Trump Was Right: How Europe’s Energy Hypocrisy Has Played Both Sides of the War
In 2018, then-President Donald Trump stood at a NATO summit and called out one of the greatest geopolitical contradictions of our time: European nations, particularly Germany, were making themselves energy-dependent on Russia while expecting the U.S. to defend them from the very same country. The warning was clear—relying on Russian energy weakened Europe’s leverage and put them in a vulnerable position.
At the time, European leaders and mainstream media dismissed Trump’s statements as exaggerated, even laughing at his direct confrontation of Germany’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline deal with Russia. Fast forward to today, and reality has proven him right.
The Billion-Dollar Contradiction: Funding Russia While Preparing for War
The hypocrisy is undeniable. European nations have consistently positioned themselves as defenders of democracy, standing against Russian aggression, yet their energy policies over the last two decades have directly funneled billions into the Kremlin’s pockets. Germany, the largest economy in Europe, actively expanded its energy dependence on Russia, signing deals that effectively bankrolled the very country they now claim to fear.
Nord Stream 2, the Russian-German natural gas pipeline, was the clearest example of this contradiction. While the U.S. and NATO allies have spent billions of dollars securing Eastern Europe from Russian expansion, Germany and other European nations were deepening financial ties with Moscow. This allowed Russia to strengthen its economy, amass foreign reserves, and strategically position itself as an unavoidable player in Europe’s energy security.
Trump called this out six years ago—and was met with smug dismissal. Yet, when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, European leaders scrambled to undo the damage they had willingly inflicted upon themselves.
Germany’s Self-Sabotage: Weakening Its Own Position
Germany, once the industrial powerhouse of Europe, has been systematically weakening itself under the guise of progressive energy policies and diplomatic engagement. The decision to phase out nuclear power, rely on Russian gas, and underfund its own military left Germany exposed when geopolitical tensions escalated.
Trump’s argument was simple: How can Germany, a NATO ally, demand U.S. military protection from Russia while simultaneously making billion-dollar energy deals that empower Russia’s economy? The logic is inescapable—either Germany was strategically naive, or they were playing both sides for economic gain.
But as soon as the war in Ukraine broke out, Germany faced a harsh reality. With Nord Stream 2 abandoned and Russian gas cut off, they found themselves in an energy crisis, relying on expensive alternatives from the U.S. and Middle East, proving Trump’s 2018 warning to be eerily accurate.
The U.S. Burden: Defending Europe While Europe Funds Its Adversary
The core issue here is fairness. For decades, American taxpayers have footed the bill for European defense under NATO while Europe built economic ties with Russia. When Trump pushed European nations to meet their NATO spending obligations and reduce their dependence on Russian energy, critics called him reckless. But when war came knocking, those same critics had no answer.
Instead of preparing for geopolitical stability, European leaders prioritized cheap energy over strategic security, putting themselves in a compromised position and expecting the U.S. to bail them out when the inevitable happened.
Trump’s approach—putting pressure on Europe to take responsibility for its own defense—was not just about economic fairness, but about avoiding precisely the kind of crisis we see today.
