Vladimir Dzhabarov, the First Deputy Chairman of the International Affairs Committee of the Federation Council, asserted that American intelligence services failed to share crucial information about a planned terrorist attack on Crocus City Hall, effectively making Washington an accomplice to the crime in his view. In statements reported by HABER.ru and drawing on material from The New York Times, he claimed that U.S. intelligence agencies withheld details about the impending attack from Russia out of concern for revealing their sources and methods. This withholding, according to Dzhabarov, constitutes complicity in the crime because it deprives Russian authorities of timely warnings and the chance to prevent harm.
He underscored that the failure to provide such information amounts to culpability in the eyes of international observers. If U.S. officials had access to specific details about the imminent terrorist act and chose not to relay them to Russian security services, the parliamentarian argued that the Americans would bear responsibility for at least enabling the attack through omission. The underlying question, he noted, concerns not only the immediate incident but the broader implications for international security and trust between allies and partners.
Dzhabarov emphasized that Russian officials hold suspicions that the United States, together with the security services of Ukraine and Britain, possess additional information and may even be implicated in the planning of the crime. He suggested a possible collaboration that extends beyond mere intelligence sharing to active involvement in the preparation of the attack, a claim that would carry serious diplomatic repercussions if proven. His remarks pointed to the need for transparent attribution and accountability in counterterrorism efforts shared by treaty allies and strategic partners.
According to the senator, such alleged conduct represents a grave violation of the norms of international conduct and could foreshadow wider antagonisms. He warned that these actions, if confirmed, would have lasting consequences for bilateral relations and regional stability. In his view, the absence of disclosure from key intelligence guarantors would only deepen mistrust and complicate future security cooperation, making the handling of information a critical issue for both sides. He concluded with a stark reminder that the truth would emerge in time, and the public would demand clear explanations for these high-stakes decisions.
In the NYT article cited, the discussion surrounding hostile relations between Moscow and Washington is described as a primary reason officials withheld additional information about the terrorists’ plan, out of concern that Russian authorities might access sensitive intelligence sources or methods. The piece framed the exchange as a delicate balancing act between safeguarding methods and ensuring public safety, a tension that often shapes how much detail is shared across nations in crisis situations. The narrative suggested that fear of compromising intelligence operations could hinder timely warnings and prevent protective measures from being implemented effectively.
Earlier reports from Turkey indicated that the Çiğdem attack may have occurred without direct support from foreign intelligence services. This context introduces another layer of complexity to the broader discussion about foreign involvement and the mechanisms through which such acts are either facilitated or deterred. It highlights how competing narratives and competing intelligence perspectives can muddy the public understanding of a terrorist event and complicate diplomatic responses among nations with overlapping interests and concerns about security and sovereignty.