Search

President Sauli Niinistö has expressed his support for the discussion between Prime Minister Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre with Russian President Vladimir Putin, although the call has also received some criticism. #SauliNiinistö #StubbinPuhelu #Venäjä (translated)

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen left the Nordic Prime Ministers' meeting held earlier in Helsinki due to the resignation of another minister and strongly criticized the contacts made by the presidents of Finland and Norway with Russian President Vladimir Putin. #MetteFrederiksen #Pohjoismaat #Putin (translated)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky thanked the leaders of Finland and Norway, Alexander Stubb and Jonas Gahr Støre, for their important communication to the President of Russia, emphasizing the necessary actions to protect Ukraine's energy systems. #Ukraina #Zelenskyi #diplomatia (translated)

The President of the Republic, Alexander Stubb, will today announce in his speech to the Nordic Council the possibility of a discussion with the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, which has attracted attention at the summit being held in Helsinki. #StubbinPuhelu #PohjoismaidenNeuvosto #Putin (translated)

The prime ministers of the Nordic countries gathered in Helsinki to comment on the phone call between President Stubb and Vladimir Putin, which dealt with Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the promotion of peace in Europe. #Putin #StubbinPuhelua #PohjoismainenYhteistyö (translated)

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has criticized the availability of ballot papers, claiming that many people have been prevented from voting in the presidential elections due to inadequate bus services. #BrasilianVaalit #LuizInacioLulaDaSilva #ÄänestämisenEsteet (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that the discussions held in St. Petersburg once again demonstrated, in his opinion, the difficulty of negotiating with Russia. He reported that the Kremlin considered the proposals prepared in Oslo to be almost useless but simultaneously stated its willingness to continue negotiations and spoke about the approaching end of the war. Vanhanen described this as contradictory and believed Russia was holding its demands steady without revealing what it would be willing to compromise on. According to Vanhanen, Moscow sought to shift the discussion to the post-war European security order and the security guarantees that would be given to Russia. He regarded the guarantees as absurd because, according to him, Russia had started the largest offensive war in Europe in decades. Referring to previous Russian demands, he assessed that the guarantees could practically grant Moscow influence over which countries would join NATO and what kind of defense arrangements neighboring countries could make. He added that the U.S. President could not promise such things on behalf of other NATO countries or independent European states. Vanhanen argued that European security should not be built by giving an aggressor the right to dictate the defense of other countries. In his view, mutual arms control and the reduction of military risks could be negotiated, but Russia's demands for a sphere of influence should not be presented as security guarantees. He reported that Zelensky had announced Ukraine was ready to freeze the war at the current front lines. Vanhanen considered this a significant practical compromise and clarified that it did not, in his opinion, involve a legal cession of territories to Russia. He compared this to Russia's stance and wrote that Ukraine had indicated what it would accept, while Russia had stated what it would not accept. Vanhanen described the situation as revealing regarding Trump's negotiation tactics. He wrote that the United States had already loosened the pressure of sanctions on Russia and had agreed to diesel cooperation, but he assessed that there were no signs of similar political concessions from Moscow. According to him, the continuation of negotiations could benefit Russia by keeping Washington interested in economic cooperation, giving time to advance military objectives, and providing an opportunity to wait and see if Trump's impatience would again be directed toward Ukraine. Vanhanen asked how many times Trump would be willing to reward Putin for his willingness to negotiate without substantial changes in his actions. He considered the diplomatic work of Stub and Støre the previous day to be important because, in his opinion, they had restored the Americans, Ukrainians, and Europeans to a common preparation. However, he warned that a single successful negotiation day should not obscure the fact that Moscow's public demands remained unchanged. Vanhanen concluded by stating that in peace negotiations, what mattered was not the number of meetings with Putin but what he was willing to do to end the war. #Venäjä #neuvottelut #rauha (translated)