Department of Defense Dusts Off Cold War Planning, WWIII Readiness Based on Propaganda


And for today’s edition of “How the Propaganda Rolls”, we bring you stories from the Department of Defense and the Department of State, a snippet from the Ukrainian News Agency, and a link to Congress. It seems that our reliance on information from sources outside the fishbowl here at 4&20 have kicked up a hornet’s nest, so we’ll keep it mainstream today. Well, when one reads between the lines, it even becomes easy to see how the puppet masters work their magic through normal channels.

First off, we have Army General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff speaking at the Aspen Security Forum, and quoted at the U.S. Defense Department’s DoD News website:

Russia’s decision to fire artillery from within Russia onto Ukrainian military positions transforms the security environment throughout Eastern Europe, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said here yesterday.

“You’ve got a Russian government that has made the conscious decision to use its military force inside of another sovereign nation to achieve its objectives — first time, I think, probably, since 1939 or so that that’s been the case,” Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey said at the Aspen Security Forum.

One just needs to read all the headlines generated by the U.S. government’s public statements, and they’d come to the conclusion that Russia decided to just dispense with letting it’s soldiers in Ukraine fight the battle. They might as well just do it in plain sight themselves. Propaganda accomplished.

But one just needs to jump over to John Kerry’s U.S. State Department’s website, and look at yesterday’s daily briefing — which was held while all of the propaganda was being issued, and the MSM duly reporting it, and the American public slopping it up. Here’s the State Department’s spokesperson starting off with an accusation: “They’re firing artillery from within Russia” and ending up — as the result of some tough questioning — admitting that they “don’t have definitive information about how those Ukrainian jets were brought down.” 

MS. HARF: They’re firing artillery from within Russia to attack Ukrainian military positions.

QUESTION: Do you believe that rockets, missiles, artillery, whatever fired from Russian territory took down these two Ukrainian planes, or do you not even have confirmation yet that that happened?

MS. HARF: We’re still looking into exactly what brought down those planes.

QUESTION: But about —

QUESTION: So you’re sure that they did?

MS. HARF: I said we’re still looking into it.

QUESTION: Are you sure – I know. You’re sure that the planes went down?

MS. HARF: Oh, that’s my understanding. Yeah.


MS. HARF: I haven’t heard otherwise.

QUESTION: But you don’t know. I mean, the Ukrainians have said, the Ukrainians have claimed that they were shot down from – by – whatever, from Russian territory.

MS. HARF: There are some conflicting reports about the location of the —

QUESTION: And you haven’t yet made a —

MS. HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: — determination. But you are —

MS. HARF: Because we don’t make determinations until we have facts, and then we present them to you as much as we can.

QUESTION: But – yes, but you are not – you are sure that the Russians are firing artillery?

MS. HARF: We have information, yes —


MS. HARF: — that shows that. Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. But you don’t have information that they shot down the —

MS. HARF: We don’t have definitive information about how those Ukrainian jets were brought down.

Notice how General Dempsey makes a definitive statement about the Russian’s “decision to fire artillery”, and the State Department Spokesperson Harf saying “We don’t have definitive information.” Thats how the propaganda rolls. Unfortunately, the reporter who questioned the veracity of the information coming from State won’t get far, as the “definitive statements” coming from “sources” will drown out the truth.

Now that we see how the propaganda is created, we can look further to see the dangers. Leave aside for a moment General Dempsey’s hypocrisy: “You’ve got a Russian government that has made the conscious decision to use its military force inside of another sovereign nation to achieve its objectives” that ignores how our government invaded Iraq on false pretexts and killed tens of thousands. Where does this lead us?

Well, first off, it includes a bit more propaganda from Gen. Dempsey:

Russia’s violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty have triggered a rise in nationalism around Europe, the chairman said. “If I have a fear about this,” he added, “it’s that Putin may actually light a fire that he loses control of.”

So he’s actually going to throw away a century of modern history about nationalism in Europe and Eurasia, two World Wars, and blame Putin for the deep-seated and lingering nationalism that has fueled hundreds of confrontations in Europe in the last century. If there’s one thing that most historians and people well-read about WWII know, is that the defeat of Germany did not purge nationalism from the continent. Indeed, many people say that it was the Soviet’s reluctance to purge nationalism from Ukraine that is the root of the civil war that is ongoing (and the nationalism our country is exploiting to meet our strategic goals there).

And Dempsey adds a bit of revisionist history to the mix:

Russian leader Josef Stalin invaded Poland on Sept. 17, 1939, claiming to be protecting ethnic minorities living there.

Well, no. The history of the beginnings of WWII in Europe, and the Soviet invasion of Poland are far more complex than that.  Let’s just say that the statement about “protecting ethnic minorities” is intended to create a sense of parallelism with Putin’s actions in Ukraine with Crimea and SE Ukraine. So we are going to equate Putin’s motives in Ukraine with Stalin’s motives in Poland in our minds. Thus Dempsey sets the seeds for sowing Putin as an instigator behind a potential WWIII. Yep, more propaganda.

And Dempsey’s final statement:

 “…we’re looking inside of our own readiness models to look at things we haven’t had to look at for 20 years, frankly, about basing and lines of communication and sea lanes.”

This is the pivot back to Cold War thinking and planning. So there you have a nice tidy end of the week rendition of how the U.S. is using disinformation, lack of evidence, accusation and innuendo, and propaganda to justify ramping up the neocon/neolib drive to war.

Want to see how NATO is reacting to all of this? Let’s head over to the Department of Defense’s Stars and Stripes and see what Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, commander of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe has to say:

Breedlove said Russian actions in Ukraine require a retooling of the NATO Response Force — a military unit combined from member nation forces stationed across Europe — as well as the creation of new headquarters focused on Article 5 military response in Europe’s north and south. Article 5 requires NATO members to support one another in case of attack.

