In any case, the rise of Putin, as well as the increasing repression, are closely related to the topic of „terrorism” and Chechnya. In 1999, Putin was still prime minister and under this slogan waged a bloody war in the breakaway republic. The following year, he was elected president and took action against, among other things, unpopular media in Russia. At home and abroad, there were doubts about the results of the investigation into the deadly apartment building bombings. They were never exonerated: the government suppressed further investigations; Members of a parliamentary commission of inquiry perished, including liberal Sergei Yushenkov.

After September 11, 2001, Putin intensified the „terrorist” rhetoric, as reported in the OSCE 2004 yearbook. At that time, Putin still showed solidarity with the United States, but warned against Islamic fundamentalism. Meanwhile, its current ruler, Ramzan Kadyrov, as well as the Kremlin’s propagandist, can call for „jihad”.

Putin and terrorism: a „pretext” for cuts – and question marks about the FSB

Another setback for civil rights in Russia dates back to 2004. After a school occupation and a bloody hostage crisis that left more than 330 people dead in Beslan in North Ossetia, Putin curtailed the rights of Russia’s regions and also canceled gubernatorial elections — according to Volkov on pure „pretext”: „With what That Putin needed some reason, he declared without further ado that the governors should be used centrally, and one can ensure greater stability in the country. Like Volkov, former oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky sees the „reforms” of the time as an important step towards Putin’s undivided power in the country. Putin also changed the Duma election law with reference to „terrorism”.

There were also question marks in the Beslan case: according to the European Court of Human Rights, it is not clear whether the hostage-takers or the security forces shot the victims. In 2002, a very similar hostage disaster occurred at the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow, in which at least 170 people died, in part due to the use of anesthesia gas by FSB forces. Putin benefited in opinion polls. However, speculations about the FSB’s involvement as early as 1999 have not been substantiated to this day. There are similar unverified allegations again this time around.

Who killed Tatarsky? It is possible that Putin’s security services are under pressure – and are looking for „political advantages”.

Observers now expect, at the very least, tighter restrictions on civil society. Opposition leader Maxim Resnik said: „It is clear that with this incident, the authorities will do everything possible to maximize repression.” American East European Channel Liberty Radio. However, he did not consider the assassination a targeted act with this ulterior motive.

The Russian political analyst in exile Fyodor Krasheninnikov assessed the situation there in a similar way. He believes that the Russian security services are under pressure because they failed to prevent the attack in Putin’s hometown. But this does not exclude attempts to obtain „political advantages”. Krasheninnikov’s concern: Moscow could now detain unwanted individuals as „terrorists” – even with the slightest connection to Alexei Navalny. „Of course, this worries me very much,” the expert emphasized. The Kremlin had accused the suspect, Daria Trepova, of having links with Navalny and accused her of „terrorism”.

Stalin as a model for Putin’s next steps: Analysts in exile expect „reprisals” in Russia

By the way, Krasheninnikov also sees parallels with a more recent case: in 1934, a member of the Politburo, Sergei Kirov, was also killed in St. Petersburg. The motive remained unclear, but dictator Joseph Stalin used the case to justify further repression in the Soviet Union. Putin’s fondness for Russian and Soviet history a favour. Andrei Kolesnikov, Krasheninnikov’s professional colleague at V.I Liberty Radio– modes.

Meanwhile, calls for a harsh response quickly fell on fertile ground among war bloggers and hardliners. However, the Tatarsky case could also reveal risks for Putin: Journalist Ewan MacDonald believes the attack is more than ” It indicates how much Putin’s authority has been weakened by his disastrous war(National Front)