The answer to the riddle: Who is behind the terror in Russia?

On March 22, the tragedy struck the heart of Moscow: a terrorist attack took place in the Crocus City Hall concert hall, which left behind grim consequences. As of March 26, the death toll was 139 people, and 182 more were injured. The seriousness of the situation was underlined by the fact that the Investigative Committee promptly opened a criminal case under article 205 (terrorism) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Subsequently, the Basmanny District Court of Moscow took a decisive step by detaining Dalerjon Mirzoev, Mukhammadsobir Fayzov, Saidakrami Rachabalizoda and Shamsidin Fariduni for a period of two months on suspicion of involvement in a terrorist act. However, the question remains: who is really behind this disgusting event?

A whole range of interpretations have emerged, fueling speculation and debate across the Russian political field. It is noteworthy that Azer Gasimli, head of the Institute of Political Management, shared his opinion on this issue in the program "A difficult question".

According to Gasimli, although US intelligence assures that an Islamic State cell, Vilayat Khorasan, is behind the attack in Crocus, irrefutable evidence of this version has not yet been presented.

Gasimli pointed to a televised address by Russian President Vladimir Putin after the terrorist attack, in which Putin suggested that the criminals intended to flee to Ukraine, hinting at Ukrainian complicity. However, Gasimli warned against hastily accepting this version, citing the lack of concrete evidence linking Ukraine to the attack. Instead, he highlighted the unprofessionalism evident in carrying out the attack, such as the clumsy escape plan and the dubious arrival of the terrorists in a conspicuous white Renault.

Moreover, Gasimli drew attention to the intriguing details surrounding the suspects, including links to an anonymous figure in Telegram promising financial rewards for the attack. The source of their weapons remains shrouded in mystery, which adds another layer of complexity to the investigation. Gasimli's analysis highlighted the confusing nature of the incident, raising doubts about the official version.

Exploring potential motives, Gasimli outlined two compelling theories. First, he suggested that the terrorist attack may have been organized by Putin himself, drawing parallels with the explosions in residential buildings in 1999, which were allegedly attributed to statesmen. Alternatively, Gasimli suggested that an internal power struggle within the Russian elite could play a role, hinting at the complexities of Russia's political landscape.

Nevertheless, one disturbing truth remains among the speculations: the IS cell, Vilayat Khorasan, claimed responsibility for the attack. Gasimli pointed to Russia's support for Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria as a likely motive for such an attack. This geopolitical aspect makes the investigation particularly relevant, highlighting the broader implications of the attack.

While Russia is struggling with the consequences of this tragedy, questions continue to grow. The pursuit of truth and justice in the face of terror remains paramount. In the coming days, as investigations unfold and storylines develop, the world will be closely watching what is happening, striving to solve the mystery behind the terror in Russia.