TL;DR
Get everyday essentials delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre has disputed a Financial Times report that Vladimir Putin discussed medieval Slavic history during an October 27 call with Støre and Finnish President Alexander Stubb. The FT says it stands by its reporting, leaving the accounts in conflict.
Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre has denied a Financial Times report that Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed the history of medieval Slavs during an October 27 call with Støre and Finnish President Alexander Stubb. Støre says the paper’s account is false and asked it to correct the story; the FT has responded that it stands by its journalism.
Støre challenged the account in an interview with Norwegian newspaper VG. “We asked the Financial Times to correct this because it isn’t true. And they will correct it, because we took part in the conversation,” he said, according to VG. The statement presents Støre’s direct account as a participant, but does not by itself resolve the disagreement over what Putin said during the call, as Finnish President Alexander Stubb has also been mentioned as a potential lead for talks with Putin.
VG asked the Financial Times for comment. An FT representative said: “We stand by our journalism.” The paper therefore rejected Støre’s expectation that it would amend the report. The two parties have given conflicting accounts, and the material reported so far does not include a recording or transcript that would independently establish the call’s wording.
The FT’s October 28 report said Putin spent much of the conversation discussing what the Kremlin calls the “initial reasons for the conflict”, including a lecture on the history of the Slavs in the Middle Ages. The report said this focus came instead of addressing key questions about how to end Russia’s war in Ukraine. Støre later described the call differently on Norwegian broadcaster NRK’s program Politisk kvarter, saying Putin spoke about Europe’s situation after 2014.
Dispute Over the Ukraine Call
The disagreement concerns how Putin used a conversation with the leaders of Norway and Finland while Russia’s war in Ukraine remains a central European security issue. Whether the call focused on historical arguments about the conflict’s origins, as the FT reported, or on broader developments in Europe after 2014, as Støre said, affects how readers understand the exchange and its relevance to efforts to end the war.
It also puts a public dispute between a head of government and an international news outlet on the record. Støre says his participation gives him grounds to challenge the report; the FT says its reporting remains sound. Until more evidence or detail is made public, readers should distinguish the reported account from Støre’s denial rather than treating either version as independently settled.
Popular right now
Vitamix 5200 Professional-Grade Blender, 64 oz. Container, Black
Dyson Ball Animal 3 Corded Upright Vacuum
Dyson Car+Boat Cordless Handheld Vacuum
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Accounts Describe
The call took place on October 27, according to the reports. The Financial Times published its account the following day, describing Putin as spending much of the conversation on the historical roots of the conflict as characterized by the Kremlin. Støre then offered a different description in an interview with NRK, and he challenged the FT report in comments to VG.
Støre’s NRK account does not fully match the specific claim he rejected: he said Putin discussed Europe’s situation after 2014, while the FT described a focus on medieval Slavic history and the Kremlin’s stated reasons for the conflict. The source material does not provide Stubb’s account of the call or a detailed response from the Russian government. Previous reported conversations in which Putin discussed Russian history do not establish what he said on this particular call.
Details Still in Dispute
The precise content and balance of the October 27 conversation remain disputed. The accounts provided do not establish how long Putin spoke about any particular subject, whether he discussed medieval Slavic history at all, or how much time the call devoted to the war and possible ways to end it. Støre’s description that Putin spoke about Europe after 2014 does not, on its own, settle those specific questions.
The source material does not include a transcript, recording, or detailed account from Stubb. It also does not say whether the FT will publish further information supporting its report, or whether Støre will provide additional detail about the conversation. The Russian government’s account of the call is not included.
Whether Either Side Adds Evidence
For now, the public record consists of the FT report, Støre’s denial and alternate description, and the newspaper’s response that it stands by its work. No correction has been announced. Further statements from Støre, Stubb, the FT, or the Russian government could clarify the exchange, but the source material does not identify a scheduled release of a transcript or another formal next step.
Until additional evidence or detail emerges, the central question remains whether Putin gave the historical account described by the FT during the call. Readers should treat that characterization as the newspaper’s reporting and Støre’s rejection as his account as a participant, with the discrepancy unresolved.
Key Questions
What did the Financial Times report about the call?
The FT reported that Putin discussed the history of the Slavs in the Middle Ages with Støre and Stubb during their October 27 call, and spent much of the conversation on what the Kremlin calls the “initial reasons for the conflict.”
What did Støre say happened?
Støre said the FT’s account was not true and asked the newspaper to correct it. In a separate interview on NRK, he said Putin spoke about Europe’s situation after 2014.
Has the Financial Times corrected its report?
No correction is reported. An FT representative told VG, “We stand by our journalism.”
Has the disagreement been independently resolved?
Not in the available reporting. The accounts conflict, and the source material does not include a recording, transcript, or detailed statement from Stubb that would settle what was said.
Source: meduza.io
