Russia tracking IDF movements and passes on intelligence to Hezbollah

Russia maintains listening posts along the Syrian border with Israel which it uses to follow IDF movements in the Golan Heights, it was revealed Thursday night.

According to a report on Channel 2, the posts are manned by Russian military officers who pass on information to Hizbullah in Lebanon. Israel, The Jerusalem Post learned, has known about the posts for over a decade since they were established.

Russia's involvement in the Iranian nuclear program, as well as various state-of-the-art arms sales it has periodically made to both Syria and Iran, has caused some friction over the last few years in Russian-Israeli ties.

I'm actually quite surprised by this story. I'm thinking of what interests Russia has to support Hezbollah by providing intelligence, but can't come up with the answer.

Not a surprise to me, Mdv2.

Israel is a major ally of the US, and despite the end of the last "Cold War", Russia still wants to exert influence and has been a major supply of arms and materials to Syria.

Keeping the conflict going between Syria/Hizbullah and Israel must be good for business. I am sure that payments for arms is made in a hard currency such as USD, EURO or GBP.

And you think that the US does not provide intelligence to Israel on what Hizbullah is doing.

We are still in a "Cold War" of sorts. Russia still wants to be a superpower.

I am quite surprised. Of course keeping tha Arab-Israeli conflict is good for business, but direct involvement in hostilities by Russians seems more sinister. Especially since Iran is Hezbollah's main backer and ally. The Russians are selling weapons to Iran as well. This all leads one to speculate on their motives. They may be trying to capitalise on anti-US sentiments in Europe which rise as the Iraq war and the middle-east conflict gets prolonged. The rise of anti-war sentiments would in the near term mean new and not so friendly to US governments in Europe.

I know Syria has always had a good relationship with Russia , but I'm inclined to think it would be Syrians passing on the information. I doubt Russia would want to be that involved. One thing for sure Russia is at least smart...they don't give away Billions of dollars worth of hardware. I guess they learned from past mistakes.

Its not like we don't give Israel intel on their neighbors...usually they ask and get it or they get people like Jonathon Pollard to get it for them.

The Israelis must be having panic attacks by now since Iran just announced they were about to refit a recycled Ballistic missile and send up a spy sattelite.

Russia has been monitoring conditions around Israel throughout the Cold War, and maybe never really left. It has provided intel and training to Syria during several wars with Israel, and during the Cold War there used to be a sizeable contingent of Russian army experts in Syria even in peace time (mostly engineers). I was pretty sure that all of the personell working for the army left, but I may be wrong. It could be possible that some Russians stayed behind, but are they working for the Russian government?

The only reason I see why Russia would want to monitor Israel, is for its own needs. I see no reason why they would partner with Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been getting Russian weapons lately, but only indirectly through Iran. And even if Russia shares intelligence with Syria, why is Hezbollah involved? Golan Heights is Syria's concern, not Hezbollah's.

Wow, source please? Looks really credible from the way they spelled Hezbollah...Could be true.

Originally posted by maloy
The only reason I see why Russia would want to monitor Israel, is for its own needs.

What are you suggesting? That Russia monitors the failure of the IDF strategy during the Hezbollah war for its own needs?

Perhaps Russia also supplied Hezbollah with satellite tracking in exchange for information on Hezbollah's strategies in fighting the IDF. Satellite information is of crucial importance to those guerilla groups, while Russia could use Hezbollah's strategies to be better able to fight and adopt to, the Chechen rebels.

Originally posted by Mdv2
What are you suggesting? That Russia monitors the failure of the IDF strategy during the Hezbollah war for its own needs?

I am simply saying Russia might have been gathering intel for itself. As a large nation, and one that has indirectlt involved in Mid East wars throughout the last half a century, Russia might have reasons to monitor the events there. US and other large global players also monitor information and gather intel on conflicts that don't concern them (at least directly). IDF is considered a formidable force with innovative tactics worth monitoring and possibly emulating. Was Russia sharing this info with anyone? Thats another question.

