Maj ✨

Finland's President @alexstubb has provided important new details about his phone call with Vladimir Putin. Speaking to Finnish public broadcaster Yle, Stubb explicitly rejected the Financial Times' account that Putin had spent most of the 90-minute conversation delivering a lengthy history lecture. According to Stubb, Putin opened by presenting his familiar interpretation of events since 2014. But the conversation then developed into what Stubb described as a normal, substantive and concrete exchange, with information flowing in both directions. More importantly, Stubb explained the diplomatic logic behind the call. The initiative emerged from discussions with Ukrainian and American representatives following the Oslo meeting on 20 October. Both Kyiv and Washington were consulted and gave their green light. The timing was deliberate: Finland and Norway wanted to speak to Putin before the planned US–Ukraine–Russia negotiations in Abu Dhabi. And Stubb has now clarified the broader objective: to create conditions for a possible face-to-face meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin. The immediate task is to make progress in Abu Dhabi. A meeting between the two presidents would be a subsequent step, provided the negotiations produce sufficient grounds for one. Stubb also made clear that Finland is not seeking a seat at the negotiating table. He acknowledged the difficulties Europeans have faced in agreeing on a single representative. To me, this puts the initiative in a clearer perspective. The call was not intended as a breakthrough in itself. It was one step in a diplomatic sequence designed to keep the negotiations moving and ultimately bring the two presidents together. Whether Putin is genuinely prepared to negotiate remains an entirely different question. His fundamental objectives have not changed, and there is every reason to remain sceptical. The real test comes next: what happens in Abu Dhabi, and whether Moscow is prepared to move beyond repeating its existing demands. yle.fi/a/74-20254360

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.