Many argue that Russian FSB organized the terror attack in Moscow
I think they are wrong and this is why: the U.S. “duty to warn” policy
The U.S. indeed warned Russia about the attack. It can embarrass Russia by releasing the details of its warning. 1/
This threat serves as a constraint on how much Russia can spin the situation.
If Russia pushes Ukraine story too far, the U.S. can release specific facts it gave to Russia. If these facts could have helped avoid the massacre, Russian people can turn against Putin and FSB 2/
Furthermore, Russia might not know everything the U.S. knows. That might be an additional force that limits Russia desire to abuse the horrible attack for its political interest. 3/
On the other hand, if the U.S. doesn’t have much intelligence, it won’t be able to release it, and the ISIS story becomes less plausible.
So one should watch for what the U.S. will say about the attack, what evidence it provides, to decide whether ISIS story is true 4/
This argument has two weaknesses.
First, the U.S. might be unwilling to release too many specifics out of fear for its sources.
Second, the US might chicken out fearing another “escalation” by Russia, especially if Russia threatens it 5/
Regardless, there is also good news. If Russia has planned and executed this terror attack to justify mobilizations and a major escalation in atrocities in Ukraine, the US must know this. It can see whether the attack is consistent with its intelligence on ISIS or not 6/
And if the IS believes the attack has need planted by the FSB to escalate in Ukraine, the duty to warn policy still applies. This time with respect to Ukraine. Ukraine has received no such warning, implying a major escalation is unlikely, making the story about FSB implausible 7/
The bottom line - the US intelligence has some knowledge about the attack because it issues a warning to its citizens and to the govt of Russian. It is constrained to reveal some of this information to those affected. Since it warned Russia and not Ukraine, FSB theory is weak. 8/
What is the duty to warn policy? The "duty to warn" policy in the U.S. intelligence community refers to the obligation of intelligence agencies to notify individuals or groups if they become aware of specific and credible threats to their safety. 9/
They have to do so even with respect to non-US persons, organizations, states and those responsible for their protection 10/
An example of this policy is the U.S. private and public warnings to Ukraine about the imminent Russian invasion in 2022. 11/
The policy gained attention in the 1970s when the Church Committee, a U.S. Senate committee, investigated the practices of intelligence agencies. The committee found that the agencies had not always informed targets of potential threats. 12/
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12333, which included a provision stating that agencies had a duty to warn potential victims of threats when such warnings would not compromise ongoing investigations or sources. 13/
Proponents of the duty to warn policy argue that it is a moral and ethical obligation of intelligence agencies to protect individuals from harm when they possess credible information about threats. 14/
They believe that the policy enhances public trust in intelligence agencies and encourages cooperation with investigations. 15/
Opponents argue that the duty to warn policy can compromise intelligence gathering and ongoing investigations. They contend that warning potential victims could tip off perpetrators and jeopardize sources or methods. 16/
Recent notable examples: Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022). The U.S. intelligence community warned about Russia's plans to invade Ukraine for months before the invasion began 17/
The U.S. shared intelligence with allies and publicly warned about the impending invasion.
After the invasion started, the U.S. continued to release intelligence about Russia's actions and intentions. 18/
ISIS Attacks in Europe (2015-2016) - Partially averted
The U.S. intelligence community had warned European allies about the growing threat from ISIS and the potential for attacks.
Some attacks, such as the Paris attacks in November 2015, were carried out successfully. 19/
Other plots were foiled by European intelligence and law enforcement agencies, often with U.S. assistance.
Limited details were released about the intelligence sharing and cooperation that led to the prevention of some attacks. 20/
These and other examples demonstrate that the U.S. intelligence shared available info if there is a threat and, furthermore, can continue to release intelligence after the attack takes place 21/
Furthermore, the quality of the U.S. intelligence for Russia and Ukraine recently has been of considerable quality. So, the argument that the U.S. knowledge and what it can release public constraints Russia’s spins and makes FSB theory unlikely is at least plausible 22/
Look at the arguments for FSB theory. All of them are vulnerable to the above critique from the perspective of the “duty to warn” policy. But please be your own analyst 23/
So, my conclusion it is really ISIS or someone broadly related to them. If the U.S. gave specific details that could have saved lives, and Russia ignored it, it would be good for the U.S. to release them. This will stop Russian propaganda on this matter and pressure Putin 24X
Multiple explosions in Kyiv. No air warning before explosions. Traces of air defense missiles in the sky. Telegram channels say Russia launched ballistic missiles.
This is unusual as ballistic missile attacks happen at night or early morning.
Ukrainian media say these were supersonic ballistic missiles launched in Crimea
Here is how things are at our university during the attack 3/
Four suspects in Moscow terror attack are all citizens of Tajikistan: Mirzoyev, 32, Rachabalizoda, 30, Faizov, 19, and Fariduni, 25. There is no evidence connecting them to Ukraine.
They appeared in court visibly tortured. 1/
Faizov was non-responsive in a wheelchair
Mirzoyev had a plastic bag over his neck
Rachabalizoda was without ear; there were videos of Russian Secuirty forces cutting off his ear and forcing him to eat it to him during the arrest 2/
Russian authorities leak multiple photos and videos of torture and barbaric treatment of suspects.
The top Russian propagandist Margarita Simonyan: I when I see them walked bent over to court, and even this [cut off] ear this, I feel exceptionally satisfied. 3/
Ukraine and Russia trade massive missile attacks. This might appear related to Moscow attack, but it is not.
I am in Kyiv and have just woken up (5am) by two loud explosions
Earlier tonight Ukraine successfully hit Sevastopol with multiple missiles 1/
The Ukrainian attack on Sevastopol that hosts the Russian Black Sea fleet has been confirmed by Russian state media. There are dead and injured.
Ukrainian media report that UK made storm shadows hit a communication center of the Russia fleet 2/
This night Russia launched multiple missiles across the entire Ukraine. It is too early for videos of the damage, but explosions and interceptions are reported across the country. The attack continues
Russia used 14 strategic bombers at once, 2 warships, and drones 3/
Margarita Simonyan: “it is no ISIS, they are all Ukrainians”.
What doesn’t it mean for Russia, Ukraine and the region? 1/
As I said earlier, Putin has no choice but to blame Ukraine. Otherwise he admits his incompetence to prevent the attack, weakness to be unable to respond, and a strategic failure of invading Ukraine instead of focusing on other, real issues for Russia. He will loose power. 2/
Putin might not have a choice but to blame Ukraine for the terrorist attack in Moscow. He might not be successful, though, because the facts point to Islamic radicals.
This is why:
1. The Russian law enforcement’ve shown suspects 1/
They claim one of them is from Tajikistan. None of them are Ukrainians or have lived in Ukraine
Ukraine has explicitly denied involvement in the attack and ISIS has claimed responsibility. 2/
US officials have told media that the claim of responsibility by the Islamic State appears to be credible.
Three days before the attack the U.S. warned Russia about a possibility. Putin dismissed the warning as “blackmail” 3/