A phone call between Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and Russian leader Vladimir Putin has caused serious divisions among Ukraine’s European allies. UNN reports this with reference to Politico.
Europe cannot reach agreement on the advisability of direct contacts with the Kremlin or on who should represent European interests during peace negotiations.
Details
Stubb and Støre’s phone call with Putin took place on October 27 at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki and lasted about 90 minutes. The European leaders sought to convey Ukraine’s position directly and influence the diplomatic process ahead of a new round of US-mediated negotiations. The initiative had been agreed in advance with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. During the conversation, representatives of Finland and Norway emphasized that territorial issues should be discussed directly by the leaders of the states, and that real de-escalation steps by Russia should be a prerequisite for further negotiations.
However, instead of demonstrating European unity, the call triggered a diplomatic conflict between the Nordic countries. In particular, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen criticized the initiative, saying that such decisions must be coordinated with allies. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson also expressed concern about the possible consequences of separate negotiations with Moscow for Europe’s united position.
Representatives of Lithuania and Estonia also expressed a critical position. Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal told Politico that European states should not try to act as mediators in an effort to win the favor of the Russian leadership.
Støre himself rejected accusations of violating diplomatic coordination. According to him, Finland and Norway consulted with their partners, but were not required to obtain permission from all European states to hold the talks. He said representatives of Denmark, France, Germany and the United States had allegedly been informed in advance about the planned contact with the Kremlin. However, some allies remained dissatisfied because they had no opportunity to influence the decision.
Why the leaders of Finland and Norway called Putin
One of the main reasons for Stubb and Støre’s initiative was European politicians’ concern over Washington’s dominance in the negotiation process. According to the Norwegian prime minister, despite active support for Ukraine from European states, the United States remains effectively the only Western voice in direct contact with Moscow.
Politico’s sources among European officials acknowledge that they increasingly doubt the administration of US President Donald Trump is ready to fully take Ukraine’s interests and European security into account when reaching agreements with Russia.
At the same time, representatives of Finland and Norway emphasize that they did not try to speak on behalf of all Europe, but sought to ensure the direct participation of European states in the diplomatic process. However, despite the conversation, there was no significant change in Moscow’s position. Støre acknowledged that Putin had not demonstrated a convincing readiness for compromise, although he stated that he intended to prepare Russian representatives for the upcoming talks in Abu Dhabi.
Context
Politico’s publication appeared ahead of the talks between Ukraine, the United States and Russia scheduled for November 10–11 in Abu Dhabi. According to the publication, the situation surrounding the call to Putin demonstrated a broader problem: European states lack an agreed strategy for engaging with the Kremlin and have not determined who exactly should represent their interests when discussing Ukraine’s future.
These disagreements are expected to be one of the topics of the meeting of European leaders in Dublin this week.
To remind you
It was previously reported that France would send representatives to the talks in Abu Dhabi. Paris intends to represent the position of the European states, emphasizing the need to take their interests into account when discussing the end of the war and the future security architecture.