Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre have spoken directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin about ending the war in Ukraine, in a call that immediately exposed a fault line inside Europe over how to deal with Moscow. The two Nordic leaders, both in Helsinki on Tuesday, October 27, said they pressed for de-escalation and a return to negotiations — but within hours, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen publicly questioned the initiative, saying it had not been coordinated with other European governments and risked dividing the continent at a critical moment.

The call was initiated by Stubb and Støre themselves, and was held in consultation with Ukraine, according to a joint statement from the Finnish and Norwegian governments. The two leaders were careful to stress that they were speaking for their own countries, not for Europe as a whole — a caveat that did little to shield them from criticism from Copenhagen.

What the two leaders told Putin

According to the Finnish presidency, Stubb described the conversation as "frank and substantive". The leaders told Putin that Finland and Norway, both of which border Russia, have a direct stake in how the war ends, and that the outcome will shape security across the Baltic Sea region and the High North as well as in Ukraine itself.

Støre emphasised the human cost of the conflict. "The war comes with enormous human and material costs. The suffering and destruction will impact generations. In the call we stressed the importance of de-escalation," he said. Stubb added that ending the war requires direct discussion, arguing that messages about future negotiations are best delivered to Putin himself rather than relayed through intermediaries.

The call was also linked to diplomacy ahead: the two governments said it was related to upcoming meetings in the United Arab Emirates, where trilateral talks involving Ukraine, Russia and the United States are expected to take place in Abu Dhabi sometime in November. It follows an October 20 meeting in Oslo at which Stubb, Støre and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met US envoys to discuss the peace effort — a sequence that helps explain why Helsinki and Oslo see themselves as having a channel worth using.

After the call, the two leaders briefed Zelenskyy, who thanked them for the detailed readout and for their active support of joint diplomatic efforts. That sequence — consultation with Kyiv before the call, and a briefing afterwards — is central to the Finnish and Norwegian defence of the initiative: from their perspective, this was not freelancing, but a coordinated contribution to a shared peace track.

Frederiksen: "It was not coordinated with the rest of us"

Frederiksen saw it differently. Speaking to Danish broadcaster TV2 while visiting Finland — where Nordic foreign ministers are meeting on October 27 and 28 — she said she was "very sceptical" about the initiative and that it had not been coordinated with any other European country.

"I actually don't know what the two countries think can be achieved with this. I think we should stand together and speak with one voice," she said, adding in comments to Danish broadcaster DR that she saw no signs Russia wants peace with Europe. She pointed both to what she described as Russia's daily hybrid warfare against European states and to its continuing attacks on Ukraine, arguing that Europe should preserve its unity rather than act alone.

Her intervention carries weight beyond the Nordic circle. Denmark currently holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, and Frederiksen has been among the most outspoken European leaders in arguing that only sustained collective pressure — sanctions, military support for Ukraine and a refusal to normalise relations with Moscow — will change the Kremlin's calculations. From that standpoint, a bilateral call risks handing Putin exactly what he wants: evidence that European unity is fraying, and a separate channel through which to probe for softer positions.

The episode also revives a long-running European debate about engagement with Putin. Some leaders argue that refusing all direct contact leaves the field to others — above all the United States — and forfeits any chance of shaping negotiations. Others counter that solo approaches let Moscow play capitals against one another, and that any contact must be embedded in a common position agreed in advance. Tuesday's exchange put both arguments on public display within hours of the call itself.

The war the call is about

The diplomatic row unfolded against another grim day in the war. United Nations human rights monitors reported that civilian casualties in Ukraine rose by 85 per cent in September as Russia intensified its drone and missile attacks, with at least 328 civilians killed and 2,105 injured in that month alone. Kyiv's mayor said one person was killed and 14 injured, most of them students, after a Russian strike near a university dormitory overnight.

Ukraine, meanwhile, has continued its own long-range strikes inside Russia, targeting sites linked to the defence industry, including chemical plants, a battery plant, a petrochemical facility and a logistics hub in Omsk, roughly 2,500 kilometres from Ukraine. Authorities in Russian border regions said strikes since Friday had killed at least 11 people and damaged civilian infrastructure and homes — a reminder that the battlefield, like the diplomacy, is moving on both sides of the border.

That context matters for judging the Helsinki call. The Finnish and Norwegian argument is that diplomacy must keep pace with escalation: with civilian casualties climbing and a new round of talks on the horizon, direct messages to Putin about de-escalation are a practical necessity, not a concession. The Danish counter-argument is that diplomacy without unity is worse than no diplomacy at all, because it signals to Moscow that patience and pressure can be outlasted.

What happens next

Three things will determine whether Tuesday's call is remembered as a useful step or a needless rift. First, whether the planned Abu Dhabi talks materialise in November, and whether the messages delivered by Stubb and Støre feature in them. Second, whether other European capitals rally behind Frederiksen's criticism or quietly accept the Nordic initiative as a legitimate complement to collective diplomacy. And third, whether the call produces any observable change in Russian behaviour — a pause in strikes, a more constructive negotiating posture, or simply more of the same.

For now, the most concrete outcome is political rather than diplomatic: Europe's internal argument about how to talk to Putin is once again out in the open, and the Nordic countries — neighbours of Russia, staunch supporters of Ukraine, and now divided among themselves about tactics — are at the centre of it. The call itself lasted a single afternoon; the argument about whether it should have happened at all may run much longer.

Sources: Kyiv Independent, The National, European Pravda.

Related coverage

Key takeaways

  • Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre called Vladimir Putin on October 27 to press for de-escalation and renewed negotiations on Ukraine.
  • The leaders said the call was held in consultation with Ukraine, was related to upcoming talks in the United Arab Emirates, and was not made on behalf of Europe as a whole.
  • Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen criticised the move as uncoordinated, saying she was "very sceptical" and that Europe should "stand together and speak with one voice".
  • The row comes as UN monitors report civilian casualties in Ukraine rose 85 per cent in September, with 328 killed and 2,105 injured.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did Finland and Norway call Vladimir Putin?

Stubb and Støre said they wanted to convey messages directly to Putin about future negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, stressing de-escalation and their continued support for Kyiv. They said the call was linked to upcoming meetings in the United Arab Emirates and followed an October 20 meeting in Oslo with Ukrainian and US officials.

Why did Denmark's prime minister criticise the call?

Mette Frederiksen said the initiative was not coordinated with other European leaders and argued that Europe should maintain a common position on Russia rather than act alone. She said she saw no signs that Russia wants peace, citing its daily hybrid warfare and continued attacks on Ukraine.

Did the two leaders speak for Europe as a whole?

No. The Finnish and Norwegian governments explicitly stated that Stubb and Støre spoke as leaders of their own countries and did not represent Europe. They also briefed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy after the call.

What happens next in the peace diplomacy?

Trilateral talks involving Ukraine, Russia and the United States are expected in Abu Dhabi sometime in November. Whether the messages delivered in the October 27 call influence those talks — and whether other European capitals endorse or reject the Nordic initiative — will shape the next phase of the diplomatic effort.