Dehai News

https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/the-likeliest-way-that-world-war  

https://theduran.com/the-likeliest-way-that-world-war-three-will-result/  

The Likeliest Way that World War Three Will Result

16 October 2026, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

The likeliest pathway to World War Three is through a place that’s shown empty on the U.S. empire’s maps of Europe, not even identified at all on most of them, much less indicated by them to be a province of Russia — which it actually is: Russia’s province of Kaliningrad, it’s on the Baltic Sea, sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania. The U.S. empire wants the public not to know about it until this Russian province, which is a blank space on most maps of Europe, becomes conquered by NATO — which has a plan for this purpose (to grab Kaliningrad for the U.S.).

https://theduran.com/kaliningrad-blockade-plan-returns-baltics-ignore-russias-warning/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCjMgJjyzHY

“Kaliningrad Blockade Plan Returns; Baltics Ignore Russia’s Warning”

Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris, 16 October 2026

All right, Alexander, let's talk about Kaliningrad. [The U.S. empire’s maps of Europe — such as this and this and this — don’t even show its existence, much less that it’s (an unconnected) province of Russia.] We have more statements from the the powerful Baltic states which are claiming that uh they are going to now cut off the gas pipeline that goes to that feeds into Kaliningrad. We also have some uh some talk about about more seizing of of ships in the Baltic and cutting off eventually a plan that they're putting together in order to completely seal off the Baltic from uh from Russia. What do you make of all of this? >>  Well, just about a week ago, um the Russian foreign ministry issued a statement that Russia will defend Kaliningrad with all possible means. And the various embassies, the Russian embassies around um Europe then sent uh um published um statements of their own explicitly saying that all possible means included use of nuclear weapons. And the Russian foreign ministry then sent letters to European governments. And then Putin also personally confirmed that the warning had been given. And Lavrov confirmed that the warning had been given. And then in the immediate aftermath of all those warnings, the uh Europeans, the NATO came forward and said that they have no objectives, no plans to take any kind of action against Kaliningrad at all. And we discussed it all in a program that we did then and we said that yes this warning would have a effect but it would take about a week or two weeks that they'd be back and they'd be back to planning again the blockade of Kaliningrad, and sure enough we now see the first signs of it. So the Lithuanians who um were amongst the first by the way you remember there was that meeting with there was that press conference with Mark Rutte and the Lithuanian prime minister was sitting next to him or standing next to him and they were both denying any plans against Kaliningrad or anything of that kind and now just a you know about a week later we see that they're now talking about cutting off a reserve pipeline to Kaliningrad and Nikolai Patrushev who used to be uh Putin's national security adviser and who's now the man who's in overall charge of both the Russian merchant fleet merchant navy um and also it ship building program including the ship building program for the Russian navy which he mostly supervises, he's come forward and said that there is indeed a NATO plan to blockade Kaliningrad and that this is becoming very dangerous and that the Russians are preparing counter measures. So it looks to me as if that nuclear warning from the Russians has already been put away in a drawer. The hardliners in the west in Europe, exactly as we predicted, are back in charge. Perhaps they are not planning a military campaign against Kaliningrad, in other words a ground invasion of Kaliningrad, but it's certain to me that they're preparing some kind of action against Kaliningrad or at least the hardline is amongst them. >> Some sort of a cut off of something of a cut off >> Yeah. >> cargo via via ship, whether it's cutting off the Baltic, >> cutting off of energy. >> Yes. >> How ridiculous would that, would that be if um embarrassing would that be, if if they go ahead and and cut off this pipeline of energy to Kaliningrad while Russia is selling 320 billion in energy to to Europe which something that Novak — Novak has actually put the number from 2022 up till today at 320 billion in energy purchases from uh from Europe? >> Yes. Well, I I think the first thing to say is that this this pipeline is a reserve pipeline. So it it is not in itself going to make an immediate difference to the situation in Kaliningrad. It's more a step towards that blockade which one is I'm sure is eventually being planned. I I I what I also think is that the hardliners in the Baltic states — and by the way, I've heard now some comments, you know I'm attending this conference here, and I've heard over the course of this conference — some information about how just how hardline and obsessive and out of control the Baltic states have become. Um anyway, um they clearly are trying to engineer a military a military clash. I mean that's exactly how it looks to me between NATO and Russia. And undoubtedly they have the support of some people probably the British no doubt others um probably Macron as well um in order to try to do this. I I don't think they're ready yet. And I but I do think that if we ever do get towards an actual blockade, I think this is one one area where the Russians absolutely cannot afford to retreat. they will take action because they have to defend Kaliningrad because Kaliningrad is part of their country and Putin is constitutionally obliged to take action and so is the Russian military. So if we get to a situation where there's a military blockade of Kaliningrad I think quite I mean in it is a certainty that the Russian military will be activated and will start to take action against the Baltic states. Uh um and I think people do need to understand that even though I don't believe they do. >> What are the Baltic states trying to do? I mean you they're trying to engineer I understand they're trying to engineer a conflict between NATO and Russia. >> Yeah. >> In the belief that that, what that uh that NATO is going to defeat Russia, and then they'll be able to to dismember Russia to Balkanize Russia like Kallus said a couple of years ago. I mean, is that is that their their thinking? Their the ultimate goal for the Baltic nations and and the British who are behind the Baltic nations and then you have guys like Sikorski and the neocons who are also behind these these types of uh of plans and initiatives. The ultimate goal is is to get NATO into a conflict with Russia, believing that NATO is going to destroy Russia very quickly. And that's what NATO generals are actually saying, like guys like uh Grynkewich [THE HEAD OF U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND, AND SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER EUROPE-NATO, WHOSE ONLY BOSS IS THE LIAR TRUMP WHO FEIGNS OPPOSITION TO NATO YET RUNS NATO THROUGH THIS PRO-NATO ANTI-RUSSIA FANATIC GRYNKEWICH, and who WAS INTRODUCED AT THE WARSAW SECURITY FORUM BY THE BBC’S KASIA MADERA] and these guys are actually saying that if it if there was some sort of a conflict, NATO has a plan that will that will defeat Russia pretty much within a week's time, and we don't even need the US. [That crucial last clause — stated by Christoforu with Mercouris nodding yes — is FALSE: on October 12th, Reuters had headlined “NATO commander Grynkewich warns Russia attack would be ‘utterly futile’”, and opened with “NATO’s top commander bluntly warned Russia on Monday that his forces would destroy 'anything and everything' involved in any attack if Moscow was 'foolish enough' to launch an assault on alliance territory”; so that if the Baltic nations invade Kaliningrad and Russia then invades the invaders, then the U.S. will enter WW3 to conquer Russia; and I will have more to say about this Christoforu-Mercouris false allegation in my comments below.]  That's how that's how easy it'll be. We don't even need the US to to do this. I mean, is this the thinking? Is this the Kool-Aid that that they're drinking? >> Yes, that's exactly what they're thinking. I I I think that in the Baltic states there are political leaders who absolutely think this um and they also see that the situation in Ukraine is going bad. I think they are furious over the diesel oil deal because it even if it doesn't really undermine sanctions. it appears to and the Baltic states incessantly demand more and more sanctions and consistently oppose any attempts to relax sanctions. So yes, I do believe that this is what they're thinking and this is what they want to achieve and I think they're now taking the first step. They've taken several steps, but this is one particular step they've taken to try to move forward to that objective. Now, they are they are obviously catastrophically disastrously wrong, incredibly dangerously wrong. But this is the problem. Um, the West, NATO, the United States has never publicly called them into line. It has never told them, "Can you please stop talking in this way? Um, this is absolutely unacceptable and inappropriate behavior. You cannot talk to a nuclear superpower in that fashion. you absolutely must not even dream of trying to involve us in another world war against one of the big-two nuclear powers." Um and um in the absence of anybody talking to them in that fashion and basically showing them the door, they always come back and they try to agitate and arrange for this confrontation for which I have no doubt that they yearn for. And I think they are sublimely sure that in a military confrontation with the West, the West would win. Uh just as, well, um, you know, Mossad was sublimely sure or appeared to be sublimely sure that when the United States attacked Iran, Iran would crumble and it'd be over in three days. I mean, you know, I'm afraid that is the kind of delusional thinking that has taken hold now. >> Well, my my final question is why why is it the responsibility of the United States to do this? I mean, the United States benefits in a way in a weird way. They do benefit from a conflict in in Europe and Russia. Once again, they're far away — they can just sit back and watch, provide the weapons and support and okay, if Russia, Russia loses and is smashed, for the United States, that's super. If Europe loses, it doesn't hurt, it maybe it even benefits the the United States in a weird way. Reconstruction, more control of who knows? I don't know. As long as it doesn't go nuclear, right? >> Absolutely.  As long as it doesn't go nuclear for the United States, they can. Yeah. They can kind of sit back and also look out. They have troops in in Europe and okay they have many troops in Europe. I I don't know how they would deal with something like that but you're perfectly right and somebody should point that out to the Europeans. Yeah. I mean that that that um um they are assuming that in a conflict with the Russians the the Americans would be there for them. Um just as the Persian Gulf states also assumed that the Americans would be there for them. It it I I mean the scenarios that you have outlined, I am not saying that they would happen, but I personally the Americans leave the Europeans hanging out to dry. Um I would not be surprised. I mean um you know that the United States would risk its entire existence in order to help Estonia. I mean I I I I find that well absolutely. Um Charles de Gaulle by the way who was a wise man was already was already warning about this back in the 1960s. He had a meeting with JFK in which he said to JFK am I seriously to believe that you would risk New York for Paris? >> No. No, not at all. No. So, So would would the US risk New York for Tallinn? No chance in a million years. >> Well, exactly. But but as I said, I the point is this is not this [fact] has never been spelled out to the Baltic states. I mean, people like Grynkewich, for example, far from telling the Baltic states to, you know, to to calm down a stop talking like this and stop behaving like this. come along and make statements. If there's a war with the Russians, we can win tomorrow. We can win very, very quickly. It's as if he's almost encouraging them. (12:28) (End is at 16:29.)

——

MY COMMENTS:

Grynkewich’s full speech included “In executing what I’ve outlined above, we are not seeking to impose a strategic defeat on our adversary, nor do we need to do so. Rather, we are only seeking to stop any attack in its tracks, to deny the ability to seize and hold our territory. Achieving this requires the tactical and operational defeat of the forces being employed against us, but no more.” Crucially, this statement PRESUMES that Russia in that situation — of having lost the conventional-war stage of WW3 — would capitulate, NOT (nor be obligated by its right of self-defense if it were to) then initiate the nuclear stage of WW3 by unleashing its thousands of nuclear weapons obliterating the U.S. and its colonies (‘allies’). This assumption — that it would’t go nuclear — is what the ‘brilliant’ military planners (such as Trump) and the empire’s propagandists (such as Grynkewich and its stenographic ’news’-media such as BBC and Reuters), NEVER publicly discuss, but hide from the public. Even Christoforou-Mercouris and almost all other pro-Russia commentators don’t mention it. But I (who likewise endorse Russia in its war against the hyper-aggressive hegemonic U.S. empire) do and will.

FURTHERMORE: if instead Russia WINS the conventional-war stage of WW3, no one doubts that the U.S. empire will then initiate the nuclear stage, which would annihilate both sides. BOTH sides in such a nuclear war — and most of the human and many other species — would be virtually, if not totally, destroyed by such a nuclear war (not immediately when it ends, but from the after-effects).

The BIG LIE by commentators is that to “aggress” is necessarily to militarily invade, NOT — even before that — to entrap the opponent so that its only remaining options are either itself to invade the opposite side in self-defense, or else to capitulate to it. Nowadays, most aggressions actually consist of coups, subversions, etc., some of which need to be defensively responded to by invasions, which are NOT aggressions; e.g., Russia’s invasion against America’s colony — since 2014 — Ukraine, on 24 February 2022, to prevent a U.S. missile becoming placed a mere 300 miles from The Kremlin, on Ukraine’s border (which was America’s aggressive intention).

The BOTTOM LINE here is that it was the U.S. Government ITSELF — and NOT Russia — that STARTED this war, by the U.S. regime’s taking Ukraine during 20-27 February 2014, which initiated the war in Ukraine. Starting a war is called “international aggression” or “aggressive war,” and constitutes the most heinous of all violations of international law. NATO (which is controlled by the U.S. regime) is the aggressor in this war, and the ONLY real question now is: HOW will this war END?

Either U.S.-and-allied billionaires will recognize that they have bitten off more than they can chew, and quit, or else the world will be destroyed in an unprecedentedly brief and unprecedentedly destructive third World War. The propaganda has not leveled with the public. This war, if it goes nuclear, will bring the end of everything. And yet the U.S. side wants it. The Russian side definitely doesn’t. But would the Russian side capitulate, as the U.S. side expects?

Trump’s silence about this matter makes clear what he wants, and he (like virtually all of Congress) expects to win WW3. The U.S. empire hides what it’s goal is: all-encompassing global dictatorship. For some reason, Russia, China, etc., aren’t willing to call a spade a spade. Are they still dancing around ‘multi-polarism’ instead of facing up to the reality of the U.S. regime’s demanding mono-polarism, and the only alternative to that being a bi-polar world between a declining U.S. empire versus an increasing everyone else? If that “everyone else” won’t soon ally together against the hegemonic U.S.-Israel Axis, it will be picked off by those Axis powers one by one. This time, America, not Germany, heads the Axis powers — the powers that seek a global dictatorship. Compromise with them is not possible. They demand: “You’re either with us, or you're against us.” Has nobody even noticed that that is bi-polar, not ‘multi-polar’? It’s like Hitler. Will the world again not even notice till it’s already too late?

—————

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.