Finnish President Alexander Stubb floated an idea at Chatham House on Monday: Europe sends military support to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, and in exchange, Trump commits to full support for Ukraine. Stubb called it "actually a really good idea" but added a caveat: "I have no illusions about who can convince President Trump on anything." Meanwhile, every major European power has already told Trump no on Hormuz. Trump has warned NATO allies of a "very bad future" if they don't help. And the Iran war is actively making Ukraine's situation worse — higher oil prices fund Russia, and US interceptor missiles going to Iran aren't going to Kyiv.

1. A Smart Trade (Stubb)

You want our ships in the Gulf? Fine. But Ukraine comes first.

Stubb is trying to turn Trump's demand into leverage. Trump wants European help securing Hormuz. Europe wants continued US support for Ukraine. Stubb's proposal connects the two: instead of rejecting Trump outright, offer him what he wants in exchange for what Europe needs. It's transactional politics in Trump's own language.

The strategic logic holds up. The Iran war is directly undermining Ukraine's position. Oil prices are climbing, which funds Russia's war machine. US air defense systems deployed against Iran are unavailable for Ukraine. Stubb argued at Bloomberg earlier in March that the economic fallout from the Iran war could exceed the Russia-Ukraine conflict's impact on Europe. Linking the two isn't just clever — it addresses a real resource competition.

Stubb knows the odds are low. "If I get one idea out of 10 in on Ukraine, I think it's good." This is Finland's president — a country that shares a 1,340 km border with Russia and joined NATO in 2023 — acknowledging that influencing Trump is a long shot but worth trying.

2. Nein, Non, No (Kallas, Pistorius, Macron, Starmer)

This is not our war. We didn't start it. We weren't consulted. We're not joining.

The European rejection is unanimous and blunt. Germany's defense minister Boris Pistorius: "This is not our war. We have not started it." Macron: France will never take part in Hormuz operations. Starmer: this was never envisioned as a NATO mission. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas: "There is no appetite in the bloc. Nobody wants to go actively in this war."

The consultation grievance makes it worse. European leaders were not warned before the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran. Asking for military participation after the fact — in a war Europe had no say in starting — is a hard sell even among pro-American governments. CFR noted that NATO members are already depleted from supporting Ukraine, with slow replenishment of stockpiles.

Macron is drawing a different line entirely. France won't do Hormuz, but it also won't abandon Ukraine. Macron pledged the release of a 90 billion euro EU loan to sustain Ukraine through 2027. The French position: we'll keep supporting Ukraine on our own terms, without trading it for involvement in a war we didn't choose.

3. You Better Just Do What Trump Says (Trump, White House)

You won't help us with Iran? Fine. We'll remember that when you need us.

Trump is making the link Stubb is making — but as a threat, not a deal. He warned NATO allies of a "very bad future" and said the US "will remember" which countries refuse to help with Hormuz. He complained that Starmer "didn't really want to" send aircraft carriers. The subtext: if Europe won't reciprocate on Iran, continued US support for Ukraine is not guaranteed.

This is the transactional NATO that Europe has been dreading. For years, European leaders worried that Trump would treat the alliance as a balance sheet. The Iran war is making that hypothetical real. Trump isn't saying he'll pull out of NATO — he's saying NATO members who don't help with Iran shouldn't expect US help with their problems.

Stubb's proposal is actually an attempt to defuse this. By offering Hormuz support explicitly tied to Ukraine, Stubb is trying to give Trump what he wants while locking in what Europe needs. The question is whether any other European leader will follow his lead — and so far, the answer is a resounding no.

Where This Lands

Stubb is the only European leader trying to speak Trump's language — transactional, explicit, trade-based. Everyone else is drawing lines: Kallas says no to Iran, Macron says yes to Ukraine regardless, and Trump is threatening consequences. The problem is that Stubb's deal requires Europe to do something it has unanimously refused to do, and it requires Trump to commit to something he's been ambiguous about. Where this lands depends on whether Stubb's proposal gains traction as the Iran war drags on and oil prices keep climbing — or whether it remains a clever idea that nobody besides Finland was willing to try.

Sources