He also said that NATO needs to position resources forward on its eastern flank in response to the concerns of nations close to Ukraine.

“Pre-positioned supplies, pre-positioned capabilities and a basing area ready to rapidly accept follow-on forces,” he said. “And how we man that in a rotational or nonpermanent basis is what we’re looking at now to propose in NATO and we will be looking at that with the (North Atlantic Council).”

Poland, in particular, has argued for forward supplies and permanent bases to be moved to eastern member states, a measure opposed especially by Germany, which claims a 1997 agreement between Russia and NATO prohibits such a shift. Poland argues the agreement, known as the Founding Act, is no longer valid after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in the spring.

So NATO is on a fast-track to militarize the eastern front again. And Ukraine? What sort of relationship to the U.S. is it seeking? Let’s move on over to the mainstream (for Ukraine) Ukranian News Agency:

The United States of America is considering the possibility of granting Ukraine the status of an ally without membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The Adjutant General of the California National Guard, David Baldwin, announced this during a meeting with Deputy Defense Minister Ihor Kabanenko. 

Baldwin said that the American side highly appreciates its cooperation with the Armed Forces of Ukraine and that it is ready to provide comprehensive support to them.

He stressed that a draft law on prevention of Russian aggression [Russian Aggression Prevention Act], adoption of which will allow Ukraine to obtain the status of an ally of the United States without NATO membership, is currently under consideration by the United States [Congress].

Kabanenko said that the scale of threats and the scope of the required response to the current crisis demonstrate the need for international support for the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, President Petro Poroshenko has asked the United States Congress to declare the self-proclaimed “People’s Republic of Luhansk” and “People’s Republic of Donetsk” as terrorist organizations and declare their members as terrorists.

Poroshenko believes that when sanctions are not working, there are grounds for appeal to the United States Congress to grant Ukraine the special status of a major ally outside NATO (like Israel, Australia, and the Philippines) to enable it to solve its security problems.

Nice. Just what we need: another ally like Israel. Our country has just pivoted to readiness for a return to the Cold War, and/or WWIII. And all without a single coherent statement of justification, rationalization or purpose from the “Commander in Chief.”

Enough said.


  1. Goddammit JC, you’re doing your job, sticking to American-sourced news, but you are not being reverent!

    That does it. You’re off my blog roll.

    Last I read, the jets that were shot down were engaged in military aggression against Ukrainians. Is that, like, you know, OK to do?

  2. Abe Froman

    “Notice how General Dempsey makes a definitive statement about the Russian’s “decision to fire artillery”, and the State Department Spokesperson Harf saying “We don’t have definitive information.”

    This is an incorrect reading of the passage you quoted. The State Department spokesman was clarifying that they did not have definitive information that the Ukranian planes were shot down from fire originating from Russia but was claiming they did have definitive information to believe “artillery fire” (presumably aimed at ground targets) was coming across the border.

    • I think I’ve been around long enough, Abe, to understand that they’ve got nothing. But they make it appear like something, while giving themselves trap doors if cornered. it a professional disinformation operation.

      The US, Kiev, Russia, Israel, NATO, all know what has gone down. The US wants a reason to bear down on the Russians, and have not been given one, so they just make shit up. If you stick to American sources, they get away with making shit up. If you travel abroad for reporting too, they don ‘t.

      So who was criticizing these guys for not sticking to American sources?

    • Abe Froman

      Pretty sure between Russia and NATO there is plenty of disinformation to go around for everyone. Im also pretty sure the plane was shot down by Russian allied & supplied Ukranian militia and was an accident, that all sides will try and spin it their own way for maximum effect and eventually the whole thing is going to quietly die down and be forgotten when the next ‘big crises’ comes along for the media to orgasm about. There will be no fighting between the US and Russia. By fighting I mean open warfare.

      • Agree with last line. As I understand it, a Buk system inside Russian territory could not have shot down the airliner, would have to have been caterpillared in, which cannot be done without satellite knowledge. Otherwise, missile could not cover necessary distance. Buk is battlefield system.

        Ukraine has Buk systems, or assembled pieces enough to make one, rebels do not. However, they are large and sophisticated, taking a convoy of five or six vehicles to move about, and 15-17 highly trained operators to run them. There’s been no anecdotal evidence of such movements, and Ukraine I read does not have the trained personnel to run them. That woudl take outsiders.

        Before the flight took off, all foreign air traffic controllers were moved form their positions in Kiev. After, all radar records were taken and sealed. NH17 was under control of Kiev, so that flight deviation to kill site had to have been ordered from there.

        The aircraft was tailed by two Ukrainian jets that dropped off three minutes before the crash. If it was a surface-to-air missile, satellites have it. If it was air-to-air, probalby not. Did the two Ukrainian jets shoot it down? Hmmmmm

        My guess: a carefully run spook operation, possibly with NATO, US or Mossad operatives behind it. Objective: Discredit Ukrainian rebels, who are winning, and justify stepped-up US and outside violence, which is what Martin Dempsey is all about in JC’s post here.

    • JC

      I shortened the quotes from the State Department to just refer to the jets being shot down — it was a lengthy exchange, and you can go back and read the whole thing if you want — as that was the only point I wanted to get across: the lying about where the jets were shot down from.

      The same goes for the rest of the supposed artillery fired from Russian soil. The State Dept. Spokesperson didn’t have any evidence for that, and the reporter basically said, if you don’t have evidence to show us, don’t tell us about it, and she agreed.

      As to the jets, you can tell the headline writers all over the MSM that they are writing uncorroborated material. It’s all propaganda. I stand by my reading of the briefing and the resulting reportage, and military statements.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,689,716 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,734 other followers

  • July 2014
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: