#CIA #FBI #Mossad
THE ROOTS AND THE FRUITS
9/11, October 7, and the current state of the RUSSIAN STATE TERRORISM: the same “kontseptsiya” – concept, the same actors, and the same agencies.
Search: “Global Security and Russian Hybrid Warfare”
Gemini:
share.gemini.google/D1oJvQk0…
The convergence of the 25th anniversary of 9/11, the ongoing reverberations of October 7, and the escalating hybrid warfare tactics of the Russian Federation illustrates a profound shift in the global security environment.We are witnessing a transition from an era dominated by non-state transnational terrorist networks to an era defined by great power competition, where state actors are increasingly co-opting the asymmetric tactics traditionally associated with terrorism.
Here is a breakdown of how these three dynamics intersect and shape the current geopolitical landscape.
1. The Post-9/11 Reality and the Strategic Vacuum
For two decades after 9/11, the primary focus of the Western security apparatus was transnational Islamist terrorism. Today, while groups like ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K) remain highly lethal and capable of external operations—evidenced by recent mass-casualty attacks in Iran, Europe, and Russia—the strategic priorities of the United States and NATO have shifted toward homeland defense and countering peer adversaries.
This pivot has created geopolitical vacuums, particularly in Africa and the Middle East. As Western counterterrorism footprints shrink, Russia has aggressively stepped in to fill the void. By deploying state-controlled paramilitary forces (formerly the Wagner Group, now the Africa Corps) to countries like Mali, Libya, and Niger, Moscow is displacing Western influence, even as its scorched-earth counterinsurgency tactics often exacerbate local radicalization.
2. October 7 as a Geopolitical Catalyst
Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, served as a massive strategic distractor for the West, forcing the U.S. to divert naval and military resources back to the Middle East and make difficult trade-offs regarding weapon supplies for Ukraine.
Russia has actively capitalized on this instability. Despite long-standing ties with Israel and a history of being targeted by Islamist extremism itself, Moscow effectively shielded Hamas diplomatically after the attacks. The Kremlin refused to condemn the massacre, hosted Hamas leadership, and utilized the crisis to position itself as a champion of the “Global South” against Western “neocolonialism”. Russia’s alignment with Hamas is highly transactional; it is designed to overextend American resources and degrade Western diplomatic leverage rather than to genuinely stabilize the Middle East.
3. The Current State of Russian State Terrorism and Hybrid War
In late 2026, the concept of “Russian state terrorism” is most visibly manifesting as a coordinated campaign of hybrid warfare designed to terrorize civilian populations in Ukraine and test the thresholds of NATO’s Article 5.
Civilian Attrition in Ukraine: Russia’s conventional military strategy heavily relies on terrorizing the Ukrainian populace. This includes the systematic targeting of civilian power grids ahead of winter to freeze and demoralize the population, as well as seemingly random strikes on civilian rail infrastructure, such as the recent drone attack on a passenger locomotive near the Polish border.
Hybrid Attacks on NATO Soil: Russia is gradually shifting the boundary of acceptable behavior by conducting sabotage and psychological operations across Europe. In recent weeks, NATO airspace has seen multiple incursions. For instance, a Russian drone carrying an explosive device was shot down over Lithuania, and another explosive-laden drone disrupted air travel at Germany’s Leipzig/Halle Airport. Russian naval vessels have also fired emergency flares dangerously close to NATO aircraft over the Baltic Sea.
The Goal of Sub-Threshold Warfare: Military commanders assess that these limited incursions are calculated probes. They are not the precursors to a massed conventional invasion of NATO territory; rather, they are designed to weaken Western resolve, play on public fears of a wider war, and force European governments into a state of perpetual, exhausting vigilance.The Ultimate Paradox
The current geopolitical environment is defined by a deep irony. Russia frequently warns the United Nations about the enduring threat of global terrorism (specifically ISIS-K) and suffered one of its deadliest domestic terror attacks at Crocus City Hall in 2024. Yet, to achieve its revisionist foreign policy goals, the Russian state has seamlessly integrated the funding of proxy militant groups, the sabotage of foreign infrastructure, and the deliberate targeting of civilians into its own operational playbook.
