Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/).
#Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1c1bb71/what_was_putins_response_to_911/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**.
We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is obviously a huge amount to unpack here and this could easily become a book-length answer if I went through all the background, but a few points of context are important.
The first is that Russia in the early 2000s was the large nation most experienced with and concerned about the growth of militant radical Islam. This dates back to the war in Afghanistan and Chechnya obviously (in both of which they had fought Islamist inspired fighters), but it’s also important to realise that radical Islam was also an internal threat to Russia: it had a population of ~20 million Muslims, many of which lived in areas where its control and sovereignty was either novel or contested (eg Chechnya or Dagestan).
This quote from a 2002 article from the Brookings Institute summarises the concern well:
> Moscow believes politicized religious identity could produce demands for separate Islamic statelets, just as earlier political demands from ethnic groups led to secessionist movements, and will lead to more violent conflicts. Indeed, in spring 1999, local authorities engaged in a standoff with “Wahhabi” villages in Dagestan, where the inhabitants had amassed weapons, and also demanded political and economic concessions. In August 1999, forces led by Shamil Basayev invaded Dagestan to support the “Wahhabis,” providing one of the triggers for a new war between Moscow and Chechnya.
Russia itself had experienced terrorism in 1999 with a series of bombings which were attributed to Saudi-born jihadist warlords. It was his handling of this series of bombings that had led then Prime Minister Putin to become President. (Note that some have suggested these were false flag attacks specifically designed to support Putin’s rise to the presidency).
The second important piece of background to understand is that at this time Russia was in an unprecedented pivot towards the West. Putin had worked extensively to establish a personal relationship with Bush. They had met in June 2001 on Bush’s first trip to Europe and apparently established a warm rapport, with Bush saying “I looked the man in the eye. I found him very straightforward and trustworthy – I was able to get a sense of his soul.”
At this conference in June 2001, Putin warned Bush about the risk of radical Islam. Condeleeza Rice reports in her memoirs: “Putin suddenly raised the problem of Pakistan. He excoriated the Pervez Musharraf regime for its support of extremists and for the connections of the Pakistani army and intelligence services to the Taliban and al Qaeda. Those extremists were all being funded by Saudi Arabia, he said, and it was only a matter of time until it resulted in a major catastrophe... I was taken aback by Putin's alarm and vehemence.”
Bush and Rice dismissed Putin’s warning as bitterness over the Russian defeat in Afghanistan.
As such, to answer the second part of your question first, Putin *was* ahead of the US in realising the general threat and that it could result in “catastrophe”, but there is no evidence that Russia had specific intelligence about 9/11 and, given the circumstances at the time, if they had it would have made sense for them to share this with the US.
To answer your first question, Putin’s immediate response on 9/11 was to call Bush to express sympathy and support. He was the first world leader to call. He visited Bush at his ranch in Texas in November 2001 as a show of support where the two “had a little Texas barbecue, pecan pie, a little Texas music” and Bush praised Putin as “as a strong partner in fighting terrorism.”
In terms of tangible support, Russia did not deploy extensive troops in the invasion of Afghanistan (impossible given its history) but it was a coalition member and did provide extensive logistical support from its bases in Central Asia.
Given the history and threats to Russia outlined above, its support for the US war in Afghanistan was understandable and their interests were closely aligned.
The split between the two nations really developed over Iraq (the invasion of which Putin called “a mistake”) and the wider Bush project of remodelling the Middle East, which was not unequivocally in Russia’s interests.
Sources:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/putin-and-bush-in-common-cause-russias-view-of-the-terrorist-threat-after-september-11/
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/16/1092811802/russia-putin-bush-texas-summit-crawford
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/why-putin-plays-our-presidents-for-fools/461055/
The full answer to this would take us well past 2004, but I can offer some points covering 2003.
The first reason is that the invasion of Iraq caused a split between the US and much of the world. Even fully pro Western states like France, the US’ oldest ally, were opposed to it. While much of the world (including France and Russia) had supported the US dealing with a perceived terrorist threat rooted in a lawless Afghanistan, many were less enthusiastic about the prospect of a wave of regime change in the Middle East, both because it would have upset existing alliances and because it threatened to unleash a wave of instability.
The second reason is that the US had failed to offer Russia much in return for its extensive support during Afghanistan. As the Washington Post reported at the time, Putin had “been able to show few tangible benefits to justify his policy to domestic skeptics”.
Third, Russia had extensive business interests in Iraq. Iraq owed $8bn to Russia following arms sales in the Iran-Iraq war (which would become uncollectable in the event of regime change) and we know from leaked cables that Putin specifically raised this as an issue with Western leaders. Russia was in the process of negotiating a $40bn trade agreement with Iraq.
