The relevant Russian agencies have made a surprise interrogation of the four persons directly responsible for the terrorist attack in the "Crokus City", but it seems that they have not received "ideal" confessions.
In addition, the "Khorasan branch of the Islamic State" has claimed "responsibility" for the "terrorist attack" three times, and released a first-person view of the attack scene (the scene sent simultaneously in the attacker's helmet).
Therefore, Putin had to admit that the "terrorist attack" incident was committed by the "Islamic State", but still said that he would dig out the "culprit". Obvious and intriguing.
On the evening of the 25th local time, Putin held a video conference with the heads of relevant Russian departments and agencies to discuss the measures taken after the "terrorist attack". In his speech, Putin said that the Russian side knew that the terrorist attack was carried out by Islamic militants, but the Russian side was more concerned about who the "employer" (the culprit behind it) was.
In his speech, Putin also raised several questions for the relevant departments of the Russian side to ponder:
(1) We already know that it was the "Islamic State" militant group that committed this atrocity against Russia and its people, but I wonder who is the "mastermind"?
(2) Why are Islamic militant groups fighting Russia, which advocates a fair solution to the conflict in the Middle East?
(3) Why do radical Islamists commit such grave atrocities and crimes during the holy month of Ramadan, when they claim to be devout Muslims?
(4) This "terrorist attack" may be just one link in a series of attempts carried out by those who have fought against Russia since 2014 through the hands of the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, I would like to ask: who benefits?
Regarding the four "thinking questions" put forward by Putin, some experts believe that this is "soul torture". However, some analysts believe that this is more like giving an "answer" first, and suggesting that the relevant departments should look for "evidence".
To put it bluntly, judging from the series of reactions and operations of the Russian side after the "terrorist attack" incident, Putin is obviously not satisfied with the initiative of the "Islamic State" to "claim". Therefore, the Russian side "did not say no" to the first two statements of the "Khorasan branch of the Islamic State", but intentionally or unintentionally "pulled" the United States and Ukraine.
However, in the case of the third statement issued by the "Islamic State" and attached the "video", especially after the suspect's "confession" did not contain "real information" and his investigation direction deviated more and more from "psychological expectations", it would be unfavorable to him to deny that it was the "Islamic State" to do it, so he had to admit that the "Islamic State" was the militant organization. However, Putin was not reconciled. As a result, there is the so-called "soul torture".
Judging from the analysis of some "big Vs" in the field of public opinion and the comments on the posts of some people who eat melons, it seems that there are doubts about the rapid "claim" of the "Islamic State" and the "repeated times" emphasizing that it was done by itself. Actually, it's easy to explain. Because "brushing up on presence" has always been a routine operation of radical groups such as the "Islamic State", they are afraid that others "do not know".
Therefore, in the case of Russia's "non-recognition", the "Islamic State" was so anxious that it "stamped its feet", so it added another statement and attached a "first-person view scenario".
Although Putin did not explicitly state that the "culprit" was Ukraine or the United States, he left a "suspense" by accusing the United States of "exculpation" for Ukraine. For example, in his speech on the evening of the 25th, Putin said that the United States tried to convince everyone through various channels that there was no "trace of Ukraine" in the terrorist attack at the concert hall in the city of Krokus near Moscow.
It is obvious that Putin has "recognized" Ukraine. The answer he wanted was that Ukraine had "hired ISIS."
So, if this matter is involved in Ukraine, even if it is only a "trace", what are the "interests" for Russia?
First of all, if Ukraine is related to the "Islamic State", the "cancer" of all mankind, Ukraine's "statehood" will collapse completely, and the consequences may evolve into Western allies, including Ukraine, will no longer dare to openly support Ukraine.
Secondly, Russia will receive "sympathy points" for this. It will even reverse Russia's moral "flaws" in this war. This is tantamount to enhancing the "legitimacy" of the war.
Moreover, if Ukraine is "proven" to be related to this "inhumane" terrorist attack, then it will also lay the "foreshadowing" for Russia to use "unconventional weapons" on the battlefield in Ukraine.
Needless to say, if Russia can prove that Ukraine is the "employer" of the "Islamic State", then something is wrong for Ukraine. However, can Russia provide convincing "evidence"? The latest news is that Russia has arrested "three fathers and sons," and it is said that they have confessed to the "main messengers" behind them.
However, the United Kingdom and France have taken the lead in issuing "warnings" about Russia's efforts to link Ukraine to the "Islamic State", warning the Russians not to try to "confuse the public".
On the 25th local time, Macron said in an interview in French Guiana that the intelligence held by France showed that "an entity (branch) of IS planned and carried out the attack." At the same time, Macron warned Russia not to try to use this incident to aggravate the confrontation with Ukraine.
Obviously, if Russia wants to "consolidate" the relationship between Ukraine and the "Islamic State", it is not enough to have a "confession", and it must form a chain of evidence that can withstand "scrutiny". Otherwise, Western countries will not "recognize".
For example, among the four "suspects" who were interrogated, one seemed to be missing an ear, one may have lost an eye, one may have a "malfunction" in his lower body, and one suddenly "ate fat". And, judging from the photos, all of them seem to be "dumbfounded". Needless to say, the West will definitely make a big fuss about this.
As for the question of whether Russia can use this "terrorist attack" incident to reverse the general direction of the battlefield in Ukraine, to put it bluntly, the "war spillover" in West Africa has not succeeded, the conflict in the Middle East is nearing the end, and the effect of "spillover" is obviously not obvious, and this time it may be difficult to "get your wish". After all, compared to this war, which is about reshaping the world pattern, everything else is "minutiae".