Stubb: “We saw that the peace negotiations were in danger, so we took action at Ukraine’s request in Oslo”

Stubb and Støre responded to a warning sign: they believed the Ukraine peace negotiations were at risk of failing. Rather than issuing direct Finnish or Norwegian demands, they helped create a channel for discussion with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Their aim was to keep negotiations moving and address urgent wartime issues.

The call followed the Oslo meeting involving Stubb, Støre, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyi, and U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff. Before speaking with Putin, Stubb and Støre also consulted American negotiators. During the call, they mainly conveyed Ukrainian messages. Stubb said the discussion covered limits on attacks, energy facilities, infrastructure, food security, and prisoner exchanges.

The call did not produce a timetable or agreed method for future talks. However, the participants expressed openness to continuing communication. The Kremlin also said that Stubb, Støre, and Putin agreed to maintain telephone contact. The effort therefore reopened dialogue, while leaving the main political and military questions unresolved.

The call was prepared jointly with Ukraine and the United States, according to Stubb. Finland did not speak about Ukraine over Ukraine’s head, he stressed. The participants included Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyi supported the call and later thanked the two European leaders.

Stubb and Støre acted as intermediaries. Before the call, they spoke with American negotiators. During it, they mainly passed on messages from Ukraine rather than presenting separate Finnish demands. Stubb also said Finland strongly relies on international law and the law of the sea, especially regarding free navigation in the Baltic Sea.

The wider diplomatic process included the United States and Ukraine, with Steve Witkoff involved in the Oslo meeting and later travelling to meet Putin. The planned Abu Dhabi meeting was expected to include Ukraine, the United States, and Russia. European participation was mentioned earlier but was not repeated later by Stubb.

The Oslo meeting mattered because it came at a moment of diplomatic danger. Stubb said the participants had a strong feeling that the peace negotiations were collapsing. The meeting then helped get them back on track and made relations between the United States and Ukraine work again. This created the conditions for considering direct contact with Putin.

The meeting brought together Stubb, Støre, Zelenskyi, and U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff. Witkoff later travelled from Oslo to meet Putin. Over the following weekend, the participants concluded that it might be a good time for a conversation with the Russian president. Stubb and Støre also spoke with American negotiators before making the call.

The Oslo meeting therefore served as the immediate background for the telephone diplomacy. It did not settle the war or guarantee a ceasefire. Instead, it produced enough coordination to support a new discussion about short-term measures, including energy attacks, infrastructure, food security, and prisoner exchanges.

A short-term ceasefire is a limited agreement to stop or reduce fighting for a defined period or in specific areas. It can focus on particular targets or activities rather than ending the entire war. In the call, the short-term issues included attacks on energy facilities, power plants, energy transfers, wider infrastructure, food security, and prisoner exchanges.

A permanent peace agreement is broader and lasting. It normally settles the conditions for ending the conflict, including security arrangements and other disputed matters. The article describes no such final settlement. Instead, Stubb said the participants expressed openness to continuing discussions, without agreeing when or how those talks would happen.

A temporary ceasefire can create space for humanitarian relief and further diplomacy. It may also build confidence if both sides follow it. But it remains limited and fragile. The issues discussed by Stubb concerned immediate restrictions and trust-building measures, not a permanent political agreement between Ukraine and Russia.

Stubb said the telephone conversation with Putin lasted about one and a half hours. That gave the participants time to discuss several practical issues connected with limiting wartime harm. The agenda included energy production, power plants, energy transfers, broader infrastructure, food security, and prisoner exchanges.

The planned Abu Dhabi meeting was described as involving Ukraine, the United States, and Russia. Those are three countries. Stubb initially said there could also be European representation at the meeting, when speaking at a meeting of the Nordic Council. Later, at a media meeting, he did not mention Europe in the same connection.

The article does not provide a date for the Abu Dhabi meeting or explain its final format. It says the telephone call helped prepare for it. The meeting was expected to address Ukraine’s current security situation and continue the diplomatic process, while the precise arrangements remained unsettled.

Fewer attacks on energy facilities and infrastructure could reduce disruption to electricity, heating, communications, transport, and other essential services. Protecting food supplies could also lower risks to civilian access to food. Together, these steps could make daily life safer and reduce the immediate humanitarian pressure created by the war.

The proposed measures work through direct protection and confidence building. If power plants, energy transfers, and infrastructure are attacked less often, civilians may face fewer interruptions and dangers. Food-security measures can protect supplies. Prisoner exchanges can return captured people to their families. These are practical actions rather than a final political settlement.

Such steps could make further negotiations easier by showing that commitments can be carried out. They might create a limited pause in harm and improve trust between the sides. However, the article records no completed agreement. Stubb said the participants were open to further discussions, but they did not decide when or how those talks would continue.

International law is the body of rules and agreements that guide how states must act toward one another. The law of the sea is the part that addresses maritime areas, navigation, and related rights. In this situation, these rules matter because wartime pressure can threaten movement and create disputes over what states may do at sea.

Stubb said that if there were uncertainties, Finland would strongly state that it relies on international law and the law of the sea. He also said Finland considers free movement in the Baltic Sea very important. This was not presented as a separate Finnish message about Ukraine, but as a clear principle concerning navigation and lawful conduct.

Applying these rules can provide a shared basis for communication during a conflict. It can help clarify expectations and support continued movement at sea. The article does not report a specific Baltic Sea agreement from the call. It says the Baltic situation was discussed and that Stubb emphasized free navigation as an important principle.