Kristian Kiehling4d ago
This is the way:
"Finland’s President Alexander Stubb responded positively to a suggestion that Europe could make demands on the U.S. regarding Ukraine, in exchange for assistance in the Gulf.
“I think it’s actually a really good idea,” Stubb said at a Chatham House meeting in London on Tuesday."
https://www.defensenews.com/global/mideast-africa/2026/03/17/european-allies-tell-trump-nein-non-and-no-on-help-to-force-open-hormuz-strait/
European allies tell Trump ‘nein,’ ‘non’ and ‘no’ on help to force open Hormuz Strait

Trump in recent days explicitly linked U.S. involvement in NATO and support to Ukraine to efforts by allies to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz.

Defense News
Show threadtxtx 🇪🇺

@Kristian_Kiehling So we'll have American troops in Ukraine/Russia, and Europeans in Iran?

I'm really not understanding what the point is.

Mar 18 at 7:49amMastodon for Android
Show threadKristian Kiehling3d ago

@txtx

The idea is to trade help securing safe shipping in the Gulf — similar to the ASPIDES mission — and Ukrainian defensive technology against Iranian drones for U.S. military assistance to Ukraine. Since Trump took office in 2025, the U.S. has stopped all military support to Ukraine. This endangers Europe. Ukraine is at the core of European security, just as the Gulf is at the core of global security. It's a trade that benefits both sides. Btw, ASPIDES 2.0 would not mean entering a war

Show threadKristian Kiehling3d ago
@txtx
Show threadtxtx 🇪🇺3d ago

@Kristian_Kiehling My understanding is that US weapons are still being sent to Ukraine, they're just being paid for by Europe?

While that's not the support I'd like to see from the US, I don't see how it helps Ukraine specifically — having the weapons is more important than who is paying for them.

It seems like it'd be cheaper for Europe to keep paying, rather than getting involved in a costly war against Iran.