Feed aggregator

European Parliament President Roberta Metsola and political group leaders will visit Nicosia on 1-2 December ahead of the upcoming Cypriot Presidency of the Council of the European Union.

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2025 - EP

Heavyweight Jeamie TKV and his father share a most fascinating family story shaped by poisoning, plots and presidents.

Written by Astrid Worum and Ralf Drachenberg.

After ‘constructive discussions’ in Geneva on 23 November between representatives of the US, Ukraine, France, Germany and the UK to ‘update and refine’ the 28-point Russia–Ukraine peace plan proposed by US President Donald Trump, the President of the European Council, António Costa, called an informal meeting of EU leaders to take stock of the latest developments. The aim was to draw on the ‘new momentum for peace negotiations’ by carrying out ‘additional work’ on major issues left unresolved. EU leaders stressed that the solution should be just and lasting, and expressed their readiness to support the process by working closely with Ukraine, the US and NATO. While reiterating their commitment to provide Ukraine with all the diplomatic, military, economic and financial support it needs, they also insisted that issues concerning the EU directly, such as sanctions and immobilised assets, required an EU decision and its full involvement.

General

Since the COVID crisis, videoconferences have become a useful tool for EU leaders to convene at short notice to discuss urgent developments, and were used most recently in February and August 2025). However, for this meeting about half of the EU leaders were physically present in the same location, Luanda (Angola), while the other half were connected remotely, making it the first fully hybrid European Council meeting.

The meeting was a ‘meeting of the 27 EU leaders with the President of the European Commission’ and did not include the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, as is often the case when EU Heads of State or Government meet in the videoconference format. However, Costa briefed the European Parliament’s Conference of Presidents (Parliament’s President and political group leaders) on the discussions at the informal EU leaders’ meeting, as he had done on 10 November for the 23 October 2025 European Council meeting.

Background US 28-point Russia-Ukraine peace plan

The US 28-point Russia-Ukraine peace plan leaked on 20 November – which the White House claimed was the result of a month of work between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US special envoy Steve Witkoff, ‘along with input from both Ukrainians and Russians’ – is considered by many observers to be too favourable to Russia. On the sidelines of the G20 summit in Johannesburg, 12 leaders – from Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the UK, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Poland, Spain and the Netherlands – as well as the European Council and Commission Presidents, adopted a statement expressing support for the ‘US efforts to bring peace in Ukraine’, but also concern at certain aspects of the draft. The statement notably underlines that ‘the initial draft of the 28-point plan includes important elements that will be essential for a just and lasting peace’, but that this ‘draft is a basis, which will require additional work’.

Concerns mainly relate to four points: i) territorial concessions; ii) limitation of Ukrainian military capacities; iii) sanctions and post-war reparations; and iv) NATO-related provisions.

Firstly, the statement recalls the principle that borders cannot be changed by force, representing a rebuke to the 28-point plan, which envisages significant territorial concessions from Ukraine to Russia, notably Donetsk.

Secondly, the proposal to limit Ukraine’s armed forces to 600 000 personnel ‘would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future attack’. EU leaders have only recently reiterated that ‘a Ukraine that is capable of defending itself effectively is seen as an integral part of any future security guarantees’; the provisions of the US plan are vague on security guarantees from the US and other Western allies – a point which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly demanded as a condition for peace.

Thirdly, the statement stresses that ‘elements relating to the EU and NATO would need the consent’ of their respective members. Thus, the proposals cannot prejudice decisions relating to EU sanctions and the use of immobilised Russian assets, which are largely held in Europe, notably by Euroclear, and which EU leaders are considering using for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Even if the details are vague, the US plan seeks to unblock immobilised assets and place them into two investment funds, one for Ukraine and the other for Russia. The US would benefit economically from both funds, while the EU would be called on to pay €100 billion for Ukraine’s reconstruction.  

Fourthly, the US plan includes a ban on NATO membership for Ukraine, which is a matter for consensus between NATO members – not a decision for third parties, such as Russia – and for which there is no precedent. In that context, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed scepticism that an agreement could be reached on the US plan in time for the deadline set by President Trump, and also rejected the re-integration of Russia into the G8, stating that ‘among the six current G7 members who are not the US, there is no willingness to readmit Russia’. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez called for a revision of the plan, stressing that ‘Ukrainians and Europeans must feel fully represented in any peace plan’, which affects the entire European security architecture.

