US Soft Economic Power over Ukrainian and Russian Energy

Mike Benz argues that Military Power is a superset of Control over Energy Resources. The US objective of Military pre-eminance, resulted in a desire to separate Europe, and in particular Germany from reliance on Russian energy. The obvious solution was Ukraine's energy.
Weakening Russia's revenue source from oil sales to Europe would weaken Russia economically, and militarily.
Comment:
Since the end of WW2, the spectre of Germany re-militarising was a great concern to many European countries and the US. For this reason the US agreed to provide security for Europe (including Germany), even though it was uneconomic. The possibility of Germany uniting with Russia, and becoming a dominant geopolitical block was to be avoided at all costs.
Today, we see a Europe trying to re-form its identity and strengthen block unity with a form of universal values as a basis. In my opinion Trump's stated intention to withdraw from supporting Europe is likely to exacerbate Europe's problems. First Europe will feel betrayed by the US. Second, it will feel that the withdrawal of military support has resulted in its identity having been humiliated and jeopardized, because although it will not admit it, its defective universal values are already starting to require enforcement by persuasion using economic and security based reasons (and a not entirely transparent news media) rather than its original simple, confined, and precise reason d’etre, an economic carrot of mutually beneficial co-operation. A US withdrawl of military security from the EU is likely to cause a more fundamental political split between the EU and the US.
Besides this, the EU (and Nato) may fracture due to many constituent countries being intrinsically opposed to the EU version of "Universal" values, particularly some of the Eastern Block countries, who retain active Christian traditions. For reasons of European Union instability, a shared war between the EU constituent countries and Russia, if it ceases, or fails to succeed is likely to cause internal criticism, and further weaken internal cohesion.
Not mentioned in this video, but mentioned in the longer version of the video was the comment that the US objective of pre-eminance was initially thought to be supported by free speech activism opposing the media of governments that the US did not support (or rather free speech was opposing government media that did not support directives from the US). But later, the US military intelligence agencies saw that free speech was a two edged sword. Countries that support nationalism, i.e. national sovereignty, might have free speech about national interests that did not support US objectives. In this case censorship of these opposition voices was preferred.
Abridged video by VivaFrei & Mike Benz
https://rumble.com/v62iopz-2014-the-year-internet-censorship-went-crazy-censorship-industrial-complex-.html