Russia’s formidable security apparatus has demonstrated ruthless efficiency in apprehending Vladimir Putin’s adversaries, yet it found itself unprepared for a mass shooting incident near Moscow, prompting inquiries into its priorities, capabilities, and intelligence gathering methods. Tasked with thwarting Ukrainian espionage activities on Russian soil, suppressing anti-Kremlin dissidents, and countering the operations of hostile foreign intelligence agencies, the FSB, the principal successor to the Soviet-era KGB, is stretched thin. According to former US intelligence officials and analysts from Western security circles, this extensive array of responsibilities may have contributed to its failure to detect the purported plot to target a concert hall in Moscow last Friday, resulting in numerous casualties.
Unlike private hackers operating from bunkers in Moscow or St. Petersburg apartment buildings, government cyber operators must often travel with their equipment packed into suitcases. The hackers then visit foreign offices, hotels, and other venues to hack into computer systems using “on-site.” Such operations are a significant threat to the West because they enable far more sophisticated cyberattacks than those launched from afar. On-site cyber operations also raise unique challenges for intelligence agencies because the hackers are not insulated from their hosts’ activities, which can be challenging to monitor.
The four suspected Moscow attackers, all of whom are Tajikistan nationals, were remanded into custody Sunday night by a Moscow court. Three days before the attack, Putin denounced what he described as “provocative statements” from the West about possible attacks within Russia and said such warnings were meant to intimidate and blackmail Russians ahead of the presidential election.
While the FSB says the concert hall attack was painstakingly planned and that the gunmen carefully concealed their weapons, it has not produced any evidence to support its claim that the shooters were acting on orders from Ukraine. That assertion is likely to strain relations with Kyiv, which accuses the Kremlin of using the threat of an Islamic State-linked terrorist attack to justify its intervention in Ukraine. The White House has dismissed the accusation as Kremlin propaganda.
The FSB has a powerful arsenal of surveillance technology, including satellites that can spot objects moving in the dark and covertly intercept communications. It also has many informants who can report on their fellow citizens to the secret police. But even the most well-funded spy agency has limits.
The most worrisome development is the potential for a major military conflict between Ukraine and Russia. As tensions rise, the FSB will have to decide which of its missions to prioritize. It could choose the wrong one, provoking a response by Ukraine or the West that could lead to an all-out nuclear war. The West should heed President Volodymyr Zelensky’s call for NATO and the United States to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
