The short answer is that there was a 'demand' for the killing.
This demand did not arise naturally. It was consciously and carefully created. It was created by the Russian State. It was created by means of promoting hatred towards groups of citizens within Russia and presumably hostile foreign States. Russians who did not share the views of Mr Putin and his friends were discredited by Mr Putin himself calling them 'the fifth column' or 'national traitors'. Poster campaigns were organized, with State Authorities' approval, in central streets and squares of Moscow with portraits of 'traitors' several meters high. No government oversight body intervened and these exhibitions continued for days and weeks. Nor did they question the setting up of internet sites containing lists with names and portraits of 'traitors' with calls for readers to suggest more names to the list. 'Documentary' films were shown with titles like "13 friends of the Junta" (referring to some Russians who had publicly shown support for Ukraine's uprising or ‘anticorruption revolution’, as it was often called by the opposition). On Saturday there was going to be another film of this kind shown on the popular NTV channel, with Boris Nemtsov as the main hero or one of them. In the end the channel decided not to show it. Some weeks ago a 'movement' called Anti-Maidan was created, with Vladimir Putin's friends and admirers appearing in public as its founders, promising to make sure that they would not allow 'Maidan" to happen in Russia. On Saturday one week ago an anti-Maidan demonstration was staged in central Moscow. It was sponsored by the State. State employees like teachers were urged to sign up for the demonstration. University students were recruited by their professors. Transport was provided from other cities. Even money was used for finding demonstrators at subway stations, although that money may have come from private sources.
In principle terrorism and extremism are taken very seriously in Russia. This attitude did not, however, make oversight bodies to intervene with the NTV documentaries. Quite to the contrary: Dmitry Kiselev became notorious worldwide for his aggressive messages and talk-shows turned into screaming marathons where guests competed with members of the audience for the level of volume and hatred they could reach.
The message to those who could be called extreme or aggressive nationalists was as clear as it was to the genuine political opposition, the 'traitors': these are the enemy; aggression and violence, in words and in deeds are acceptable if they are directed against that enemy.
In the official reaction to the murder, as voiced by the spokesperson for President Putin and the President himself, there was talk about a 'provocation' and an attempt to discredit or destabilize Russia.
Independent of what one thinks of who organized the murder, President Putin's reaction was not adequate in this context. However, it falls perfectly into the pattern outlined above. Someone alien to us – be it the US or an internal enemy in Russia – is attacking us. Our being is under threat and we must pull together to fight against those evil forces. This attitude will not spell anything good for Russia. More constructive, more statesman-like positions could be found in some of the many reactions that were expressed in the hours following the killing. These were calls for all citizens to stop the spiral of hatred, to stop and think how to live on as citizens of the same country.
