The United States recently warned Russia of imminent extremist threats ahead of the deadliest attack in Russia in years, which killed more than 130 people. The warning was based on intelligence indicating that “extremists” had plans to target large gatherings in Moscow, including concerts. The U.S. shared this information with Russian officials under a principle called the “duty to warn,” which requires U.S. intelligence officials to share information on dire threats, whether with allies, adversaries, or others. While the warning was given, there is little evidence that Russia took action to prevent the attack at the concert hall on Moscow’s edge.
The duty to warn has become more emphasized in U.S. intelligence practices since al-Qaeda’s attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, resulting in the deaths of many Kenyan victims. In 2015, the U.S. national intelligence director formalized the duty to warn in an official directive, specifying the responsibility of the U.S. intelligence community to alert individuals of impending threats. The directive also outlines instances where intelligence officials can waive the duty to warn, such as when the target is an assassin or disclosure could endanger U.S. personnel or operations.
Under the Biden administration, there has been an increase in sharing threats with other governments, although not all shared warnings may lead to preventative actions. The U.S. intelligence community faced criticism under former President Donald Trump for failing to warn journalist Jamal Khashoggi of a plot by Saudi officials resulting in his killing in 2018. The duty to warn does not guarantee that the other party will heed the warning, especially in the case of adversaries like Iran or Venezuela, who may view warnings with skepticism or suspicion.
Despite the duty to warn, historical distrust between Russia and the United States has often hindered effective cooperation on shared threats such as the Islamic State and al-Qaida. Russians may view U.S. attempts at collaboration against mutual threats as naive and exploit any openings for political gain or to undermine U.S. intelligence-gathering. In some cases, warnings from either side may not be taken seriously or result in enhanced security measures, as seen in previous instances where warnings were given to Iran or Venezuela but attacks were still carried out.
While the duty to warn serves as a principle guiding the sharing of threat information, its effectiveness relies on the willingness of the receiving party to act on the warnings given. In cases where warnings are dismissed or ignored, tragic outcomes like the Boston Marathon bombing, where U.S. officials failed to adequately follow a Russian warning, can result. This highlights the complexities of intelligence sharing and the importance of cooperation between nations to prevent terror attacks and safeguard the lives of individuals.
