What does the
The picture shows the "Crocus City" concert hall where a terrorist attack occurred
On March 22nd, a terrorist attack occurred at the Krokus City Concert Hall, less than 17 kilometers from the center of Moscow. The latest statistics from the Russian Federal Investigation Commission and the Moscow State Health Department show that there are currently 139 deaths and 182 injuries.
On March 25th, the Russian authorities announced the arrest of all four terrorists suspected of direct involvement in the attack. According to reports from Russian satellite news agency and multiple sources, all four individuals have pleaded guilty.
However, under the blood of innocent victims, the truth of this terrorist attack seems to have become even more elusive. On the one hand, the extremist organization "Islamic State" has continuously released on-site footage, claiming that the attacks were carried out by it; On the other hand, Russian President Putin stated on March 25th that the attack was carried out by "radical Islamists", but still retained doubts about the Ukrainian side. At the same time, more viewpoints point their fingers at the United States and even Russia itself.
In the midst of the fog, there is a detail that deserves attention from the outside world, which is whether the United States, as stated, has informed the Russian side in advance of intelligence about the upcoming terrorist attack in Moscow based on its so-called "duty to warn", and what this means.
Has the US warned in advance?
After the attack on the Crocus City Concert Hall on March 22, White House National Security Council spokesperson Watson stated that the US learned in early March that relevant parties planned to launch a terrorist attack on Moscow, targeting large gatherings including concerts. Watson said that Washington and Moscow "shared this intelligence.".
Watson pointed out that the Biden administration adheres to a "warning obligation", and as a long-standing policy of the US, the US intelligence community will issue warnings to relevant countries and organizations when it is certain that someone or a group of people is about to be deliberately killed or kidnapped, even if the target of the threat is not a US citizen.
But Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov denied this. On March 24th, Antonov stated in an interview with Russian media that the Russian Embassy in the United States "has not received any warning about an impending terrorist attack in Moscow.". Antonov said, "We have not received any prior notice or intelligence, whether from the White House or the US State Department, and no one has contacted me."
The outside world has noticed that there seem to be conflicting voices within Russia regarding whether the US has warned in advance. According to a report by Russia's Sputnik News Agency, on March 23, a source from the Russian intelligence agency confirmed to the media that they had indeed received information from the United States about a possible terrorist attack in Moscow. However, the source stated that the intelligence was vague and lacked any details.
In addition, according to a press release by the Kremlin on March 19th, Russian President Putin told the Russian Federal Security Service that a series of recent statements from Western official agencies regarding an impending terrorist attack in Russia were "provocative". Putin referred to these statements as "representing a blatant extortion and an attempt to disrupt Russian society through intimidation.".
The statements of Russian intelligence agencies and Putin seem to indirectly confirm that the US did indeed issue a warning in advance, but why did the Russian ambassador to the US deny it?
The seemingly contradictory voices within Russia are not incomprehensible. Even if the US has made some kind of notification to the Russian side based on its so-called "warning obligation," there are doubts about whether the first warning is directly related to the terrorist attack on the "Crocus City" concert hall on March 22, and whether the second US warning effectively mentions details related to the attack.
The Crocus City Concert Hall caught fire after a terrorist attack
Firstly, one of the background information we need to understand is that the extremist organization ISIS has shown considerable activity within Russia in March. On March 7th, the US Embassy warned that extremists were about to launch an attack on a large rally in Moscow within 48 hours. On the same day, according to a report by Russian news agency, Russian security forces uncovered and eliminated an extremist organization related to the province of Khorasan in southwestern Moscow. The organization was planning to launch an attack on a church in Moscow at the time. On March 20th, two days before the attack on the "Crocus City" concert hall, the Russian authorities announced the arrest of a commander of the extremist group "Islamic State" combat group. In other words, the "Krokus City" concert hall is not the only target chosen by the Islamic State extremist organization in Moscow.
So, one possibility is that the US issued a warning about the widespread terrorist crisis in Russia in March, but the warning did not specifically point to the Crocus City Concert Hall in Moscow, perhaps because the US itself was not aware of it. Therefore, Russian Ambassador to the United States Antonov can naturally emphasize without hesitation that he has not received any warning about the imminent terrorist attack in Moscow.
Alternatively, the warning issued by the US clearly pointed to the "Crocus City" concert hall, but due to being too general and lacking details, it did not receive sufficient attention from Russian security agencies. The extremely active Islamic State extremist organization in March, coupled with the strict security requirements of wartime elections, is likely to put Russia's security forces in a state of saturation, forcing them to concentrate on tracking more detailed and therefore more threatening clues.
