Why Russia’s vast security services fell short on attack
Distractions, deep distrust likely to blame
A day before the US Embassy in moscow put out a rare public alert this month about a possible extremist attack at a Russian concert venue, the local CIA station delivered a private warning to Russian officials that included at least one additional detail: The plot in question involved an offshoot of the Islamic State group.
US intelligence had been tracking the group closely and believed the threat credible. within days, however, president vladimir putin was disparaging the warnings, calling them “outright blackmail” and attempts to “intimidate and destabilize our society.”
Three days after he spoke, gunmen stormed Crocus City Hall outside moscow last Friday night and killed at least 143 people in the deadliest attack in Russia in nearly two decades. The Islamic State quickly claimed responsibility for the massacre with statements, a photo, and a propaganda video.
What made the security lapse seemingly even more notable was that in the days before the massacre Russia’s own security establishment had also acknowledged the domestic threat posed by the Islamic State affiliate in afghanistan, called Islamic State khorasan.
Internal Russian intelligence reporting that most likely circulated at the highest levels of the government warned of the increased likelihood of an attack in Russia by ethnic Tajiks radicalized by the Islamic State khorasan, according to information obtained by the Dossier Center, a london research organization, and reviewed by The New York Times. Russia has identified the four men suspected of carrying out the attack as being from Tajikistan.
Now, putin and his lieutenants are pointing fingers at Ukraine, trying to deflect attention from a question that would be front and center in any nation with an independent media and open debate in its politics: How did Russia’s vast intelligence and law enforcement apparatus, despite significant warnings, fail to head off one of the biggest terrorist attacks in the country in putin’s nearly quarter century in power?
The full picture is still unclear, and US and European officials, as well as security and counterterrorism experts, emphasize that even in the best of circumstances, with highly specific information and well-oiled security services, disrupting covert international terror plots is difficult.
But they say the failure most likely resulted from a combination of factors, paramount among them the deep levels of distrust, both within the Russian security establishment and in its relations with other global intelligence agencies.
They also point to the way putin has hijacked his domestic security apparatus for an everwidening political crackdown at home — as well as his focus on crusading against Ukraine and the west — as distractions that probably did not help.
This account of the Russian failure to prevent the concert attack is based on interviews with US and European security officials, security experts, and analysts specializing in international intelligence capabilities. many spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence details.
“The problem is to actually be able to prevent terrorist attacks, you need to have a really good and efficient system of intelligence sharing and intelligence gathering,” said andrei Soldatov, a specialist on Russian intelligence, who underscored that trust is needed inside the home agency and with agencies of other countries, as is good coordination. He said, “That’s where you have problems.”
Putin’s definition of what constitutes an extremist began to expand even before his invasion of Ukraine in early 2022.
The agency primarily responsible for combating terrorism in Russia is called the Second Service, a branch of the Federal Security Service, or the FSB. It once focused on Islamic extremists, bands of assassins, and homegrown neo-nazi groups.
But as putin has advanced his political crackdown at home, its list of targets ballooned to include opposition figures like alexei Navalny, who died last month in a Russian prison, and his supporters, as well as LGBTQ+ rights activists, Jehovah’s witnesses, peace activists, and other kremlin critics.
The number of Islamic-related organizations on the register of extremist organizations listed by Russian Federal Service for Financial monitoring has declined since 2013. at the same time, hundreds of organizations have been added related to Jehovah’s witnesses, which has its worldwide headquarters in the United States and is viewed with suspicion by the FSB.
Still, US and European officials say the Russian officials tracking Islamic extremists have their own unit within the Second Service that has remained robustly staffed and funded, despite the strains on the security services from the intensifying domestic political crackdown and the war against Ukraine.
The failure to prevent the attack was probably the result of a combination of other factors, including fatigue after being “especially alert” during the period before Russia’s recent presidential election, said a European security official, who tracks the activities of the Russian intelligence services. There is also evidence that Russian authorities did respond to the warnings this month, at least initially.
On march 7, the day after the CIA station issued the private warning to the Russians, the FSB announced that it had killed two kazakhs southwest of moscow, while disrupting an Islamic State khorasan plot to target a synagogue in the capital. US officials thought the raid was possibly a sign that Russian authorities were springing into action.
Iosif prigozhin, a well-known Russian music producer, recalled that he and his wife, Russian pop star valeriya, who performed at Crocus City Hall this month, noticed how security had increased at the venue in early march; security guards checked people’s bags and cosmetics cases and took other measures he hadn’t seen there before, he said.
Alexander Bortnikov, the director of the FSB, emphasized Tuesday in public comments that the information the United States provided was “of a general nature.” “we reacted to this information, of course, and took appropriate measures,” he said, noting that the actions the FSB took didn’t confirm the tip.
Since the attack, moscow has returned the favor to washington by claiming its warning should be treated as evidence of possible american complicity.