Wednesday, September 9, 2015

No Reason for Russia to Deploy Troops- Alternative media spins for NATO

When I put this post up the other day Tale of Russian/Syria build up originated/bolstered by “blogger/activist” Ruslan Leviev ?  pointing out some of the problems with the 'build up' narrative I had thought it would be the only post addressing this fabrication?  I figured the msm would keep spinning, but didn't expect the so called alternative media to keep bolstering a NATO/US manipulation? My mistake!
Just today, what do I see?:
Zero Hedge: Russia Expands Military Presence In Syria Despite German, French Threats

Why is a so called alternative media outlet spinning the same perception managing meme as NATO media? 
 Especially when this particular claim, "Russian troop build up", cannot be verified as correct or true! I mean, not even close!  No picture or video on social media appeared credible. 
 And worse still,  promoting this fabrication plays right into the hands of NATO/Israel and expanded war? 
I touched on this fact in the previous post on this topic:
 Widening war. Killing and displacing more humans. Why fan that flame?
Seriously, I'm asking because I want to know "What gives?" Why spin and worse expand on an  unsubstantiated, unverifiable and completely beneficial to Israel and NATO meme?!  Unless the intent is to sensationalize and fan the war flames? Or to bolster lies?
 As my disillusionment with alternative media grows by leaps and bounds
NYT's:  Russia Answers U.S. Criticism Over Military Aid to Syria
The Foreign Ministry here expressed surprise on Monday over an American warning to Russia against escalating the conflict in Syria, saying that the Kremlin’s Syrian policy — in particular furnishing military aid to help the government confront extremist forces — had been consistent for years.
 I had the above information in my previous post, from another source, still we'll  read on

"The sharp exchanges over Russian military aid to the Syrian government appeared to have dampened a brief spirit of cooperation"
 Almost to the day the bogus Russian build up story started making the rounds another pertinent news item had also emerged. Coincidence that the Russian buildup tale took away from this news? Doubtful

September 4th, 2015- Putin speaks of a coalition and new elections with a healthy opposition participating
Vladimir Putin said during a visit to Vladivostok that he had spoken to President Obama about creating an international coalition against terrorism and extremism.
“Uniting our efforts in fighting terrorism should run parallel with some political process in Syria itself and the Syrian president by the way agrees with that – even as far as holding early elections, let’s say, parliamentary ones, establishing contacts with the so-called healthy opposition, bringing them into government,” the Russian president said.
Which nations would NOT want a real coalition opposed to terrorism and extremism?
Answer: Zio/NATO nations

Which nations do not want to wage a legitimate war against terrorism and extremism?
Answer: Obviously those nations that use terror and extremism, in the  ME, to expand, destabilize, create refugees, steal resources and land- Zio/NATO nations

To reiterate Putin suggests a way to make peace. It seems sensible. But the US/Israel/NATO wants no part of it so the NATO media starts spinning Russian military buildup to distract from a possible peaceable solution. To spread fear. And to keep the war going, hell, expand it too! 

Let's go back to NYT's
 Russia may try to use American criticism of any military aid as proof that the Obama administration is soft on the Islamic State and only wants to topple President Bashar al-Assad, he said, so “it can be presented as an American unwillingness to fight evil.”
 That is correct. The US is soft on ISIS. And all they care about is ousting Assad. Which is why they ensured  this possible solution, this opportunity for peace,  was buried under an avalanche of detritus! Sadly so called "alternative media" has chosen to go along with the psyop!

NYT's: Mr. Putin is scheduled to attend the United Nations General Assembly in New York this month, for the first time in 10 years. That will give him a high-profile platform to promise to use Russia’s resources in the fight against international terrorism, including at a Sept. 27 meeting on confronting the Islamic State that the Obama administration is organizing.
That meeting is a little more then two weeks away? Will the US and company simply expand the war on Syria before that meeting takes place? It certainly appears as if that is exactly what is happening! UK and drones? France and Australia  could bomb Syria in days!
As I pointed out in the Boy on a Beach post  Kerry was talking boots on the ground!
“Boy on a Beach” Narrative Riddled with Inconsistencies & Agenda Pushing - Kerry stresses need for Syria ground invasion

Yet, still we get from NATO media & the alternative NATO media claiming the Russia expansion in Syria meme? Why?

 Let's go one better, still!  

 Saved this linked below item the other day. Thinking I won't be using it, but, sadly I am! - let's read what they are saying, ok?

