The Kremlin call that split Europe: path to peace, or a reward for aggression?
Finland's President Alexander Stubb and Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre telephoned Russian President Vladimir Putin. They hoped such a dramatic and direct intervention with Russia's leader would demonstrate European resolve.
But the conversation, held on a damp autumn morning in Helsinki beneath the chandeliers and oil paintings of his Presidential Palace, had the opposite effect. It triggered the biggest rift among Nordic allies since Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and exposed Europe's wider divisions over how to deal with Moscow.
Russian and Ukrainian negotiators are preparing for talks with Donald Trump's envoys in Abu Dhabi this week. Against that background, the fallout from the call is still reverberating across Europe. Governments are arguing over who should represent Europe in future negotiations, and remain divided over the question at the heart of the debate: does engaging Putin help deliver peace, or simply reward aggression?
Underlying European anxiety is another dilemma: can America be trusted to broker a fair deal for them and most of all for Ukraine?
EU leaders will grapple with these questions at an informal summit in Dublin this week. Few involved expect them to agree.
In an interview with POLITICO in Oslo, Støre explained why he and Stubb decided to call a leader waging hybrid warfare on Europe and killing Ukrainian civilians with daily drone and missile strikes.
Støre said, "We work closely with our European partners in supporting Ukraine, but the only voice reaching Moscow comes from Washington. And you know, we have good and open relations with the American negotiators, with the American administration, but this war happens in Europe. And living month by month, thinking that this war will end by Europe not talking to Moscow, I think, is an illusion."
Other countries sharing a border — and a history — with Putin's Russia profoundly disagree. Estonia's Prime Minister Kristen Michal told POLITICO in another interview: "Europe should not be in a mediator's position. You should not take the role of trying to please the dictator."
Europe has struggled for influence over the stop-start Ukraine peace process ever since Trump returned to the White House in early 2025, promptly picked up the phone to Putin and ended US financial assistance to Kyiv.
Trump's interventions shattered the transatlantic consensus built under his predecessor Joe Biden, offering Putin the prospect of an advantageous ceasefire and a return to the international fold.
The US-Iran war this year interrupted momentum, but Trump returned to the topic of Ukraine again in October, criticising President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for continuing to attack Russian energy infrastructure, while declaring that Putin's side had been "fine".
Fearing the negotiations were drifting toward collapse, Stubb and Støre intervened. Støre hosted Zelenskyy and Trump envoy Steve Witkoff in Oslo in an attempt to repair relations. Stubb, who also attended, declared the meeting on 20 October had put the peace process "back on track".
But 24 hours later, Witkoff again stunned European leaders. Since then the debate over the call has continued: will Europe move toward peace by talking to Putin, or will that only reward aggression?
