• Syria rebels capture SIGINT base after evacuation by Russian GRU and Syrian military
    14 replies, posted
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/8HqRQfS.png[/IMG] [QUOTE]Recent footage apparently taken of an intelligence base in the Syrian Golan Heights, uploaded by fighters from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) after their capture of the base, indicates deep Russian involvement in the espionage operations of President Bashar Assad's regime. The base in Tel Al-Hara, south of the Quneitra border crossing with Israel, was seized over the weekend by the FSA, after pitched battles that included a number of rebel groups, including the al-Qaida-aligned Nusra Front. The footage shows that the base, used to carry out electronic surveillance of both rebels and of Israeli military forces, had been under Russian command. The video posted by the FSA seems to be have been filmed in the office building of the base. It shows what appears to be a Syrian officer conducting a tour of the facility for the rebels, pointing at photographs, maps and captions on the walls, in Russian and Arabic. The symbols of Syrian intelligence and the 6th Directorate of Russian military intelligence (GRU) which deals with signal intelligence (SIGINT) are shown there side by side. In the photographs, Russian and Syrian officers can be seen collecting and analyzing intelligence together. Further photographs captured Russian defense officials visiting the base, along with a list of current and previous commanders of the base, Russian officers with the rank of colonel. The officers are directed, according to standing orders on the wall, to listen in to communications of the rebel groups. Also on the wall, is a map detailing locations of Israel Defense Forces positions in the north of Israel. One question that arises from viewing the video is why the footage was taken only from the office building. A different video shows what the rebels claim to be an air-defense system, but the radio dishes inside the building look more like listening devices. The Russian and Syrian officers that evacuated the base most likely took with them most of the sensitive hardware and intelligence material, but it is highly likely that valuable material remained behind, in addition to the photographs and maps on the office building walls. The FSA has close ties to the CIA, and the Americans are certainly interested in analyzing whatever has been left behind at the base before it is seen in public. New details of the ties between the FSA and Israel have also recently emerged, in an article written by Channel 2's Arab affairs commentator, Ehud Yaari, published Monday by the Washington Institute of which he is a research fellow. Details of this relationship include coordination meetings in Israel, the operation of an Israeli field hospital on the Golan Heights for wounded Syrians, and a limited amount of weapons supplies, mostly rocket-propelled grenade launchers. Israel naturally has a huge interest in the spy base which operates on its border, especially as any intelligence gathered would have been shared by Syria with Assad's allies, Iran and Hezbollah. Jerusalem has a deeply sensitive relationship with the Kremlin and there have been extremely few public recriminations over the military and intelligence support Russia extends to Syria and Iran. There have been no official comments so far from America or Israel regarding the footage, and probably will not be in the near future.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.619664[/url]
This just in: Proxy wars are still in fashion. More at 11.
The Russians running a proxy war? no waaaaayyyyyy
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;46175732]Im not sure supporting a [I]country[/I] may be regarded as proxy war. Rebel groups, I dont doubt. If someone is making a proxy war, its USA and allies, inc. Turkey. This is just cooperation.[/QUOTE] Hello boxes. Proxy war: Noun: a war instigated by a major power that does not itself become involved. By definition, this is a proxy war. Until/unless Russia lays boots on the ground in Syria, it's a proxy war.
[QUOTE=draugur;46176123]Hello boxes. Proxy war: Noun: a war instigated by a major power that does not itself become involved. By definition, this is a proxy war. Until/unless Russia lays boots on the ground in Syria, it's a proxy war.[/QUOTE] Uh theyve had boots on the ground for at least 40 years. The key part of the definition is [B]instigated[/B]. Are you implying this was instigated by gulf nations/USA?
