Moscow Shooting Aftermath: Central Asian Migrants face Discrimination in Russia

On Friday, March 22, 2024, over 60 people were killed and over 140 people were injured in a shooting at Crocus City Hall in Moscow. It was the deadliest shooting Russia has seen in decades, and sent shockwaves across Russia. ISIS-K–the Islamic State Khorasan Province–has claimed responsibility for the attack. ISIS-K, a branch of the Islamic State, was declared a ‘global terrorist organization’ by the U.S. government in 2016. It has since expanded to include more actors from Central Asia, as well as young Afghans opposing the Taliban. In its immediate aftermath, the attack sparked questions involving the motivation behind such violence, why Russia was targeted, and why then? The attack also highlights an unprecedented vulnerability to such attacks among the international community and raises concern that other countries, even the U.S., are not immune to potential terrorist attacks in the foreseeable future. 

Before the attack, Putin received intelligence from the U.S. indicating that an attack was likely to happen–even with the exact location identified–and chose to ignore it, calling it “blackmail.” Despite the tense relationship between the U.S. and Russia, the U.S. still decided to inform the Kremlin about its findings. Putin’s credibility may be undermined as a result, especially considering the timing of the attack, which took place shortly after Russia’s sham presidential election in March. In the view of some analysts, many Russians are willing to cede their personal freedoms for the sake of security that a strongman like Putin ought to easily provide for his people. Despite Putin's self-proclaimed duty to protect the lives of Russian citizens, his failure to take adequate steps to prevent the shooting may stir greater mistrust towards his regime in the long run–already amidst a sea of voices that have expressed skepticism regarding his decision to invade Ukraine. After the attack, Putin blamed Ukraine as an attempt to bolster the credibility of the ongoing war and justify future escalations in Ukraine. Additionally, he accused the U.S. of playing a role in the shooting, allegedly utilizing Ukraine to weaken Russia–even after ISIS-K claimed responsibility for the attack. 

The four Tajik suspects who Russian investigators accused of being directly responsible for the shooting were brutally abused by Russian authorities; all of them had severely bruised faces and one suspect’s ear was cut off. Authorities were seen using electric shocks against the suspects. Sirojiddin Muhriddin, the Foreign Minister of Tajikistan, condemned the treatment of the suspects following the emergence of torture allegations. On March 25, three additional men were charged with selling a getaway car to the suspects, including a father from Tajikistan and his two sons. On March 26, another man, a Kyrgyz national, was charged with providing housing to the gunmen. 

Videos of the mistreatment of the suspects were released by Russian authorities themselves, indicating a lack of desire to conceal their actions, despite blatant violations of international law, which ensures abiding by human rights norms and standards. Steve Hall, the former CIA chief of Russia operations made a statement about the issue, saying that no matter how sure a government may be about the identity of its suspects, it must treat the suspects with impartiality and at least “some degree of humanity and respect.” The treatment of the Tajik suspects–as seen in a flurry of graphic photos and videos posted online–is more likely to be supported by the Russian public, rather than condemned, further contributing to the division between Russian citizens and migrants. 

Since the attack, hostile suspicion towards Tajik migrants has increased, resulting in the deportations of innocent migrants who had simply gone to seek job opportunities in Russia. Tajik migrants have had to undergo increased questioning for entering Russia–without any explanations by Russian law enforcement–and in some cases, verbal and physical abuse. Harsh treatment and inflammatory rhetoric directed at migrants has been occurring even though most migrants have proper documentation and no suspicious record to warrant the limits being placed on their ability to travel to Russia. Even the flow of taxi rides, which are primarily facilitated by Central Asian migrants, has been disrupted in Russia: Russians have been canceling their rides upon finding out that their driver is Tajik or from another Central Asian country. There has also been an increase in detainments of migrants at an airport in Moscow, according to RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz service. On May 2, 2024, Kyrgyzstan’s Foreign Ministry issued a travel advisory to its citizens, warning them of increasingly intense border control checks carried out by Russian authorities. Authorities from other Central Asian countries have also advised their citizens to refrain from participating in mass events in Russia. 

Migrants are heavily impacted by significant changes in Russia’s political, cultural and social atmosphere. They depend on policymakers in Russia to uphold conditions regarding travel and immigration that allow them to work and remain relatively safe. For many of them, Russia is their only beacon of hope. Some migrants, like Zamira (a Tajik doctor who chose to not provide her full name due to safety concerns), are choosing to lay low, stay in Russia and hope that the storm will pass. Many migrants have already laid down roots in Russia and have developed a sense of community there. Zamira states that she and her husband, along with their Tajik friends, “have no plans to leave.”

It is clear that the implications of the shooting extend beyond Tajiks–life has become noticeably more difficult for the 30 million Central Asians and other ethnic minorities living and working in Russia. One reason for the push for increasing hostility towards migrants is it may be a way for Putin to take control of the narrative and show how ‘tough’ the regime is in rooting out crime. Minorities may also be the ideal scapegoat for Putin’s further territorial ambitions and political agenda revolving around the centralization of power in Russia, the effects of which are yet to be seen. A Kalmyk man living in Elista (a city in Southwestern Russia, the capital of the Republic of Kalmykia), stated: “After all, they [Russian security forces] can’t even tell whether a person is a Kalmyk, an Uzbek, a Tatar, or a Tajik. We are all the same to them.” Xenophobic attacks have come to the forefront, exacerbating a deeper underlying issue. Prominent Russian voices such as Sergei Aksyonov, the Russian-backed governor of Crimea, have enlarged the discussion to cast suspicion towards all migrants in Russia. He pointed out that the suspects of the shooting are migrants, which in his view, naturally leads to a reconsideration of Russia’s migration policies in general and is “long overdue.” Another prominent individual in the Russian media sphere, Andrei Gaidulyan, has pointed to “uncontrolled migration” to Russia as an issue that has been prevalent for many years but couldn’t be discussed due to fears of severing diplomatic relations with the “friendly nations” that the migrants come from. Now, many other Russians feel emboldened to voice the hatred towards migrants that has been simmering for a considerable amount of time–the Crocus City Hall shooting gave them a notable opening to do so. As the situation worsens over time, we are left with a question to ponder: Is Russia truly the successful ‘multiethnic, multi-confessional federation’ it claims to be?