Originally posted by Mdv2
Perhaps Russia also supplied Hezbollah with satellite tracking in exchange for information on Hezbollah's strategies in fighting the IDF. Satellite information is of crucial importance to those guerilla groups, while Russia could use Hezbollah's strategies to be better able to fight and adopt to, the Chechen rebels.

First, its a better bet for Russia to monitor IDF's strategies (which I belive they have been doing for some time) rather than Hezbollah's, since the Russian army is far more like IDF than Hezbollah. And if you haven't noticed all the large scale fighting with Chechen separatists is over. The pro-Russian Chechen forces took control of the region several years ago, and since then federal Russian forces play very limited role.

I have not heard anything about satellite tracking, and I don't see how that information would be of much use to a guerilla force that is fighting in such small territory. Troop movements are not as important as urban warfare, and that is where IDF got bogged down. I highly doubt that Hezbollah would rely on satellites to predict where IDF was going to strike, since they have fighters all around South Lebanon monitoring IDF actions.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by maloy]

I can say with near 100% certainty that Russia is watching Isreal, along with every other major power in the world. For the reasons I detail below,

Israel is I believe a nuclear power. (Isreal still denies this officially)
Isreal is right bang in the middle of a very unstable region.
Isreal has a similar foreign policy to the US
Isreal is an aggressive state

All major countries need to keep a close eye on Isreal becuase she has the ability to start the next world war! and because she has been unpredictable in the past.

I strongly disagree that the Information is being passed on to Hizbullah! Hizbullah for one would refuse to work with Russia because of it's operations against Muslims in Chechnya.

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
I strongly disagree that the Information is being passed on to Hizbullah! Hizbullah for one would refuse to work with Russia because of it's operations against Muslims in Chechnya.

I don't think Hezbollah is in the position to choose allies or enemies among outsiders, and they would accept help from nearly anyone for their survival.

What I find unconvincing about the allegations, is - what does Russia have to gain from partnering with a para-military terrorist organization in a war between fanatics? If someone exposes their relations it would be a great embarassment for Russia. If Hezbollah is successful and all remains secret, Hezbollah won't remain an ally of Russia for long since they would only need Russia for the military expertise and help, and Russia knows it well enough.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by maloy]

Originally posted by maloy
First, its a better bet for Russia to monitor IDF's strategies (which I belive they have been doing for some time) rather than Hezbollah's, since the Russian army is far more like IDF than Hezbollah.

If Iraq has learned us one thing about modern warfare, it is that we should adopt as much as possible to the enemy's new way of guerilla fighting.

Obviously, the IDF failed, so does the US in Iraq. The US army is in a certain perspective, like the majority of armies, an old-fashioned army. Designed for fighting Cold-war and World War II era battles. Fighting guerilla forces is entirely different and very complex. Understanding and adopting to this sort of enemies requires time and real-life experience. Learn from your failures, I'm sure other countries take advantage of the Lebanon-Israel conflict as well. To learn from the IDF's failures, Hezbollah's way of thinking and tactics should be understood, not that of the IDF.

Originally posted by maloy
And if you haven't noticed all the large scale fighting with Chechen separatists is over. The pro-Russian Chechen forces took control of the region several years ago, and since then federal Russian forces play very limited role.

I am aware of that, but Chechnya is no exception. The difference is that the US and Israel have no desire to occupy Lebanon and Iraq for a long period of time whereas Russia fights in its own territory. American soldiers die almost every single day, in Chechnya, Russian soldiers die frequently as well. In a certain perspective all three the countries have been unsuccessful in battling guerilla forces.

Three soldiers from the Defense Ministry's elite Vostok battalion on patrol in eastern Chechnya were killed Monday when they came under fire from between eight to 10 fighters, a military official said.

Two soldiers died from gunfire, a source in the Vostok battalion told Interfax. One of the fighters then detonated a grenade, taking his own life and that of a third soldier shortly after backup troops arrived on the scene, the source said.

