Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre has cautioned against expectations of an imminent peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, warning that negotiations led by the United States must not undermine Europe’s security architecture or turn NATO’s future into a bargaining chip.
Speaking ahead of renewed trilateral negotiations involving Moscow, Kyiv and Washington in Abu Dhabi on November 10–11, Støre expressed reservations about US President Donald Trump’s increasingly optimistic claims that a comprehensive agreement to end Russia’s war against Ukraine could soon be reached.
The Norwegian leader said the latest diplomatic initiative should be viewed as a stepping stone towards further negotiations rather than an indication that a ceasefire or comprehensive peace settlement was close.
“I would be cautious,” Støre said when asked about his expectations for the talks in the United Arab Emirates. “Abu Dhabi is a stepping stone, and one output of it should be a follow-up quite soon after.”
His comments highlight growing European concerns over Washington’s approach to negotiations, particularly the possibility that an agreement between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin could determine the future of European security without sufficient involvement from European governments.
The November 10–11 meeting will bring Russian and Ukrainian negotiating teams together with US representatives for the first trilateral discussions since February. It follows weeks of intensified diplomatic efforts and mounting pressure from Trump to secure an agreement to end nearly five years of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Støre said the agenda could include several limited arrangements designed to reduce hostilities and build confidence between the two sides. These could involve a ceasefire covering the Black Sea to facilitate grain shipments, a halt to attacks on energy infrastructure, a freeze along the existing front line and prisoner exchanges.
He also pointed to ongoing discussions about security guarantees intended to prevent Russia from launching another invasion after any agreement is reached.
However, Støre indicated that reaching agreement on these issues would require sustained diplomatic engagement and that there was little reason to assume Putin was prepared to accept a settlement.
The Norwegian prime minister has emerged as an important European interlocutor during the latest diplomatic push. Together with Finnish President Alexander Stubb, he attempted to revive stalled negotiations last month by hosting a meeting in Oslo involving Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
The meeting helped bring Washington and Kyiv back into alignment and contributed to preparations for the Abu Dhabi discussions.
However, the diplomatic atmosphere was complicated when Witkoff travelled to St. Petersburg the following day and publicly described Putin as a “humanitarian”, a remark that reportedly alarmed several European governments supporting Ukraine.
Asked about Witkoff’s comments, Støre declined to disclose his personal reaction, although he made clear that such language would not have been his choice.
“It would not have been part of my vocabulary,” he said.
Asked whether he trusted the American negotiators to oversee a fair peace process, Støre offered a carefully qualified response.
“I trust that the U.S. is seeking a way to end this war,” he said, stopping short of giving an unconditional endorsement of Washington’s negotiating approach.
The Norwegian leader’s position reflects a broader European dilemma. While Washington remains the most influential external actor in the negotiations, European governments fear that an agreement could impose long-term consequences on the continent without adequately addressing their security concerns.
In an unusual diplomatic initiative, Støre and Stubb contacted Putin directly on October 27, holding a telephone conversation lasting approximately 90 minutes.
The outreach marked a significant departure from the approach adopted by several European governments since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Many European countries have maintained diplomatic isolation of the Russian leadership while supporting Kyiv through military, financial and political assistance.
The decision by the Norwegian and Finnish leaders to engage directly with the Kremlin reportedly surprised and unsettled some of their Nordic and Baltic neighbours, including Denmark and Latvia.
Støre defended the initiative, arguing that Europe could not afford to remain absent from direct communication with Moscow while Washington pursued its own negotiations with the Kremlin.
“Let’s admit it. He is not isolated,” Støre said, referring to Putin. “The only voice reaching Moscow comes from Washington.”
He argued that the war was taking place on European territory and that European governments needed to communicate their positions directly to the Russian leadership.
“Living month by month … thinking that this war will end by Europe not talking to Moscow, I think, is an illusion,” he said.
“We believe that there should be European voices reaching Putin, with the message of why and how we support Ukraine.”
Asked about Putin’s behaviour during the conversation, Støre described the Russian president as professional and rational in the context of their exchange.
“I would describe it as professional. I would describe it as rational,” he said.
According to Støre, the participants agreed on basic rules for the conversation, including allowing each other to speak without interruption and maintaining a structured exchange.
He also rejected reports suggesting that Putin had used the conversation primarily to lecture the Nordic leaders about Slavic history as justification for Russia’s invasion.
“I just have to say, you know, I was present. He didn’t,” Støre said.
Nevertheless, the Norwegian leader questioned whether Putin genuinely wanted to end the war.
He argued that Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine, its continued military campaign and the significant human and economic costs incurred since 2022 raised serious doubts about Moscow’s commitment to peace.
“If he had wanted peace, there would have been no war at the outset,” Støre said.
He added that Russia had suffered substantial consequences, including the deaths of its soldiers, economic setbacks and the expansion of NATO through the accession of Finland and Sweden.
Despite those developments, Moscow had continued its military campaign.
However, Støre suggested that Putin’s willingness to engage in direct conversations could indicate some readiness to participate in further diplomatic discussions.
The fact that the Russian president had agreed to take the telephone call was, in his assessment, a signal that communication remained possible.
Støre said he had not yet seen convincing evidence that Putin was genuinely prepared to reach an agreement. Nevertheless, sending a negotiating delegation to Abu Dhabi and failing to produce any meaningful outcome would also carry political costs for Moscow.
The renewed negotiations have intensified debate within Europe over how the continent should be represented in discussions that could fundamentally reshape its security environment.
European leaders are expected to address the issue at an informal summit in Dublin, with growing calls for the European Union and its major powers to establish a coordinated negotiating position.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has expressed frustration over the absence of a clear European strategy to ensure that the continent’s interests are represented when decisions about Ukraine are made.
Støre said he supported the idea of appointing a representative or establishing an arrangement through which Europe could communicate collectively with Washington and Moscow.
“I think there should be” someone speaking on behalf of a larger European group, he said.
He argued that the priority should be to establish common European objectives before deciding who should communicate them.
Støre increasingly sees the so-called E3 grouping — Germany, France and the United Kingdom — as a potentially important framework for coordinating Europe’s position because of the three countries’ economic and diplomatic influence.
He suggested that European governments needed to agree on their core messages and negotiating priorities and then designate an individual or group to convey them to Trump and Putin.
The debate comes amid concerns that the United States and Russia could negotiate a new European security arrangement without adequate consultation with countries directly affected by the outcome.
Støre’s strongest warning concerned the possibility that negotiations to end the war could become linked to broader changes in Europe’s security architecture, including NATO’s future role and the presence of American troops on the continent.
Trump and members of his administration have recently indicated that Washington is considering a major overhaul of European security arrangements, potentially involving the entire continent.
Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner has described the objective as developing practical arrangements that address the security concerns of all sides.
However, European governments fear that such an initiative could provide Moscow with an opportunity to revive longstanding demands to restrict NATO’s military presence and influence in Eastern Europe.
Russia has repeatedly opposed NATO expansion and sought security arrangements that would limit the alliance’s activities near its borders.
Støre rejected the possibility of including these broader questions in negotiations over ending the invasion of Ukraine.
“Any issues relating to European architecture on security will have to be dealt with after the end of the war,” he said.
He argued that Russia could not dictate where NATO was permitted to operate or which countries were entitled to join the alliance.
“Russia keeps floating the ideas they had in the end of [2021] about where there could be NATO and where there could not be NATO. That is not for Russia to decide,” Støre said.
“This has nothing to do with this point in the negotiations.”
His comments underline Norway’s concern that a ceasefire agreement should not become an instrument for imposing wider restrictions on European defence policy.
Norway, a founding member of NATO, shares a border with Russia in the Arctic region and has a direct strategic interest in maintaining the alliance’s deterrence capabilities in northern Europe.
The Norwegian government also faces the challenge of balancing its close security partnership with the United States against the need for European countries to maintain greater influence over their own defence arrangements.
Despite growing private concerns among European officials that Trump’s repeated criticism of NATO allies has weakened confidence in the alliance, Støre insisted that NATO remained in good condition.
He acknowledged that some political statements had not necessarily strengthened the alliance but maintained that its overall security framework remained intact.
“We can discuss whether this or that statement helps,” he said. “I think sometimes it’s hard to say yes, they do help.”
As negotiations move to Abu Dhabi, Støre’s message reflects an increasingly important European position: diplomatic efforts to end the war are necessary, but a settlement must not compromise Ukraine’s sovereignty or allow Russia and the United States to determine Europe’s future security arrangements without European participation.
For Norway and its regional partners, a sustainable peace will require more than an agreement to stop the fighting. It will also require credible security guarantees, continued European involvement and clear limits on what can be negotiated over the future of NATO.
