Which is still wrong. Russia provides roughly 60% of German gas, Germany uses gas for less than 20% of their power generation which means Russia could potentially influence 12% of German supplies. That is just using basic maths and ignoring other factors such as Germany being able to switch to other suppliers if Russia messes them about, switching to other energy sources entirely, gas reserves and the huge impact such action would have on Russia. Why do you think the first priority after WW2 was to make France and Germany big trading partners? It reduces the chances of either side playing silly buggers as it hurts both. Also it wasn't the USA that led the way in punishing Russia after the assassinations in the UK, it was the EU.
Really? You whinge about us not helping you in your wars yet what about the Falklands? You yanks sat back twiddling your thumbs and didn't send a single soldier. Add to this Americas constant and repeated attempts to undermine British military production to favour your own, your recent stupidity with Bombardier and the fact it is you attempting to constantly drag us into wars. You pay more but you also are the ones romping around the world throwing your military weight around.
Wrong, do you have ANY idea of how long it takes to get energy production up and running? He could have introduced an energy policy on day 1 and had it immediately acted upon and it still wouldn't have made much difference because the lead in time is measured in years. The US is set to be an exporter to due policies that predate Trump.
Trump sticks his nose where it isn't wanted and criticises his allies whilst only saying good things about the Russians again. He of all people should not accuse others of being controlled by Russia.
Claiming Trump gets people to think is a complete lie, Trump frequently and actively fights against people trying to think. He wants a band of unthinking yes men and has even ******* said so!
You are either trolling or exceptionally stupid.
I'm going to respond to two things here.
Energy and government policy:
As of 2017 Germany got 40% of it's energy from coal.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-14/germany-is-burning-too-much-coal
Merkel's government has set an end date for coal in Germany as 2019.
http://www.powermag.com/germanys-ne...ees-to-phase-out-coal-but-not-by-2020-target/
Merkel's government banned fracking in 2016.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/24/germany-bans-fracking-after-years-of-dispute
You are correct that new technologies have unleashed US energy production, and those predate Trump. However you can't ignore government policy. Obama largely tried to hamper energy production, but not to a massive extent. He certainly didn't promote it. During the 2016 campaign Clinton was trying to recreate the Obama coalition, but because she has white skin instead of black she would have to double down on the core Obama policies. Perhaps the number 1 issue for Obama's core white support is the green movement. Hillary was full of promises about how she was going to slam the doors shut on energy, most famously her statement at a campaign rally that she was going to put the coal miners out of work. Trump made pro energy policies a centerpiece of his agenda for bringing back good working class jobs to Middle America.
It's not an accident in 2017 coal production had it's largest yearly increase since 2001. Obama had attempted a implement a slow regulatory strangling of coal in his second term, and production dropped about 30% during those four years. Also in 2017 US exports of coal rose 61% after having been cut in half in Obama's second term.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34992
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35852
Trump pushed the opening of ANWAR in Alaska for oil drilling through Congress. There are estimated to be over 10 billion barrels of oil there. Republican Presidents since Nixon have been trying to get that passed.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...s-votes-to-open-alaska-refuge-to-oil-drilling
There are dozens of other ways Trump is helping. He's ripping up regulation at record rates, while Clinton promised new regulation at record rates. It was one of the biggest differences. At the end of Obama's term energy independence for the US was estimated to arrive in 2026. The estimate has moved up to 2022 at this point. I suspect it would have gone further into the future if Hillary had been elected.
I went and looked up some info on The Falklands:
A. The Afghan war fell under the NATO treaty. The Falklands aren't covered.
B. I never said the UK didn't contribute in Afghanistan. I said the most of the big countries did not, especially Germany.
C. The US gave you everything you needed to win the war as far as weapons and intelligence. We had US Navy ships on standby to transfer to British command in case yours were sunk. The differences seem to have come about on the US pushing for a negotiated settlement at various points in the conflict because Argentina was viewed as important in the Cold War context. Yes, some neoconservatives in the Reagan administration were hostile to the UK, but Reagan and the normal conservatives were not going to let British people be subjected to foreign occupation if push came to shove. And if the US had intervened in an alternative scenario where you guys couldn't handle it mostly on your own, it would have probably been the most popular war in US history.
D. I'm not defending US foreign policy, or the stupid way the Afghan war was prosecuted. I'm also not claiming the US is a good ally in general. What can't be argued against is that the US has kept their word on NATO. The Soviet Union would have almost assuredly marched to the English Channel at some point soon after WWII if not for the US presence. The US risked nuclear destruction at multiple points to stand up for the countries on the border of the Iron Curtain. And then when an attack on us fell under the NATO treaty there was next to no help from countries like Germany.