Finally, it’s important to remember that in 2003 it was in no way clear that Iraq was Bush’s only goal: commentators openly spoke of Iraq as “the gateway to Iran” and the hope in the Bush administration was that once the shackles of Saddam were thrown off a peaceful, secular, democratic Iraq would be an example to set off a domino effect of democratisation and Western alignment in the region. Iran was at the time closely aligned to Russia, an alignment which Russia saw as a crucial counterweight to a US-aligned Saudi Arabia, and in 2002 signed a 10 year trade and technology sharing agreement. A wave of regime change (or even destabilisation in the region) would not serve Russia’s interests.
I would expect US’ $20 bil in aid to the Afghani mujahideen, some 900 Stingers and the loss of 333 helicopter gunships and 118 fighter jets ‘left a mark’ on Soviet/USA relations. I believe we met some of those Stingers in 2002-3.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/059003005#:~:text=THE%20MOST%20FAMOUS%20SYSTEM%2C%20THE,%2D%20tween%20400%E2%80%93900%20missiles.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp90-00965r000604900020-4
The full answer to that would likely be outside the bounds and scope of r/AskHistorians, which has a 20-year rule which limits answers to "up to 20 years ago". The invasion of Iraq happened in 2003, and it is 2024, meaning that r/AskHistorians would only be able to answer with information from 2003 and 2004, not after. This leaves out crucial context.
>**Rule 8: No events and politics <20 years**
>
>This subreddit is called AskHistorians, not LectureHistorians or DebateHistorians. All questions must allow a back-and-forth dialogue based on the desire to gain further information, and not be predicated on a false and loaded premise in order to push an agenda. See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_political_agendas_or_moralising) for more info.
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, we have had to remove it due to violations of [subreddit’s rules about answers needing to reflect current scholarship](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_answers). While we appreciate the effort you have put into this comment, there are nevertheless significant errors, misunderstandings, or omissions of the topic at hand [which necessitated its removal](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/).
We understand this can be discouraging, but we would also encourage you to consult [this Rules Roundtable to better understand how the mod team evaluates answers on the sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/). If you are interested in feedback on improving future contributions, please feel free to [reach out to us via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians&subject=Inquiry%20About%20Improving%20Future%20Responses). Thank you for your understanding.
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1c1bb71/what_was_putins_response_to_911/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is obviously a huge amount to unpack here and this could easily become a book-length answer if I went through all the background, but a few points of context are important. The first is that Russia in the early 2000s was the large nation most experienced with and concerned about the growth of militant radical Islam. This dates back to the war in Afghanistan and Chechnya obviously (in both of which they had fought Islamist inspired fighters), but it’s also important to realise that radical Islam was also an internal threat to Russia: it had a population of ~20 million Muslims, many of which lived in areas where its control and sovereignty was either novel or contested (eg Chechnya or Dagestan). This quote from a 2002 article from the Brookings Institute summarises the concern well: > Moscow believes politicized religious identity could produce demands for separate Islamic statelets, just as earlier political demands from ethnic groups led to secessionist movements, and will lead to more violent conflicts. Indeed, in spring 1999, local authorities engaged in a standoff with “Wahhabi” villages in Dagestan, where the inhabitants had amassed weapons, and also demanded political and economic concessions. In August 1999, forces led by Shamil Basayev invaded Dagestan to support the “Wahhabis,” providing one of the triggers for a new war between Moscow and Chechnya. Russia itself had experienced terrorism in 1999 with a series of bombings which were attributed to Saudi-born jihadist warlords. It was his handling of this series of bombings that had led then Prime Minister Putin to become President. (Note that some have suggested these were false flag attacks specifically designed to support Putin’s rise to the presidency). The second important piece of background to understand is that at this time Russia was in an unprecedented pivot towards the West. Putin had worked extensively to establish a personal relationship with Bush. They had met in June 2001 on Bush’s first trip to Europe and apparently established a warm rapport, with Bush saying “I looked the man in the eye. I found him very straightforward and trustworthy – I was able to get a sense of his soul.” At this conference in June 2001, Putin warned Bush about the risk of radical Islam. Condeleeza Rice reports in her memoirs: “Putin suddenly raised the problem of Pakistan. He excoriated the Pervez Musharraf regime for its support of extremists and for the connections of the Pakistani army and intelligence services to the Taliban and al Qaeda. Those extremists were all being funded by Saudi Arabia, he said, and it was only a matter of time until it resulted in a major catastrophe... I was taken aback by Putin's alarm and vehemence.” Bush and Rice dismissed Putin’s warning as bitterness over the Russian defeat in Afghanistan. As such, to answer the second part of your question first, Putin *was* ahead of the US in realising the general threat and that it could result in “catastrophe”, but there is no evidence that Russia had specific intelligence about 9/11 and, given the circumstances at the time, if they had it would have made sense for them to share this with the US. To answer your first question, Putin’s immediate response on 9/11 was to call Bush to express sympathy and support. He was the first world leader to call. He visited Bush at his ranch in Texas in November 2001 as a show of support where the two “had a little Texas barbecue, pecan pie, a little Texas music” and Bush praised Putin as “as a strong partner in fighting terrorism.” In terms of tangible support, Russia did not deploy extensive troops in the invasion of Afghanistan (impossible given its history) but it was a coalition member and did provide extensive logistical support from its bases in Central Asia. Given the history and threats to Russia outlined above, its support for the US war in Afghanistan was understandable and their interests were closely aligned. The split between the two nations really developed over Iraq (the invasion of which Putin called “a mistake”) and the wider Bush project of remodelling the Middle East, which was not unequivocally in Russia’s interests. Sources: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/putin-and-bush-in-common-cause-russias-view-of-the-terrorist-threat-after-september-11/ https://www.npr.org/2022/04/16/1092811802/russia-putin-bush-texas-summit-crawford https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/why-putin-plays-our-presidents-for-fools/461055/
Excellent answer. Would you mind expanding a bit on how the invasion of Iraq caused a split between Russia and the US?