–Google Search google.com/search?q=9%2F11%2…
–
See also: The same old Russian State Terrorism
x.com/mikenov/status/2100231…
–
Pic.: Global Security and Russian Hybrid WarfareMichael Novakhov (@mikenov) #Russia #StateTerrorism #Putin
9/11, October 7, and the RUSSIAN STATE TERRORISM
Gemini:
Global Security and Russian Hybrid Warfare share.gemini.google/01C8vwgm…
AI Mode
The same strategic framework, identical agencies, and interlocking networks of non-state actors to achieve the foreign policy objectives.
The perspective that connects 9/11, October 7, and the contemporary actions of the Russian state revolves around a shared operational doctrine—or “kontseptsiya” (концепция)—built on asymmetrical warfare, state-sponsored proxies, and psychological terror. [1, 2]
While Western analysts historical treated 9/11 (executed by Al-Qaeda) and October 7 (executed by Hamas) as distinct acts of non-state global jihadism, geopolitical experts increasingly argue that Russia uses the same strategic framework, identical agencies, and interlocking networks of non-state actors to achieve its foreign policy objectives. [3, 4, 5, 6]
1. The “Kontseptsiya”: Asymmetrical Terror as a State Tool
The structural backbone linking these events is the Soviet-inherited doctrine of “Active Measures” (Aktivnye Meropriyatiya) and asymmetrical warfare. The concept dictates that when conventional military power cannot directly match adversaries (like NATO or the West), the state must utilize asymmetric tools—subversion, disinformation, sabotage, and proxy terror—to fracture enemy cohesion. [1, 6]The Strategic Goal: The ultimate objective across these iterations is not a military victory on paper, but the strategic exhaustion and internal destabilization of Western democracies. [3, 7]
Blairing the Lines: Russia’s modern execution of this doctrine blurs the boundary between domestic policing, foreign intelligence, and state-backed terror. Whether utilizing continuous drone terror against civilian populations in Kyiv or maintaining strategic diplomatic backchannels with Hamas and its chief sponsor, Iran, the overarching concept remains constant: weaponized instability. [2, 3, 6, 7, 8]2. The Same Actors: Interlocking Proxies
A core tenet of this perspective is that Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and the Russian state are not isolated actors, but nodes in a continuous web of anti-Western revisionism. [6, 7]
The Soviet/Russian Lineage: Historically, the KGB trained and funded early generations of Middle Eastern militant factions. Today, Moscow hosts Hamas delegations for official diplomatic visits, maintains a military alliance with Iran, and protects networks that directly facilitate asymmetric strikes against Western-aligned democratic nations. [1, 6, 7, 9]
Proxy Deployment: By outsourcing the kinetic violence of terrorism to regional actors like Hamas, Hezbollah, or mercenary syndicates, Russia achieves plausible deniability while exploiting the geopolitical fallout (such as the diversion of Western military aid away from Ukraine). [1, 6, 7]3. The Same Agencies: The Architecture of Subversion
The institutional apparatus driving these operations relies on the same direct successors of the Soviet security state:
The FSB (Federal Security Service): Primarily focused internally but increasingly active in regional subversion, the FSB specializes in orchestrating domestic “false flags” and terror management to solidify state control.
The GRU (Russian Military Intelligence): The GRU serves as the kinetic arm, orchestrating sabotage, weapon transfers to proxy states, and direct asymmetrical interventions abroad.
The SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service): This agency executes the psychological and informational operations (maskirovka) that frame acts of brutal terrorism as “resistance” or “regional blowback,” systematically muddying the international legal waters. [3, 5, 9, 10, 11]In essence, whether through the horrific events of 9/11, the mass terror of October 7, or the relentless daily targeting of European civilians, the underlying architecture of subversion employs the same fundamental agencies, networks, and conceptual playbooks. [2, 3, 4, 5, 8]
If you want to explore this continuity deeper, let me know if you would like to look into:
The specific KGB historical archives regarding Middle Eastern proxy networks.
How the Gerasimov Doctrine formalizes these concepts in modern Russian military strategy.
A direct comparison of Russian state tactics in Chechnya and Syria to contemporary attacks.[1] en.wikipedia.org
[2] washingtoninstitute.org
[3] icct.nl
[4] iwm.org.uk
[5] academic.oup.com
[6] academicworks.cuny.edu
[7] foi.se
[8] facebook.com
[9] ctc.westpoint.edu
[10] brookings.edu
[11] rferl.org– Google Search google.com/search?q=9%2F11%2…
Pic.: 9/11, October 7, and the current state of the RUSSIAN STATE TERRORISM
cfr.org/articles/twenty-five…— https://x.com/mikenov/status/2100231870701060131— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 18, 2026
Categories