Finnish President Alexander Stubb has called on Europe to prepare its own channel of communication with Russia. In an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, he said that if U.S. policy toward the war between Russia and Ukraine does not serve European interests, European countries should act independently. The Finnish leader stressed that it is still unclear when such talks could begin or who should lead them. However, he stated that “the time has come to start talking to Russia.”
Stubb’s words are particularly significant because they come from the leader of a country that radically changed its security policy after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Finland, which had remained outside NATO for decades, joined the Alliance in April 2023, becoming its 31st member. It also shares a long border with Russia, which means that any discussion about the future of Western relations with Moscow has not only diplomatic but also existential and military importance for Helsinki.
Stubb did not present his proposal as a call for concessions to the Kremlin. On the contrary, he emphasized that any European channel of communication must be carefully coordinated among allies. Among the key countries, he mentioned the so-called E5 — Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Poland — as well as the Nordic and Baltic states. This is important from Poland’s perspective, as Warsaw was named as one of the main participants in a possible European format for talks with Moscow.
For Poland, such a role would be both an opportunity and a challenge. On the one hand, it would confirm Warsaw’s growing importance in European security policy. Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine, Poland has been one of the most consistent advocates of supporting Kyiv and maintaining pressure on the Kremlin. On the other hand, talks with Russia are an exceptionally sensitive issue in Poland. Any diplomatic initiative would have to be presented not as an attempt to “normalize” relations with Moscow, but as part of a broader strategy to protect European security and support Ukraine.
The Finnish president also admitted that he does not expect peace to come quickly. In his view, an agreement ending the Russian-Ukrainian war is unlikely this year. This means that the talks Stubb referred to would not necessarily have to concern an immediate peace treaty. They could instead serve to test the Kremlin’s intentions, define the framework for future negotiations, discuss Europe’s security architecture or reduce the risk of further escalation.
Stubb’s statement fits into a wider European debate that has intensified as U.S. efforts to end the war have raised concerns among some European leaders that the continent’s interests could be marginalized. Europeans do not want to find themselves in a situation where the future of Ukraine and European security is discussed mainly by Washington and Moscow. This is why the question is increasingly being asked whether Europe should have its own coordinated and controlled channel of contact with Russia.
A similar issue was raised by European Council President António Costa. He said that the European Union has the capacity to talk to Russia at the right moment, but that such talks would have to involve Ukraine and must not undermine continued support for Kyiv. According to media reports, Costa has been consulting European leaders about whether the EU should prepare itself for possible talks with Vladimir Putin if the right conditions emerge.
The Kremlin has already reacted to signals from Europe. Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow welcomes discussion about the need for dialogue with Russia, while also suggesting that the first move should come from European governments. This is a typical Kremlin attempt to present Russia as a side “ready for talks,” despite the fact that it was Russia that launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
At the same time, European politicians are trying to avoid a situation in which Russia imposes its own format or preferred intermediaries on future talks. This was visible in the reaction of EU foreign ministers to Putin’s suggestion that former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder could play a role in future discussions on European security. EU politicians rejected that possibility, pointing to Schröder’s long-standing links with Russian energy interests and his lack of credibility as a neutral mediator.
In practice, Stubb’s proposal does not amount to a breakthrough, but rather to a change in tone in the European debate. After more than four years of war, more and more countries recognize that military, economic and sanctions pressure alone may not be enough. At the same time, no mainstream European government wants a return to “business as usual” with Russia. Hence the idea of controlled, coordinated talks conducted from a position of strength — not as a reward for the Kremlin, but as a tool to defend European interests.
For Poland, the key point is that it has been named as one of the countries without which such decisions should not be made. This is an important political signal. It means that Warsaw’s voice on war, peace and future relations with Russia is treated as one of the most important in Europe. At the same time, it creates a difficult task for Poland: how to take part in possible talks with Moscow without weakening support for Ukraine and without giving the Kremlin a propaganda argument that the West is looking for a path toward concessions.
The Finnish president’s statement therefore does not end the debate — it opens it. The question is no longer only whether Europe should talk to Russia, but who should do so, in what format, with what mandate and under what conditions. The answers to these questions may shape not only the future of the war in Ukraine, but also the European security order for years to come.