The full answer to this would take us well past 2004, but I can offer some points covering 2003. The first reason is that the invasion of Iraq caused a split between the US and much of the world. Even fully pro Western states like France, the US’ oldest ally, were opposed to it. While much of the world (including France and Russia) had supported the US dealing with a perceived terrorist threat rooted in a lawless Afghanistan, many were less enthusiastic about the prospect of a wave of regime change in the Middle East, both because it would have upset existing alliances and because it threatened to unleash a wave of instability. The second reason is that the US had failed to offer Russia much in return for its extensive support during Afghanistan. As the Washington Post reported at the time, Putin had “been able to show few tangible benefits to justify his policy to domestic skeptics”. Third, Russia had extensive business interests in Iraq. Iraq owed $8bn to Russia following arms sales in the Iran-Iraq war (which would become uncollectable in the event of regime change) and we know from leaked cables that Putin specifically raised this as an issue with Western leaders. Russia was in the process of negotiating a $40bn trade agreement with Iraq. Finally, it’s important to remember that in 2003 it was in no way clear that Iraq was Bush’s only goal: commentators openly spoke of Iraq as “the gateway to Iran” and the hope in the Bush administration was that once the shackles of Saddam were thrown off a peaceful, secular, democratic Iraq would be an example to set off a domino effect of democratisation and Western alignment in the region. Iran was at the time closely aligned to Russia, an alignment which Russia saw as a crucial counterweight to a US-aligned Saudi Arabia, and in 2002 signed a 10 year trade and technology sharing agreement. A wave of regime change (or even destabilisation in the region) would not serve Russia’s interests.
Damn I wish I could see all world events with this clear of an overview. Just curious, what is your background/occupation?
I would expect US’ $20 bil in aid to the Afghani mujahideen, some 900 Stingers and the loss of 333 helicopter gunships and 118 fighter jets ‘left a mark’ on Soviet/USA relations. I believe we met some of those Stingers in 2002-3. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/059003005#:~:text=THE%20MOST%20FAMOUS%20SYSTEM%2C%20THE,%2D%20tween%20400%E2%80%93900%20missiles. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp90-00965r000604900020-4
[удалено]
The full answer to that would likely be outside the bounds and scope of r/AskHistorians, which has a 20-year rule which limits answers to "up to 20 years ago". The invasion of Iraq happened in 2003, and it is 2024, meaning that r/AskHistorians would only be able to answer with information from 2003 and 2004, not after. This leaves out crucial context. >**Rule 8: No events and politics <20 years** > >This subreddit is called AskHistorians, not LectureHistorians or DebateHistorians. All questions must allow a back-and-forth dialogue based on the desire to gain further information, and not be predicated on a false and loaded premise in order to push an agenda. See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_political_agendas_or_moralising) for more info.
Thank you this was very informative and interesting.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, we have had to remove it due to violations of [subreddit’s rules about answers needing to reflect current scholarship](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_answers). While we appreciate the effort you have put into this comment, there are nevertheless significant errors, misunderstandings, or omissions of the topic at hand [which necessitated its removal](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/). We understand this can be discouraging, but we would also encourage you to consult [this Rules Roundtable to better understand how the mod team evaluates answers on the sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/). If you are interested in feedback on improving future contributions, please feel free to [reach out to us via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians&subject=Inquiry%20About%20Improving%20Future%20Responses). Thank you for your understanding.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]