In a recent development, two weeks before the deadly attack in Moscow, the US warned Russia of an impending attack by extremists. Under the 'duty to warn' principle, the US shared this information with Russia, which obliges intelligence officials to share knowledge of a dire threat. However, there is little evidence to suggest that Russia took sufficient action to prevent the attack [a6c8c65e].
The 'duty to warn' principle was formalized in 2015 and requires the US intelligence community to share threats of intentional killing, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping with other countries. However, it does not guarantee that the receiving country will take appropriate action, especially when dealing with adversaries. In the past, the US has failed to heed warnings from Russia about extremist threats [a6c8c65e].
It is important to note that the US warning should not be seen as a breakthrough in US-Russian relations or intelligence-sharing. The duty to warn has increased under the Biden administration, with a greater emphasis on sharing threats with other governments. However, the duty to warn does not always result in immediate action or increased security precautions by the targeted country [a6c8c65e].
This development adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Korean Peninsula. It highlights the challenges of intelligence-sharing and the potential consequences when warnings are not heeded. The incident also raises questions about the effectiveness of the 'duty to warn' principle and its role in preventing future attacks [a6c8c65e].