Nils August Andresen

For my English-speaking followers, let's get the facts straight about the Stubb–Støre call with Putin. New reporting from Finland provides important details missing from much of the international debate. Some of the initial accusations now look rather premature. First, why did the call happen? According to President Stubb, Ukraine's peace negotiations were close to collapsing last week, with relations between Kyiv and Washington in serious trouble. Finnish sources suggest there was even a risk of the US disengaging from the process. At Zelenskyy's request, Finland and Norway organised the Oslo talks with American negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, alongside other European representatives. The subsequent call to Putin was prepared with Ukraine and the US. According to Finnish sources, key allies were informed beforehand and briefed afterwards. Helsinki also wanted Ukraine to publicly confirm its support for the initiative. Zelenskyy has since explicitly defended the call and praised its transparency. Second, the controversy surrounding European coordination deserves clarification. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen accused Finland and Norway of acting independently and failing to coordinate with other European countries. But Stubb and Støre have both stated that allies were informed in advance and received detailed briefings afterwards. New reporting from Finnish news agency STT supports their account. There is an important distinction between not being informed, not being consulted on the decision, and fundamentally disagreeing with that decision. Frederiksen's criticism increasingly appears to reflect a disagreement over whether direct contact with Putin should happen at all, rather than simply a lack of notification. Her initial framing therefore risks creating a misleading impression of an uncoordinated diplomatic operation. Political disagreement should not be confused with evidence that Finland and Norway acted behind their allies' backs. Third, what actually happened during the call? Finnish broadcaster Yle and news agency STT have challenged the Financial Times' account of Putin delivering a lengthy history lecture to passive Nordic listeners. Their sources describe a substantive exchange in which Stubb and Støre questioned Putin about the upcoming Abu Dhabi negotiations and stressed that prolonging the war would not diminish European support for Ukraine. Freedom of navigation in the Baltic Sea, keeping maritime routes open and Russia's shadow fleet were also discussed. Finnish-Russian bilateral relations reportedly were not discussed at all. The parties agreed to keep the communication channel available. Fourth, the risks were understood from the beginning. Finnish sources say criticism and possible Russian propaganda exploitation were anticipated. One source described the initiative as values-based realism, which sometimes requires accepting political risks and their consequences. This was a calculated decision, not an improvised attempt to normalise relations with Moscow. Zelenskyy has also reminded critics that Putin's diplomatic isolation effectively ended with Trump's Alaska summit in 2025. Other European governments have maintained contacts with Russia, sometimes without comparable transparency towards Ukraine. Ukraine requested diplomatic assistance, and Finland and Norway responded in coordination with Kyiv and Washington. Supporting Ukraine for as long as necessary must also mean supporting it in the ways Ukraine actually asks for. That includes diplomacy. Europe needs military strength, economic pressure and diplomatic influence. These are complementary instruments, not competing alternatives.