Doubts about the Moscow attack

Concerning the attack that killed the daughter of the main ideologue of Russian supremacy over Eurasia, there can be no doubt about its instrumentality in supporting the revitalization of the consensus for the war against Ukraine. The almost immediate resolution of the case by the Russian secret services, which took place with a rapidity, which could be used to prevent the incident in a preventive manner, also contributes to reinforcing these doubts. The most extremist area that supports President Putin is affected, the one that responds to the victim’s father who refers to the theory, developed with the collapse of the Tsarist empire and set aside in the communist period, of a Russia buttress of the liberal west. Although the father of the victim, to whom the attack could have been directed, has been indicated by many as Putin’s ideologue, there is no concrete evidence of this link, nevertheless the active presence of this extremist part of the Kremlin his supporters is directly functional to what has always been his electoral program, based on restoring Russia to what is believed to be its role as a great power and, currently, the military and geopolitical program of reconquering the Ukrainian country and bringing it back directly under its influence, to put into practice to re-establish the zone of influence that already belonged to the Soviet Union. The war against Kiev, which was supposed to go the other way, is also a war against the West, but for importance Putin considers it the primary objective as more functional to become an example for all peoples and nations than what is considered from Moscow its own zone of exclusive influence: submitting Ukraine is a warning to all those countries that have ambitions to break away from Russian domination and, perhaps, go to the West. Of course, the objective is also to stop the expansion and the Western presence on the Russian border, but the objectives, of course, go hand in hand. The general consensus of the Russians towards the special military operation appears less and less convinced, despite the ban on public protest, there are signs of malaise for the sanctions, which have caused a lowering of the quality of life of the population, and, above all, the difficulty to find the necessary fighters to carry on the conflict in Ukraine. The obligation to address the poorest populations who supply unprepared soldiers from the eastern part of the country is an eloquent signal of the refusal to enlist and, therefore, to share Putin’s war, on the part of the wealthiest and most educated Russian populations; furthermore, the hostility of the relatives of the fallen and of the soldiers taken prisoner of the Ukrainians is growing, who increasingly resort to every means to get news of their relatives. Putin finds himself in a situation with no way out: a possible withdrawal would be equivalent to a defeat and a defeat could bring down the entire power plant of Russia, this assessment leads to two considerations on the attack: despite Moscow immediately accused Ukraine, it seems unlikely that Kiev have completed such a difficult operation, without even claiming it. There is also the possibility that the bomb may have been placed by Russian terrorists opposed to the Putin regime, but this possibility appears even more difficult in a regime where the control of the security apparatus is very stringent and uses high-level technological tools, such as facial recognition. If these hypotheses are excluded, therefore, one cannot but assume an attack provoked by the Russian apparatus itself to solicit greater resentment towards the Ukrainian country, after all, the threatening statements of the sovereign and nationalists present at the funeral were particularly violent towards Kiev. If this were to be true, however, it would mean that Putin is also feeling the collapse of even the most nationalist and war-friendly side of his supporters: a very worrying fact because it denounces the distance from the Russian president from his followers who are more convinced of the rightness of the military operation. , so much so that they need a provocative act to arouse the outrage necessary to support the conflict. The other hypothesis is that with the attack, the hope of securing greater support in the most war-reluctant sections of the population, but still sensitive to Russian nationalism, is given concrete form. In any case, a desperate gesture by the Kremlin regime that signals a growing difficulty on the battlefield and on that of approval at home, which could represent the beginning of the end for the head of the Kremlin and his gang.