Summary of "Brian Berletic: U.S. Is Grooming Europe for War with Russia"

Overview: “Strategic Sequencing” as U.S. Policy Design

Brian Berletic argues that U.S. strategy toward Russia, Iran, and ultimately China follows a deliberate “strategic sequencing” model. In his view, the United States avoids a direct, final confrontation and instead stages conflict through allies—outsourcing escalation and battlefield burden while retaining decisive behind-the-scenes influence.

Ukraine / Russia: “Not Ending the War—Outsourcing It to Europe”

Berletic reacts to Elbridge Colby’s remarks by claiming they reflect an explicit policy goal: the U.S. does not want a genuine end to the Ukraine war. Instead, responsibility is shifted to Europe, effectively turning Europe into the next proxy combatant against Russia.

He links this to earlier U.S. “division-of-labor” plans (including what he says Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in early 2025) and argues that European escalation is the “natural progression” of that approach.

Proxy War Mechanics and Energy Leverage

Berletic frames the Ukraine campaign as part of a broader U.S. objective to extend pressure on Russia rather than quickly defeat it.

A central mechanism, he says, is keeping Europe dependent on U.S. energy—made possible, in his view, by transforming “peace-time” plans into “war-time” conditions. He cites actions such as undermining Russian energy exports to Europe (e.g., Nord Stream). He also argues that prolonged conflict benefits the U.S. because war sustains the energy and strategic dependencies the U.S. wants.

Escalation Through Europe Even While the U.S. “Backs Away”

Berletic claims the U.S. tries to “absolve itself of responsibility” while still operating centrally.

He cites reporting (he refers to The New York Times) to argue that U.S. intelligence and command oversight—potentially involving CIA/military involvement—affects deep-drone and maritime-drone operations impacting Russian territory and shipping. He interprets this as evidence that European forces are being positioned for more direct involvement through incremental (“salami slice”) escalation, potentially including future kinetic actions.

“Elite Capture” and EU Institutional Power

Berletic argues that Europe’s political capacity to resist U.S. directives has been undermined by U.S.-aligned elites and EU-level bureaucracy.

He claims the EU has overridden national self-determination through repeated political and informational maneuvers, including re-runs of referendums or reframing constitutional votes. In this view, European foreign policy becomes aligned with U.S. interests even when it runs counter to national preferences.

He further argues U.S. influence is maintained through control of information and political structures, reinforced by the presence of U.S. military assets in Europe and in other allied states.

Iran and Asia: Repeating the Europe Playbook

Berletic argues U.S. posture toward Iran is designed not only to pressure Iran and/or China directly, but also to disrupt energy flows to Asia—especially via the Strait of Hormuz—and reduce Middle East-to-Asia energy reliability.

He claims the U.S. uses conflict to make otherwise uneconomic LNG projects viable (e.g., Alaska LNG). He also argues war-induced shipping disruptions give the U.S. leverage over Asian states’ energy choices.

He interprets increasing energy dependence—and the political “costs” attached to that dependence—as a way to surround China with U.S.-aligned countries acting as strategic proxies.

Limits of Outsourcing: Gulf States Won’t Replace Europe

Berletic contends the U.S. cannot fully outsource Iran-related escalation to Gulf partners because they lack capability and/or willingness to sustain the fight.

Instead, he argues the U.S. can repeatedly re-trigger instability through episodic strikes and by prompting retaliatory damage—keeping energy exports under threat even when ceasefires exist.

What Could Stop the Pattern (and Why Berletic Thinks Diplomacy Is Failing)

Berletic argues that U.S. leadership changes and congressional turnover don’t matter much because, in his view, unelected corporate/finance and defense/arms-industry interests create a persistent profit-and-power incentive structure.

He suggests diplomacy is ineffective because the U.S. is not merely managing rivalry but seeking to “knock out” rivals. He concludes that conflict dynamics are part of a broader transition from U.S.-led unipolar control toward multipolarism—one he argues cannot occur without significant instability and violence during the shift.

Central Claim / Thesis

Overall, Berletic’s central thesis is that U.S. policy is engineered to prolong and internationalize conflict:

First against Russia via Ukraine and Europe
Then against Iran, targeting Persian Gulf energy flows with downstream effects on Asia

He argues that Europe (and potentially parts of East Asia) are being positioned for greater danger and reduced autonomy rather than genuine peace or equitable security.