The warning from the US, which is vague and lacks details, does not necessarily stem from some kind of conspiracy theory malicious intent. From the perspective of intelligence warfare, the willingness of the United States to share some kind of "imminent terrorist attack" intelligence with Russia does not mean that the United States is willing to selflessly sacrifice its intelligence strength. More detailed and attention grabbing intelligence will also expose more clues, allowing the Russian side to investigate the US intelligence deployment within Russia.
The picture shows the information provided by John Kirby, Coordinator of Strategic Communications for the White House National Security Council
The outside world has noticed that after the terrorist attack on the "Krokus City" concert hall on March 22, John Kirby, the strategic communication coordinator of the White House National Security Council, made a very intriguing statement, stating that he did not believe that the warning issued by the US State Department through the embassy in Moscow earlier referred to the attack. On the one hand, it may be that the United States - at least before issuing a warning on March 7th - did not detect a possible attack on the Crocus City concert hall; On the other hand, it may also be that the United States deliberately made such a statement in order to prevent the outside world from developing the perception that the United States has long known about this but deliberately did not give enough warning to Russia, and to avoid falling into a moral quagmire where the United States cannot prove its innocence.
Does the United States have a "warning obligation", and what does this mean?
According to publicly available information from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in the United States, any component of the US intelligence agency is obligated to warn potential victims or individuals responsible for protecting their safety, regardless of whether the target of the threat is a US national, if specific and credible intelligence indicates that someone or a group of people is under urgent threat of "deliberate killing, serious physical injury, or kidnapping.".
Under the concept of "warning obligation", the targets of "urgent threats" include specific individuals, as well as an organization, institution, or a specific location, such as the "large-scale gatherings" and "concerts" clearly identified by the US Embassy in Moscow in its warning on March 7th.
Relevant public information from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in the United States
The concept of "warning obligation" can be traced back to the investigation by the US Congress into illegal activities such as abuse of power by intelligence agencies after the Watergate scandal was exposed in the 1970s. At that time, the Senate Special Committee on Government Intelligence Activities, also known as the Church Committee, noticed that American intelligence agencies often held information about the lives and deaths of others but did nothing. In 1981, President Reagan signed Executive Order 12333, which clearly stated the "warning obligation" and emphasized that protecting the public from harm is a moral and ethical obligation of intelligence agencies.
Returning to the attack on the "Crocus City" concert hall on March 22, the existence of a "warning obligation" can in a sense exclude certain conspiracy theory perspectives.
If the United States has indeed made some kind of notification to Russia based on its "warning obligation," then to some extent, both the United States and Ukraine have reason to be excluded from suspicion. After all, the United States does not need to warn Russia on intelligence while launching terrorist attacks with great demands for covert operations against Russia; If the United States wants to see Ukraine and Russia fall into some more intense deadfight, it also does not need to warn Russia in advance. The United States should wait for Ukraine to succeed before releasing intelligence to ignite Russia's flames of revenge.
The picture shows the destroyed buildings on the battlefield between Russia and Ukraine
In addition, if the United States only issued a warning to Russia without warning Ukraine, it indicates that Ukraine is theoretically not under the urgent threat of this terrorist attack. In other words, the conspiracy theory of "Russia leading and executing this terrorist attack" is also difficult to establish. Because if this terrorist attack is Russia's "self directed and self executed" aimed at targeting Ukraine and creating legitimacy for launching a larger scale military operation, the United States has no reason not to issue early warnings to Ukraine about the upcoming Russian offensive, as it did in 2022. In fact, if Russia were to "self direct and self act" to any extent, the United States only needed to further disclose the specific intelligence it had in its hands, whether comparing it with intelligence from extremist organizations such as ISIS or direct intelligence about Russia, it would put the Kremlin in a great passive position. After all, if there is a huge conspiracy here, the United States has no reason to keep Russia confidential.
Most likely, based on current public information, the terrorist attack at the Crocus City Concert Hall was carried out by extremist organizations such as ISIS or at least forces closely related to ISIS. However, the final truth about this attack still needs to be investigated and intelligence disclosed by all parties. For ordinary people, without cross comparison of specific intelligence, it is difficult to distinguish between conspiracy theories that appear to be self explanatory and the truth, because "seemingly self explanatory" is precisely the reason why conspiracy theories are so popular.
