By Oliver Boyd-Barrett, Substack, 1/1/26

Berletic in his latest article and podcast (Berletic) argues that the US bid for supremacy is accelerating; there is no “retreat” to the Western hemisphere; there is no process of “adaptation” to multipolarism. To the contrary, the US has launched a war against multipolarism. The US continues its proxy war against Russia (I think we should consider it a CIA-led war), persists in its encirclement of China, and, in the Middle East, once again threatens Iran (now enfeebled by domestic dissension and protests as well as by existential problems of drought and pollution).

The US obsession with Greenland, he argues, is far from being a signal of a US wish to retreat to the Western hemisphere (as if that excused such a blatant violation of international law in any case, any more than the ongoing US menacing of Venezuela). The US acquiring or exerting control over Greenland is in fact the US moving closer to Western Russia, where most of Russia’s big centers of population are, including Moscow, threatening Russia to a greater degree, even, than it already does. Alaska is close to Russia but it only close to eastern Russia.

US commanders are currently running the war in Ukraine from Germany; the logistical support for Ukraine is coming from other US proxies Poland and Romania. Greenland will offer an alternative location for rear command of the war as it is undertaken by US’ European proxies, giving the appearance of an “abandonment” of Ukraine by the US, while in fact it prepares a global blockade of Russian, Chinese and Iranian maritime shipping.

As Ukraine collapses, the US will push other US proxies in Europe to come forward to fill the gap left by Ukraine’s collapse of fighting capability, Seizure of Greenland would assist the evolving maritime blockade and in continuing the war against Russia in Ukraine. US military bases in Greenland would be closer to Russia than military bases in Europe, including Turkiye and Great Britain. In February 2025, US Secretary of State for War, Pete Hegseth, told Europe to double down on support of Ukraine, investing in its arms industry capability, increasing military expenditure on NATO from 2% to 5% of GDP, and establishing a division of labor between the US and Europe, with Europe taking responsibility for Ukraine while the US focuses on China.

In Europe the US will position itself in the rear, in Greenland, from which it can supervise the activity of its European proxies in their struggle against Russia and supply the necessary reconnaissance and intelligence. The idea is to pin Russia down and depleted. US proxies will pay the full costs of the conflict with Russia while the US reaps the full benefits. The fall of Syria is an example. Proxies fought the war, the US benefits geopolitically from its collapse.

From 1992, US foreign policy (the Wolfowitz doctine, later refined as the Bush doctrine in 2003) has been driven by the ambition to suppress all actual and potential rivals to US supremacy, everywhere. Even though the latest US strategy paper says that the US policy of supremacy was wrong, it spends most of the time talking about what it must do to stop emergent rivals to US power, even regionally. Nothing in the US will change this; the only source of change can come from without. Such a challenge is most likely to come from China.

A 2018 US naval War College review paper advocated a maritime oil blockade against China and sought to identify ways in which limitations on the possibility of such a blockade could be circumvented. It talked not about blockading ports but about blockading choke-points well beyond the range of most of China’s weapons: e.g. the Malacca Strait (between Malaysia’s Malay Peninsula and Indonesia’s Sumatra, connecting the Indian Ocean – via the Andaman Sea – to the South China Sea) which forms a vital, heavily trafficked global shipping route for energy, goods, and components, rich in history, commerce, and strategic importance, with Singapore located at its southern gateway.

The US marine force has an anti-shipping division that can relocate to such sensitive chokepoint areas to interdict Chinese shipping or other shipping headed for, or from, China. US strategies anticipate how China might evade US actions in relation to such choke points and seek to blunt their efficacy. Destruction of the Myanmar oil pipeline is envisaged as a way to interrupt the flow of energy to China, given China’s limited capacity to control what happens within Myanmar. Since the 2018 paper, US-backed militants have already begun to physically attack the Myanmar pipeline. There are areas along the pipeline that the Myanmar government has had to abandon. If any part of the pipeline is compromised, the whole project is useless.

Here and elsewhere, the US seeking to sabotage China’s Belt and Road initiative. The US is manipulating Cambodia to destabilize pro-Chinese initiatives in Thailand. In Pakistan there is another transport and trading corridor in which China has been investing heavily but where the US backs local militant attackjs, while the US also tries to destabilize the Pakistani regime. The same is true of Balochistan, where Pakistan had allowed China a development area and which the US is now tyring, through proxy rebels, to dismantle. So far as China’s long shared border with Russia, across which China it imports Russian energy is concerned, US aggression against Russia over Ukraine targets Russian energy facilities that in turn affects Russian capacity to supply energy to China if continued for long enough. New York Times articles on the secret war against Russia over Ukraine notes how the CIA has supported drone attacks on Russian shipping and energy facilities in Sebastopol, the Black Sea, and Russian energy facilities in the Caspian, Mediterranean and off the coast of Africa. This reduces Russian ability to come to China’s assistance in the event that the US launches a maritime blockade of China.

US interventions against the flows of oil to China from Iran and from Venezuela, and Marco Rubio’s assertion in January 2025 that US control of Greenland would enable it to control energy flows enhanced by growing navigability of shipping lanes through the Arctic – similar to US attempts to interfere with shipping lanes in the South China Sea – are all indications of an evolving US policy of containment by blockade. All are examples of US pressure on choke-points in the flow of energy and trade to and from China that otherwise might reduce the efficacy of a US maritime blockade of China.