> To get cheap energy? That doesn't make any sense.

Why doesn't that make sense? The US did start several wars (plus a wrongfully deposed government or two) in the Persian Gulf for exactly that reason (that was until their shale gas revolution took off in the late '00s). Plus, a des-industrialised Germany (which is what this war will most probably mean for them) means a poorer Germany, means a more politically restless Germany, hence a higher risk of them getting rid of "principles" (or morals, as Martin Wolf pontificates about) and start looking at the bigger picture, at what's good for Germany and for the Germans.

Again, not sure how looking at this chart [1] from that same FT piece can make the Americans believe that the Europeans (or, more precisely, the Germans) can suck it up for the foreseeable future, all in the name of "democracy". This is a de-facto lighter version of the Morgenthau plan.

[1] https://imgur.com/a/Ald39GG

Germany has plenty of options for cheap energy. They chose to align with Russia due to political influence and - apparently - good old bribing. Replacing those pipelines isnt cheap or fast, but its feasible, and there are several options available to connect to both international ports and north african streams. On the electricity front, it is still possible to backtrack partially on the denuclearization of the sector, helping to minimize some of the impact of cutting off Russia.

I still find it absurd that having a decline in economy would somehow push Germany to align with Russia, No offence, but economic issues or not, I don't think any European country with a smidgen of sanity would even touch Russia with a ten foot pole after what happened in the last few months.

Decline in economy means fewer choices. It doesn't matter what the country wants then.