Vladimir Putin has a theory of victory in Ukraine. It’s not the Russian president’s first theory – that was a quick, dayslong campaign – nor his second or third, which involved different land offensives in the east that quickly petered out. Instead, Putin’s latest hypothesis is that the relentless bombing of Ukrainian cities will impose […]

The post Polling: scorched earth isn’t driving Ukrainians to sue for peace appeared first on Asia Times.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre spoke by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin on 27 October, urging him to de-escalate Russia’s war against Ukraine and resume negotiations. The roughly 90-minute call was coordinated with Kyiv and came ahead of planned trilateral talks between Ukrainian, US, and Russian officials in Abu Dhabi in November.

The initiative marks a rare direct contact between Western European leaders and Putin since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. The Nordic leaders are reportedly seeking to influence peace efforts increasingly shaped by US President Donald Trump, amid concerns in Europe that Washington is shifting toward Moscow’s position and sidelining Ukraine’s European partners.

Stubb and Støre said they discussed Russia’s war against Ukraine, upcoming negotiations, and security in Europe. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the two leaders had urged Putin to take concrete steps toward de-escalation, particularly regarding attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

Zelenskyy says leaders urged energy de-escalation

After the call, Zelenskyy said he had spoken with Stubb and Støre to receive a detailed briefing. He thanked them for supporting Ukraine’s diplomatic efforts and said they had clearly told the Russian leader that real de-escalation steps were needed regarding Ukraine’s energy sector and infrastructure.

Zelenskyy also said the leaders discussed preparations for a trilateral meeting planned for November involving Ukrainian, US, and Russian negotiating teams.

In a joint statement, Stubb and Støre said the call followed their 20 October meeting in Oslo and was held in consultation with Ukraine. They emphasized that Finland and Norway, which both share borders with Russia, would continue their longstanding support for Ukraine.

“The discussion was frank and substantive,” Stubb said, adding that the war’s outcome would directly affect Nordic and broader European security. Støre stressed the war’s enormous human and material costs and said the leaders had emphasized the importance of de-escalation.

Moscow gives no sign of changing its position

The Kremlin’s account of the call offered no indication that Putin was prepared to soften his demands, according to Reuters. It said a just and lasting peace was possible only if Russia’s “legitimate interests” were fully taken into account, while blaming EU and NATO policies for prolonging the fighting.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed the call as offering nothing new on the conflict and accused European countries of seeking a role in negotiations.

A source close to the Kremlin told Reuters that Putin had said the war must end while taking “the realities on the ground” into account. The source interpreted this as meaning Moscow would not compromise on its goal of capturing the entire Donbas region.

Russia has continued its attacks on Ukraine while demanding territorial concessions. Kyiv, meanwhile, has called for meaningful de-escalation and a settlement that preserves Ukraine’s sovereignty and security.

Nordic initiative draws criticism from European partners

The call comes as European governments seek a greater role in peace efforts led by Trump. Western European leaders have largely avoided direct contact with Putin since the invasion, hoping to isolate Moscow, but concerns have grown that Europe is being sidelined in negotiations.

Stubb said Ukraine had sought to open a new channel of communication and that Europe could no longer remain a bystander to peace efforts. He said the initiative had been discussed with Western allies.

However, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen criticized the move, saying she saw no signs that Russia wanted peace and arguing that Europe should act together rather than pursue separate initiatives, according to Reuters. 

Reuters added that Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said other European leaders had not been informed of the talks and expressed low expectations for the conversation. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk also urged caution.

Stubb and Støre stressed that they had acted as leaders of Finland and Norway, not on behalf of Europe as a whole. They said their countries would continue supporting Ukraine while pursuing diplomatic efforts to end the war.

Maria Isabel Tavares aponta que a elevada afluência nas eleições em Israel desfavorece Netanyahu. E prevê que um ataque norte-americano ao Irão surja após as intercalares, sem encerrar a crise.

À margem da cimeira do Fórum dos Países Exportadores de Gás, em Moscovo, os dois presidentes abordaram cooperação energética e a escalada de tensão na região.

© IGOR IVANKO/AFP POOL/EPA

Pro-Ukraine demonstrations took place in more than 10 cities across Europe, North America, and Australia over the past week, with protesters opposing US President Donald Trump’s agreement to resume Russian diesel shipments, the easing of sanctions on Moscow, and restrictions affecting Ukraine’s military support.

The protests were organized by Ukrainian diaspora groups and international supporters of Ukraine, who called on Washington to maintain pressure on the Kremlin, restore Ukraine’s access to Starlink, and stop using military aid and intelligence sharing as leverage against Kyiv. 

The International Center for Ukrainian Victory (ICUV) said the actions reflected growing concern over US decisions that could benefit Russia while its war against Ukraine continues.

The demonstrations followed Trump’s announcement on 9 October that Russia would supply diesel to US and global markets. The US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control subsequently issued a temporary license authorizing transactions involving Russian-origin diesel, including imports into the United States, through 7 April 2027. 

The decision reversed part of Washington’s restrictions on Russian fuel imposed after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

“We are witnessing a dangerous situation today: Russia, which attacks Ukrainian cities every day, is being offered economic agreements and sanctions relief, while Ukraine is being asked to make concessions. But Ukrainians cannot simply stop fighting. For us, this is a matter of our state’s existence. Our future cannot be the subject of agreements between Trump and Putin. It belongs to Ukrainians,” said Olena Ivashchenko, founder of Campaign for Ukraine.

Protests target Russian fuel deal and pressure on Kyiv

In London, hundreds of protesters gathered outside the US Embassy on 16 October, according to organizers from Campaign for Ukraine and partner groups. Participants included Ukrainians, Britons, Americans, and members of other national communities. British lawmakers also raised the issue in Parliament.

Demonstrators carried signs reading “How Many Ukrainians per Barrel?” and “Occupation Is Not Peace,” calling on Washington to preserve sanctions and reject pressure on Ukraine to make territorial concessions.

Protests also took place in Edinburgh, Chicago, Houston, Boston, San Diego, Prague, Rome, Stockholm, and Sydney. In Prague, two Ukrainian activists staged a protest outside the US Embassy on 21 October, pouring a red liquid resembling blood onto the road to symbolize the human cost of the policy.

Participants in several cities also condemned restrictions on Starlink, delays in ammunition supplies, and disruptions to intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

The diesel agreement has drawn criticism in Ukraine because Russian fuel exports generate revenue for Moscow while its forces continue attacking Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. A Russian diesel tanker carrying 40,000 metric tons of fuel departed Russia’s Baltic port of Primorsk on 22 October bound for New York, according to shipping data reported by Reuters. It was expected to arrive on 7 November.

Organizers warn against easing pressure on Moscow

Protest organizers argued that restoring Russian fuel sales and relaxing sanctions risk helping Moscow finance its war. They also opposed any US effort to secure concessions from Kyiv without requiring Russia to end its aggression.

The demonstrations reflect concerns among Ukraine’s international supporters that Washington’s pursuit of economic agreements with Moscow could undermine efforts to isolate Russia and strengthen Kyiv’s position.

Trump has defended the diesel arrangement as a way to increase fuel supplies and lower prices. His administration has also presented engagement with Moscow as part of its broader effort to end the war, while critics question whether easing economic pressure will produce meaningful concessions from the Kremlin.

If ever enacted, proposals by Marine Le Pen and the AfD leader, Alice Weidel, to hollow out EU institutions would be a continental act of self-harm

Following the Brexit referendum in 2016, Marine Le Pen was in a predictably celebratory mood. Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, she told one interviewer, was the first breach in the “Brussels Wall”. Ms Le Pen’s Front National party was at that point committed to taking France down the same path, given the chance. But as the UK’s self-inflicted economic wounds became a cautionary tale for the rest of Europe, the notion of Frexit was put on ice.

Instead, Ms Le Pen now hopes to lead far-right allies in hollowing out the EU from within. This month, both she and the leader of Alternative für Deutschland, Alice Weidel, outlined their visions of a “Europe of nations” in which EU institutions would be stripped of both cash and power. Ms Weidel’s “new deal for Europe” would abolish elections to the European parliament, and seek German opt-outs in areas such as migration, defence and common borrowing. Ms Le Pen’s party, now called National Rally, proposes slashing French contributions to the EU budget by 60% over a five-year presidential term, and ending the role of Brussels in proposing common policies for the 27 member states.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Christophe Petit-Tesson/EPA

© Photograph: Christophe Petit-Tesson/EPA

© Photograph: Christophe Petit-Tesson/EPA

Vladimir Putin’s insistence that Ukraine surrender its remaining positions in Donetsk is not simply a dispute over territory. It is a demand that could dismantle Ukraine’s principal defensive barrier in the east, hand Moscow a military advantage it has struggled to achieve through years of fighting, and establish a precedent for further territorial concessions. The latest diplomatic contacts with European leaders have brought this question back to the centre of negotiations.

There are two ways for Russia to capture the remaining Ukrainian-held cities of Donbas. One is to fight its way through heavily fortified defensive positions, accepting substantial casualties, equipment losses and an uncertain timetable. The other is to secure their evacuation through diplomatic negotiations.

The second would achieve an important Russian military objective without requiring Moscow to bear the full cost of a prolonged offensive.

This distinction helps explain why Vladimir Putin continues to insist that Ukrainian forces withdraw from the remaining government-controlled territory of Donetsk region before a comprehensive settlement can be negotiated.

It also raises a more consequential question: would surrendering Donbas bring the war closer to an end, or would it improve Russia’s position in any subsequent confrontation?

A diplomatic opening without a strategic concession

The issue returned to prominence on 27 October when Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre held a rare telephone conversation with Putin.

According to the Finnish president’s official statement, the call followed discussions in Oslo on 20 October involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff.

The Nordic leaders sought to advance preparations for renewed American-mediated negotiations, expected in Abu Dhabi in November. They emphasised that they were acting on behalf of their respective countries rather than representing Europe collectively.

Stubb described the exchange as “frank and substantive”, arguing that direct communication with Moscow was necessary to address the security consequences of the war.

However, the Kremlin’s account offered little indication of movement on the fundamental disagreements.

Moscow insisted that any durable peace must fully accommodate Russian interests. A source close to the Kremlin told Reuters that Putin had reiterated his refusal to compromise on the objective of controlling the entire Donbas.

Following the conversation, Zelenskyy confirmed that the Nordic leaders had briefed him and stressed to Putin the need for concrete measures to reduce attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

The diplomatic process has therefore resumed without resolving the territorial dispute at its centre.

The military significance of the remaining Donbas

The territory Russia is demanding includes some of Ukraine’s most important surviving defensive positions.

Since fighting began in eastern Ukraine in 2014, Ukrainian forces have constructed and reinforced an extensive defensive system centred on Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka and Kostiantynivka.

Known as the fortress belt, this network combines urban areas, industrial facilities, transport infrastructure, prepared defensive positions and terrain that complicates offensive operations.

The military importance of this system extends far beyond the administrative boundaries of Donetsk.

According to the Institute for the Study of War, surrendering these positions would allow Russian forces to occupy heavily defended territory without undertaking the prolonged operations otherwise required to capture it.

In its 26 October battlefield assessment, the institute continued to identify the capture of this defensive belt as Russia’s principal military objective in Donetsk. Ukrainian forces retained positions in parts of Kostiantynivka, while Russian operations towards other major cities remained contested.

The implications of a negotiated Ukrainian withdrawal would be substantial.

Russia could occupy the fortified urban corridor, reorganise its forces, establish new logistics routes and potentially redirect formations towards other sectors.

Ukraine, meanwhile, would have to construct or reinforce defensive positions further west, potentially under pressure and in less favourable terrain.

The resulting military imbalance would not necessarily lead to another Russian offensive. But it would change the conditions under which any renewed hostilities might take place.

That is why territory cannot be assessed solely by its surface area. A relatively small section of the front can possess strategic value disproportionate to its size.

Why Moscow prefers a negotiated withdrawal

Russia’s insistence on Donetsk also reflects the limits of what its military has achieved.

Despite years of fighting, Moscow has not secured complete control of the region. Successive offensives have produced territorial gains, but at considerable cost and without the rapid breakthrough originally anticipated.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently acknowledged the central importance of the remaining Ukrainian-held territory.

In an interview published by the US State Department, Rubio characterised the dispute as centred on territory Russia wants but has been unable to capture militarily, while recognising Ukraine’s sovereignty and long-term security concerns.

His remarks demonstrate how Donbas has become the principal territorial obstacle in Washington’s diplomatic calculations.

For Moscow, however, concentrating negotiations on this specific demand offers an additional advantage.

If Ukraine refuses to withdraw, the Kremlin can argue that Kyiv is preventing progress towards peace. If Ukraine agrees, Russia obtains strategically valuable territory without the military costs associated with conquering it.

