By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a Q&A session at Chatham House, Finnish President Alexander Stubb expressed surprise and favor towards the idea of bargaining with Donald Trump, believing it to be a “really good idea.” This sentiment stems from a growing concern in Europe that Trump’s ongoing actions, such as his stance on Iran and potential loosening of sanctions on Russia, could inadvertently bolster Vladimir Putin’s income and deplete crucial missile interceptors needed for Ukraine’s defense. The urgency for Europe to find ways to bolster Ukraine and secure Trump’s cooperation is amplified by the fear that the conflict with Iran may distract from or hinder support for Ukraine’s struggle against Russian forces. Furthermore, Trump’s recent pressure on Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy to reach a deal with Putin, without clear security assurances from the U.S., adds another layer of complexity to the situation.
Read the original article here
The idea of Europe potentially offering assistance to Donald Trump on matters concerning Iran, with the significant stipulation that he first demonstrates tangible support for Ukraine, has been put forward, suggesting a strategic, albeit conditional, approach to international diplomacy. This proposition implies a desire for a transactional arrangement, where European security interests, specifically regarding the Strait of Hormuz and regional stability, could be leveraged to encourage a commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. The underlying sentiment appears to be that a recalcitrant Trump administration, or a future one, would only be swayed by concrete actions that align with European priorities, rather than mere diplomatic overtures or vague promises.
The core of this suggestion hinges on the perceived unreliability of promises made by Donald Trump. Many observers express deep skepticism, born from past experiences, that any agreement forged would be honored once Trump believes he has secured his desired outcome from Iran. The concern is that any commitment to aid Ukraine would be quickly discarded the moment it becomes inconvenient or no longer serves his immediate political or personal objectives. This inherent distrust forms a significant barrier to viewing such a hypothetical deal as anything other than a potentially perilous gambit for European nations.
Furthermore, the proposition raises profound questions about the trustworthiness of the United States as an ally under a Trump presidency. The argument is made that historical actions, including the election of Trump twice and the perception of the US as a “failing state,” contribute to a broader narrative of unreliability. This perspective suggests that American foreign policy, particularly when influenced by Trump, can be volatile and self-serving, making any long-term commitments from such a source inherently suspect. The idea of entrusting critical security matters to a leader whose past behavior is characterized by unpredictability and a willingness to disregard established norms and agreements is seen as profoundly unwise.
A central concern within this discussion is the perceived lack of genuine commitment from the United States towards supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. Some voices argue that America is demonstrably more aligned with Russia’s interests, and would readily abandon European allies and Ukraine if it suited their agenda. This cynical view suggests that any offer from Europe to help with Iran would be met with American indifference towards Ukraine’s plight, or worse, a calculated betrayal. The suggestion that Europe should offer assistance on Iran only if Trump demonstrably supports Ukraine underscores a profound disillusionment with American leadership on this critical geopolitical issue.
The difficulty of creating an ironclad agreement with the United States, particularly under a leadership prone to shifting stances, is a significant hurdle. The question of how to ensure that a US administration, especially one led by Trump, would adhere to its end of a bargain, even after Europe has made substantial commitments, remains largely unanswered. The fear is that once European ships are actively involved in securing maritime routes in the Persian Gulf, for instance, the promised support for Ukraine could evaporate, leaving Europe exposed and entangled in a potentially protracted and dangerous situation without adequate backing.
Moreover, the idea of European military involvement, whether naval in the Strait of Hormuz or potentially in a broader conflict, is met with considerable resistance by a significant portion of the European populace. The input highlights a prevailing sentiment against further military engagement, particularly in conflicts perceived as being instigated or exacerbated by the actions of Israel and the United States. The prospect of European soldiers and sailors being put in harm’s way to resolve issues stemming from external geopolitical maneuvers is deeply unpopular and viewed as an unjustifiable risk.
The notion of transactional diplomacy with Trump is further complicated by his alleged tendency towards manipulation and a disregard for established principles. Suggestions are made that any deal would likely need to be framed in terms of “blackmail and threats” to be effective, reflecting a deep-seated belief that Trump operates on a different set of rules. This perspective implies that European leaders would need to adopt a similarly unconventional and forceful approach, a move that carries its own set of risks and ethical considerations.
The possibility of alternative diplomatic strategies, such as a direct deal with Iran to cease supplying Russia, or engaging China in a similar capacity, is also floated as a more pragmatic approach. These alternatives suggest a desire to circumvent reliance on the United States and explore multilateral solutions that might offer greater stability and predictability. The idea is to leverage existing geopolitical tensions to isolate Russia, recognizing that a disrupted global order, while chaotic, can also present opportunities for strategic realignments.
Ultimately, the central theme recurring throughout the discussion is the profound lack of trust in Donald Trump’s word and his commitment to any agreement. The consensus, from numerous perspectives, is that he is an unreliable partner, prone to reneging on promises once his immediate needs are met or when it suits his political narrative. This pervasive skepticism makes any proposed deal, however potentially beneficial on its surface, appear deeply flawed and inherently risky for all parties involved, particularly for Europe.