No Reason for Russia to Deploy Troops to Syria, Experts Say

Media reports of a Russian military presence in Syria have stirred high-profile accusations that Russia is reinforcing its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad, President Vladimir Putin's long-term ally who has been battling opposition forces in his country since 2011.
The reports, which are sketchy and not substantiated by any solid evidence, were quickly rebuffed by Putin himself.

Yet, the propaganda train keeps chuggin' down the tracks. Including the so called alternative propaganda train!
 Assad’s regime is embroiled in intense fighting against Western-backed opposition groups and, in the meantime, against the Islamic State. The Kremlin has repeatedly called on the U.S.-led coalition of Western and Gulf states that has called for Assad's ouster to consider the Syrian president an ally in the fight against Islamic State, which it refuses to do. 
But while selling equipment under governmental contracts is a common international practice, deploying troops to the area would take the conflict to a different level, which the Russian ruling elite has no intention of doing because it might draw the country into a drawn-out and expensive war, pundits told The Moscow Times.
“After the Soviet operation in Afghanistan, our public opinion has certain prejudices against sending troops to fight for ideals that are foreign to us,” said Nikolai Kozhanov, an international relations expert at the Moscow Carnegie Center think tank.

Troops or No Troops?

Several Western media outlets claimed that Russian military were fighting alongside pro-Assad forces in Syria last week, citing photos posted on social networks of what was reported to be a Russian armored vehicle and Russian airplanes.
The media also attributed their conclusions to a YouTube video containing footage from an unidentified Syrian TV channel in which a soldier can be heard shouting something that resembles two Russian words. In addition, an unidentified activist from a rebel group was cited as telling British newspaper The Times of London that “the Russians have been there a long time.”
On Friday Putin denied the claims.
“To talk about us being ready to do it [carry out a military operation and deploy troops to Syria] is premature. We're supplying enough support by [providing the Syrian army] with military equipment, training troops and arming them,” he was cited as saying by state news agency RIA Novosti.
 Lavrov reiterated Putin’s statement in conversation with Kerry, the foreign minister's spokeswoman said Monday. He also called on the U.S. to collaborate with the Syrian government in order to fight the Islamic State, calling the Syrian government army “the most effective force.”
 I addressed the FACT that Russia has always supported the Syrian military. They have also assisted with some financial dealings. And have provided much food aid. These subjects have been covered here at this blog-

“There's been a shift in the quality of the equipment we are supplying — we have started to sell more and better equipment to the Syrians,” Kozhanov from the Carnegie Center told The Moscow Times. “Apparently Russian officialdom is raising the stakes in the game, but it's unlikely they would change the strategy [and deploy troops],” he said.
Right now there's simply no need to: The situation may be difficult, but Assad is still a long way off defeat, Kozhanov said.
Drawing Russia into a long war would be a serious risk for the Kremlin, if it were to deploy troops to Syria, even with a loyal leader at stake, said Alexei Makarkin, deputy head of the Center for Political Technologies, a Moscow-based think tank.

Mystery Explained?

Since Russia is selling equipment to the Syrians, there are certainly some military personnel present who are responsible for maintaining the equipment and teaching local troops how to use it, Kozhanov said.
The photo circulating in the media that purportedly shows Russian military personnel in Syria was taken from the VKontakte social media account of Ivan Strebkov, who Internet users speculated could be a member of the Russian military.
 Sorry for repeating issues already addressed. I'm asking again, as my disillusionment with so called alternative media grows astronomically, why spin for NATO? Why spin for expanded war?
Why repeat unsubstantiated gossip? I just don't know! But, definitely feel frustrated by it all.

OH and one more thing.......

 A Russian buildup in Syria? The propaganda machine strikes again 
The menace of unreality
-Ynet’s completely unsourced diatribe made a number of outlandish allegations.
-The Daily Beast (which is considered a comic by serious Russia watchers) followed up Ynet’s outlandish allegations. The by-line was interesting. One Michael Weiss, a New York neocon activist, and a failed Republican Party candidate.
-The day after The Daily Beast’s little slice of fiction; Elliott Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations came to the table.
- Using Weiss and Ynet as his sources, Abram's ‘Putin in Syria’ yarn was, without question, read by Washington policy makers.
Etc, etc., So forth and so on. And then there are places like Zero Hedge? So, what gives?


