Europe, explained.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (L) is welcomed by Finnish President Alexander Stubb in Helsinki, Finland, on March 19, 2025. (Photo by Press Service of President Of Ukraine/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Finnish President Alexander Stubb welcomes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Helsinki, Finland, on 19 March 2025 (Press Service of President Of Ukraine/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Finland’s distinctive credibility in peace efforts for Ukraine

The country’s experience surviving Soviet pressure is not the only reason Alexander Stubb has taken an outsized role.

Monique Taylor

2 September 20255 min read

“If I look at the silver lining of where we stand right now, we found a solution in 1944, and I’m sure that we’ll be able to find a solution in 2025 to end Russia’s war of aggression – find and get a lasting, just peace.”

With those words in August, Finnish President Alexander Stubb was not simply recalling history but situating Finland in the present debate about the prospects for ending the war in Ukraine.

Stubb’s allusion was to Finland’s wartime settlement with the Soviet Union, remembered as a morally complex and costly outcome that displaced hundreds of thousands and redrew borders, but one that ensured Finland’s survival as an independent democracy. By linking 1944 to 2025, Stubb was not offering a template for Ukraine, whose circumstances are very different. He was emphasising instead that solutions can be found in challenging times, and that Finland’s history of survival under geopolitical pressure gives weight to its voice in shaping the future of peace in Europe.

Finland’s contribution to international diplomacy on Russia’s war in Ukraine reflects both its new role as a NATO frontline state and its long record in peace mediation, a tradition rooted in the work of figures like Nobel laureate and former President Martti Ahtisaari and now institutionalised in the foreign ministry’s Centre for Peace Mediation. That role was visible in August 2025, when Stubb joined Europe’s major leaders at the White House during high-level talks on Russia’s war in Ukraine. Finland was the only small state at the table.

Stubb with Zelenskyy and other European leaders meeting Donald Trump in Washington last month (Daniel Torok/White House Photo)

Stubb’s own profile also matters: a polished communicator and liberal internationalist with long EU experience, he articulates Finland’s positions in ways that resonate in Washington and Brussels, giving the country a visibility abroad that far exceeds its size. His predecessor Sauli Niinistö, though wildly popular at home, was more reserved and enigmatic – deeply Finnish, and less penetrable to outsiders. The shift highlights how Finland’s diplomacy has become more outward facing at a moment when its voice carries unusual weight, amplified by Stubb’s ability to project it internationally.

Finland has carried this message into both European and global arenas, taking part in discussions at the London Summit in March on a Franco-British peace initiative for Ukraine, launched as a “coalition of the willing.” In an August call with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Stubb also stressed the need for a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, highlighting India’s “important role” in rallying international support.

Finland’s voice carries authority because it blends credibility, caution, and conviction.

Stubb has also acknowledged the limits of European leverage, noting that only US President Donald Trump may ultimately have the ability to push Russia’s Vladimir Putin toward negotiations. At the same time, Finland has taken part in early discussions on a European-led package of security guarantees, with the US signalling readiness to provide the strategic enablers including intelligence, command, and air defence support, that would make such guarantees enforceable.

Finland’s diplomatic stance has been underpinned by substantial commitments: since 2022, it has provided roughly €3.7 billion (AU$6.6 billion) in military, development and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, making it one of Europe’s leading supporters relative to GDP.

Finland’s voice resonates because it is a small state that has lived under strain from a larger neighbour while preserving its independence and democracy. That experience informs Stubb’s insistence that Ukraine’s sovereignty cannot be compromised and gives Finland a perspective that larger states, more distant from Russia’s borders and less marked by history, cannot easily claim.

I was reminded of this perspective when I attended the visit of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the University of Helsinki in March 2025, where he appeared in conversation with Stubb on the topic of “Europe Standing with Ukraine.” Zelenskyy was warmly received by students and faculty, and the atmosphere felt both inspiring and historically significant. The event came only a few weeks after the now-infamous Oval Office meeting, where President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance subjected him to a hostile and dismissive reception. The contrast could not have been greater.

Presidents Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Alexander Stubb in conversation at the University of Helsinki, 19 March 2025. Photo: Monique Taylor

Presidents Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Alexander Stubb in conversation at the University of Helsinki, 19 March 2025 (Monique Taylor)

What struck me most were Stubb’s words to the students. “The choice is very simple, we either have a multilateral world with rules and strong international institutions and an order, or we have a multipolar world which is disorderly and based on transactions and deals.” For him, the stakes were clear: “This is not only about the war in Ukraine, but the war of aggression put forward by Russia is going to change the world order.”

These statements underscored that Finland’s position is not only about supporting Ukraine but about defending the principles of order and legitimacy that underpin the rules-based system in the face of broader revisionist challenges. For Finland, hosting Zelenskyy in this way was also a declaration of where the country stands in the moral and political contest of the war and of the values it seeks to uphold.

Finland’s role in the Western debate on Ukraine is distinctive. Although it lacks the resources of the United States, France, or the United Kingdom and the geopolitical weight of Germany, Finland’s voice carries authority because it blends credibility, caution, and conviction. It insists that Ukraine cannot be sidelined in negotiations, stresses that peace must be just and lasting and combines firm NATO alignment with its tradition of peace mediation and outreach to partners such as India who remain ambivalent about the conflict.

That distinctive voice matters now, as talk of ceasefires and interim arrangements gains momentum. Stubb’s reference to 1944 is a reminder that peace is never easy to secure, but that it remains possible even in the most difficult circumstances. That experience gives weight to the Finnish perspective: credibility in peace debates derives not only from power but from histories shaped at the edge of great-power conflict.