The opposition in Russia has strongly criticized President Vladimir Putin for his broken security promise in the aftermath of the devastating Moscow concert hall attack. They argue that instead of focusing on actual threats, the country's intelligence agencies were too preoccupied with targeting Kremlin critics.

The deadliest attack in Russia in the past two decades has raised questions about the effectiveness of the country's powerful security apparatus. Despite receiving public and private warnings from Western counterparts just two weeks prior to the attack, Russian intelligence failed to thwart the tragedy.

Ivan Zhdanov, the former head of late opposition leader Alexei Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation, criticized the "catastrophic incompetence" of the security services. This failure could be particularly stinging for Putin, who was a former Soviet spy and the head of the FSB security agency.

Putin's rise to power in 1999 was accompanied by promises of security for Russia, as rebel insurgents launched attacks during the war in Chechnya. However, in the subsequent years, the country experienced militant attacks such as the Moscow theater hostage crisis and the Beslan school siege, leaving hundreds dead.

To counter the terrorist threat, Putin gradually curtailed civil liberties and initiated a crackdown against his opponents. Critics argue that this transformed Russia's security services into agencies aimed at spying on and harassing political dissenters rather than protecting the nation from genuine threats.

The opposition claims that the security services have been distracted from their primary responsibilities, focusing instead on eliminating political opponents, conducting surveillance on citizens, and prosecuting individuals critical of the government and its war efforts.

Although the Islamic State (IS) claimed responsibility for the concert hall attack, Russian officials have not yet commented on this claim. The attack, which has already become the deadliest in Europe linked to IS, is expected to have a rising death toll.

Attention has also turned towards a warning issued by the United States just two weeks before the attack. Putin dismissed the statement as "provocative" and accused it of blackmailing and destabilizing Russian society. He emphasized the agency's anti-terrorism work but also highlighted their involvement in the military operation in Ukraine and the pursuit of pro-Ukrainian sabotage groups.

Critics argue that Putin's campaign to transform Russia's security services into tools for spying on and undermining his opponents has left the country vulnerable to real attacks. They claim that these agencies are ill-equipped to address genuine security threats while focusing on suppressing dissent and protecting the government from its own citizens.

The intelligence and security services, which Putin has long promoted as elite operators, have seen a surge in terror-related criminal cases in recent years. However, independent sources question the authenticity of some of these cases, suggesting that the agencies may be fabricating threats rather than addressing genuine ones.

The FSB, Russia's security agency, has also been implicated in a series of poisonings, targeting both Kremlin critics within the country and former spies abroad. Navalny's associates have faced numerous criminal cases in the past five years, further exemplifying the agency's propensity to suppress opposition.

The failure of the security apparatus to prevent the devastating concert hall attack has raised concerns about its ability to address real terrorist threats. Critics argue that the focus on stifling dissent and pursuing political opponents leaves Russia vulnerable to attack, undermining the very promise of security that Putin had initially campaigned on.

As the opposition criticizes Putin's broken security promise, the country continues to grapple with the aftermath of the tragedy. The need to strike a balance between national security and safeguarding civil liberties remains a critical challenge for Russia.