The US War for Energy Dominance: Seeking Dominance Over Europe and Asia

Ever another article for New Eastern Outlook. It is titled "The US War for Energy Dominance seeks dominance over Europe and Asia." And I'm going to go into greater detail into what the United States is actually doing versus what it claims it is doing, including regarding its ongoing war of aggression against Iran. Despite claiming they have a ceasefire, they are still firing on targets across Iran. So that that's really not a ceasefire when you really think about it. And in regards to what they claim their objectives are regarding Iran, I will show you, uh, in greater depth what it is the United States is actually doing, what it has prepared for years in advance leading up to this, what it is they're trying to achieve through this war against Iran, and how what is happening in the Middle East is going to reverberate around the world, and especially in Asia, which is the final destination of US geopolitical ambitions. They're trying to prevent the rise of China first and foremost. They're also trying to stop the general rise of Asia. This is to be the Asian century, and the US is determined to stop that from being so. They want it to be another American century, essentially.

So, let me read through this article as I always do. I will read through the article. I will show you all the sources that I cited while writing this article, and I will add additional information when and if necessary. So, the US war on Iran, at face value, appears to be a catastrophic tactical and strategic US failure, demonstrating the limits of its military power and further exposing the limits of its military-industrial capacity. And there is no doubt that the limits of US military power and the capacity of its military-industrial base is on display. It has been all throughout its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Its attempts to rapidly overthrow, say, the government of Libya and then Syria from 2011 onward. That was also a display of weakening US military power. However, in the long run, eventually, inevitably, the United States did manage to overthrow both Libya and render it a permanently dysfunctional failed state. And now they have done the same to Syria from late 2024 onward, all the way up until including today.

So, however, just as with the still ongoing proxy war on Russia and Ukraine, its inability to overwhelm targeted nations with outright military power distracts away from the many ways the US is still advancing its geopolitical objectives by other means. In Ukraine, the US has categorically failed in defeating Russian forces through its support of its Ukrainian proxies. I want to make it clear that before the war even started in Ukraine, the US knew that arming Ukraine would provoke war with Russia. They knew that. That's why they armed Ukraine. Uh, this was in the Rand Corporation paper from 2019, "Extending Russia." And they knew that once the war began, Ukraine would almost certainly lose. So, the Ukrainians losing, the US knew this before they provoked the war, but they did it anyway. So there's something that they are trying to achieve by provoking this war other than militarily defeating Russia in Ukraine. If they could do that, they they would love to do that, but they can't. And even back in 2019, they were pretty sure they wouldn't be able to. So, just because the US military is not dominating everywhere it is used, either directly or by proxy, does not mean necessarily that the US is not advancing its geopolitical objectives. That's that's a a very good example right there in Ukraine.

So, in Ukraine, the US has categorically failed in defeating Russian forces through its support of Ukrainian forces. However, it has used the war to lock Russia into an expensive, prolonged, high-intensity conflict that has demonstrably compromised Russian interests beyond Europe, especially regarding the 2024 collapse of Syria. So, they're actually both connected. The US drew Russia into this conflict in in Ukraine, and it distracted Russia from continuing to stabilize and protect Syria from US-backed regime change, and then the US eventually toppled the government in in Syria. That that was a success that had been a failure up until then. US persisted, and it used non-military means to achieve this, or at least it didn't use its own military power to do this. It was using other tools at its disposal, including proxies that it was working through, rather than its own military forces achieving battlefield victories. The war has also succeeded in cutting Europe off from cheap, reliable, and plentiful Russian energy and is placing Europe under increasing and likely irreversible energy dependence on the United States. That is also actually in the 2019 Rand Corporation paper. They wanted to undermine Russian energy exports and thus starve the Russian state of income from energy exports. And one of the ways they suggested doing that was the US ramping up LNG exports to Europe, and I'm going to get into this because it is in this article. So I will get to that here in just a moment. Uh, but that was also planned years ahead of time, and now we can see it taking shape today. This energy dependence on the US obviously benefits US-based energy corporations financially, but also enhances Washington's strategic leverage, or even outright control over Europe. This control is being used to successfully create a united front across Europe against Russia. People constantly ask themselves, looking at European governments, leadership in Europe, and asking, why are they doing this? They are walking their countries individually and collectively off a cliff because the US is telling them to do this. What leverage does the US have over these these governments that is compelling them to do this? And the answer is everything. The US used the European Union in the first place, over many decades, as a blanket to smother out the individual sovereignty of each European member state. The US did a very similar process to Europe that it does to countries all around the globe through the National Endowment for Democracy. They use different institutions, different tools, but very similar in nature to compromise, uh, the institutions and then thus the sovereignty of all of these European countries by laying the European Union over it as a bureaucratic layer that took over the responsibilities that should have been the responsibilities of each of these individual countries. And the US controls one big bureaucracy over Europe. They don't have to waste so much time, uh, fighting with all the different governments inside the European Union. And you can see there's a couple here and there that are dragging their feet, and the US and its EU proxies, they have tools to to deal with that, and you can see them dealing with it. And you can see, unfortunately, the vector sum of where all of that is headed. It's not headed in a positive direction in terms of European sovereignty. The US has further subordinated Europe. As each year goes by, it becomes further subordinated to the United States and its interests.

In a similar matter, the US is using its war on Iran to strangle energy exports from the entire Middle East to Asia, to decouple Asia from cheap, reliable, plentiful gas and oil, and place it under US energy dependence, thus providing the US strategic leverage over Asia to create a similar united front against China. So, the US did this in Europe to create an obedient united front against Russia. They used political meddling across the Middle East from the Arab Spring 2011 onward to create a united front against Iran. And now they're using this war against Iran that they've that they have finally arrived at to destroy Middle Eastern energy exports to Asia so that they can put Asia under US energy dependence, or at least increased, uh, dependence on US energy, to increase US strategic leverage over these countries to create, or at least enhance, the existing united front the US has against China in the Asia-Pacific region.

So, let's talk about decoupling Europe from Russian energy through war, and how that was all planned all along. It was, and I'm going to show it to you. In the 2019 Rand Corporation paper titled "Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground," there's this paper right here, 2019. This was funded by the US military. So, it's not just some random paper Rand Corporation wrote in their free time. This was commissioned by the US military. And these are all options. And and people ask me, Brian, there's so many policy papers out there. The Rand Corporation even has papers about the US making peace with everyone and and living happily ever after. How do we know which one which ones are real policy papers and which ones are just busy work or even just outright misdirection and propaganda? Look, look at these options in the table of contents from 2019. You tell me which which measure the US hasn't already implemented at least one time already. Uh, look at the economic measures: Hinder petroleum exports. Reduce natural gas exports and hinder pipeline expansion. Impose sanctions. Enhance Russian brain drain. They have done all of these. They have done every single one of these. And I'm going to get into detail here because I I included this in the article.

There is also geopolitical measures: Provide lethal aid to Ukraine. If you go to page 96 and you read this, they will tell you, if we provide lethal aid to Ukraine, it will provoke a war with Russia. Ukraine is almost certainly going to lose. That's what they said in the paper. And then they did it, and that's exactly what's happening. So, there there is a reason they've done this, and it's not because they thought they were going to beat Russia in Ukraine. If they could, they would have. And maybe at certain junctures they've tried. Maybe they're still trying. But they started this out knowing that most likely they wouldn't. So, just keep that in mind. Increase support to the Syrian rebels. Well, Syria completely collapsed. So, that that is that is a complete success. Measure two is a complete success. Promote regime change in Belarus. They've tried that. It failed. Exploit tensions in the South Caucasus. They've done that. It is succeeding. Reduce Russian influence in Central Asia. That is ongoing. Challenge Russian presence in Moldova. That is ongoing. So, as you can see, every single one of these measures, economic and geopolitical, the US policymakers proposed this back in 2019. Every single one of them they've implemented since then. So, that's how you know this is this is a policy paper that is actually connected to real-world policy. This isn't just some, uh, thought thought exercise. This is actual US policy.

So, in the 2019 Rand Corporation paper titled "Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground," a number of economic and geopolitical measures, I just showed you them, were laid out, designed to extend Russia and possibly precipitate a Soviet Union-style collapse like that which ended the Cold War. So, all of these added together are supposed to overextend and eventually collapse Russia. That is the the plan. Not any one single option is meant to succeed. They're supposed to all add up and overextend Russia. Do you understand that? That is a much bigger picture than just the US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. It is all connected. All of these options are connected and meant to contribute to an overall overextension of Russia.

Under economic measures, the paper lists hinder petroleum exports, reduce natural gas exports and hinder pipeline expansions, impose sanctions, and enhance Russian brain drain. The paper first argues that one of the main methods of implementing these measures is to expand US oil and gas production and its export to Europe. However, under a section titled "Likelihood to Succeed," right here, "Likelihood of Success," reducing European peacetime consumption of Russian gas has a medium to low likelihood of success. Diversifying away from Russian from Russia is expensive, and projects might be difficult to accomplish because, in reality, no matter how much LNG the US can export to Europe, it will always be more expensive than Russian energy that's already available to Europe. So, how did they fix that? Let's find out how they because they fixed it. How did they fix that problem? Okay.

So, however, under a section titled "Likelihood of Success," the paper explicitly admits just what I I just read to you: diversifying away from Russia is expensive and projects might be difficult to accomplish. So, reducing European peacetime consumption of Russian gas has a medium to low likelihood of success. However, the paper was far from finished. Under geopolitical measures, the paper lists first and foremost: provide lethal aid to Ukraine. The paper admits extending US assistance to Ukraine, including lethal military assistance, would likely increase the costs to Russia, both blood and treasure, of holding the Donbas region. More Russian aid to the separatists, and an additional Russian troop presence would likely be required, leading to larger expenditures, equipment losses, and Russian casualties. The latter could become quite controversial at home, as it did, uh, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. So, they're talking about triggering a war. And then if you read further in that chapter, they talk about how Ukraine would almost certainly lose the resulting war. In other words, by providing lethal aid to Ukraine, which the US began doing under the first Trump administration, right here, Trump administration approved new sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine. That was, uh, an additional shipment of lethal aid in addition to another earlier, earlier during his administration. So, there were there were several tranches of weapons that were sent to Ukraine during the first Trump administration. That was almost certainly the red line that was crossed that that forced Russia to intervene. They knew that if they didn't, the US would just continue arming and building up Ukraine until eventually, just like with Georgia in 2008, Ukraine would attack, provoke a war with Russia, and then Russia would be faced with this giant, much larger, more dangerous threat right on its border, like it did in 2008 when Georgia attacked Russian troops and precipitated that war. So, in other words, by providing lethal aid to Ukraine, which the US began doing under the first Trump administration, the US would be knowingly attempting to provoke a war with Russia in Ukraine. Not only would the resulting war generate high costs for Russia militarily, it would also obviously transform the chief obstacle to reducing hindering Russian oil gas exports and expanding US LNG exports to Europe. That chief obstacle being peacetime into unending wartime.

So, did you see what they did? They said, "We want to send more LNG from the US to Europe, but there's no way to do that in peacetime." So, they talk about sending lethal aid to Ukraine, provoking a war, and now peacetime turns into wartime. And now, suddenly, it becomes economically viable. Suddenly, Europe ends up almost entirely dependent on the US in terms of energy. They had been getting energy from both the US and the Middle East. But now, as you can see, the war in the Middle East is cutting off Europe from that energy. So, it makes them even more dependent on the US than they already had been up until now. Do you see how this is all working? Do you see what is taking shape here? This is not a coincidence. They planned this. They did it to Europe. Now, they're doing it to Asia. And they, and by doing it to Asia, they're also enhancing their control over Europe.

Indeed, while sanctions began targeting Russia's economy from 2014 onward, the war in Ukraine provoked by the US through its policy of militarily building up Ukraine on Russia's borders resulted in the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines and ever-tightening sanctions on Russian energy exports that have made otherwise irrational US LNG imports to Europe now essential. So, before all of this, Europe buying LNG from the US instead of just taking the energy already coming in from Russia made zero sense. But the US used war that it started to turn that all upside down and make it make sense. To further tip the balance of energy dominance in America's favor, it was revealed by the New York Times in the late 2025 that it was the US Central Intelligence Agency and the US military supercharging a Ukrainian campaign of drone strikes on Russian oil facilities and tankers. Okay, so again, it's a a New York Times article right here. This New York Times article from late 2025, they talked about the Central Intelligence Agency and the US military supercharging the Ukrainian campaign of drone strikes on Russian oil facilities and tankers. So, all of these drone strikes that we see being carried out all across Russia, striking at Russian energy production, storage, and export facilities, that is the US military and CIA overseeing all of that. They admit that. And then the maritime drone strikes targeting tankers carrying Russian energy exports. They're admitting that that is also the US Central Intelligence Agency and military. And by first cutting Europe off from Russia from Russian energy exports, they're trying to cut off revenue to Russia. Russia is pivoting and now it is going to send it elsewhere. But the US isn't done. They're also now, through their proxy war on Russia in Ukraine, they're using that as cover to strike at Russian energy production itself inside of Russia, and also to physically attack tankers carrying Russian energy abroad. So, it is a full-spectrum war on Russian energy production and exports. It's not just pivoting Europe away and removing a market. It is also directly attacking Russia's energy industry itself.

US provoked war provided the perfect means to decouple Europe from otherwise cheap, reliable, and plentiful Russian energy exports that had flowed during peace and had flowed to Europe from Russia even during the Cold War. By the way, while the process of decoupling has taken years and is still in the process of being fully implemented, it has proven successful. So much so, it is almost inconceivable US interests haven't considered repeating that success regarding the Middle East and Asia.

So, let's talk about strangling China, and then let's talk about controlling Asia. US foreign policy papers spanning decades have discussed options, proposed policies, and guided actual weapons and force organizational programs seeking to strangle China economically through blockades, often specifically in the Asia-Pacific region, but also at maritime choke points and ports around the globe. So, let's look at some of those articles. I've repeatedly referenced this BBC article talking about the US Marine Corps and how it was being completely reconfigured. This was under the Biden administration, by the way, uh, being done ahead of time, knowing that the next presidency, whoever it was, was going to need the US Marine Corps to be primarily an anti-shipping force. So, this was back in 2023, and then that this process has since been completed. And the US Marine Corps right now is being used to interdict shipping at the Strait of Hormuz. And they talked about the changes: removing infantry battalions, removing helicopter squadrons, giving up all of its tanks, giving up towed artillery, and replacing it with anti-shipping missiles and other long-range precision-guided weapons. We have this from the US Naval Institute: "Tighten the Belt and Cut the Roads." And this is all about, uh, any conflict with China. The US shouldn't just fight with China like, let's just say, around the island province of Taiwan. The US should strike at ports and choke points all around the globe and completely cut off and strangle China economically. That that is what this whole article is about. It'll be in the video description below. You could go read it for yourself. It is completely insane. And this was this was written 2024. This was from 2018, Navy War College Review, "A Maritime Oil Blockade Against China: Tactically Tempting but Strategically Flawed." But when they say tactically tempting and but strategically flawed, they don't mean just give up on this idea. They talk about why it's flawed, and then they suggest ways of overcoming those flaws and implementing what is a maritime oil blockade against China. And they have maps. They talk about the various choke points, the Strait of Malacca. There's other straits here that China might use to bypass any choke point at the Strait of Malacca. And they're explaining how the US military for many years has been positioning itself to cut off these choke points. They talk about a distant blockade and how the US military could cut off these choke points just out of range of most of China's military capabilities because they admit China's military primarily is designed to defend China, not project military power thousands of miles away from its own shores. And they even talk about the Myanmar-China oil pipeline and how that could be used to bypass any US blockade in the region. Look, they show the this map here. Let me show you another one, another map in this same paper right here. They're talking about Myanmar, and you see there's like a line going through it. That is a pipeline that China has already built and is using to take energy from the Middle East. It offloads at the coast of Myanmar, and it is shipped by pipeline directly into China, which means it does not have to go down through the Strait of Malacca or past this large and growing US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. And so, in this paper, they talk about just outright blowing it up during a time of conflict. They suggest the US should just blow it up to prevent China from using that to circumvent a US blockade in the Asia-Pacific region.

So, let's let's just go through all of this in detail. The 2018 Naval War College Review paper titled "A Maritime Oil Blockade Against China: Tactically Tempting but Strategically Flawed" would list the obstacles facing such a policy and various means to overcome them. It focused on not only cutting off maritime shipping to China at choke points such as the Strait of Malacca and what it calls a distant blockade: a blockade imposed beyond the reach of most of China's military capabilities. It also discussed severing China's Belt and Road Initiative, BRI projects built specifically to enable China to circumvent these choke points. That's why China built the Belt and Road Initiative. That was one of the reasons they built it. And the US didn't just sit there and say, "Well, I guess our plan to blockade China has failed." No, they immediately created plans to cut those projects, cut those corridors that China built over land. At one point in the paper, it discusses the Myanmar-China oil pipeline, which I showed you on the map, which allows China to offload Middle East energy at port facilities on Myanmar's coast and pipe the energy across Myanmar directly into China's southern Yunnan province. The paper suggests, this is a direct quote from the paper, "Distant blockade would also need to interdict the Myanmar-China oil pipeline, which eventually could move as much as 440,000 barrels a day of crude oil, uh, from the coast of Myanmar to Yunnan Province in southwest China. Preventing tankers from offloading at the terminal would require few, if any, naval platforms to remain on site. The area could be declared an exclusion zone for the duration of the conflict. And if the Myanmar authorities fail to comply comply to US demands that they no longer allow this project located in their country be used to move energy through their country to China. If they refuse to comply, the facility could be disabled via airstrikes, aerial mining, or other kinetic action." We'll talk about other kinetic action here real soon. In short, US forces likely would be able to neutralize rapidly China's overland routes for seaborne oil imports to avoid the Strait of Malacca and other choke points further east and prevent them from diverting forces needed to seal other maritime ingress routes. That is the end of the quote from this paper.

Far from just theoretical proposals, the US has been backing armed militants in Myanmar for years, fighting against the central government. These militants have repeatedly attacked the Myanmar-China oil pipeline and have in recent instances attempted to seize territory through which the pipeline crosses. That is actually just last year. I did an article and a video in in March about, uh, Americans and Ukrainians caught bringing in large amounts of military drones for use by these US-backed militants in Myanmar fighting the central government. This is the Irawaddy. This is funded by the US government through the National Endowment for Democracy. And this was an article from 2022: "China-backed pipeline facility damaged in Myanmar resistance attacks." This is from May 2025, just last year: "Myanma halts Chinese pipeline amid resistance attack." So, this has been ongoing for years. This is other kinetic action that they were talking about in the policy paper. This is other kinetic action. You have proxies do it for you instead of you doing it yourself directly through your own military force. In other words, rather than waiting for a US-China conflict to erupt before attacking the pipeline with US military assets, the US has instead used armed proxies to attack it before any direct US-China conflict even begins. And they are now doing that as as we speak. Such attacks serve as evidence that the US hasn't just considered the notion of a distant blockade on China, but has already decided to incrementally impose one. So, the the distant blockade is already being imposed on China. When you see US-backed terrorists and militants attacking the the Myanmar-China pipeline, that is the US trying to impose the blockade on China incrementally, indirectly, but impose it nonetheless. That is the reason that is happening.

The US has backed armed militants disrupting similar pipelines and economic corridors in Pakistan. While the US itself continues growing its military footprint in the Asia-Pacific region to threaten maritime shipping near both Taiwan and in the South China Sea. I've talked about US-backed terrorists in Pakistan attacking the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor for many many years since 2011. I've been writing about this. This has been going on for years and years and years.

However, the notion of a distant blockade isn't restricted to just the Asia-Pacific region. The US war on Iran has created a de facto blockade much further from China still, all the way in the Middle East. The war has not only impeded maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz through both Iranian and US-imposed restrictions, but US attacks on Iranian energy production facilities has resulted in retaliatory strikes on the energy production facilities of Persian Gulf Arab states hosting US troops. So, what has happened is energy production in both Iran and the rest of the region has been reduced through the fighting. Attacks on each other's production facilities means the amount of energy you're exporting has been reduced. So, even if there were no restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz, less energy would be flowing out to both China and the rest of Asia. But because there are restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz, even less energy still is flowing out of the region to China and the rest of Asia. The reduced energy production across the region, coupled with disrupted maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, has resulted in an energy crisis for nations dependent on the Middle East for their energy imports, especially Asia, and including China.

So, let's talk about decoupling China from the Middle East. Asian states like Pakistan, Myanmar, Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand, Japan, and South Korea get anywhere between 50% to 90% of their total imported energy from the Middle East, according to Western publications like Politico. I've showed this article before. That if you go down, they have a map here. Uh, the ones in red, that's 90%. But even China is 50% of their imported energy comes from the Middle East. Even Indonesia, 20%. 20% doesn't sound like a lot, but but it it actually is a lot. You you can't just have that disappear from your daily economic activity and not have it impact your economy and sociopolitical and economic stability in your country. China receives up to 50% of its imported energy from the Middle East. Well, not anymore. Its island province of Taiwan gets over 60% of its imported energy from the Middle East. With production and exports disrupted by yet another US-provoked war, Asian states, instead of Europe, have now been forced to look elsewhere to meet their energy needs. And a lot of these countries are looking to Russia. I know Thailand has signed a deal with Russia. Vietnam has signed a deal with Russia. China obviously is making deals and getting additional energy from Russia. But Russia cannot provide energy for absolutely all of these countries. And they certainly can't do it overnight. And just as the US had done regarding its premeditated decoupling of Europe from Russian energy imports, the US has spent years proposing, investing in, constructing, and even bringing online LNG export facilities, specifically targeting markets in Asia. With this capacity already partially online, it is in place just in time to take full advantage of the energy crisis the US itself created in the Middle East, now threatening nations across Asia.

People will say, "Well, the US doesn't have enough energy to to provide these countries either." And that's almost exactly the point, isn't it? The US doesn't want to provide enough energy for these countries. When when you are a small percentage of the total global population, the US 300 million plus people, but out of 300 plus million people, it's less than 1% of that is actually driving US foreign and domestic policy, and and actually benefiting from it. That tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of the global population wants to control all of the world. How do you do that? Do you do do that by making sure everyone has enough cheap and and plentiful energy so they can have, uh, diverse and robust economies? No. You make sure everyone is screaming from starvation and fighting with one another and in perpetual chaos, divide and conquer. This is what empire has done all throughout human history. That is what the US empire today does. This is how it rules, uh, its empire, its modern-day empire. So, the US not having enough energy to supply all of these countries adequately is almost the point, isn't it?

Nations like Vietnam, for example, have been left with two choices: either leave tens of millions of its people without, uh, energy, including essential commodities like cooking gas, or buy the only alternative available to make up for disrupted imports from the Middle East. Vietnam. Vietnam's state-owned gas major has reportedly purchased up to 66,000 tons of LPG, liquefied petroleum gas, from the United States versus 44,000 tons from the Middle East. It should be noted that this is the first year it has ever purchased US energy of any kind. That is from this article right here: "The Edge Malaysia Vietnam Gas Major Looks to US as Iran War Reorders LPG Flows." Three orders. Not by coincidence, not by a long shot. Vietnam, of course, has close ties with Moscow and purchases part of its energy mix from Russia, and also imports coal from China. A lot of people think China and Vietnam are implacable enemies. It's not true. Uh, Vietnam counts China as one of its most important trade partners, including in terms of sources of imported energy. But neither has sufficient capacity to immediately make up for the over 80% of Middle East energy imports Vietnam depended on that are now disrupted. Other nations, including Thailand, Japan, and South Korea, as well as the island province of Taiwan, have all likewise been forced to seek alternatives. While in some cases, Russia has been approached and able to make up for some shortfalls, the US has deliberately positioned itself as the only other alternative. So, uh, again, here is another article from The Guardian: "From Jakarta to Manila, Southeast Asia turns to Russia to plug fuel, fertilizer gaps caused by Iran war." So, what you see is the US isn't simply, uh, the the plan for the US isn't, well, we're going to provide everyone energy everywhere on Earth. No, they're creating these crises, and they're cutting these countries off, and they're forcing them to become energy dependent on the US. The fact that they don't have enough to supply these countries is is part of the process. It is to make them weaker. It is to make them more dependent, more pliable, less able to tell the US no when the US tells them to do things. Just like we're finding out with Europe, this is what is happening to Europe. This is the process they want to repeat for Asia. For Asia. Luckily, they have not been forced yet to cut off alternatives like Russia or China. The problem is Russia and China cannot make up for all of this. So, at a minimum, the US is enhancing its influence over these countries. It is creating influence and leverage that previously it did not have before it started this war with Iran. And it created these alternatives, these LNG export projects specifically to take advantage of this situation that is now unfolding. The war itself chose to start against Iran. It is taking advantage of it, and it is gaining influence and leverage over these countries that previously it didn't have. So, at a bare minimum, it is going to enhance its ability to pressure these countries in ways previously it couldn't. Even if these countries aren't completely under the control of the United States, the US has now enhanced its control over them. And this is a process that it did to Europe. This didn't happen overnight. We look at how hopelessly subservient Europe is to the United States today. But it wasn't always like that. It is a process where the US gained incremental control and influence and leverage over Europe until they had complete control over Europe. And they constantly eroded the ties between Europe and alternatives. And that's what they're going to do with Asia. People have to think in the four dimensions of time, not just the three dimensions of the here and now. And and look what the US has already done up to now to achieve this elsewhere around the globe. Don't you think they've learned from that process? And they're going to repeat that success elsewhere. Of course, they are. And they are. They're literally doing that's what they're doing right now.

It should be mentioned that the LNG export projects the US invested in over recent years to target Asian markets struggled to propose a viable business model during their early proposal and approval stages, just as LNG export projects targeting European markets had until US until the US proxy war on Russia began. One project, Alaska LNG by Glen Farm, made energy security and routes through uncontested and safe shipping lanes a primary selling point. I will show you the the video of that right now.

In today's evolving world, Glenf stands at the intersection of proven energy expertise and innovative infrastructure investment. We are a global company focused on development, operations, and investment across the energy spectrum. And our newest LNG project, Alaska LNG, a strategically positioned large-scale energy project, including an import terminal, export terminal, pipeline, and gas treatment facility that will deliver reliable, low emission natural gas from the US to key partners in Asia, beside some market misconceptions. The Alaska LNG project is an economically attractive, competitively priced source of reliably delivered LNG for Asian buyers with or without government support. Alaska LNG has significant geopolitical, energy security, and sustainable design advantages, a shorter route to Asia through uncontested and safe shipping lanes, a long-term stable supply of gas from a trusted ally. Join Glenfan in building Alaska LNG, an economically attractive, reliable, and price competitive LNG facility to enhance global energy security and satisfy energy demand in Alaska and Asia. >> Good morning everybody. As we can see, the excitement continues here in Alaska, here in the United States, and in the Pacific Rim, and hopefully for our partners all over the globe that are here today. I want to thank our friends from Taiwan for being here and, uh, speaking this morning, uh, I think so eloquently on the need for secure energy not just for Alaska but for our friends in the Pacific. >> What is the shipping from Alaska and I'm really comparing to other great American LNG because our friends that want to sign with United States have a choice GF coast or Alaska. So if you're shipping from the Gulf Coast, you either have to go through the Panama Canal. The Panama Canal is so busy now with so much global trade, you can have a 10-day wait on either side of the Panama Canal. You got to go to Japan or Taiwan or Thailand and come back, wait again, and come through. So, most of the boats now are actually going around Africa, passing under, uh, India, and coming through the streets of Malacca. A lot of contested waters. There are things called pirates. Look at some movies. And they eventually arrive into Asia. That's three times the travel distance, which means three times the cost. So we have a 300% advantage shipping from Alaska. It's a very, very unique opportunity to sell and a very, very unique opportunity to buy if you want US LNG that's not going through contested waters that's cheaper than the alternative at less risk, given the the distances. So it it's just truisms why why this works.

That was as recently as 2025. However, at the time, there were no contested or unsafe shipping lanes impeding the flow of energy exports to Asia to justify the selling point. The only shipping lanes that might ever be contested or made unsafe would be the various straits the US has discussed and prepared to contest and make unsafe for decades. Not just in the Asia-Pacific region, but also the Strait of Hormuz in the Middle East and beyond. We could also talk about the Panama Canal and America's interest in controlling that waterway and and preventing China from having any influence or say over it at all. Of course, now with the US war on Iran disrupting energy exports from the Middle East, projects like Alaska LNG have gone from poor business proposals to desperately needed and perfectly positioned sources of energy. All of it, just like with US LNG exports to Europe, by design.

A recent Wall Street Journal article titled, this one right here, titled "US Energy Exports Hit Records as World Adjusts to a Closed Persian Gulf," would note that oil gas shipments have soared, but US will face obstacles turning wartime demand into a permanent boost. So, here we go. The same problem that they had in the Rand Corporation paper in 2019. This doesn't work in peacetime. How can we make this work? It doesn't work in peacetime. What can we do to make this work? The false assumption made is that the US war on Iran is not connected to US oil and gas shipments soaring or to wartime demand, and that this is just somehow a profitable coincidence. But just as the Rand Corporation made clear back in 2019, any policy, any policy proposal like decoupling Europe from Russian energy that doesn't work during peacetime can be made to work by simply taking peacetime and transforming it into wartime. And that's what they did. That's what they did with Europe. That's what they're doing with Asia right now. That is what the US did to Europe. It is now clearly repeating this process targeting Asia.

Now, people can argue, is the US going to succeed? Are there things that can be done to stop this? Yes, definitely there are. But first, people have to admit this is what's happening, and then they have to all organize together against this. But can anyone really look at all of this evidence and say, no, this that's not what's happening? Of course, this is what's happening. Of course it is. It will be up to Russia, China, Iran, and the rest of the independent world, including nations across Asia and in particular, South and Southeast Asia, to carefully navigate this dangerous trap that has been sprung by the US and avoid complete energy dependence on the US, as has been imposed upon Europe. These countries right now buying energy from the US still have the ability to avoid falling into this trap permanently. But they have to be aware of the problem first, and they need to seriously begin pursuing the the solutions required to avoid this problem. So, Asia risks being likewise weakened by growing energy dependence on the US, making political capture much more likely by the US, then being transformed into a united front, this time against China rather than Russia, but maybe China and Russia, and used to wage war on the US's behalf at the expense of the people, peace, and prosperity of Asia.

While the US does indeed face growing challenges in terms of its military power and its military-industrial base, it is pursuing full-spectrum dominance using multi-domain warfare spanning not just military force but economic and financial force, operating not only in physical space such as on the battlefield as most people associate warfare with, but in political space, and most importantly, in information space. The US has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to sidestep its growing military weakness relative to the rest of the world and leverage its political capture of nations around the globe, its monopoly over global information space, and now its growing weaponization of energy. I'm talking about this becoming a bigger and bigger problem. So, again, people listen to to me warning them about this. They don't want to hear it because they want to believe the US has already been defeated, that that's it, it's already happened, and it's just a matter of sitting back and and watching the show unfold. And I'm warning people, no, it hasn't. This is something that is still ongoing that people still need to recognize as a threat, organize together, and fight against. This is a process in motion. What it is trying to do to capture Asia is a process in motion. It's not going to happen overnight, but it is a process that they are pursuing. And the best chance we have at stopping it is maximizing global recognition of this as a threat and global organization and opposition to it.

The US is weaponizing energy both through the production and export of energy from the US and by carrying out a systematic attack on and seizure or destruction of alternative energy sources: Venezuela, Russia, and Iran, among others. Only time will tell if the multipolar world can adequate or adequately organize itself not just in the domain of military power, but also all other domains the US itself is waging war against them in. And that is my message. My message is this is a danger. This is real. This is what the US is really doing. The US is not invincible. It is not unstoppable. But you need to recognize that this is what the US is doing first before organizing and opposing what the US is doing. And if we can do that, then the US can be stopped. And this is something that everybody has to work on, not just it's not just Russia and China's job to to deal with this. It's everyone on Earth, 'cause it's all of our futures together at risk here. We all have to play a role in all of this. If it's just raising awareness, pointing these things out, zooming out and showing people the big picture instead of indulging in the daily political circus the US itself deliberately uses to divide and distract us from what they are actually doing in reality. If we do just that, just us as ordinary people, that is better than doing nothing. And there are so many other things we can do even beyond that. But I will leave that, uh, for a future video. I will leave this here.

If you thought this video was useful, please like and share. Think about subscribing. It's free to do. It helps the channel grow. You can like it here. You can, well, I can't subscribe because this is my own channel. There's a video description here. You click on "More," uh, and then you will see the whole video description, all the links that I referenced in the video, as well as other places you can find and follow my work. I have a website. I'm on Telegram, X, Rumble, and YouTube. There are also ways you can help support my work. I do not monetize my social media platforms. If you see ads pop up, feel free to skip them. They're not helping me out at all. I specifically don't monetize my social media platforms because I don't want ads popping up in the face of my audience. If you do want to help support my work, please do so through Buy Me a Coffee and also through Patreon. Again, the links are here in the video description beneath each and every video. To everyone who has been helping out, whether it's a onetime donation or donations month-to-month, or if you have no resources to spare at all, and all you can do is just take a couple of seconds while you're watching each video to click like, share it on social media, subscribe. It's all free to do. Helps the channel grow. Posting a kind comment, supposedly it helps with the algorithm and helps get this information out to more and more people. All of that help, no matter which form it takes, is greatly appreciated. That is what makes this work possible. So, I thank you sincerely for that. And as always, thank you for watching.