Putin's awkward act showed his weakness - The Economist

After the ISIS terrorist attack in Moscow, which became a colossal failure of the Russian intelligence services and a slap in the face to Putin, the head of the Kremlin cowardly disappeared and reappeared almost a day later with a false statement in which he tried to ridiculously concoct blame for Ukraine. However, such behavior is traditional for the Russian president, writes the British magazine The Economist.
Putin is a man who likes victories; preferably stage-managed ones.
İt is noted that last year, when Yevgeny Prigozhin and his band of mercenaries made their way towards Moscow, Putin was initially nowhere to be seen, the magazine writes.
So if he took a full 19 hours to conjure up a short tv performance to speak about the massive intelligence failure at Crocus City Hall in Moscow, he was falling into a familiar pattern.
The address itself gave little away—and appeared to serve as a hedge. Putin claimed, ludicrously, that Ukraine had opened a border “window” to the terrorists as they tried to escape Russia in their white Renault Symbol. But the Russian president stopped short of directly attributing responsibility to Ukraine for the attack—and said nothing about the Islamic State group that said it had carried it out.
Part of Putin’s reluctance to go all-in on blaming Ukraine might reflect a worry that the American government is sitting on intelligence that could undermine such a claim. Part might be embarrassment at his security agencies’ failure to act on American warnings on March 7th of an imminent attack.
Indeed, just three days before the assault Putin had brushed off that intelligence as “blackmail”.
Such a hubristic blunder would have consequences in a country where power can be held to account. Russia is not such a country. The attack nevertheless represents a blow to the reputation of Putin and the security services on which he depends. The manner of the assault, in which at least 137 people lost their lives, will not soon be forgotten.
There are many questions over the inept security at the glitzy venue, which is in an entertainment park in Moscow’s north-west suburbs. It is unclear why local police failed to respond quickly. A producer of a show held at Crocus City Hall ten days before the attack noted that 200 security guards were present that night.