In the aftermath of the Moscow subway bombings that killed or injured more than 100 people — punctuated by deadly subsequent attacks in Russia’s North Caucasus region — questions proliferate:

Who were the perpetrators? What were their goals? Are the incidents connected? Do the bombings portend a resurgence of terrorist violence in Russia? Will Prime Minister Vladimir Putin respond by cracking down and strengthening his government’s already tight grip? And what significance do the tragedies hold for Russia’s security in the years ahead?

There are no easy answers. As of this writing, despite abundant speculation, neither the bombers nor their handlers have been identified. The same is true for their motives. My sense, though, is that — at least in the case of the Moscow miscreants — the intention was to send a strong message mostly to Putin.

Indeed, the bombers essentially thumbed their noses at the prime minister’s high-profile, hard-hitting campaign to reduce political violence in recent years by detonating the first explosion at a subway stop near the offices of the Federal Security Service. That agency, once led by Putin, is the main successor to the infamous KGB, a repressive tool of the former Soviet Union.

Unfortunately, the murder and mayhem will probably continue, as suggested by the latest attacks in Dagestan, which left some three dozen dead or hurt. Putin has already noted that “the same bandits” could be to blame. The fact is too many groups in Russia have separatist desires and other concerns that they are willing to amplify through brute force. Making matters worse is the lingering recession, which has left widespread, simmering discontent. Troublemakers surely relish the opportunity to try to heat that agitation to a boil.

The situation has handed a conundrum to Putin, as well as to President Dmitry Medvedev, who had been touting a more liberal approach of late. Would it be better to respond harshly and leave no doubt about Moscow’s focus? Or would it be more effective to ease the heavy hand and strive to address the roots of the country’s political violence?

Putin has enough terrorism-fighting credentials that he can take some time to make a decision. For now, both he and Medvedev are concentrating on bringing the perpetrators’ puppet-masters to justice and bolstering security across the country. As if to acknowledge the practiced hand at the helm, most people in the capital are trying to regain their mundane stride, riding the subway again and otherwise going about their lives. But an uninvited hitchhiker — fear — has joined them and stubbornly refuses to leave. Should Russians have the misfortune of returning to the back-to-back terrorist atrocities they experienced in the early 2000s, anxiety could easily spread and shatter public confidence.

That is not all. Another important consideration affects Putin’s actions and presents an unavoidable deadline: the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. Such high-profile, global events are just as enticing to terrorists as they are to visitors and sports enthusiasts. Without the right security, the results can be disastrous. I know from recent experience at this year’s Games in Vancouver that security is sufficiently complicated in places that do not suffer from severe political violence.

Though I have no doubt Russia will do its best, I wonder if it will be enough. Can Putin truly ensure that Sochi will be safe in four years? The answer is just as important as his short-term response to the Moscow and Dagestan massacres.