The demand therefore serves a dual purpose: it establishes a public explanation for the absence of an agreement while offering Russia an immediate military benefit should negotiations succeed on its terms.

The problem with treating Donbas as the final concession

The central weakness in any settlement built around a Ukrainian withdrawal is the assumption that control of Donbas represents the limit of Russia’s territorial ambitions.

Moscow’s previously declared objectives suggest a more complicated picture.

In June 2024, Putin demanded Ukrainian withdrawal from four regions claimed by Russia: Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Moscow does not fully control these regions, despite claiming to have annexed them in September 2022.

Russia has also demanded restrictions on Ukraine’s military capabilities and future security relationships.

As EU Today previously reported, renewed diplomatic engagement has not produced a clear abandonment of the Kremlin’s wider objectives.

Consequently, transferring the remaining territory of Donetsk would not necessarily satisfy Moscow’s other demands.

There is a significant difference between conceding territory as part of an enforceable settlement and withdrawing from defensive positions as a precondition for negotiating one.

In the first case, territorial arrangements form part of a wider agreement establishing obligations, verification procedures and security guarantees.

In the second, one party makes a potentially irreversible military concession before knowing whether an agreement will ultimately be reached.

This asymmetry is particularly important where the proposed concession directly affects the withdrawing country’s ability to defend itself.

The strategy of incremental gains

One interpretation of Moscow’s approach is that it reflects a strategy of incremental territorial expansion rather than an attempt to achieve all its objectives through a single decisive offensive.

After Russia failed to capture Kyiv in 2022, its military campaign increasingly concentrated on taking territory through successive, often prolonged operations.

The diplomatic equivalent would involve securing one concession, consolidating the resulting advantage and subsequently presenting additional demands.

Under such a scenario, Russia could obtain control of the remaining Donetsk territory, establish new positions closer to Dnipropetrovsk region and later argue that further territorial or security arrangements were necessary to protect its newly acquired frontier.

Moscow has already used the language of protective buffer zones to justify military operations elsewhere in Ukraine.

There is no evidence establishing that such a sequence would inevitably follow a Donbas settlement. Nevertheless, the possibility must be considered when assessing the military consequences of a withdrawal.

The concern is not merely that Russia might violate a future agreement. It is that the agreement itself could alter the strategic balance in ways that make renewed military pressure more effective.

There is also an internal Ukrainian dimension.

An agreement requiring the evacuation of cities defended for years would create substantial political controversy. Disagreements over territorial concessions, security guarantees and the credibility of Western commitments could complicate domestic political stability.

For Moscow, such divisions might provide another means of influencing Ukraine without immediate military escalation.

Donbas and the wider question of Ukrainian sovereignty

Donbas has considerable political significance for Putin beyond its military value.

The conflict in eastern Ukraine began in 2014, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Donetsk and Luhansk became central to the Kremlin’s justification for intervention, and their incorporation into Russia was later proclaimed as part of the 2022 annexations.

Control of the entire region would allow Putin to present a tangible achievement after years of warfare.

Yet the Kremlin’s objectives have never been confined exclusively to Donbas.

Putin has repeatedly questioned Ukraine’s historical and political independence, while Russian negotiating demands have extended to the country’s military posture, international alliances and internal political arrangements.

These positions suggest that territorial control forms part of a broader attempt to determine Ukraine’s strategic orientation.

A settlement that ends fighting in Donetsk without resolving these wider disagreements might therefore suspend the conflict rather than settle its underlying causes.

What the next negotiations must establish

The planned talks in Abu Dhabi will test whether Moscow is prepared to distinguish between its territorial demands and the conditions necessary for a sustainable ceasefire.

An immediate halt to hostilities along existing lines would preserve the military status quo while allowing negotiations to proceed.

Russia has resisted this approach, arguing that a temporary ceasefire could enable Ukraine to rebuild its forces without resolving the conflict.

Ukraine, by contrast, argues that withdrawing from fortified territory without credible guarantees would expose it to renewed attack.

Neither side can be expected to disregard the military implications of the proposed arrangements.

For European governments, the principal question is consequently not simply whether Ukrainian and Russian representatives can be brought back to the negotiating table.

It is whether any agreement can prevent the territorial settlement from becoming the starting position for another war.

Stubb and Støre’s conversation with Putin demonstrated that diplomatic communication remains possible. It did not establish that Moscow is prepared to abandon its existing territorial objectives.

The distinction matters.

Putin’s demand for Donbas offers Russia two potential advantages: a justification for continuing the war if Kyiv refuses, and a substantial military gain if Kyiv accepts.

That does not prove the Kremlin has already decided to resume hostilities after a negotiated withdrawal. It does, however, explain why the terms, sequencing and enforceability of any agreement are as consequential as the territory itself.

The essential question facing negotiators is therefore not only whether Russia can obtain Donbas through diplomacy rather than force.

It is whether the price of that concession would be a lasting peace — or a weaker Ukrainian defensive position if peace fails.

The Russian president hosts the Gas Exporting Countries Forum summit in Moscow.

On Tuesday, President Vladimir Putin accused Western nations of destabilizing the global gas industry through “terrorist attacks” on Russian pipelines and trade barriers, while calling on gas-exporting countries to strengthen cooperation in the face of mounting challenges.

RELATED:

Iran Calls U.S. Actions ‘Economic Terrorism’ at Gas Exporting Countries Forum

Speaking at the 8th Summit of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) in Moscow, Putin said the organization—founded 25 years ago as a platform for expert analysis and market forecasting—has evolved “without any backroom intrigue or attempts to manipulate the market.”

The Russian leader noted that GECF member countries account for 70% of the world’s natural gas reserves and approximately 40% of global gas exports, making a “significant contribution to global energy security and the balanced development of countries and macroregions.”

Putin said natural gas currently accounts for a quarter of the global energy mix, with consumption rising 1.2% in 2025 to 4.2 trillion cubic meters. He predicted these trends would continue, saying “the role of natural gas as a mainstay of global energy, industry, agriculture and international trade will only grow.”

President @drpezeshkian met Russian President Vladimir #Putin on the sidelines of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum Summit. They discussed expanding political, economic, trade and energy cooperation, including joint projects in the oil and gas sectors. pic.twitter.com/ie6N35iz5h

— Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (@Iran_GOV) October 27, 2026

He also pointed out that Russia ranks first in the world in natural gas reserves and second in production, having built a “unique production complex” that enables supply diversification and development of gas processing and chemical production.

However, Putin painted a bleak picture of the current global gas industry, citing deteriorating conditions in the Middle East and attacks on Russian infrastructure.

“Russian gas pipelines to Europe have been subjected to outright terrorist attacks—they were blown up,” Putin said, referring to the 2022 explosions on the Nord Stream pipelines.

“Some countries have also imposed barriers to purchasing equipment and technology for the sector. As a result, the global gas industry faces uncertainty,” he added and warned that efforts to exclude Russia from global gas markets would backfire.

“Any attempts to exclude Russia from the global gas market or hold back the development of our gas industry have serious consequences, above all in the form of rising, exorbitant costs for end users abroad—companies, industrial enterprises and households,” he said.

Putin directed particular criticism at Europe, saying the continent is “undermining its own industry and social sector by rejecting Russian energy supplies and terminating long-term contracts.”

'It's my pleasure to welcome you to Moscow for the 8th GECF Summit' — Vladimir Putin

'It's an organization that has brought together leading global natural gas producers and suppliers' https://t.co/foCliAMxvZ pic.twitter.com/ire6ZiiHVo

— RTRussia (@RT_Russia_) October 27, 2026

Quoting a Russian proverb, he said: “Do not dig a pit for someone else, or you may fall into it yourself. In my view, this is precisely what has happened in EU countries.”

To address industry challenges, Putin called for enhanced cooperation among gas-exporting nations rather than the erection of barriers.

“We must build on our own capabilities and sovereign technologies, developing open, trust-based cooperation founded on mutual benefit and respect for each other’s interests,” he said.

The Russian leader expressed confidence that the GECF and its members have the resources to tackle complex challenges in the gas industry and global energy sector, adding that Russia “stands ready to make a substantial contribution to this work.”

teleSUR/ JF

Source: MFA

The diplomatic outreach was part of an effort to push talks to end the war in Ukraine, though it was not welcomed by all European leaders.

© Pool photo by Maxim Shipenkov

Putin señaló que las empresas gasísticas rusas han enfrentado restricciones, pero advirtió que "cualquier intento de excluir a Rusia del mercado mundial del gas o de obstaculizar el desarrollo de esta industria en nuestro país tiene graves consecuencias".

