Dehai News

https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/the-insanity-of-the-wests-pro-ww3

https://theduran.com/the-insanity-of-the-wests-pro-ww3-leaders-forcing-russia-to-start-it

The Insanity of The West’s Pro-WW3 Leaders Forcing Russia to Start It

30 September 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

Russia will not allow anyone to participate in placing in Ukraine weapons that can be used to decapitate Russia’s central command, The Kremlin. If that placement happens, there will be a blitz attack immediately by Russia to take out this grave threat, and any retaliation by the U.S. empire, against that defensive measure, would force Russia to initiate WW3. Russia would have the right to do it under Article 51 of the U.N.’s Charter. The presence of those weapons so close to The Kremlin would be equivalent to their use by the U.S. empire for that purpose, because they would be placed there for the purpose of that armed attack — to decapitate Russia’s central command. It was on this very basis that JFK in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis threatened WW3 if Soviet Missiles would be placed in Cuba. The world now stands at the edge of this cliff (the tables turned; now it is America that is trying to do this), because of the leaders of the U.S., and of its colonies (in NATO) — NOT because of Russia, whose national security would be gravely threatened by Trump and his gang if they position those missiles there. 

On September 29th, the retired U.S. Lt. Col. Daniel C. Davis described as follows, in his “Deep Dive,” how dangerously insane the leaders of today’s Europe are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42zH08QK7lw

“European Chaos Over Ukraine /Lt Col Daniel Davis”

Transcript:

0:00

More and more people in Europe are moving

0:02

more into the orbit of where Zelensky is

0:04

now. Zelensky has been saying from the

0:05

very beginning of this war, I'm fighting

0:07

for you. This is for Europe, not just

0:10

for us. We're like the front lines for

0:11

you. So, you're helping us, help you,

0:14

all this kind of stuff. And it's it's

0:15

always been nonsense. And usually I just

0:18

roll my eyes at it. But here in the last

0:19

few months or so, it seems like more and

0:22

more people in Europe are really

0:23

starting to come around to say, "No, no,

0:25

really. I think I think maybe he's

0:27

right." Gary, you have the one with [Poland’s leader]

0:28

Donald Tusk. Is that handy?

0:30

TUSK: “I want to say this very clearly, and I

0:32

would like my compatriots in Poland to

0:34

hear these words. This war is also our

0:36

war. We hear it often both here in

0:39

Warsaw and everywhere else on Earth. We

0:41

often hear people saying, ‘No, this

0:44

isn't our war. It shouldn't concern us.

0:47

Let them kill themselves there or solve

0:49

their own problems. It doesn't concern

0:51

us. We don't want to pay. We don't want

0:53

to sacrifice our money, our time, and

0:56

especially the lives of our soldiers.’

0:58

But we have to be aware and it's not

1:00

about whether someone loves Ukraine or

1:03

whether someone has good or bad

1:04

experiences with Ukraine. This isn't a

1:07

question of simple, obvious, and

1:09

necessary solidarity with a country that

1:11

was attacked by an aggressor [the aggressor was actually America]. It's a

1:13

question about the security and survival

1:15

of the entire Western civilization.”

1:19

Well, okay, I get it why Zelensky would

1:21

say this, because he's doing everything

1:23

he can, is in desperate, to draw you in on

1:25

his side. I get that. But it's it's

1:29

interesting and weird that he's in the

1:31

middle of that comment right there

1:33

literally mocking the concept which

1:35

should be an article of faith like well

1:38

we don't want to get our soldiers killed

1:39

and we don't want to have our countries

1:41

being blown up etc. Good, but then why

1:45

are you literally mocking that idea that,

1:48

I mean do you want your soldiers to die

1:51

etc.? I mean, then he just tags it out

1:53

it's the western civilization. I mean,

1:55

what the hell are you talking about?

1:57

Where where is the real threat from

2:01

Russia to do that? I mean, you on other

2:04

times will literally mock the Russian

2:07

military and say, "Look, they've been

2:09

trying for what is it, I guess in really

2:11

focused terms, for most of this year to

2:14

take Pokrovsk, that, that one reasonably

2:16

sized city in the east, kind of the

2:18

central uh hinge on the entire Russian

2:20

offensive. And they have made some

2:22

success in it. They've made some

2:24

progress.

2:25

Even in the last since our last video

2:27

that we made here, they've made more

2:28

progress. They're moving more into the

2:30

internal part of the city. The same is

2:32

true in Kupiansk in the north. They're

2:34

moving further into that city. But it's

2:36

still, they haven't gotten them. And now

2:40

you want to say that Western

2:42

Civilization is at risk from a country

2:46

that has successfully taken about 1% in

2:49

the last I think it's like 18 months

2:51

inside Ukraine, where there's only one

2:53

army fighting. I mean there's there's no

2:56

rational logic to that. And so you

2:59

literally keep bumping up to possibility

3:01

of having a conflict with Russia and and

3:04

forget about whether Russia would be

3:05

able to defeat you. But if you get into

3:08

a war with them, they could all too

3:09

easily go nuclear. And even if it only

3:13

stayed conventional, why invite your

3:16

soldiers to die and missiles now to be

3:19

flying? Those videos that Gary was

3:20

showing you a minute ago from overnight,

3:21

all these things burning in Kiev. You

3:24

want Warsaw to be that way? You want

3:26

your cities to be the same things. You

3:29

want that to be burning? You want these

3:31

to be images that are coming from your

3:32

country for nothing? Why would you even

3:35

toy with that? And it's not just Poland,

3:38

uh, because also Germany, France, UK have

3:41

said similar things this summer, uh, with

3:43

the the I think it was the French

3:45

version of their their uh Chairman of

3:47

the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, "Yeah,

3:48

they could be coming for us." Germany's

3:50

saying, "Yeah, we're going to move some

3:52

of our troops even into the Baltic areas

3:54

there, because they could be coming for

3:55

us next. We could be at war with them

3:58

coming up shortly." You had Mark Rutte

4:00

saying we could be at war with Russia

4:02

within three to five to seven years. We

4:04

have to be building up, and all this kind

4:06

of stuff. Why why would you be talking

4:08

such

4:10

violent rhetoric that can only have one

4:13

effect on the other side, to make them

4:15

feel you're coming after them and that

4:17

you're preparing literally physically

4:19

preparing for war with Russia? And and

4:23

weirdly enough, I don't I didn't have it

4:25

cut time, but Dimtry Medvedev, who's

4:27

usually a fire brand on the Russian

4:28

side, actually had something posted

4:30

today where he said, "Listen, uh we need

4:34

to be careful with this talk here,

4:36

because, he goes, first of all, I I don't

4:39

know why people keep saying that

4:40

we're going to attack somewhere. We

4:41

don’t, we don't have any interest in

4:43

attacking. Why would we want to go into

4:45

what he called decrepit Europe? We've

4:47

got everything we need in our country

4:49

here. We don't want to send our army to

4:51

take over Europe and to, you know, why

4:53

would we even want to? What's the value

4:55

of doing that? So, they have the stated

4:58

claim that they don't want to, they don't

5:00

have the military capacity to do so, and

5:04

they had the demonstration that that the

5:07

almost the best they can do in three and

5:09

a half years of war is a pretty small

5:10

amount on the eastern side of Ukraine, so

5:14

why would we want to go down that path

5:15

now? He also continued to say I don't

5:18

think that the Europeans are going to

5:19

do this either. And he listed several

5:21

reasons why he thought, which are pretty

5:22

logical. I for one would hope that he's

5:25

right. How weird that we're saying that

5:27

about Dmitry Medvedeve that we, in the

5:29

West, hope he's right that the Europeans

5:31

actually aren't going to do this. But

5:32

then he ends it with a pretty sobering

5:34

and also problematic statement that

5:37

however you could still get a mistake.

5:39

You could still get an an error, an

5:41

accident, something that could spawn a

5:43

war that could then go nuclear, weapons

5:46

of mass destruction was the phrase that

5:47

he used.

5:50

Why do we want to even entertain that

5:52

possibility? There's nothing to gain

5:54

here, folks. There's nothing for the

5:56

West to gain. There's nothing for the

5:58

West to fear. We don't have to fear that

6:00

Russia is going to roll across Western

6:03

Europe. They they had demonstrated that

6:07

the way modern warfare is fought, if

6:09

you're paying any attention at all, you

6:11

can make it so costly for the invading

6:14

side that they're not going to want to

6:16

do it. And as the Ukraine side is and

6:19

the reason why Russia is still willing

6:21

to pay that price is because it's an

6:23

existential threat on their border which

6:27

is in active hostility and has been for

6:29

quite a long time from the West. I'm

6:31

talking back to 2014 [Obama’s anti-Russian coup in Ukraine that started the war]

6:33

but that doesn't exist outside of

6:35

Ukraine and there's no reason for Russia

6:37

to do that, and they've not stated

6:39

anything to the to that regard as well.

6:42

So let's stop being dumb and stupid. And

6:46

now fortunately everybody in Europe is

6:48

not this way. We've mentioned many times

6:50

Slovakian leader Robert Fico and also

6:53

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban

6:55

who this weekend got together actually

6:58

and were talking they were reminiscing

7:00

about how they were suckered into World

7:03

Wars one and two against their wishes

7:05

and they didn't want to get that, and

7:06

they said that's not going to happen

7:07

again. Here's how Viktor Orban put it.

7:10

“Ladies and gentlemen, we did not want

7:12

either of these wars. Neither the

7:14

Hungarians nor the Slovaks wanted to

7:17

participate in either of the World Wars.

7:20

Yet, we were sent to the front and our

7:22

lives were turned upside down for

7:24

imperial interests. With the rebuilding

7:27

of the bridge, both nations expressed

7:30

simultaneously that they do not want any

7:32

more bridge-destroying wars in Europe.

7:35

When I was here for the first time, the

7:37

commissioner for the expansion of the

7:38

European Union, [Günter] Verheugen was also here

7:42

and the three of us expressed that we

7:44

wanted to join a Europe that is a

7:46

guarantor of peace. I suggest that we

7:49

savor the words as it would be about a

7:51

Europe. However, the world has changed a

7:54

lot since then. Just like the old

7:56

empires that oppressed us, now the

7:58

European Union is also a warlike

8:01

project.

8:03

——

On September 30th, the great geostrategic analyst Alexander Mercouris headlined “Trump, Vance, Kellogg test Putin’s restraint and Russia’s Red Line”, and opened:

——

US Officials Discuss Tomahawks for Ukraine

0:00

ALEX CHRISTOFOROU: All right, Alexander, we have some uh interesting statements from US Vice President JD Vance as well as Trump's uh

0:08

Ukraine Russia envoy uh Keith Kellogg who uh made the rounds on US uh media

0:17

yesterday and uh both of them uh said that uh the option for Tomahawk

0:22

longrange missiles is uh being discussed. The final decision will be made by the president of the United

0:30

States. Uh, Kellogg said that uh that they and Ukraine are making lists of targets.

0:37

They're consulting with Ukraine and they're putting together lists of what they're going to to target. He pretty much said everything's

0:43

on the table. Uh, we have Zelensky talking about decapitation strikes [hitting The Kremlin]. He's openly talking about decapitation

0:48

strikes. He's not hiding that. And and you have Vance um being a huge

0:54

disappointment in his statements, basically, uh, repeating all of the nonsense that Trump has been saying for

1:00

the past couple of weeks: uh, Russia Russia's taking huge losses. The Russian

1:05

economy is is crumbling. Uh, when is Putin going to to end this useless war? We as the United States, we want peace.

1:12

We've always been about peace, but uh Putin doesn't want to negotiate on a bilateral basis. He doesn't want to

1:18

negotiate on a trilateral basis. So, because we're all about peace as the United States of America and the Trump

1:24

administration, what we're going to do or what we're considering to do is to send long range Tomahawk missiles to

1:29

Ukraine so that they can be fired into the Russian Federation. Uh these are missiles with up to a 3,000 km range.

1:37

They can be nuclear. And um when I listened to to Vance, I got the

1:43

impression that the decision has been made and perhaps the missiles may already be in Ukraine. And of course,

1:49

Ukraine is not going to be firing these missiles. These missiles will be fired by the United States. It would be a huge

1:55

escalation. But listening to Kellogg, I got the impression that the Trump White

2:01

House is ready to test this Russian red line and the belief that Russia's going to back off. They may not be wrong in in

2:09

testing this red line. I'm not saying that's what's going to happen. I'm not even saying that that the Tomahawks are

2:14

going to be fired into Russia. I think listening to these two's statements that

2:20

that is where we are or that is where we're going. I hope I'm wrong. I hope this is a bluff. I hope that uh Vance

2:26

and Kellogg are just or at least Vance who cares. I hope that Vance is talking trash or just kind of talking talking

2:33

the nonsense that Trump was talking in order to to make it easier to to disengage from Ukraine. I I don't know.

2:40

I I I can't figure out any other reason for what Vance said other than uh than

2:46

they're they're they're paving the way for what will be some sort of of an escalation with Russia. I I don't know

2:52

what what are your thoughts on on everything? ALEXANDER MERCOURIS: There’s a number of things to say here. Now I think the first thing to say about

2:58

uh um launching Tomahawks, um I if this is going to be done from

3:05

the territory of Ukraine, then you are talking about very big installations. I

3:11

mean these are not missiles that you know you can sort of they're not like high HIMARS missiles that are there on the

3:18

back of a truck. Insead, you can you either launch them from pre-positioned

3:25

wellestablished physical sites and locations, you know, large structures

3:31

which of course would be very visible immediately visible to the Russians, or there is apparently or when there is in

3:38

fact a mobile a road mobile system called the Typhon. It has only recently

3:45

entered service with the United States. There are not that many of them and it

3:50

is enormous. I mean this is a big long, you know truck, and all kinds of things.

3:57

It would be, it would again be something which yes up to a certain point you

4:02

could conceal, but it it would be similar in size and scale to a patriot system if

4:10

I could say. CHRISTOFOROU: Did Germany order those or or Germany want those? MERCOURIS: Germany wants those. There not that many

4:17

of them in there, not that many of them so far in service. They would have to be

4:23

produced um in larger numbers. Perhaps the assumption is because of course what

4:29

Vance was talking about was that the United States could sell these systems to the Europeans and the Europeans might

4:37

then pass them on to the Ukrainians. But this looks to me like something that's

4:44

going to take a while to happen even if that decision has been made because as

4:49

for the moment as I understand it there not that many of these systems. So I suspect what has happened and I, this is

4:56

where I think we always, come back to Kellogg because Zelensky has been talking about Tomahawks, has been

5:03

demanding tomahawks for months and apparently he brings them up in every

5:10

single conversation he has with Trump. Now he's become obsessed with the idea

5:16

of Tomahawks. I suspect that it is the Ukrainians who've been talking about particular

5:22

sites and targets that they are thinking about um the

5:28

idea is then communicated to Kellogg, Kellogg booked then acts as the big

5:34

advocate for this within the administration,

5:39

and you can see that in all the many various interviews he has been giving.

5:46

Trump as he so often does listens to these very bad ideas and doesn't scotch

5:54

them right away. And the result is that this whole thing

5:59

begins to develop a kind of you know baton, and um Vance who doesn't

6:10

want to contradict Trump and doesn't want to um speak you know close an

6:18

option that Trump is supposedly still considering, gives this really very weak

6:24

and very bad interview to the US media. So I think that is probably the route

6:31

that's been taken. The problem is um it may seem that you know I'm taking a

6:37

slightly more optimistic line on this than you just were. But um what we have

6:43

repeatedly seen over the course of this conflict, certainly this is true under

6:48

the Biden administration, is that whenever Zelenskiyasks for a weapon,

6:56

sooner or later he gets it. And this is always true under Biden. There has to be

7:03

a possibility that it is still going to be true under Trump. And you could see

7:09

that there are advocates, very strong advocates, Kellogg for example and

7:16

others within the US who will support this. Now the the reason we are now

7:24

talking about Tomahawks, about long range missile strikes against the

7:30

Russians, about targets against the Russians, is because all of these people

7:35

who are, you know, the firm advocates of Ukraine, Lindsey Graham, Kellogg, all of these people, is that they've now, I

7:43

think, finally grasped that the massive sanctions that was the idea a few weeks

7:50

weeks ago, Lindsey Graham's bone crushing sanctions, that idea has

7:55

basically been dropped because um China has basically called the bluff on that.

8:04

India to some extent to a large extent has also called the bluff on that.

8:11

Kellogg still wants to try to force the Russians to freeze the conflict or to,

8:18

you know, stop where they are. So he

8:23

senses his lack of leverage or the US's lack of leverage. Zelensky, of course,

8:30

always wants to take the battle to the Russians because that's what Zalensky does. And it's out of that that this

8:37

disastrous idea of the Tomahawks has come. So I I think this is what this is all about. It's because the bone

8:44

crushing sanctions idea has basically had to be dropped. So now they're coming up with this equally bad [NO, EVEN MORE DANGEROUS] and disastrous

8:53

idea which is the Tomahawks. Now the Tomahawks are supplied to Ukraine and

8:59

are used and you know we we're probably quite a long time from that point. I

9:05

mean it might take even a year as I understand it for enough Typhon systems to be produced to make this possible.

9:14

But if these missiles are supplied to Ukraine and if they are used, then this

9:19

is a dramatic this is a colossal escalation [virtually assuring WW3]. These are strategic systems.

9:26

They have potential ability to be used with nuclear warheads. Um the Russians

9:33

will certainly react. I don't think — It's a mistake to think — that they will

9:38

simply sit on their hands and do uh nothing. Um, one thing which I suspect the

9:47

Russians would do in response to this is that it will be the end, the final and

9:53

complete and total end of any steps towards rapprochement improvement of

9:59

relations between the United States and Russia. CHRISTOFOROU & MERCOURIS: Why would the US, isn't that what the neocons want?

10:05

Well, of course, why would that matter to them? Would that be if that was a Russian retali- response to just?

10:11

Yes. But would be laughing at at that type of response. MERCOURIS: Well, they would be delighted with it.

10:16

And this is partly no doubt why this whole idea is being promoted. By the way, I'm not suggesting that's the only

10:22

response the Russians would make. The Russians might make other responses as well. They are already agreeing to

10:30

provide nuclear reactors for new nuclear power stations to Iran,

10:37

for example. They might start taking more steps there. Who knows? But I I I

10:42

don't want to explore more deeply this program uh future Russian responses

10:48

of that nature. What I am saying is yes, the neocons

10:53

would be delighted about this. The Europeans would be delighted about this.

11:00

But the signature foreign policy that Donald Trump um used to talk about,

11:05

rapprochement with the Russians, all the various plans to build up economic

11:10

ties with the Russians to reduce the American military footprint in Europe,

11:16

all of that will have gone up in smoke. And of course, any idea that eventually

11:22

you might find ways to work with the Russians and draw them away from China where you can forget that forever. 

11:29

——

MY COMMENTS: 

My disagreement with Daniel Davis, Alexander Mecouris, and other analysts I otherwise agree with, is that ever since at least the year 2000, the U.S. Government under all Presidents has always been lying in its saying that it seeks peace instead of seeking further expansion of the U.S. empire; and, so, at this stage, to believe the U.S. Government’s ‘good intentions’ is only for fools. Back on 4 December 2024, I had headlined “Trump is set to continue Biden’s policies on Ukraine”, and I cited as my main reason for saying this, Trump’s having at that time appointed Keith Kellogg as his chief on policy toward Ukraine — I documented that Kellogg is a neocon who (like most neocons) is obsessed for the U.S. to conquer Russia. Any attempt to do that will spark WW3, but this is the man whom Trump chose. That proved Trump to be himself a neocon. (And, of course, almost all of his appointees have been — which is shameful.)

As I had headlined on 28 September 2025, “Why Trump Is Staying With Biden’s Ukraine Policy”, the reason why he does this is that both he and Biden (and Trump during his first Administration) continues the Ukraine policy that Obama had established: for Ukraine to be seized via Obama’s 2014 coup in Ukraine, and (since its border is the one closest to The Kremlin) Obama used Ukraine relentlessly as the battering-ram to finally conquer Russia in accord with the policy and ultimate objective that had begun under President Truman, as the policy for the U.S. to finally take over the entire world. This is the U.S. Government’s ultimate objective; and, so, when Trump appointed Kellogg, I knew that Trump was just as much of a faker about “peace” and “democracy” as the other U.S. Presidents were. (Except for Truman himself, who was General Eisenhoower’s and Winston Churchill’s fool, no faker but only a fool; and also except for JFK, who turned against the Truman-installed Deep State too late to have any effect).

In a dictatorship, if it is to be lasting, it must be institutionalized (it mustn’t be built on only its founder), and America’s certainly is institutionalized — Truman and Eisenhower did that. If Trump now will say no to his neocon advisors and the pleadings from his European stooges, that would be a historic turning-point towards improvement — an acceptance that there is a limit to how all-inclusive the U.S. empire can become. If he instead says yes to them, the U.S. empire’s principle that there can be no limit to its size, will continue, and we are thus now exiting the world, into WW3. 

So, I am less optimistic than even the analysts whom I respect are. We are perhaps at the most dangeous moment in world history. The West’s leaders — and the billionaires whose fortunes have placed them into power (America’s Deep State) — are the root of this problem. They are the cause of it. The entire institution of the U.S. empire will be uprooted, or else there will be WW3. Right now, it looks likelier that there will be WW3 than that the U.S. empire will be uprooted. The wealthier that America’s billionaires become, the likelier WW3 will be, because the billionaires — who proclaim themselves like the war-monger Andrew Carnegie did with his Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — as avatars of ‘peace’ but that do nothing to prevent wars, while many of them are instead propagandizing for wars and virtually all of them are profiting from wars — hype up the public to support wars, not to opose wars. But if Trump says yes this time, and allows Tomahawks in Ukraine, then that moment, WW3, will be now. We will all be falling off that cliff, sooner, rather than later. Donald Trump will make the decision about this. He has to choose between expanding the Amrican empire versus allowing it to end. As Robert Frost said, in his greatest poem: “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, …” That is where Trump stands now.

Here is an excellent discussion of the situation as-of this moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqkUlZH-c0E

“Col Doug Macgregor: Europe No Longer at Peace w/Russia”

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.