ABC Reports Russian Troops Have Arrived In Syria, Russia Denies

Tyler Durden's picture

Earlier today, Al Arabiya made waves in the energy market following reports that a Russian ship carrying special forces had arrived in the Syrian port of Tartus, previously demonstrated here to be a key strategic asset in the Mediterranean. This news was promptly denied by RIA, which said that "there were no Russian military ships off Syria coast" and that the Iman ship is a tanker which is merely conducting resource support functions. Furthermore, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, the crew of Iman consists solely of "civilian personnel, which is being guarded." That may or may not be the case, but has not stopped ABC from blasting, minutes ago, a headline that "Russian anti-terror troops arrive in Syria" a development that a "United Nations Security Council source told ABC News was "a bomb" certain to have serious repercussions." Which begs the question: is everyone now dead set on having war in Syria, and by proxy, Iran?

From ABC:

Russia, one of President Bashar al-Assad's strongest allies despite international condemnation of the government's violent crackdown on the country's uprising, has repeatedly blocked the United Nations Security Council's attempts to halt the violence, accusing the U.S. and its allies of trying to start another war.


Now the Russian Black Sea fleet's Iman tanker has arrived in the Syrian port of Tartus on the Mediterranean Sea with an anti-terror squad from the Russian Marines aboard according to the Interfax news agency. The Assad government has insisted it is fighting a terrorist insurgency.


The Iman replaced another Russian ship "which had been sent to Syria for demonstrating (sic) the Russian presence in the turbulent region and possible evacuation of Russian citizens," the Black Sea Fleet told Interfax.

Here is where ABC's report gets a little screwy:

RIA Novosti, a news outlet with strong ties to the Kremlin, trumpeted the news in a banner headline that appeared only on its Arabic language website. The Russian embassy to the U.S. and to the U.N. had no comment, saying they have "no particular information on" the arrival of a Russian anti-terrorism squad to Syria.

Actually no, here is what RIA did say about the development, google translated: (original can be found here)

Defense Ministry denied the information circulated a number of media that the coast of Syria are ostensibly Russian warships.


"No Russian warships, performing tasks from the shores of Syria, no. In the Syrian port of Tartus 10 days of the ship auxiliary fleet tanker" Iman "which performs the tasks logistics - the replenishment of fuel and food - of the Black Sea and Northern Fleets, which provides security shipping in the Gulf of Aden anti-piracy ", - told RIA Novosti representative of management information and the Defense Ministry.


Previously, some Russian and foreign media reported that the Black Sea Fleet tanker "Iman" on board which is a group of Marines, ostensibly to perform combat missions off the coast of Syria.

ITAR-TASS denied as well.

Which is rather odd - one would imagine that when reporting on such potential warmongering scenarios fact-checking would be rather important. It appears not.

Either way, ABC continues:

Last week Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia had no plans to send troops to Syria.


"As for the question whether I consider it necessary to confront the United States in Syria and ensure our military presence there… in order to take part in military actions -- no. I believe this would be against Russia's national interests," Lavrov told lawmakers, according to RIA Novosti.

So... Buy crude or yes? Because it has been a whopping 48 hours since we heard anything from Israel ever since its security council proceeded to give the go ahead in a 8-6 vote to attack Iran.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Normalcy Bias's picture

But, won't it distract people from the economic recovery?

NeoRandian's picture

Well, it will spare the media from having to invent stories about how everything will be better soon. I wonder if there were such narratives during the great depression.

johnQpublic's picture

i can see by your coat my friend, you're from the other side, just one thing i gotta know, can you tell me please, the one

ACP's picture

We'll see how much impact it has. The NY Fed has the rest of the building it used to rent, plus 400 traders to keep this market ramped. Not to mention the fact that they can't possibly run out of cash to ramp equities/suppress commodities because money to them is an infinitely renewable resource.

redpill's picture

We can't "save" the Syrians, and anything we do to try is likely to make things worse.

Dr. Engali's picture

You're operating under the assumption that we are trying to save them. We are more than likely trying to save them from the heavy burden of their gold and oil. We will provide them with some pretty green fiat. It's still green isn't it?

redpill's picture

I get the score, and obviously so do the oligarchs, but the only way to ever hope of getting it stopped is to do whatever you can to pull the wool off the eyes of the average American.  Saying something like "based upon our history in the region, if you stop and think about it anything we do in Syria is probably going to make things worse" gets very few objections these days, and begs the follow-up of, "why do we support politicians who continue these sorts of actions?"  That second question, however, which tries to connect an obvious truth to a logical voter response, only gets confuzzled stares as people try and fail to fit such a position into the red team vs. blue team paradigm box.  Lots of work to be done.

Al Huxley's picture

"why do we support politicians who continue these sorts of actions?"


Because even when people vote for candidates who claim to oppose these actions, they change their tune as soon as elected.  Every 2 years it's going to be about change, and every 2 years it's just more of the same.

AnAnonymous's picture

If only US citizens living in the US of A had guns to fight their treacherous government.

Alas, US citizens of A have forsaken stacking guns. They have all forgotten about it. They believe their government propaganda.

And now, now, US citizens living in the mecca of US citizenism, the US of A, are left helpless.

Knowing US citizens' deep committment to truth, justice and freedom, no doubt, if they had only one 9mm for one hundred of them, they would charge the government and end the politicians scheme.

One has to remember that politicians in US citizenism do not rule with the consent of the governed.

They draw their authority from themselves. Nothing else.

Draftsmen running the wilderness, trying to capture US citizens to feed the army roster.


redpill's picture

It's obvious why the establishment is giddy about a Romney candidacy.  They'll own both horses in the race, and we'll see this same sick refrain played out again for another X years.


AnAnonymous's picture

In US citizenism, the elite is no leader, they are managers.

Those wars are by popular will. People who think that the US citizen elite can push the war genie back into the bottle, are in for a shocking discovery.

There is domestic pressure in the US. The US People want wars and the opportunities that go with.

Any politician who will deny that pressure, well, better to have a trustworthy security network because time will run short on him or her.

Big Corked Boots's picture

We want war? Wow. I miss the good old days - y'know, when US citizens just blobbed up.

Cathartes Aura's picture

no doubt you do - things are moving pretty fast these days tho'

CompassionateFascist's picture

Somewhere in China, there is a dog yet uneaten by Anonymous.

Cathartes Aura's picture

I know this will be unpopular, but I enjoy AnAn's messages. . . he's quite droll and often very subtle with his humour - but I understand how those who want to identify as "US citizens" would find the words irritating. . . he's inspired some great replies though.

while addressing "trolls" - not everyone who takes a stance against the general grain of the majority here is a troll - aren't trolls just there to hijack discussions or threads?  some of the obvious "hamy" or "robo" ones certainly do that job well. . . simply putting up a dissenting note to the majority harmonising helps to open up the posts to other ideas outside the echo chamber, prevents in-breeding y'know. . .

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Cathartes Aura said:

I know this will be unpopular, but I enjoy AnAn's messages. . . he's quite droll and often very subtle with his humour - but I understand how those who want to identify as "US citizens" would find the words irritating. . . he's inspired some great replies though.

I agree with you. I'm actually becoming fascinated by his theory of historical propagandized economic resource extractionary depletionism as an ideology of global domination, also known as US citizenism. There are a few points that I'm not quite clear on and I'm hoping that I can overcome, as a US of A citizen, my surroundings of US citizenism in order to facilitate a better understanding.


Cathartes Aura's picture


yes I had you and akak in mind when I mentioned "great replies" - riffing on posts is fun when it's actually witty, not just abusive. . .

I note AnAn has been turning around his votes, getting more ups than just auto-downs. . . but then, I'm weird that way, pattern recognition and observation stuffs. . . must be hanging with the hennies too much. . . hey, happy vernal equinox, all stations go!

akak's picture

Somewhere in China (potentially, anyway), there is an unshat spot of roadside just waiting for a squatting Chinese citizenism citizen.  But it is not their fault -- publicly shitting, spiting and picking their noses is simply their eternal nature.  Oh, and the blobbing-up --- never forget about chinese citizenism blobbing-up.


I am the Great Stoolman Mousy Tongue, conquerer of Tibet and murderer of tens of millions of my own citizens (making me the greatest human monster in all of world history), and I approve this message.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

US citizenism is blobbing up from the ground like a bubbling crude. It is very much like Jed Clampettism.


akak's picture

And Automatonistic Running Dog Chinese Citizenism Algebraic Coconutism.

Dr. Engali's picture

Yeah I a'm aware you know the deal RP. I had a conversation with a client this morning who kept going on about how he is worried about Obummer getting reelected and how he will go for broke. Then he talked about the republican field. Mentioned everybody but Ron Paul. When I started telling him I'm a Ron Paul supporter and why, he responded " yeah I like Ron Paul too but..... ". I have conversations all the time with republicans and democrats both. It drives me nuttier than I already am.

redpill's picture

"And that," I said to my grandchildren who grew up in a world of chaos, "is how the world went to hell."

tickhound's picture

There's some good stuff/comments above...

We're given a false choice from the beginning.  By the time we cast our vote for President, the vote is irrelevant.

It has to start pre-primary, on both sides.  A complete and total rejection of establishment politics and economics.  Which has to, and most likely will, coincide with the rejection of what we dub now as 'mainstream media.'  With current talking heads demonized to the point of taboo. 

One outlet cheers an insurance company as it bashes Obamacare, the other plays to those 'evil insurance companies' - Meanwhile we watch our premiums rise, as the insurance companies BITCH about a 10% jump in a week following O-care's passage.  And I have to sit with people at work who argue about these false choices ALL FUCKING DAY.  Right now, this country deserves what it gets.

Should we make it there... 2012 is an election already over.

NeoRandian's picture

Today in a restaurant I overhead this question, "So is Obama the president of Hawai, too?"

This was from an adult. And spoken in perfect english. Not a tourist or a high schooler. 

tickhound's picture

The reason many US Americans can't find the United States on a map is because they don't have access to maps, as in the Iraq and South Africa like such as. 

World Peace.

Thank you.


now what we are REALLY AFRAID to know, is how many judges and viewers at home actually LIKED her answer.

Sisyphus's picture

I gave you a green. That's one gem of a response, Sir/Ma'am! I wonder how many people can identify the source. Brilliant.

You should have had 200 greenies by now.

akak's picture

That braindead beauty queen with all her mindless babbling about "US Americans, and such as" eerily reminds me of our chinese citizenism dishwasher friend AnAnonymouse and his equally inane jabber about "US Citizenism" and the supposed eternal nature thereof.

tickhound's picture

ya know, its an observation worth mentioning

geekgrrl's picture

<shakes head>

OK. This is exhibit A that we do not live in a meritocracy.

Blotsky's picture

With the way things are going green doesnt sound to bad...

Sudden Debt's picture

We shouldn't....
But still...
Maybe only one nuke?

redpill's picture

you mean tactical kinetic nuclear activity?

resurger's picture

Blow Nukes in the air and EMP the entire world...

make it fair FFS!



Ms. Erable's picture

It could be sold to the populace on the nightly news as 'an uncontrolled fission reaction testing energy output for peaceful purposes'. That'll get the enviromentalist nutjobs solidly behind it, the pro-nuke power reactionaries agreeing to it, and no one in either camp any the wiser about exactly what the hell just happened.

NeoRandian's picture

Why don't you just let a disgruntled, ptsd, drunk, rogue, soldier march into syria with a suitcase nuke? 

memyselfiu's picture

If the Syrians really had any oil, they would have already been 'saved'

Cyrano de Bivouac's picture

The American sheeple are being groomed for war as usual.

t_kAyk's picture

grooming is no longer required.  when the war bell rings, the sheep go all 'pavlov's dog' and start foaming at the mouth. 

Motorhead's picture

Absolutely.  The grooming began years ago.  The US being at war is as common place as, well, the US being at war.

redpill's picture

You sound like a terrorist.  We've always been at war with Eastasia.

Motorhead's picture

Huh?  Oh, yeah, sorry, that incursion into Grenada kept popping into my mind.  The dental profession in the U.S. has never been the same since.

redpill's picture

That's a bit better.  Take your soma, and if you see something, say something.


Motorhead's picture

I will as soon as I find Eastasia on the map.

redpill's picture

lol @ the red arrows in this thread, someone at the Department of War, er "Defense" must be surfing the web today.

Dr. Acula's picture

Maybe they are from patriots who still love their country. USA is not perfect, but it is a shining exemplar of freedom compared to some of the cesspools that litter the world.


redpill's picture

 I see, so opposing bombing other countries excludes one from being a patriot?  How many brown people does one need to advocate the killing of in order to be considered patriotic?  All of them?  Just to be sure?  What's so patriotic about endless undeclared unconstitutional war that kills our soldiers and doesn't make us safer, exactly?  What is patriotic about sending our kids to die in pointless wars? 

How about patriots that want the US government to abide by its own Constitution instead of being a war mongering empire that slaughters innocents and assassinates whomever they want abroad with aerial drones without so much as asking our elected body of representatives if it's ok?

How about patriots that don't want to commit our troops to so many multiple tours of duty in pointless wars that they snap and go on killing sprees?  How about patriots that don't want to see another generation of veterans come home scarred, maimed, and broken for absolutely nothing?  Do you still beileve that bombing or invading Iran is going to make us safer?

Dr. Acula's picture

>I see, so opposing bombing other countries excludes one from being a patriot?

No. I support charitably freeing people by taking out criminal, oppressive regimes. Just like I would call the police if my neighbor was beating his wife. If you don't support it, but still consider yourself a patriot, I guess either you are apathetic to others' suffering and/or don't want to pay for it. You may not understand it, but you are paying the price in the long run anyway by living in a world in turmoil. A world with less free markets and reduced potential for humanity.

Free markets aren't compatible with pacifism. Free markets require force (e.g. police). Even Rothbard's private entrepeneurial providers of security and arbitration would seek out profit, i.e. identify and act against known aggressors. I don't want to pay for others' food stamps, but given that I do pay taxes, I would direct that they be used for moving us toward a more peaceful world organized by division of labor and freedom of exchange.

>How many brown people does one need to advocate the killing of in order to be considered patriotic?  All of them?

I advocate taking out the bad ones. And they don't need to be brown. Remember, USA helped defeat the Nazis.

>How about patriots that want the US government to abide by its own Constitution

That would be nice. But I'm more worried about practical matters than an ignored piece of paper signed by a bunch of strangers 200 years ago without the benefits of centuries of knowledge.