  1. Well the Daily Beast has a new version of this story: Is the so called alternative media going to run with this too?

    Putin Sends His Dirty War Forces to Syria

    Written by Micheal Weiss, of course!
    Uber Zionist- War Monger. He's been featured here before on many occasions-
    Particularly with regard to Syria, and especially to point out how he promotes the Israeli agenda- Oh and the Kurdish/Israeli agenda

    And looky, looky at this! The zionist Michael Weiss quotes the very same, no doubt zionist shill, I told readers about here just the other day

    "An investigation by Ruslan Leviev, a specialist in social-media intelligence, the soldiers are from the 810th Marine Brigade, which is based in Sevastopol, Crimea. The 810th is one of the few units of the Black Sea Fleet known to have played an active role in Russia’s military takeover of the Ukrainian peninsula 18 months ago.

    This is a circular story- the same NATO/Israeli zionist nutters keep it going and going.

    Seeing this only increases my absolute disgust with so called 'alternatives'
    Perhaps zerohedge can run with this baloney too?

  2. Interesting to note that today tyler durden at zero hedge is slightly walking away from supporting the NATO narrative- but only slightly- because while walking away durden continues to simultaneously expand on it!

    "On Wednesday, we brought you an in-depth look at the latest from Syria where Russia is apparently in a mad dash to send reinforcements to Assad and his depleted army at Latakia (or at least that’s the narrative being pushed rather hard by Western media). "

    That narrative was also being pushed by zero hedge in post after post including the one from today

    TD: "the skies above Syria will be filled with French, British, American, Turkish, and Russian jets"

    We as of yet have no definitive proof that Russian jets will be there? So why claim that?

    The quote included by Tyler Durden from a Reuters article in bold:

    "Russian forces have begun participating in military operations in Syria in support of government troops, three Lebanese sources familiar with the political and military situation there said on Wednesday.

    bolsters the NATO narrative, but this quote below is not bolded

    The sources, speaking to Reuters on condition they not be identified, gave the most forthright account yet....."

    It's silly to imply, as Reuters has, that the three unnamed, anonymous sources are giving a forthright account- open and honest, when we don't know who they are and cannot verify the truth or falsity of the claims

    So, durden @ zerohedge isn't walking away, from spouting the official nato narrative at all

    In the past week zerohedge has spun the nato narrative far too many times to suggest to me- they are doing anything but bolstering NATO's interventionist agenda

    If I missed more NATO war promotion, that's ok, the number of posts I left the links too provide more then enough evidence of NATO narrative promotion

  3. Penny,

    Aren't most of the "alternative" media sites now owned by the big media companies?

    According to wikipedia (, the Daily Beast is owned by IAC/InterActiveCorp.

    On the bottom of the zerohedge webpage, it is shows Media, LTD. Doing a search on this, I came across: Not much information but assuming its a wall street type that runs the site, they probably have connections to the "establishment" so therefore can't be that "alternative"...


    1. Thanks Kent for the info. ZH does OK on $$$$ matters but talking points on Amerika policy.

    2. Thanks Kent:

      OMG! I had zero idea about ZeroHedge. I see their stuff linked all over the place and people leave links here for ZeroHedge- plus their site comes up in some news feeds I use for information. I have also heard them mentioned as a 'happening' sort of place with a say what you want comment section... but then others have mentioned they are censored there?

      But, the more I read there political work, I can't speak to their financial information, the more I was noticing they promote the exact same narrative as any other main stream media outlet- NYT's. WSJ. BBC. CBC here in Canada. You get the idea?

      And that left me scratchin' my head

      As for Daily Beast- bah, that place is pretty useless.
      Thanks for the info though, I had no idea!

    3. Hey jo: see we both learned something new today :)

  4. Hi Pen,
    when 'alternative' site come out in support of the MSM who are peddling obvious lies, it tells us two things-
    that the sites are shills for the Establishment and
    that the issue is very important to the Establishment. Otherwise, why risk their credibility?

    1. hey james
      clearly the issue is very important to the establishment!
      Which is why it won't go away. Despite the fact that it is nothing more then gossip, rumour and unsubstantiated claims.
      ZeroHedge has Zero credibility- It's just another 'alternative' site that has shown it's true colours

  5. Hubby, pointed out to me and rightly so, that I failed to do my due diligence though usually I do- lesson learned.
    Actually the last little while has seen me get wise to more then a few of the 'alternatives'.

  6. Here is a comment I left at MOA- I see someone has been linking work/comment from here to there- Quite frankly as my regular readers know I don't bother much, if at all with that place, nor do I recommend that site- On the rarest of occasion if I do leave a comment it is placed here for you all to read- Since MOA long decided to censor/block my opinion.
    MOA like zerohedge has zero credibility.

    It seems b has been endorsing/promoting the opinion of Ruslan Lievev- same as Michael Weiss and Elliot Abrahams- I'm not surprised- Comment below

    Previewing your Comment

    bhl/dhl @ 77 wants to discredit the jewel b gave us on September 05, 2015.

    Posted by: Shadow Nine | Sep 10, 2015 9:24:34 PM | 85

    OMG- that wasn't a nugget! That was non credible spin from an activist who is out to prove Russian troops are in Ukraine as well as in Syria
    Didn't anyone here actually look who it was b quoted? I suppose not, as usual. It was Ruslan Leviev!

    The man quoted by Weiss- regurgitated by Elliot Abrahams and all of it published by Ynet- to use Leviev as a source, a credible source is akin to nonsense!

    In plain talk b is promoting propaganda and passing it off as credible- on par with Michael Weiss and Elliot Abrahams and Ynet!

    bhl@94 that's a comment from me blog and though I did not include MOA in that comment- The sentiment you expressed is applicable, but, still I don't like be quoted out of context

    I will, of course put a copy of this comment at my blog, because I expect, as usual this will be held for days- if published at all

    Posted by: Penny |

    1. @Penny @91

      Will you ever learn to distinguish between source and content a source provides?

      The source may be bad, a neocon nut or whatever, but the content or information it provides may still be correct. Blaming the information for the source is silly.

      Posted by: b | Sep 11, 2015 10:40:26 AM | 92

    2. What you will notice is that b didn't address the fact that this information originates with Ruslan Leviev, only, and is supported by neo con war pushers

  7. I just noticed that Ruslan Leviev is often given a platform by notorious shill 'bellingcat':

  8. Here is another comment I left at MoA

    Previewing your Comment

    b: I've long learned to distinguish between source and content, but, in the case of Ruslan and Michael Weiss- both the source and content is questionable.

    The problem is,the one you have ignored,is there is only one source and no verification from any other sources
    No one but Ruslan has been able to substantiate a massive Russian build up- No one. You don't find that odd in the slightest?

    I've looked high and low for any one else to verify and no one else is!Everyone is repeating Ruslan's information. That's not credible
    It's gossip. It hearsay.

    Posted by: Penny |

  9. Penny,

    I share your views on the alternative media. That's where I first turned to for information when I realized there was something not quite right with MSM news. In some ways the alternative media is more insidious because they present half truths rather than the big lie...

    Seems like you have some history with MoA? Just digging into who is behind MoA:

    I see that it is linked to DailyKos with ties to "liberals" & the "Democratic" party. Markos Moulitsas is ex US Army. That pretty much speaks for itself...


    1. Hi Kent:
      It's seems it is b at MOA that has an issue with me..
      At some point in time b decided to block me from the site- I actually haven't a clue why? I didn't attack anyone. Don't troll. Actually rarely post.
      However I do call it as I see it.Something b doesn't appear to appreciate.

      If you notice Kent, b's response to me, came in the form of a logical fallacy, an ad hominem - He attacked my person.

      'Will you ever learn to distinguish between source and content a source provides?"

      And then expanded on that attack via his continuing comment-
      "The source may be bad, a neocon nut or whatever, but the content or information it provides may still be correct. Blaming the information for the source is silly"

      He accuses me of 'shooting the messenger" but I am not.
      I am actually attacking the message as unverified, unverifiable and unsubstantiated. Because no one, no where, no how is verifying Ruslan's claims. Then a very suspicious crowd, who have promoted much disinfo in the past, while pushing a war mongering agenda ,are propping this unsubstantiated info up

      What b did not address is the fact that no one else has verified this information. I looked and looked. Believe me, I looked. The msm is still using words like "reportedly" wrt the claims of massive Russian build up and boots on the ground. You can see that even in today's post which I will be adding to later.

      It's like that kids game of telephone- start a rumour and see how it ends

    2. Hi Penny,
      I see your point. However, given the links between MoA/DialyKos and the "establishment", I don't see how anyone there would be able to truthfully answer your question. Doing so would mean admitting their "reality" is false. Sounds like their jobs is to spread the disinfo and not to spread the truth...

  10. Sorry! I notice you had posted on this earlier. That's what happens when I read from newest to oldest...

  11. "It's like that kids game of telephone- start a rumour and see how it ends"

    Unfortunately, it seems to be working.Behold the latest hysteria sourcing 'Daily Beast' which is being 're-printed' all over the internets:

  12. perception matters: it is official now: