US Consolidates Control Over Proxies Amid War on Multipolarism

February 2, 2026 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - Behind the political theater that is the “US-European split,” exists an aggressive campaign of US consolidation over its many proxies - including and perhaps especially over Europe itself. 

Narratives floating through Western media space depict the US as challenging or threatening not only Europe over control of Denmark’s Greenland territory, but also Canada in North America. Articles are written telling tales of Europe and Canada seeking leverage against Washington and countermeasures to protect themselves and their interests up to and including preparations for “guerrilla warfare” against potentially invading American forces. 

In reality, nothing of the sort will take place. 

Already, opportunities for gaining actual leverage against the United States have been eagerly surrendered to the United States, particularly with the recent decision by the EU for a “complete ban on Russian gas imports by 2027.”

The ban means the EU will completely eliminate any alternative to its growing dependence on US LNG imports leaving the US with disproportionate leverage over the EU as a whole and its members individually regarding virtually any matter of foreign or even domestic policy. It is inconceivable that the EU’s leadership would surrender such leverage to the US amid a supposed and growing “split” with the US unless of course there was no real split to begin with. 

A Matter of Perception Management 

Instead, what is unfolding is perception management meant to shape both the American and wider Western public ahead of implementing the publicly declared “division of labor” and “burden-sharing network” announced by the Trump administration and already taking shape during the previous Biden administration. 

It was under the Biden administration that the first National Defense Industrial Strategy was published - admitting to the US’ failure to match Russian let alone Chinese military industrial production and the necessity for the United States to consolidate control over its vast network of “allies and partners,” combining their collective resources, industrial capacity, and military power to confront Russia and China’s growing power across all relevant domains. 

Under a section titled, “Engage Allies and Partners to Expand Global Defense Production and

Increase Supply Chain Resilience,” the Biden-era paper noted:

“The global activity of pacing threats increasingly requires a global approach to defense industrial relationships, concerns, and competition. International allies and partners, each with their own robust defense industries, will continue to be a cornerstone of the DoD’s concept of Integrated Deterrence. Indeed, the global system of alliances and partnerships is central to the NDS, which calls to incorporate allies and partners at every stage of defense planning. Such linkages and relationships will continue to be a cornerstone of Integrated Deterrence in resisting and, if necessary, defeating known and emerging threats.”

The paper also noted: 

“The United States has a complex web of friend-shoring-suitable alliances and partnerships around the world; a partial list includes Australia, Canada, the European Union, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.”

The paper defines “friend-shoring” as, “a process that engages allies and partners in production and processing of critical and strategic materials and supplies.” 

The concept of the US exploiting its “web” of “friend-shoring” partners to compensate for the US’ own limits regarding military industrial production and to serve as an extension of America’s own military power has been continued - even accelerated - during the subsequent Trump administration. 

In a February 2025 directive US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth delivered to Europe in Brussels, he made it clear that Europe in particular would have to increase defense spending from 2% of each member nation’s GDP to 5% which all European nations have subsequently agreed to do.  

Washington’s War on Iran: The Importance of Defending Information Space

January 15, 2026 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - The US has demonstrably continued its war on Iran through the execution of long-laid plans aimed at destabilizing the nation through US-backed protests and armed terrorists targeting major cities over the course of several days.  

This follows a nearly 2 week-long war the US and its Israeli proxies launched against Iran in mid-2025 - only having been placed on pause ahead of the next round of destabilization and military aggression which appears to be unfolding now. 

Amid the US-organized unrest in January 2026, the US has openly backed the opposition calling for armed militants to continue their operations and to even seize government institutions. 

Associated Press would quote the US president as saying, “keep protesting and take over your institutions if you can,” and that, “help is on the way,” in reference to previous threats of US military strikes on Iran in support of the opposition. 

Beyond rhetorical support, evidence of direct US involvement began to surface amid Western media reports. 

The BBC in a recent article admitted - buried deep in the report - that “security forces have also been killed,” implying heavily armed elements amid the so-called “protests.”  The same article admitted that informants contacting the BBC from within Iran were using “Starlink” satellite connections - referring to US-based SpaceX’s satellite communication network. 

This comes as no surprise. As early as 2022, CNN reported that, “the White House has engaged in talks with Elon Musk about the possibility of setting up SpaceX’s satellite internet service Starlink inside Iran,” as one of several ways to “support the Iranian protest movement." 

More recently, Forbes has admitted, “tens of thousands of Starlink units are operating inside Iran,” a metric of how aggressively the Biden administration-era initiative was executed and then continued under the subsequent Trump administration. 

Beyond continuity of agenda between the supposedly “opposing” presidential administrations, plans to back violent unrest inside Iran have been laid out by US policymakers as early as 2009 in the Brookings Institution paper, “Which Path to Persia?” and seamlessly carried out by each successive administration regardless of political affiliation or campaign rhetoric.  

US War on Venezuela is a War on the Multipolar World

January 13, 2026 - (Beijing Review - Brian Berletic) - In brazen violation of international law and abandonment of even the illusion of legitimacy, the United States has launched a war of aggression against the Latin American nation of Venezuela. The operation included missile strikes and the bombing of targets across the country as well as the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by US forces who have since delivered him to New York where he is being put through a show trial.

This attack represents the culmination of a decades-long project aimed at dismantling Venezuela, reasserting Washington’s hegemony over the Western Hemisphere, all while escalating its war against emerging multipolarism worldwide.

Drugs as “Weapons of Mass Destruction” 

The justification provided by the Trump administration for military intervention centers on President Maduro as “the kingpin of a vast criminal network responsible for trafficking colossal amounts of deadly and illicit drugs into the United States.”

US President Donald Trump has gone so far as to equate drug trafficking to "weapons of mass destruction," recycling the same false pretext used to sell the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 to the American and global public.

However, Washington’s own internal documentation contradicts this narrative. The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment in its 80-pages mentions Venezuela only six times. To put this in perspective, Mexico is mentioned 70 times, China 17 times, and even Canada - a close US ally - is mentioned seven times.

If Venezuela’s government was indeed responsible for “trafficking colossal amounts of deadly and illicit drugs into the United States,” and on a scale justifying military intervention, it would have been the centerpiece of the DEA’s report. 

Instead, the report only mentions Venezuela under a section titled, “other violent transnational criminal organizations” and describes "Tren de Aragua" (TDA) as a street-level gang whose drug activities are "small-scale" and limited to the distribution of "tusi," not the “collosal” shipments of fentanyl or cocaine Washington accused the Venezuelan state of orchestrating. In fact, the DEA report does not mention the Venezuelan government or President Maduro even once in the entire report.

The disparity between the administration’s rhetoric and the DEA’s own documented findings reveals the pretext of “drugs” flowing from Venezuela no more a reality than “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq - both deliberate lies told to sell otherwise unprovoked wars of aggression. 

Beyond Just an Oil Grab…  

The true objectives of this war were laid bare during a recent White House press conference following the military strikes. 

In a transcript of the conference, the word "drug" or "drugs" was mentioned only nine times. In contrast, the word "oil" was mentioned 27 times. President Trump’s rhetoric shifted rapidly from the supposed drug threat to the logistical details of seizing Venezuela’s natural resources.

President Trump declared the US would “run” Venezuela and that American oil companies would take over energy production in the seized nation. 

Beyond a brazen resource grab, the attack on and toppling of Venezuela’s government fits into a much larger global war the US is waging both against the concept of multipolarism and its chief proponents, namely China and Russia. 

At the same time the US declares control over Venezuela, it is fomenting deadly violence in the streets of Iran after having carried out direct military strikes on it mid-last year. 

Recent reports in the New York Times admit the US has also been carrying out strikes on Russian energy production deep inside Russian territory itself (via the CIA) as well as conducting maritime drone strikes on tankers exporting Russian energy. 

Venezuela, Iran, and Russia all share  common characteristics - they are partners of and major oil exporters to China. 

Venezuela shipped over 80% of its oil to China. In the middle of the US’ military build up and subsequent blockade of Venezuelan maritime shipping, at least one tanker bound for China was outright seized by the US. 

Zooming out of the Western Hemisphere and accounting for ongoing US war and proxy war worldwide, a larger strategy emerges. Washington is in the process of implementing a long-desired, global energy blockade on China. 

A 2018 policy paper from the US Naval War College Review titled "A Maritime Oil Blockade Against China" discussed the process of closing maritime chokepoints as part of a “distant blockade” just beyond the range of the majority of China’s military capabilities. 

It also noted that China had worked to diversify away from overdependence on these maritime chokepoints, including through the construction of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The paper proposed that BRI routes be targeted and cut. 

Using the Myanmar-China pipeline as an example, the 2018 paper noted that if Myanmar’s government refused to close the pipeline during a US-China conflict, the US could disable it “via air strikes, aerial mining, or other kinetic action.” 

New Year Starts, Same Old US Proxy War Continues

January 3, 2026 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - While the United States government poses as “pursuing peace” with Russia regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine, it is now admitted that the US is overseeing a “supercharged” campaign targeting “Russian oil facilities and tankers” aimed at crippling Russia’s economy and its fighting capacity. 

The revelation should come as no surprise. The campaign of long-range aerial drone strikes conducted deep inside Russian territory as well as maritime drone strikes taking place both within the Black Sea and far beyond it - in the Mediterranean Sea and off the coast of West Africa - requires intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities (ISR) only the US possesses.

Not only has the US made essential ISR available for these attacks, but both the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and at least the US Navy have been implicated in assisting directly in these attacks. 

A New York Times article from early 2025 titled, “The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine,” would admit in regards to repeated maritime drone strikes carried out across the Black Sea that: 

…the Biden administration had authorized helping the Ukrainians develop, manufacture and deploy a nascent fleet of maritime drones to attack Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. (The Americans gave the Ukrainians an early prototype meant to counter a Chinese naval assault on Taiwan.) First, the Navy was allowed to share points of interest for Russian warships just beyond Crimea’s territorial waters. In October, with leeway to act within Crimea itself, the C.I.A. covertly started supporting drone strikes on the port of Sevastopol.

If Ukraine was incapable of conducting their own maritime drone strikes along the coasts of Crimea, it most certainly would not have been able to conduct strikes much further abroad, meaning that more recent strikes carried out far beyond the Black Sea almost certainly required as much or more direct US involvement. 

This has now been confirmed by a more recent NYT article. 

Titled, “The Separation: Inside the Unraveling U.S.-Ukraine Partnership,” the article at first attempts to portray the administration of current US President Donald Trump as undermining Ukraine amid continued conflict with Russia. But the article then admits that just beneath the facade of “peace negotiations,” the US has actually escalated what has always been a US-instigated and US-led proxy war against Russia fought merely through Ukraine. 

The article admits: 

“Even as Mr. Trump bullied Mr. Zelensky, he seemed to coddle Mr. Putin. When the Russian stiff-armed peace proposals and accelerated bombing campaigns on Ukrainian cities, Mr. Trump would lash out on Truth Social and ask his aides, “Do we sanction their banks or do we sanction their energy infrastructure?” For months, he did neither. 

But in secret, the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. military, with his blessing, supercharged a Ukrainian campaign of drone strikes on Russian oil facilities and tankers to hobble Mr. Putin’s war machine.”

This dovetails with reports from October 2025 that US intelligence agencies were assisting Ukraine in aerial drone strikes on Russian energy production facilities deep inside Russia. The NYT article also mentions “tankers,” implicating the US in the series of recent maritime drone strikes carried out on Russian-linked tankers worldwide. 

The NYT article explains further: 

“In June, beleaguered U.S. military officers met with their C.I.A. counterparts to help craft a more concerted Ukrainian campaign. It would focus exclusively on oil refineries and, instead of supply tanks, would target the refineries’ Achilles’ heel: A C.I.A. expert had identified a type of coupler that was so hard to replace or repair that a refinery would remain offline for weeks. (To avoid backlash, they would not supply weapons and other equipment that Mr. Vance’s allies wanted for other priorities.)”

And that: 

“The energy strikes would come to cost the Russian economy as much as $75 million a day, according to one U.S. intelligence estimate. The C.I.A. would also be authorized to assist with Ukrainian drone strikes on “shadow fleet” vessels in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Gas lines would start forming across Russia.”

In other words - the US launched attacks on Russian energy production inside Russia as well as conducted maritime drone strikes on tankers moving Russian hydrocarbons wherever the US could find them - all of this politically laundered through Washington’s Ukrainian proxies - attacks Ukraine itself would be incapable of conducting on its own. 

President Trump Helped Start War with Russia, and is Helping Escalate it 

While US President Donald Trump has repeatedly depicted the ongoing conflict in Ukraine as “Biden’s war,” it was actually precipitated and prosecuted by a combined effort spanning the Obama, first Trump, Biden, and now second Trump administrations. 

It was under the Obama administration that the US violently overthrew the Ukrainian government after years of attempted “color revolutions” stretching all the way back to 2004. 

It was under the first Trump administration that lethal military aid began flowing publicly from the US to Ukraine - a policy option the RAND Corporation in its 2019 paper “Extending Russia” admitted would likely lead to, “more Russian aid to the separatists and an additional Russian troop presence,” policymakers hoped in turn would overextend Russia in the same way America’s proxy war with the Soviet Union had in Afghanistan. 

US Seeks Greenland Grab as Pursuit of Primacy Accelerates

December  30, 2025 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - All under the guise of “pursuing peace” in a proxy war the US itself engineered and is for all intents and purposes fighting against Russia simply through its Ukrainian proxies, the US continues setting the stage for wider and more dangerous escalation - both in terms of expanding an emerging global maritime blockade against Russian, Iranian, and even Chinese maritime shipping, as well as in terms of preparing Europe to feed itself into Washington’s proxy war as Ukraine’s fighting capacity collapses. 

Continued (and now renewed) US interest in seizing Greenland from Denmark serves to accomplish both of these objectives. 

A New Base for Wider Proxy War with Russia 

Existing US military bases in Greenland are located closer to Moscow than any other US military base outside of mainland Europe (including Turkiye) and the UK.

Assuming that open US plans to have Europe “double down” on supporting Ukraine, including expanding military industrial production and arms shipments to Ukraine as well as preparing “European and non-European troops” to actually enter into Ukraine proceed, all under a US-led “division of labor,” US military facilities across mainland Europe and the UK would run the risk of dragging the US itself into any resulting Russian-European conflict. 

This would defeat the purpose of this “division of labor.” Thus the US either reducing its military presence across mainland Europe and the UK or relocating essential operations to Greenland allows the US to provide close, but technically indirect support for European forces fighting Russia in the same way the US is currently providing close, but technically indirect support for Ukraine as it fights Russia. 

Greenland could serve as a base of operations for continued and essential US ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) support, without which neither America’s Ukrainian nor its European proxies could effectively fight and successfully overextend Russia. 

With the US operating outside of most of Europe, it could project the illusion of plausible deniability amid a Russian-European conflict enough to give itself and Russia the ability to avoid escalation into a direct US-Russian conflict - an escalation both Washington and Moscow presumably seek to avoid. 

For the US, the entire purpose of waging this proxy war is to have US proxies pay the full cost of the conflict while the US enjoys the full benefits of it. For Moscow, the Ukraine conflict expanding into a European-Russian war backed by the US is still a lesser evil than a direct US-European-Russian war. 

The US Preparing a Global Blockade 

For years, prominent US corporate-financier funded think tanks have published policy papers planning blockades to strangle all peer and near-peer adversaries into submission. Chief among these adversaries is China.

A 2018 US Naval War College Review paper titled, “A Maritime Oil Blockade Against China,” describes not only a strategy to cut China off by imposing a maritime blockade, but examines all potential ways in which China would seek to circumvent such a blockade and proposes measures to take (which have since been implemented) to prevent China’s success in doing so. 

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) - a network of land routes that allow China to circumvent many of the key maritime chokepoints the US has invested decades of military expansion to threaten - is identified as one of these possible means of circumvention. The paper suggests targeting and destroying these routes, using the Myanmar-China oil pipeline as an example. 

Since the paper was published, US-backed militants have actually begun physically targeting this pipeline (and more recently here). The paper itself suggests that amid any potential open US-China conflict, the US itself could conduct military strikes against such infrastructure. 

US-backed militants have also attacked Chinese BRI infrastructure in Pakistan - particularly in Pakistan’s southwest Baluchistan region where US policymakers have sought to eliminate BRI projects since as early as 2011. 

The 2018 paper also mentions Russia as a key partner of China, sharing a long land border and already exporting huge amounts of energy across it to China. Russia presents a formidable challenge to US plans to strangle China through maritime blockades. Since the 2018 paper was published the US has since begun its proxy war with Russia itself - and more specifically - targeting both Russian energy production itself and Russian energy exports. 

Nominally “Ukrainian” maritime drones have begun targeting Russian energy exports far beyond just the Black Sea and have now carried out attacks in the Mediterranean Sea, the Caspian Sea, and even off the coast of West Africa.  

The New York Times itself, in a March 2025 article titled, “The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine,” would admit: 

…the Biden administration had authorized helping the Ukrainians develop, manufacture and deploy a nascent fleet of maritime drones to attack Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. (The Americans gave the Ukrainians an early prototype meant to counter a Chinese naval assault on Taiwan.) First, the Navy was allowed to share points of interest for Russian warships just beyond Crimea’s territorial waters. In October, with leeway to act within Crimea itself, the C.I.A. covertly started supporting drone strikes on the port of Sevastopol.

The implication is that the US is both supplying the maritime drones being used to attack Russian vessels, as well as “supporting the drone strikes” themselves through deep CIA involvement. More recent “Ukrainian” maritime drone strikes far beyond the Black Sea are almost certainly the product of US support being only possible leveraging America’s global network of military and covert action facilities.