The Nordic countries rarely argue publicly over foreign policy, least of all when it comes to Russia. A 90-minute phone call this week between the leaders of Finland and Norway and Vladimir Putin has, however, broken that pattern and prompted a reaction of disapproval from their Danish and Swedish neighbours, according to The Guardian.
Some observers in the region saw the call as an unusual opening by Nordic capitals toward the Kremlin. It took place at a time when Europe remains divided over how to deal with Moscow after the invasion of Ukraine, and critics warned that such a gesture could be read in Moscow as a weakening of European unity. The source cited by The Guardian stresses that the disagreement surfaced because the Nordic states usually coordinate their positions on security matters.
The central question remains how Vladimir Putin might interpret Europe's sudden interest in dialogue. Analysts cited by the press suggest the Russian leader has long used such occasions to sow discord among European states. A bilateral contact with two members of the Nordic region could be treated by the Kremlin as a symbolic gain, even though no concrete results of the call have so far been announced.
The reaction from Denmark and Sweden shows that the debate goes beyond the bilateral framework. It touches on how the Nordic states, some of which have recently joined or are preparing to make important decisions within NATO and the European Union, coordinate their relations with Russia. Differences in approach between neighbours have thus become visible in a region that usually presents common positions, and the criticism came from countries that share with Finland and Norway an interest in deterring Moscow.
Finland shares with Russia a border of over 1,300 kilometres, the longest of any European Union member state, and Norway also borders Russia in the far north. This proximity explains why the call was followed closely both in Helsinki and Oslo and in the capitals of the other Nordic countries. According to the sources cited, the leaders of the two countries considered that a direct channel of communication with the Kremlin could reduce the risk of incidents at the border, but the argument was contested by those who believe such an opening gives Moscow an image advantage.
Although the available sources do not detail all the topics discussed during the call, its duration of nearly two hours and the fact that it was held by the leaders of two countries sharing a long border with Russia underline its importance. The debate that followed shows that Europe remains divided between those who support diplomatic openness and those who demand that the Kremlin not be granted any additional legitimacy until concrete changes in Russian policy occur.