Ukraine: Helsinki and Oslo call Putin, Europe must finally choose who speaks on its behalf

For the first time since Emmanuel Macron's call in July 2025, leaders of countries allied with Ukraine have spoken directly to Vladimir Putin. Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre called him on Tuesday 27 October from Helsinki. The initiative immediately reopened a question Europe has been putting off for months: who speaks on its behalf?

The facts

According to the statement from the Finnish presidency, the call was made at the initiative of the two leaders, in consultation with Ukraine, and follows on from a meeting held in Oslo on 20 October. According to Le Grand Continent, that meeting brought together Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump's envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. The Moscow Times reports that Steve Witkoff then travelled to St Petersburg to brief Vladimir Putin on those discussions.

The exchange lasted around ninety minutes, according to EUobserver. Helsinki mentions messages passed on with a view to future negotiations, linked to meetings planned in Abu Dhabi, as well as security in the Baltic Sea and the High North. Alexander Stubb described the discussion as "frank and substantive". Jonas Gahr Støre says he insisted on de-escalation. The two men stressed that they were speaking on behalf of their own countries, not of Europe.

The Kremlin's readout, relayed by The Moscow Times and Euronews, strikes a different tone. Vladimir Putin recalls what he presents as the "root causes" of the war and accuses the policies of European Union and NATO countries of prolonging hostilities. According to EUobserver, he made no concessions, notably on the Ukrainian territories claimed by Moscow. The Kremlin nevertheless says it is ready to resume US-mediated talks in Abu Dhabi in November, with no date set.

After the call, the two Nordic leaders briefed Volodymyr Zelensky. According to The Moscow Times, the Ukrainian president is calling for concrete de-escalation steps, in particular on strikes against energy infrastructure before winter.

Russia must stop dragging out the war. — Volodymyr Zelensky

The positions at stake

The sharpest criticism came from Copenhagen. According to EUobserver, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen says the call had not been coordinated with any ally. Quoted by LaPresse, she added: "I don't know what they think they can achieve this way." She recalled how important it is for Europeans to remain united in the face of Moscow.

Those involved give a different account. According to the Ukrainian site LIGA.net, Alexander Stubb maintains that the call was prepared with Kyiv and Washington, and that the Nordic countries had been informed. Euronews reports, for its part, that the Commission and the European Council were reportedly informed in advance, and that Brussels is preparing a joint team to carry the Union's position in the negotiations.

The arguments of those who defend the move deserve a hearing. Leaving Washington alone facing Moscow means risking an agreement negotiated without Europeans, even though their security is at stake. Finland shares more than 1,300 kilometres of border with Russia, Norway an Arctic border: their interest in a direct channel is no whim. Conversely, sceptics argue that Moscow is seeking to divide. Quoted by Le Grand Continent, Finnish analyst Henri Vanhanen believes the Kremlin could exploit these contacts to deepen European disagreements. Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov stated on 25 October, according to the same source, that he wanted to talk with Europe as a whole.

The analysis

Both camps are partly right, and that is precisely the problem. Dialogue with an adversary is not a weakness: the Gaullist tradition has always known how to talk to Moscow without yielding anything essential. But useful dialogue requires a mandate, a common line and a word that commits. Two leaders who stress that they do not speak for Europe can pass on messages; they cannot negotiate on its behalf.

Yet the timetable is tightening. If the Abu Dhabi round resumes in November, the terms of a possible ceasefire will be discussed between Washington, Kyiv and Moscow. Le Grand Continent reports, citing the Telegraph, that several names are said to be circulating to represent Europe: Giorgia Meloni, Alexander Stubb, Jonas Gahr Støre, Petr Pavel and Mette Frederiksen. Nothing has been decided. Every week of hesitation increases the risk that Europe will discover an agreement instead of writing it.

For France, the stakes are twofold. Since 2022, Paris has championed the idea of a Europe able to guarantee its own security; it cannot be satisfied with seeing European diplomacy fragment into national initiatives. And international law must remain the compass: no lasting peace can rest on the recognition of conquests obtained by force, nor forget the Ukrainian civilians facing another winter under strikes.

Conclusion

The Helsinki call has at least one merit: it forces Europe out of ambiguity. Rather than reproaching the Nordics for taking the lead, the Twenty-Seven should quickly appoint, together with Norway and the United Kingdom, a negotiating team with a clear mandate approved by the heads of state and government. France has every reason to push for this solution. One question remains open: will Europe manage to agree before Abu Dhabi, or will it let others set the conditions of its own security?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.