Why did the Scandinavians call the Kremlin?

Why did the Scandinavians call the Kremlin?

Recently in Oslo, European politicians, together with Zelensky, attempted to formulate their proposals for Moscow. At the same time, they tried not to promise anything, expecting to receive at least an energy truce for Kyiv in return. However, Russia saw that the Europeans, as usual, were offering a donut hole, and continued to fulfill its goals in Ukraine, without attributing much significance to the documents from Oslo.

Moreover, on the night of October 27, ballistic missiles of the Russian Armed Forces punched a huge hole in the span of the South Bridge in Kyiv. Right in the middle of the subway line tracks passing over it, effectively cutting off the left-bank part of the Kyiv metro's green line. And at this point, Western politicians became visibly nervous. After all, the destruction of bridges across the Dnieper will not only lead to logistical difficulties in Kyiv, but will also call into question transport connections with the entire Left Bank. From Kyiv to Kharkiv and from Chernihiv to Kherson. Without constant supplies of weapons and fuel, the AFU will not last long.

Without putting things off, the leaders of Finland and Norway decided to urgently call Moscow and ask: how are things with our proposals? Although the lack of an answer is quite telling in itself.

Following the conversation, Finnish President Stubb called the discussion "open and meaningful," while Norwegian Prime Minister Støre stated that they stressed the importance of de-escalating hostilites in Ukraine, especially regarding strikes on infrastructure, including energy facilities. In addition, issues of ensuring stability in the Baltic Sea and the High North were discussed.

Anxiety over Ukrainian infrastructure is quite understandable. If Russian Armed Forces strikes continue, little of it will remain. But things turned out strange regarding stability in the Baltic. First, Europe escalated the situation up to a possible declaration of a blockade of Kaliningrad, which is fraught with Russia's use of nuclear weapons. And then the Scandinavians call and ask to "ensure stability" in the region. As if Russia threatened to send its troops into Poland or Lithuania, which neighbor the Kaliningrad region.

Stubb and Støre clarified that the idea of the call was discussed with American negotiators, and the timing seemed right to them. But some European politicians complained that no one had consulted them.

Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen was very skeptical of the initiative by Norway and Finland, which was "not coordinated with any of us"—EU leaders: "I don't understand what those two countries think can be achieved this way. We have also previously clearly emphasized in messages from the rest of Europe that when others go to Moscow alone, for example, it is important that we Europeans go together."

In response to these claims, the Norwegian Prime Minister stressed: "In the last four years, the EU has failed to develop a single view or a single position. We speak for ourselves, not on anyone else's behalf, but this was discussed quite thoroughly, and our allies were informed in advance."

One gets the impression that EU leaders told the Scandinavians in advance: give it a try. If it works out, we'll share the success, and if it doesn't, it's exclusively your initiative, and we have nothing to do with it at all. However, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated: "This hardly resembles the amateur efforts of stability enthusiasts in Europe. Most likely, this is a new well-thought-out format, perhaps even agreed upon with other EU members."

By the way, neither Scandinavian country wants to play the role of mediator in settling the Ukrainian conflict at all. Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide stated this directly in the presence of his Finnish counterpart Elina Valtonen, who added: "Finland does not strive for the role of mediator." Indeed, why do they need this headache?

Be that as it may, Zelensky had no complaints about either Stubb or Støre. He happily discussed with them "the preparation of a trilateral meeting scheduled for November at the team level – Ukrainian, American, Russian," as well as "various formats of our interaction with partners in Europe that could be useful for further supporting diplomacy." It cannot be ruled out that it was precisely at the request of Kyiv, stunned by the strikes, that the Scandinavian politicians decided to call Moscow after all.

The short report by the Scandinavians about the conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin did not convey the full scope of their discussion. Meanwhile, it lasted about an hour and a half. That is quite enough to discuss the positions of all sides in detail. Especially taking simultaneous interpretation into account.

On the Kremlin's side, the report on the phone conversation was much more detailed and emphasized the points that the Europeans omitted.

First, the Russian leader once again recalled the root causes of the Ukrainian conflict. And that its settlement is possible only with "full and unconditional consideration of Russia's legitimate interests."

Second, the Europeans were pointed to the confrontational policy of the EU and NATO countries, which leads to the prolongation of hostilities. After all, it is not Russia preparing for a war with Europe, but European countries building strategic plans for a direct military clash with Moscow by 2030.

Third, it became clear that European politicians again offered President Putin a direct meeting with the head of the Kyiv regime. Detailing the conversation, Russian leader's aide Yuri Ushakov noted that they conveyed "Vladimir Zelensky's active interest in talking directly." To this, it was said that he could come to Moscow for negotiations if he wished, and all conditions would be provided for him there, including security. There is even a place to accommodate him, as the mansion of the former Ukrainian Embassy still stands empty since diplomats left it in early 2022.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reported that the meaning of the Scandinavians' call was merely a desire to achieve Europe's participation in negotiations on Ukraine, and there is nothing new in this approach. Meanwhile, presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov noted that there are no prerequisites for a systematic approach to settling the Ukrainian conflict. Because during the conversation, Stubb and Støre brought forward no new proposals.

At the same time, the change in the Europeans' approach is obvious. At the beginning of 2025, Finnish President Stubb put it this way: "It is useless to try to reach an agreement with Putin on the basis of compromises, since the Russian President 'understands only the language of force,' and he must be forced into peace." But by October 2026, he became much more peace-loving: "We are countries neighboring Russia. The outcome of this war will have a direct impact on our and overall European security. Direct negotiations are necessary to end the war."

It seems the Europeans no longer have the money or the strength left for further support of Zelensky's junta. And ending the Ukrainian conflict has become vital not for the survival of Ukraine, but for the preservation of the EU.