There's some interesting opinions from Russian publicists but all of them are anti-Putin folks. Likely reason for this partial bias is that pro-Putin sources have nothing novel to say at this moment, likely politely waiting for the official narrative they are expected to repeat 🤷♂️

Here's journalist Anatoly Nesmyan presenting his interpretation of today's attack:


> It seems that the main motive of Russian propaganda will be: "yes almost no damage done, nothing to worry about".
> Generally speaking, the goal here is definitely not damage. The objective of such an event is a cognitive shift.
> You were persuaded by Simonyan: "What's there to bother with, come on, Ukraine?!" It turned out that this worthless Ukraine is quite capable of reaching Moscow. You have been told that we are waging a holy war against NATO. But if you cannot be protected from the half-baked mockery of the Third World, will you be protected from the serious means of the real NATO? The question is rhetorical. You were guaranteed security in exchange for the total surrender of your freedom - well, where is that security?
> Clearly these are very difficult questions for that part of the people who are the regular audience of the Rossiya channel and Channel One news. But they are no longer the majority. And they may well start questioning the mismatch between the picture on television and the one outside the window. There are not many clinical idiots among them either.
> Material damage is a tenth issue here.

Especially note this paragraph:

> You were guaranteed security in exchange for the total surrender of your freedom - well, where is that security?

It seems to be one of the best summaries of the implied social contract in Russia I've seen so far.

Source: https://t.me/anatoly_nesmiyan/10211