[QUOTE=laserguided;46176792]Uh theyve had boots on the ground for at least 40 years. The key part of the definition is [B]instigated[/B]. Are you implying this was instigated by gulf nations/USA?[/QUOTE] I dont see any point in his post about that. The Syrian war was started by Assad massicuring his own people, its been no secret that the Russians have been supplying Syria with weaponry, having military advisors there is only logical as well. The point of his post is pointing out that Russia currently has no actual combat troops on the ground. I wouldn't call this nesscisarily a proxy war at the start but it certainly has become one but its not a clear cut two sided conflict, there are dozens of individual nonaligned groups, Isis the FSA and the Syrian army so strictly speaking its not a proxy war because there are nonaligned sides there [editline]7th October 2014[/editline] The term proxy war has a much broader definition, instigated is all relative, most proxy wars were already started before major powers got involved
Not surprising this was always known just now we get a peak at it. The Americans and west do the same thing on the Turkish and Jordanian border and the Iranians do the same for Assad. Everyone is helping their perceived little guy. [editline]7th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;46177188]I dont see any point in his post about that. The Syrian war was started by Assad massicuring his own people, its been no secret that the Russians have been supplying Syria with weaponry, having military advisors there is only logical as well. The point of his post is pointing out that Russia currently has no actual combat troops on the ground. I wouldn't call this nesscisarily a proxy war at the start but it certainly has become one but its not a clear cut two sided conflict, there are dozens of individual nonaligned groups, Isis the FSA and the Syrian army so strictly speaking its not a proxy war because there are nonaligned sides there [editline]7th October 2014[/editline] The term proxy war has a much broader definition, instigated is all relative, most proxy wars were already started before major powers got involved[/QUOTE] May haven't begun as a proxy war, started as an attempted revolution. It formed into a proxy war as soon as people saw opportunities.
Hey guys I've also played MGS4 so I know what a proxy war is too!
Its also much harder to define proxy war today since the advent of massive non-state groups like alquida and other terrorist groups since they have no qualm throwing their hat into any revolution, so any sort of armed conflict with a rebel group could be a proxy war with Islamic militants supported by a larger terrorist organisation
[QUOTE=Sableye;46177379]Its also much harder to define proxy war today since the advent of massive non-state groups like alquida and other terrorist groups since they have no qualm throwing their hat into any revolution, so any sort of armed conflict with a rebel group could be a proxy war with Islamic militants supported by a larger terrorist organisation[/QUOTE] It's not that hard since a war has a very basic definition - two groups violently clashing toward each other. Doesn't matter if they're countries or "organizations". So long as two are fighting and there are third parties fueling each, it can be called a proxy war.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46177789]It's not that hard since a war has a very basic definition - two groups violently clashing toward each other. Doesn't matter if they're countries or "organizations". So long as two are fighting and there are third parties fueling each, it can be called a proxy war.[/QUOTE] Imho I'd consider it a proxy war only in the case the third parties have a significant control over the main parties involved in the conflict. Having military advisors is not necessarily a sign of a proxy war.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;46178705]Imho I'd consider it a proxy war only in the case the third parties have a significant control over the main parties involved in the conflict. Having military advisors is not necessarily a sign of a proxy war.[/QUOTE] That would make the Korean, Vietnam and Soviet-Afghan Wars not proxy wars by that definition. If you have "significant control" over the main parties, then it's not a proxy war - it's just a war between two states. The purpose of it being a proxy is so you have two 'allies' or something along those lines fight it out while you and your real enemy sit back in safety.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46178786]That would make the Korean, Vietnam and Soviet-Afghan Wars not proxy wars by that definition. If you have "significant control" over the main parties, then it's not a proxy war - it's just a war between two states. The purpose of it being a proxy is so you have two 'allies' or something along those lines fight it out while you and your real enemy sit back in safety.[/QUOTE] I'd say Korea was most definetly a proxy war, the soviet air force was in complete control of the korean and airforces and the USSR was in complete control over the north Korean gov at the time since it was building the government at that point
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;46175732]Im not sure supporting a [I]country[/I] may be regarded as proxy war. Rebel groups, I dont doubt. If someone is making a proxy war, its USA and allies, inc. Turkey. This is just cooperation.[/QUOTE] lmfao yea no bro this is text book proxy war. You can throw this on the US all you want, but Russia is just as guilty as the US and NATO for running this proxy war. [editline]8th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46178786]That would make the Korean, Vietnam and Soviet-Afghan Wars not proxy wars by that definition. If you have "significant control" over the main parties, then it's not a proxy war - it's just a war between two states. The purpose of it being a proxy is so you have two 'allies' or something along those lines fight it out while you and your real enemy sit back in safety.[/QUOTE] They were proxy wars, but the difference is that it was direct US involvement with indirect Russian involvement, as opposed to direct US involvement coupled with direct Russian involvement.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.