I have said it before and I will say it again: the environmental movement bears significant responsibility for the fact that large parts of the Western world are struggling with unstable power grids. They lobbied for, and got, the premature dismantling of stable, clean baseload power that kept the lights on when the weather did not cooperate.

Had Germany not closed perfectly functional nuclear reactors after Fukushima, and had Sweden not shut Ringhals 1 and 2 for political reasons, the continent would not have become quite so dependent on Russian gas. At the time of the invasion, Russia supplied roughly 45 percent of the EU’s gas imports. That is not a rounding error. That is the result of a deliberate policy choice dressed up as climate virtue.

The EU has since decided to phase out Russian gas by 2027. Pipeline deliveries are supposed to stop by the end of September that year. The decision was necessary. It was also expensive. Europeans have paid for it in two ways: an electricity system that is harder to balance, and energy prices that have driven investment elsewhere.

Now the same European leaders who accepted this outcome are appalled that Washington has temporarily broken ranks on sanctions. On 9 October 2026, Donald Trump announced a direct deal with Moscow to immediately supply diesel to US and global markets in a bid to lower fuel costs ahead of the 3 November midterm elections. The response from the Kremlin was swift: Russia partially lifted its domestic ban on diesel exports to allow 500,000 metric tons of fuel to hit international markets.

European officials are understandably furious that the deal directly funds Moscow’s war chest, but they should check their own books before lecturing others on energy morality. According to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and the Ukraine Support Tracker from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, EU member states spent €21.9 billion buying Russian oil and gas during the third year of the conflict. During that exact same period, the EU allocated just €18.7 billion in financial aid to Kyiv.

That is not a political talking point. It is a corporate balance sheet.

History will judge the environmental movement’s nuclear phase-out campaign on the results, not the slogans. So far the results include higher prices, thinner margins for industry, and a continent that lectures others about morality while its collective energy bill to Moscow has historically outpaced its financial support for defending Ukraine.

I am keeping the portfolio firmly anchored away from the brochure. The brokers we use to manage that defensive split are on our brokers and accounts.

Both cannot be done at full size. When the invoice arrives, the spreadsheet cares about the numbers, not the sermon.