimped any viable opposition — leading to Putin’s landslide “victory” in a Potemkin election last week.

Attempting to seize on the stalled Ukraine counteroffensive and Western military and financial aid, Russia has stepped up its attacks and shows every sign of trying to take the entire country. So far it’s been unable to do so because of the courage and acumen of Ukrainian forces as well as admirable backing by NATO nations. Those efforts have kept Russia from its objective, and kept the alliance from having to directly confront Russia militarily in the Baltics or elsewhere.

But recently, particularly in Washington, a resolute response is increasingly uncertain — especially with many Republican lawmakers bowing to their presumptive presidential nominee, former President Donald Trump. He reportedly does not favor any more aid to Ukraine, a position that is a direct contradiction of the legacy of presidents of both parties who resisted Soviet expansionism and later Russian revanchism.

The funding debate is likely to come up in Congress in the next week or so. It would be a profound geostrategic error to turn away from Ukraine at its hour of need. Minnesota’s congressional delegation, including its four Republican representatives who endorsed Trump in lockstep, should put country over party and invest in the defense of Ukraine, which is ultimately in defense of our allies and our nation.

Similarly, there should be bipartisan consensus on the need to stay vigilant in the Middle East, particularly as extremist groups grow stronger in the vacuum that was created in Afghanistan by the Biden administration’s chaotic withdrawal from the country in 2021.