Moscow Times

Originally posted by maloyguerilla force that is fighting in such small territory. Troop movements are not as important as urban warfare, and that is where IDF got bogged down.

The territory in southern Lebanon cannot be defined as urban; that's the terrain the IDF battled Hezbollah forces.

Originally posted by maloy
I highly doubt that Hezbollah would rely on satellites to predict where IDF was going to strike, since they have fighters all around South Lebanon monitoring IDF actions.

You might be right, yes.

Despite Presidents Putin and Bush being able to meet in public and discuss matters together as 'friends' or what not doesn't mean that the two nations are friends, that their governments are friends, or anything of the sort.

Russia is doing to us what we've been doing to them all throughout the cold war.

Everywhere the Soviets were going to invade or had interests, we provided training and equipment, as well as CIA logistical support. Example: Afghanistan.

But Afghanistan wasnt our only 'encounter'.

Basicly, the Russians are doing that to us, and used to just the same, but is doing so with more advanced stuff now, capable of actually being a concern to our forces. Like the TorM1 anti-air defense systems supplied to Iran by Russia, state of the art, could shoot an F-16 right out of the sky. And their on wheels, so when they are attacked, they move out of the way!

The Russians supply weaponry to every single country that is against America, as well as varying levels of training and technology, depending on the stakes. In the case of Iran, they are building them a nuclear plant, as well as protecting their other plants with state of the art Russian air defense systems. This is to counter America / Israel's would be conventional aerial attack on their plants. Why does Russia want to see that happen?

Because they are friends with our enemies, and want them to succeed. They'd be pleased to see that America was being defeated soundly due to any of their covert efforts or assistance. It's really quite two-faced .. their foreign policy toward America. "Act like we are their friend toward their President and the media, while being the exact opposite in reality". President Putin is former KGB. Take a moment to figure out the implications of that. What do you think our President would be like, what strategies he'd use on the world scene, what countries he'd support and why he'd be doing so, if he were an ex-CIA agent/officer who's career was almost entirely in this branch? I can tell you one thing, there would've never been an Iraq invasion, and if there was, it would've been done properly and thats specifically referring to the immediate aftermath of seizing control of the country.

Any ex-KGB could smile and shake our president's hand and act like he has a real desire to be friends, but in reality this is just a play by Putin over the years to look buddy buddy so that we'd ease up off of Russia's most intensely secret and advanced stuff, as well as not attack them for arming and training and giving tech to basicly every single one of our enemies currently and potential enemies of the near future and getting away with it.

That's called CHARM people.. lol

Putin for Antichrist in 2011!

Originally posted by Mdv2
The territory in southern Lebanon cannot be defined as urban; that's the terrain the IDF battled Hezbollah forces.

I wouldn't go quite that far. The fighting that IDF did on the ground initially was in towns and rural areas, suburban if you will. But the nerve center and command of the Hezbollah was further north in cities like Acre (which got the crap bombed out of it much worse than Beirut) and southern Beirut.

While IDF ground troops never made it past Acre, they did make it to the vicinity of that city, which was bombed to crap already mind you.

And Commando teams from IDF were flown into different parts of Lebanon for missions; Beirut, Ber-Sheeba, Sheeba Farms..

But overall the ground forces did not encounter very much house to house room to room fighting like say, Baghdad Haifa Street area. Some fighting still took place in urban areas.

The IDF frequently fights in urban terrain against Palestinian groups.

Originally posted by Mdv2
Obviously, the IDF failed, so does the US in Iraq. The US army is in a certain perspective, like the majority of armies, an old-fashioned army. Designed for fighting Cold-war and World War II era battles. Fighting guerilla forces is entirely different and very complex. Understanding and adopting to this sort of enemies requires time and real-life experience. Learn from your failures, I'm sure other countries take advantage of the Lebanon-Israel conflict as well. To learn from the IDF's failures, Hezbollah's way of thinking and tactics should be understood, not that of the IDF..

