The challenge of Ukraine negotiations has once again taken center stage as Finland’s president, Alexander Stubb, emphasized the necessity of engaging constructively with Washington despite the uncertainties surrounding the Trump administration.
In remarks that underline both realism and diplomacy, Stubb argued that Europe has little choice but to pursue dialogue with the United States, stressing that “engagement is better than disengagement, come hell or high water.”
His approach reflects the delicate balancing act small states must perform in the face of great power politics while maintaining firm commitments to values and interests.
On the question of whether there is a point when Europe must finally conclude that the United States is not a reliable ally in the context of Ukraine negotiations, Stubb did not hesitate to point out the limited options available to nations like Finland.
He said his nation had no alternative but to keep trying to maintain strong ties with Washington. “I think it’s the job of the president of Finland to get along with the president of the United States, whoever he is,” Stubb explained.
“Foreign policy is always based on three pillars. It’s values, interests and power. Small states only have values and interests … but we can have influence instead of power. Engagement is better than disengagement, come hell or high water,” he added, articulating a philosophy rooted in realism and necessity rather than wishful thinking.
Stubb’s comments came just days after Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused Western allies of “wasting time” ahead of a crucial meeting with Donald Trump.
Zelenskyy’s frustration highlights the slow pace of diplomatic maneuvering at a moment when Ukraine continues to face existential threats. The divergence in tone between Zelenskyy’s impatience and Stubb’s pragmatism reflects the differing positions of leaders whose countries are affected in distinct ways by the war.
For Finland, which shares a long border with Russia and has its own history of delicate coexistence, caution and careful diplomacy remain essential. For Ukraine, survival demands urgency.
Last week, Stubb visited Kyiv and met Zelenskyy personally. Far from adopting a pessimistic stance, he said he came away from the trip “confident” that Ukraine could continue fighting a long war if necessary.
He dismissed suggestions that Ukraine was close to collapse as “fake news,” reinforcing his belief that the resilience of Ukraine and its people should not be underestimated. His remarks also serve as a counterweight to narratives that portray Ukraine as a nation on the verge of exhaustion.
The coming days at the United Nations are expected to be dominated by debates over Palestine, but Stubb made clear that Ukraine remains high on his agenda.
He hopes to hold multiple meetings with Zelenskyy and other stakeholders to assess the state of Ukraine negotiations and the evolving dynamics in Washington. On the issue of security guarantees, Stubb was explicit about the central role of the United States.
He said that an “American backstop” would be required to give any guarantees real weight, acknowledging that European promises alone might not suffice to deter Russia or reassure Kyiv. However, he also admitted there is no clear picture yet of what Trump’s administration is actually willing to offer, leaving the matter shrouded in uncertainty.
The debate over guarantees, however, risks being largely hypothetical if no breakthrough is made toward a negotiated end to the war.
Zelenskyy has publicly stated on multiple occasions that he is prepared to meet Russian president Vladimir Putin if that is what it takes to satisfy Trump’s demands for dialogue. Yet Putin has consistently rebuffed such overtures, declaring that he would only meet Zelenskyy in Moscow or on the condition that Russia’s sweeping demands are first accepted.
This deadlock reinforces the grim reality: while Zelenskyy is ready to compromise on the form of talks, Putin continues to cling to terms that make serious dialogue virtually impossible.
Stubb acknowledged this bleak outlook with candor. He admitted that prospects for persuading Putin to negotiate appear dim at present.
“This war is too big for him to lose. He has made probably the biggest strategic mistake in recent history, certainly since the end of the cold war, and he has failed in all of his strategic aims. It’s a question when he comes to the negotiating table, hopefully sooner rather than later, but right now I’m quite pessimistic,” Stubb said.
His assessment underscores the paradox facing Europe and Ukraine alike: Putin’s strategic miscalculations are evident, yet his political survival hinges on not admitting defeat.
The Finnish leader’s emphasis on engagement, even with an unpredictable American partner, adds another layer to the debate over Ukraine negotiations.
Stubb’s pragmatic acknowledgment of Trump’s influence suggests that European leaders cannot afford to dismiss Washington’s role, even when it is inconsistent.
While many critics in Europe argue that relying on the Trump administration is fraught with risks, Stubb appears determined to demonstrate that even small states can exert influence by maintaining open lines of communication.
Fresh perspectives on the war’s trajectory are needed, especially as the conflict enters yet another grinding phase with no decisive outcome in sight.
One perspective gaining traction is that Europe may need to prepare for a future in which Ukraine negotiations are shaped less by battlefield developments and more by geopolitical bargaining involving the United States, Russia, and possibly China.
Another perspective is that Ukraine itself is now central not only to European security but also to the credibility of international norms against aggression.
By consistently affirming his confidence in Ukraine’s capacity to sustain the war, Stubb signals that the West cannot prematurely surrender the narrative to those who claim that Ukraine’s resistance is futile.
Moreover, the Finnish experience offers a subtle but significant lens. Finland’s long border with Russia and history of navigating delicate security arrangements without provoking outright conflict inform Stubb’s diplomatic instincts.
His insistence on engagement—rather than confrontation with the United States over its wavering reliability—reflects Finland’s traditional reliance on maintaining open channels even when larger powers appear erratic. This perspective, rooted in history, offers Europe an alternative model of strategic patience.
Still, patience alone will not resolve the crisis. The voices of leaders like Zelenskyy remind the world that time is not neutral in this conflict. Each day without progress exacts a toll in human lives, infrastructure, and the morale of a nation fighting for survival.
When Zelenskyy accuses allies of “wasting time,” it is a stark reminder that diplomatic hesitations can become costly. For Ukraine, urgency is not a diplomatic posture but an existential demand.
Reconciling these two approaches—the patience of Finland and the urgency of Ukraine—will be crucial if the West is to craft a coherent path forward in Ukraine negotiations.
While Trump’s demands for talks with Putin remain controversial, Stubb’s framing of diplomacy as a triad of values, interests, and power underscores the reality that effective negotiation requires balancing ideals with hard-nosed strategy.
Ultimately, Stubb’s message is both pragmatic and sobering. Engagement, even with partners whose commitment is uncertain, is preferable to isolation. The prospect of meaningful Ukraine negotiations remains elusive, but for Finland and Europe, disengagement is not an option.
The challenge now is to find ways to bridge the gap between the demands of time, the realities of power, and the enduring values that small states like Finland are determined to uphold.