The move would be the latest U.S. concession to Moscow as President Trump pursues economic incentives he hopes will secure an end to war in Ukraine.

© Ramil Sitdikov/Reuters

Helena Ferro Gouveia sublinha a mobilização eleitoral e a grande relevância estratégica da aliança de Israel com o Ocidente. Admite que o trauma do 7 de outubro inviabiliza a solução de 2 estados.

El mandatario ruso, Vladímir Putin, resaltó el papel estratégico del Foro de Países Exportadores de Gas, cuyos miembros concentran el 70 por ciento de las reservas probadas del gas natural del mundo y representan el 38 por ciento de la producción global.

Frontline near Russian-occupied city in southern Ukraine quiet for first time in years ahead of planned evacuation

A local ceasefire in a southern Ukrainian city under Russian occupation appeared to be holding on Tuesday, with both sides ceasing drone attacks ahead of an apparent evacuation of about 2,000 trapped and desperate civilians.

The temporary truce began at 3am in Russian-controlled Oleshky. The city sits on the Dnipro River and is about 3 miles (5km) from Kherson, a larger city on the opposite bank. Ukrainian troops recaptured Kherson in autumn 2022.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

© Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

© Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

Yulia Navalny considera "um disparate" os elogios do enviado especial da Casa Branca Steve Witkoff ao Presidente da Federação Russa, a propósito da libertação de um cidadão norte-americano. 

© MIRKO AQUILINO/EPA

Frontline near Russian-occupied city in southern Ukraine quiet for first time in years ahead of planned evacuation

A local ceasefire in a southern Ukrainian city under Russian occupation appeared to be holding on Tuesday, with both sides ceasing drone attacks ahead of an apparent evacuation of about 2,000 trapped and desperate civilians.

The temporary truce began at 3am in Russian-controlled Oleshky. The city sits on the Dnipro River and is about 3 miles (5km) from Kherson, a larger city on the opposite bank. Ukrainian troops recaptured Kherson in autumn 2022.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

© Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

© Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

Danish and Estonian officials expressed skepticism over leadership from Finland and Norway communicating with Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this week amid heightened tension between Moscow and Kyiv. Estonian Foreign Affairs Minister Margus Tsahkna wrote on social platform X, “Only increased pressure on Russia will make it take peace negotiations seriously.” “Every contact with Russia…

‘Ending the war requires direct discussions,’ Finnish President Stubb said.

On Tuesday, Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store held a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin from Helsinki to discuss the Ukraine conflict and diplomatic efforts to end the conflict and promote peace and stability in Europe.

RELATED:

Ukraine Announces Temporary Ceasefire in Oleshki To Begin on 27 October

Stubb described the discussion as “frank and substantive.” The call, initiated by Stubb and Store, was held in consultation with Ukraine, and aimed to convey messages directly to Putin regarding future negotiations to end the conflict and was related to upcoming meetings in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

During the call, Stubb and Store stressed the need to end the conflict and resume negotiations, while reaffirming their continued support for Ukraine. Stubb said that Finland and Norway, both neighboring countries to Russia, would be directly affected by the outcome of the conflict, as would broader European security. “Ending the war requires direct discussions,” he said.

Store said the conflict had caused enormous human and material costs, with suffering and destruction that would affect generations, stressing the importance of de-escalation. Stubb and Store took the call as leaders of their respective countries and did not speak on behalf of Europe as a whole.

After the Stubb–Støre call with Putin, Ukraine’s foreign minister flies to Helsinki to meet Finnish and Norwegian leaders. https://t.co/1BtM4HeKwc

— Pietro Guastamacchia (@ilpiotr) October 27, 2026

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen questioned the move, describing it as “a dangerous step that divides Europe.” In an interview with Denmark’s TV 2, Frederiksen said the call “was not coordinated with the rest of us.” “I think we should maintain European unity rather than act alone,” she said.

Stubb, Store and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky held talks on Ukraine with U.S. envoys in Oslo, Norway, on Oct. 20. Tuesday’s call was a follow-up to those talks.

