I recently wrote about Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre doing something that much of Europe’s political establishment has spent years avoiding. They picked up the telephone and spoke directly with Vladimir Putin. The October 27 conversation lasted approximately 90 minutes and addressed the war in Ukraine, European security, and the possibility of renewed negotiations. Now the Kremlin has publicly declared that Putin is prepared to speak with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron as well. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated, “Of course, he is open to dialogue with everyone.” When asked whether Putin would speak with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, however, Peskov replied, “No one has called yet.”
What has happened to diplomacy? Since when did refusing to speak with an adversary become a demonstration of political strength? The entire purpose of diplomacy is to communicate with governments whose interests conflict with your own. You do not need negotiations when everyone agrees.
Stubb and Støre have demonstrated that direct communication does not require abandoning Ukraine. Both governments remain committed supporters of Kyiv. Their telephone conversation was coordinated with Ukrainian officials, and they spoke with Zelensky afterward. Stubb explained that Finland and Norway share borders and security interests with Russia, making the outcome of the war directly relevant to their own countries. He stated, “Ending the war requires direct discussions.” This should be obvious to anyone who understands international relations. The Nordic leaders did not recognize Russia’s territorial claims, withdraw their support for Ukraine, or promise to lift sanctions. They opened a channel of communication because they recognized that refusing to speak accomplishes nothing.
The reaction from other European leaders was revealing. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned against individual diplomatic initiatives, arguing that Europe should maintain a united position. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson expressed skepticism about the value of the conversation, while Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk urged caution. They fear Putin could cause further division between EU members. Why? Could they perhaps realize that billions in aid, an energy crisis, and thousands dead are not in their national best interest?
Now the Kremlin is attempting to portray itself as the party willing to communicate. Peskov has stated that Putin would answer calls from Macron and Merz, while presidential aide Yury Ushakov said the Russian president would remain available to the Finnish and Norwegian leaders. The Finnish and Norwegian initiative is significant because it demonstrates that European leaders can communicate directly with Moscow. Elected leaders should be able to speak on behalf of their constituents rather than cower in silence awaiting approval from the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.
Throughout history, governments have maintained diplomatic channels with adversaries even during periods of extreme hostility. Negotiations between nuclear powers were essential during the Cold War precisely because the consequences of misunderstanding were so severe. Today, Russia and NATO possess enormous military capabilities, and the possibility of miscalculation remains a serious concern. Direct communication is one means of reducing that danger. It does not require trusting Putin, accepting Russian claims, or abandoning Ukraine.
The question is no longer whether European leaders can telephone Moscow. Finland and Norway have already demonstrated that they can. The question is whether those conversations can develop into a serious diplomatic process capable of addressing the interests and security of all parties involved. The Kremlin says Putin will answer the phone.
Europe should examine what diplomacy can actually achieve rather than treating the act of speaking as a political controversy. The war has already inflicted enormous damage, and its continuation carries substantial risks for Ukraine, Russia, and the wider European economy. Finland and Norway have reopened a channel that much of Europe allowed to deteriorate. Whether that channel produces meaningful progress remains uncertain, but the principle should never have been controversial. Diplomacy exists to prevent disagreements between governments from being settled exclusively on the battlefield.