It seems to me that IDF lost (or rather didn't complete their objective) in Lebanon because they were held back by UN, US and the world (not physically of course). The whole war was being watched very closely, and criticism of IDF came from all sides, not the least from the liberal media monitoring their actions (who said free media is unbiased). If IDF had total freedom to complete their objectives (like they did in the other wars), I am more than sure they had the capability to destroy Hezbollah's leadership. A war is a war, and some wars simply have to take place to solve otherwise eternal conflicts- do you really believe there will be peace there with fanatics like Hezbolah and Hamas?

IDF needed decisive action and dare I say- ruthless strategy to deal with a ruthless enemy. Instead they were told to avoid civilian casualties at all costs, and to target only selected regions for bombing and artillary strikes. That is why so many IDF commanders were upset with Israel's leadership- they were told to fight a war, but not allowed to carry out the orders to full extent. That is no way to win a war. UN and US and all the peace groups simply don't understand that "humanitarian wars" (and those in iraq and Afganistan) in regions that have for decades have seen fanaticism and bloodshed- cannot be won. You gotta go after the enemy everywhere and anywhere, and if it means that innocent people will die it still cannot be avoided. Otherwise your enemy will take advantage of your humanitarian strategy, and the result is what we see in Iraq. Yes civilian casualties and full scale war is bad- but otherwise you cannot hope to destroy your enemy.

IDF and US don't need the dirty strategies of guerilla fighters. What they need is decisive action and to take firm control ignoring criticism from the outside. I guarantee you, that if US installed someone like Saddam to power in Iraq (and made sure that the new dictator would owe allegiance to US forever) and gave him means to control the country, the conflict would be over soon. The only other alternative is to keep fighting the never ending war, and eventually quit and leave the new democracy crumbling back into a dictatorship. Russia did something similar in Chechnya (installing the warlord Kadyrov to power)- and that is how they won the war.

I am not saying I agree with these tactics or these wars, I am simply saying that this is a realistic way of looking at things- and the only way you can win. Democracy and morality are all nice in theory, but in some regions you simply cannot replace dictatorships with them in a matter of years. That is Machiavellianism.

Originally posted by Mdv2
American soldiers die almost every single day, in Chechnya, Russian soldiers die frequently as well. In a certain perspective all three the countries have been unsuccessful in battling guerilla forces.

Right now "Russian" soldiers (of the federal troops that is) do not die that often at all. There is maybe an incident once a week (but that too is not too good considering that the war is officially finished). Most of the operations in Chechnya are carried out by the pro-Russian forces of local warlords. Kakiev for example heads a very well trained special ops force called 'Zapad', and gets the backing and military equipment from Russian military. Vostok which you mentioned is a Russian division, but their involvement is rather an exception. And as I said Russia handed over control of the region to Kadyrov. This way the Federal government isn't blamed for the military actions taking place to root out the separatists, and Russian troops are not put in direct risk. Kadyrov is a regular dictator and a fanatic himself of sorts, and deserves no praise- but the conflict is over and Chechnya is part of Russia, while 70-85% of the separatists died or surrendered. That strategy won't win you any Democracy or morality points, but it does work- and in politics what works almost always wins.

Originally posted by Mdv2
The territory in southern Lebanon cannot be defined as urban; that's the terrain the IDF battled Hezbollah forces.

It's not urban, if you consider urban to be large cities. But most of the places where IDF got bogged down is in small towns and villages where Hezbollah used houses/tunnels/basement and other infrastructure to hide stage attacks. They also used local civilians to shield themselves from artillery and bombing attacks in some cases. I am pretty sure on an open battlefield such as a field or a dessert, IDF could not be stopped by Hezbollah. So in some way it could be considered urban warfare of sorts. "Urban guerilla warfare" doesn't necessarily mean cities. I see it as any region of battle where one side uses civilian infrastructure and civilian buildings, and possibly civilian human shields to defend/attack, and thuse uses it to its advantage. That is the main difference from the wars of the old- when two forces met head-to-head in outside cities or in evacuated areas.