Denmark's Frederiksen criticizes Finland and Norway for calling Putin without coordinating with allies, despite consultation with Ukraine

Finland’s President Alexander Stubb and Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store jointly phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin. They discussed ending the war in Ukraine, de-escalation, and European security. The Kremlin confirmed it was the first call between the three leaders.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said the Finnish and Norwegian leaders had gone “solo.” She meant they had launched a diplomatic initiative without coordinating it with other European governments. Stubb and Store said they had consulted Ukraine, but they stressed that they represented Finland and Norway, not Europe as a whole.

The disagreement matters because European leaders are trying to join planned US-led peace talks. Frederiksen said Europe should remain united rather than act separately. The call therefore created a debate over whether individual diplomatic contacts help open communication or weaken a common European position.

Diplomatic coordination means countries consult one another before important talks and try to present compatible goals. Partners do not necessarily surrender their independence. They coordinate timing, messages, and negotiating priorities so an adversary understands what the wider group supports.

A separate call can create concern when other governments were not informed or included. Russia might treat one country’s proposal as a broader European position, even if that country speaks only for itself. Partners may then fear mixed messages, reduced trust, or less influence in later negotiations. These are general risks of uncoordinated diplomacy.

That concern explains Denmark’s reaction. Frederiksen said Stubb and Store had gone “solo” and questioned what they could achieve alone. Stubb and Store replied that they had consulted Ukraine and were representing Finland and Norway, not Europe. The disagreement centers on process, not only the call’s subject.

The central participants were Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Stubb and Store initiated the phone call, while Putin took part in the discussion. They described the conversation as focused on ending the war, de-escalation, and security.

Ukraine was involved through President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He attended an October 20 meeting in Oslo with Stubb, Store, and US envoy Steve Witkoff, while Jared Kushner joined remotely. Stubb and Store said they consulted Ukraine before calling Putin, and Zelenskyy spoke with them afterward.

The United States was represented in the earlier Oslo meeting by Witkoff, alongside Kushner remotely. European involvement also included Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who criticized the call at a Nordics leaders’ meeting. The wider setting was planned US-led peace talks that European leaders are seeking to join.

Finland and Norway are especially attentive because both countries border Russia. The article links that geography to their security concerns. A war involving their neighbor can have a direct impact on their national safety and on the security environment across Europe.

Their leaders therefore argued that ending the war requires direct discussions. Stubb called the conversation with Putin “frank and substantive.” Store emphasized de-escalation and the enormous human and material costs of the conflict. These comments show why the two governments chose to open a direct channel.

Both countries have also supported Ukraine throughout the war. Their approach combines continued support for Ukraine with efforts to find a just and lasting peace. The call does not mean they spoke for Europe; both leaders explicitly said they represented their own countries. Denmark’s criticism focused on coordination, not on whether Finland and Norway face serious security concerns.

Stubb and Store said they consulted Ukraine before initiating their conversation with Putin. The call followed an October 20 Oslo meeting that included Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the two Nordic leaders, and US envoy Steve Witkoff. This placed Ukraine inside the wider diplomatic process before the direct contact.

After speaking with Putin, Stubb and Store communicated with Zelenskyy again. Stubb wrote that Finland and Norway would continue supporting Ukraine and efforts to find a just and lasting peace. Ukraine was therefore involved on both sides of the call: before it through consultation and afterward through direct discussion.

Ukraine’s participation matters because the proposed peace effort concerns its war, territory, security, and future. The article does not describe Ukraine as a formal party to the Putin call, but it shows the Nordic leaders did not present the initiative as separate from Ukraine’s interests. Their stated goal was support alongside diplomacy.

If European governments approach Russia separately, they may send different messages about goals, conditions, or who has authority to speak. That can make it harder for partners to build a shared position. It may also create uncertainty around Europe’s role in planned US-led peace talks.

The article provides a clear example. Finland and Norway contacted Putin without coordinating with other European governments, although they said they had consulted Ukraine. Frederiksen called this going “solo” and said Europe should remain united. Stubb and Store responded that they represented only their own countries, not Europe.

The immediate consequence is a dispute over how Europe should participate in diplomacy. The article does not say the peace talks have been canceled or that the call changed their plans. European leaders are still seeking to join the US-led talks. The episode suggests that agreeing on a common approach will be important if Europe wants a unified role.

Collective security means countries cooperate because a threat to one can affect the safety of others. They share information, support one another, and coordinate diplomacy. Yet each government still controls its own foreign policy unless it has made a binding commitment to act jointly.

The article illustrates this balance. Finland and Norway chose to contact Putin and said they represented only themselves. They had also supported Ukraine and consulted it before the call. Denmark accepted that they could act, but criticized the lack of coordination with other European governments. The dispute was about how independent action fits shared security.

This arrangement gives countries flexibility, but it can also produce mixed messages. Frederiksen argued that Europe should stay united. Stubb and Store emphasized direct discussions and de-escalation. The planned US-led talks make coordination especially important, because European governments are seeking to participate while maintaining support for Ukraine.