Terrorism has returned to Moscow. Interpretations of the events that have taken place are already being given in a hot head. Naturally, in a period of prevailing emotions, explanations are usually radical. And from both sides. Because everyone sees in any major event only proof of their own rightness.

For some, the government is to blame for everything, which, in their opinion, concluded a contract of "freedom in exchange for security", and itself does not fulfill it, and does not return freedom. And now it will begin to tighten the screws even more, for which the terrorist attack may come in handy. Others believe that it was the opposition that rocked the boat, calling on everyone to put pressure on the regime, which was about to collapse. So the terrorists were able to take advantage of this advice, dealing a serious blow to the government.

True, both supporters and opponents of the system contradict themselves in the heat of the moment. In the first case, we are often told that all freedoms have already been taken away. It turns out that the screws can no longer be tightened much. It also does not look like a conspiracy theory - why would the regime blow up the metro if it already has all the powers? And the elections are far away - there is no point in such cunning combinations.

The system's supporters are traditionally convinced of its strength - but then there is no particular point in worrying. But still, after such events, one feels uneasy. Firstly, because the terrorist attacks once again showed us our vulnerability. We relaxed too early. Previously, this thesis could be applied to economic behavior. Before the crisis, a significant part of the population was convinced that life would only get better. Even the crisis did not sober them up - many are convinced that it will soon end. Hothouse moods led to the fact that no calls for modernization and innovation could shake people up. And now it turns out that we are far from comfort in all areas.

Secondly, judging by the first assessments, the tracks again lead to the North Caucasus. Solving the political and economic problems of this region is proving to be very, very difficult. But there are no particular alternatives to be found. Neither the government nor the opposition can offer a working scheme for solving the Caucasian problem. Even if we had 10 parties in parliament, I doubt that it would appear. Of course, one can come up with “pragmatic ideas” of “dumping” the Caucasus, but it is unlikely to help.

Thirdly, society has once again shown that part of it has lost its sense of belonging. This is clearly demonstrated, for example, by stories about taxi drivers who instantly raised prices for transporting people. But this is a very small business, the flourishing of which we dream of.

Fourthly, the terrorist attack will be another irritant for the so-called urban pre-middle class. This is the young population of the cities – recent university graduates. They see the good life and want to have it. But they only have enough money for rented apartments and limited entertainment. Before the crisis, they believed that just a little more and things would go well. They saw career growth and an increase in income. The crisis sobered them up and caused a feeling of rage. They suddenly realized that they were strangers at the party of life. They were also the ones who went to work (most likely, unloved) on the metro in the morning. It is hard to say what their rage will result in.

The terrorist attacks have once again shown our vulnerability