Except–no, it isn’t. You aren’t energy independent if your economy can’t function without energy imports, that is the very definition of being dependent.
This is manifestly dishonest. Angela Merkel’s coalition agreement (which she came to with other parties in her coalition), which was written in 2018 as per German domestic political concerns committed to the build out of LNG terminals. It is certainly true that Trump was in favor of these plans being accelerated and may even be true that it had some influence on German thinking–but the primary driver of the currently under construction LNG terminals in Germany was German domestic politics. Specifically, a desire to move away from coal, which was going to require German getting more and more diversified supplies of natural gas. Nordstream-2 was part of that, but additional concerns that Germany had dealt with pipelines from the Netherlands and Norway, that were projected to not have sufficient supply in future years as some of their sources of gas are running at the end of their productive lifetime.
The idea that Trump “insisted” and made Merkel do anything here is simply fabricated. This is the second time I have called out a very clear lie you told, and I suspect like the first time I did so–you will not meaningfully respond to the evidence presented or present any counter-evidence to try and support your original lie. This shows that you are apparently interested in dishonestly communicating.
Merkel Looks to LNG to Cut Germany’s Dependence on Russian Gas - Bloomberg
It’s weird because it is almost like that article says that the reason Biden and Democrats decided to hold up sanctioning Nordstream-2 in January of 2022 is because they considered the risk of a Russian invasion of Ukraine to be serious, and didn’t want the sanctions to be seen as a provocation to Putin. That may or may not have been wise policy (frankly I doubt anything was going to dissuade Putin from invading other than a threat of U.S. military intervention), but it would seem to be pretty on par with Trump’s decisions to reduce sanctions on Russia which were for diplomatic purposes:
Sanctions on Russia relaxed by Trump administration - CBS News
I am guessing you were upset when Trump rolled back Obama’s sanctions on Russia, yes?
Biden was not for Nordstream-2, your own link doesn’t claim that it simply states that Biden did not want to apply new sanctions to Russia while it was trying to perform diplomacy with Russia to head off the Ukraine war. Additionally, the Nordstream-2 sanctions were problematic in the form they took and potentially undermined U.S. interests by opening the door to complex political sanctions being used against us (particularly by China.) It is well explained here (an article you will not read.)
As for supporting the oil industry–I find it incredibly shortsighted to just say Trump was right to support the oil industry. I think it’s pretty admirable that Biden has been against Big Oil back to his earliest days in the Senate (back to his first Senate campaign, in fact.) While I’ve long been in favor of common sense, realism and moderation on managing our transition away from fossil fuels, the reality is by the 2010s the climate crisis was undeniable, and anything other than heavy investment into alternatives (which I will take time to point out, should have included significant nuclearization, something most frequently opposed by Democrats) was not something I will categorize as “getting it right.”
If anything, Trump’s rhetoric around oil production is actively harmful to our country and our future. It further promoted the idea that no, we don’t have to change, we can just keep using oil as much as we want. That the main thing we should want is gas as cheap as possible so we can drive the most inefficient vehicles possible and be as tied into a global oil market that is significantly influenced by despots who have strong anti-American values.
In the immediate crisis we are now in due to the war in Ukraine, there is little option but to push domestic production higher, but the reality is if we had done more work to transition away from fossil fuels we would have more offsetting energy online so at least the net harm would be less.
Luckily perhaps, I won’t be alive to see it, but I cannot even imagine the level of disdain people 50 or 100 years from now will have when they know that people today had the audacity to say things like “Trump was right the whole time” about pushing ever higher oil production (including opening areas for oil production that had long been blocked.)