Even if President Trump later said that the US 28-point plan was not ‘his final offer’, considerable pressure was put on Ukraine to accept the plan by Thanksgiving – 27 November. In a video address, President Zelenskyy told the Ukrainian people that ‘Ukraine may find itself facing a very difficult choice: Either loss of dignity, or the risk of losing a key partner. Either a difficult 28 points, or an extremely difficult winter.’ Russia indicated that the US plan was a potential basis for a peace agreement, and warned that, if Ukraine were to turn it down, Russian forces would advance further.

European counter-proposal

In that context, a group of countries led by France, Germany and the UK submitted a counter- proposal. While taking the US plan as a basis, it amends the draft on key points: i) the timing of territorial discussions, with a ceasefire to be reached first and the current front line to be set as the basis for any future discussions on territory; ii) on security guarantees, the counter-proposal envisages a NATO Article 5-like US security guarantee for Ukraine; iii) regarding Ukrainian sovereignty (which implies the right to choose alliances and make choices on its armed forces), the language on restrictions to NATO membership are softened and the number of personnel increased to 800 000 in peacetime; and iv) references to territorial concessions and recognition of occupation are removed, with European allies strongly rejecting the idea that Ukraine should be required to give up land by force. Russia, whose core demands were included in the US plan, rejected the counter-proposal.

Geneva meeting on 23 November

The Geneva meeting on 23 November, which gathered together national security advisers from the US and Ukraine, as well as France, Germany and the UK, drew up an ‘updated and refined peace plan’. The heads of cabinet of the European Commission and European Council presidents, Bjoern Seibert and Pedro Lourtie, also attended. After the meeting, Secretary of State Rubio praised the ‘tremendous amount of progress’ made in Geneva. Having spoken with Zelenskyy ahead of the EU leaders’ summit, Finnish President Alexander Stubb described the Geneva negotiations as a ‘step forward’, but cautioned that ‘major issues remain to be resolved’, adding that decisions falling under the EU or NATO’s remit would be discussed ‘in a separate track’.

The informal meeting of EU leaders on 24 November

Emphasising the ‘new momentum for peace negotiations’, President Costa convened a special meeting of EU leaders on the sidelines of the EU-Africa Summit in Luanda, Angola, to take stock of the latest developments. The purpose was to discuss the state of play as well as ‘major issues, which still remain to be resolved’, to develop the peace plan into a sustainable solution. The meeting took place in a hybrid format, with 15 EU leaders attending in person, including Chancellor Merz, the Irish Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, the prime ministers of Croatia, Andrej Plenković, Poland, Donald Tusk, Slovakia, Robert Fico, and Spain, Pedro Sánchez, and Presidents Costa and von der Leyen, while other EU leaders joined by videoconference. Since the meeting was an informal one, no conclusions were adopted, but Costa and von der Leyen held a joint press conference afterwards outlining the main discussion points.

In his report after the meeting, Costa stressed that ‘peace cannot be a temporary truce, it must be a lasting solution’. Thus, while commending ‘the efforts of Presidents Zelenskyy and Trump and their teams’ and welcoming the ‘progress achieved [in Geneva] on several issues’, EU leaders underlined that ‘some issues remain to be resolved’.

EU leaders conveyed two central messages. Firstly, ‘the issues that concern directly the EU, such as sanctions, enlargement or immobilised assets, require the full involvement and decision by the EU’. Thus, certain points included in the draft peace plan cannot be decided by third parties in a peace treaty, but will need to be discussed in a separate framework. At the same time, they expressed their readiness to support the process by working closely with Ukraine, the US and NATO. Secondly, EU leaders reiterated the EU’s commitment to providing ‘President Zelenskyy with all the support he needs’ – diplomatic, military, economic and, in particular, financial support. On the latter point, Costa recalled the commitment made at the 23 October meeting, stressing that ‘we will [deliver] at the December European Council’, and said that ‘Ukraine has chosen Europe, and Europe will stand by Ukraine’. Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėdastressed the ‘need for the EU to actively participate in the discussions on the future of Ukraine, and also to keep pressuring Russia – the only side responsible for this unjust war’.

EU leaders also set three ‘core principles’ outlined by von der Leyen regarding the substance of a future peace deal, which is also ‘about the security of the entire [European] continent, now and in the future’. Firstly, Ukraine’s territory and sovereignty must be respected. Secondly, only Ukraine as a sovereign country can make decisions regarding its armed forces, and the choice of their destiny is in their own hands. Thirdly, Europe is central to Ukraine’s future. As Romanian President Nicușor Dan emphasised at the EU-27 meeting, ‘there is a direct link between the security of Ukraine and that of the Republic of Moldova and the region as a whole, and the current peace talks need to take this aspect into consideration’. