Washington Post
14 HN mentions · mentioned in 8 months, 2022–2026
7:24 · 8.3M views · Jul 11, 2018
A Washington Post clip of President Trump and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in a tense exchange at the July 2018 NATO summit, where Trump criticized Germany's reliance on Russian energy.
HN cites it as evidence in arguments about European dependence on Russian gas and NATO spending, especially after Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
14 comments from Hacker News
If opposing "dictators and warmongers" is so important, why were European NATO members so unprepared for the 2022 war? Poland, the Baltics, and other ex-Warsaw Pact countries by and large did their best to wean themselves off the Russian oil and gas teat they fed from during the Cold War, even while Germany and other far wealthier countries did their best to suckle ever more from the same teat. Since energy is fungible, the far higher prices they are now having to pay affect them and the rest of the world, even those like the US and UK that never relied on Russian energy themselves, but at least Poland and the Baltics tried their best. It's also entirely possible that greater European investment in defense might have dissuaded Russia from the February invasion. Or, at the least, be able to contribute now more than the relatively paltry sums and supplies they have so far sent. Again, the ex-Communist countries by and large both met the 2% GDP spending guideline that their far wealthier NATO fellow members have mostly ignored, and are sending as much gear as they can without endangering their own defense. Sweden and Finland's militaries were and are far better prepared than the average NATO member despite (or, perhaps, because of) not being part of the alliance. Consider two moments five years ago: 1) Trump and NATO secretary-general and former Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg argue on camera (video < this video >, article < [LINK] >) about dependence on Russia. Who turned out to be
>He was saying the USA should leave NATO. Ah yes, the other line that people pull when questioned on this topic. First, Trump did not say that the US should leave NATO. He publicly insisted/cajoled/prodded with that signature Trump charm and style that Germany and other NATO members who don't meet the 2% of GDP spending requirement—and showed zero inclination of actually meeting the 2026 deadline (itself pushed back repeatedly after first being set in 2006)—needed to do so. >In our day and age you should be arrested as traitor for saying that. Beyond the strange notion that an American should be "arrested as a traitor" for his words, a "traitor" to whom? Who benefits more from NATO membership, the US or Germany? Who benefits more, the US or Belgium? The US or Norway? The US or Italy? Would a Russian conquest of all of Ukraine endanger US security? Not really. It is Poland that would have Russian troops on hundreds more miles of its borders. It is Poland and the Baltic states that now face the risk being cut off from the rest of NATO at the Suwalki Gap. The funny thing is that Poland and the Baltics do meet the 2% spending requirement, and have so for years. It is the likes of the far wealthier Germany, Belgium, Norway, Italy that do not. When you say that a US president should have been "arrested as a traitor" for questioning the value ("obsolete", I believe he said) of a military alliance in which the US funded 69% of total military spending while the wealthiest other member
>now suffering from the Russian invasion of Ukraine As mantas said, the energy/economic issues Europe faces from the Ukraine War is 100% self-inflicted. First, Poland, the Baltics, and other ex-Warsaw Pact countries have by and large done their best to wean themselves off the Russian oil and gas teat they fed from during the Cold War, even while Germany and other far wealthier countries did their best to suckle ever more from the same teat. Since energy is fungible, the far higher prices they are now having to pay affect the rest of the world, even those like the US and UK that never relied on Russian energy themselves. Second, it's entirely possible that greater European investment in defense might have dissuaded Russia from the February invasion. Or, at the least, be able to contribute now more than the relatively paltry sums and supplies they have so far sent. Again, the ex-Communist countries by and large both met the 2% GDP spending guideline that their far wealthier NATO fellow members have mostly ignored, and are sending as much gear as they can without endangering their own defense. Consider two moments four years ago: 1) Trump and NATO secretary-general and former Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg argue on camera (video < this video >, article < [LINK] >) about dependence on Russia. Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to be completely, totally, 100% wrong? 2) Trump at the UN warns that Germany is endangering itself by increasing dependence on Russia. German envoys la
To those who are being exposed to this only because of recent events, here's what has happened before all this: - 2011 - Nord Stream 1 nearing completion and Nord Stream AG starts thinking about two more lines (which would later be named Nord Stream 2) - 2015 Jun - Decision to build Nord Stream 2 was made [LINK] - 2017 Apr - Financing agreements signed [LINK] - 2018 Jan - Germany officially grants permit [LINK] - 2018 May - US diplomats start talking about sanctions [LINK] - 2018 Jul - Trump scolds NATO General Secretary over European energy relations with Russia this video - 2019 Jan - US ambassador to Germany threatens sanctions [LINK] - 2019 Dec - US sanctions Nord Stream 2 [LINK] - 2020 Dec - US continues to protest, Germany continues to build [LINK] - 2021 Jan - Trump sanctions the Russian ship building Nord Stream 2 on his last day at the office [LINK] - 2021 Jan - EU sanctions it too [LINK] - 2021 May - US waives the sanctions on Nord Stream 2 [LINK] - 2021 Jun - First line construction is complete [LINK] - 2021 Sep - The full construction of Nord Stream 2 is complete [LINK] - 2022 Jan - Nord Stream 2 registers German subsidiary as a part of the certification process [LINK] This is a result of over a decade of planning and construction with governments, corporations and companies of Germany, UK, France, Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Estonia, Sweden, Russia... and probably more countries to provide cheap and reliable and climate friendly energy source to Europe... and it
>> Pushing NATO members to meet their defense spending obligations ended up being damn-near prescient >This was not “pushing” so much as “ineffective trash talking”. Trump and Stoltenberg argue on camera (< this video >). Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to completely, totally, 100% wrong? If Trump was so bad for NATO and Ukraine's defense, why didn't the current war didn't begin in 2017-2020? Let me guess: You think that the current state of the Ukrainian military (in terms of training and weaponry) that enabled it to survive the initial Russian invasion in February when few believed it could, somehow magically began in January 2021. It is a fact that the Trump administration continued and accelerated the training and arming of Ukrainian military by the US that his predecessor began. Let me also guess: You are one of those gullible who say that Merkel was always against German dependence on Russian gas but could not do anything about it. For 16 years! There is more "evidence" that Merkel is a long-term Russian intelligence asset, recruited from her youth in East Germany,^1 than that of Trump being the same. One guess on which claim is incessantly repeated by the bien-pensants of the chattering classes. ^1 Something else never talked about is how her parents moved from West to East Germany when she was a baby