Russia, Ukraine and the United States are reportedly planning to resume talks in the UAE in November. The negotiations have been stalled since the beginning of this year.

teleSUR/ JF

Source: Xinhua

Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre have spoken directly with Vladimir Putin before briefing Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The initiative, undertaken in consultation with Ukraine, comes ahead of planned negotiations in Abu Dhabi but has drawn criticism from other Nordic leaders.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre held a telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday, 27 October, marking an unusual direct diplomatic engagement between Moscow and two European NATO members since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The conversation, initiated by the two Nordic leaders from Helsinki, was followed by a separate call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. According to a joint statement released by the Norwegian government, the initiative had been prepared in consultation with Kyiv.

The objective was to communicate directly with Putin about efforts to end the war and the forthcoming negotiations involving Ukraine, Russia and the United States.

Stubb described the exchange as frank and substantive, arguing that Finland and Norway had particular reasons to participate in discussions concerning European security.

“We are neighbouring countries to Russia,” he said, adding that the war’s outcome would directly affect European security.

Both leaders reaffirmed their governments’ continuing support for Ukraine while calling for renewed negotiations. Støre emphasised the humanitarian and economic consequences of the conflict and the need for de-escalation.

Importantly, their statement specified that they were acting as national leaders rather than representatives of Europe collectively.

Zelenskyy briefed after discussions with Moscow

Following the conversation with Putin, Stubb and Støre spoke with Zelenskyy, who confirmed the exchange in a statement issued by his office.

The Ukrainian president thanked them for their detailed briefing and diplomatic engagement.

According to Zelenskyy, the two leaders had communicated Ukraine’s demand for concrete steps to reduce attacks against its energy facilities and other infrastructure.

The discussion also covered preparations for trilateral negotiations involving Ukrainian, American and Russian delegations, provisionally planned for November.

Kyiv’s confirmation that it had been consulted before the Putin conversation is significant. Ukraine has consistently maintained that decisions concerning its sovereignty, territory and security cannot be negotiated without its participation.

Oslo talks establish new diplomatic channel

Tuesday’s telephone diplomacy followed a meeting in Oslo on 20 October involving Zelenskyy, Stubb, Støre and representatives of US President Donald Trump.

American special envoy Steve Witkoff participated in person, while Jared Kushner joined remotely. European and NATO representatives also attended related discussions.

According to the Ukrainian presidency’s account, the consultations addressed possible steps towards ending the war and establishing security arrangements after a settlement.

Witkoff subsequently travelled to St Petersburg on 21 October for discussions with Putin.

The diplomatic contacts have produced plans for another round of talks in Abu Dhabi, expected after 4 November, although the precise date and representation remain subject to confirmation.

The European Commission has also sought involvement. During its 21 October press briefing, the Commission confirmed its participation in the Oslo consultations, which addressed territorial questions, security guarantees and post-war economic arrangements.

As EU Today previously reported, discussions about appointing a European representative to negotiations have exposed disagreements over who should speak for European governments and what authority such a representative would possess.

Moscow maintains its negotiating position

The Kremlin’s account of Tuesday’s conversation offered little indication of a change in Russia’s principal demands.

According to reports citing the Kremlin’s statement, Putin insisted that a lasting settlement would require what Moscow described as full recognition of Russia’s legitimate interests.

He also accused NATO and European Union countries of pursuing confrontational policies that prolonged the conflict.

These statements indicate that the reopening of direct communication has not, by itself, resolved the differences between the negotiating parties.

Russia continues to seek arrangements concerning Ukrainian territory and the European security order, while Kyiv maintains that its sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected.

Denmark questions independent Nordic diplomacy

The initiative has also revealed differences among European governments over direct engagement with Moscow.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen criticised the Finnish-Norwegian approach, saying it had not been coordinated with Denmark and warning against individual European countries pursuing separate diplomatic initiatives.

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson also expressed reservations about contacts that might undermine a common European position.

Their objections highlight a distinction between consultation with Ukraine and agreement among European governments on the organisation of negotiations.

For Finland and Norway, both of which share borders with Russia, the outcome of the conflict carries direct implications for security in the Baltic Sea region and the High North.

The immediate question is whether their intervention can facilitate substantive negotiations without weakening coordination between Kyiv and its European partners.

With the next US-mediated talks expected in November, Tuesday’s contacts establish another channel of communication with Moscow. Whether that channel produces movement on territorial disputes, security guarantees or an eventual ceasefire remains unresolved.

The United States is not simply declining to uphold international law; it is imposing costs on others for attempting to uphold it.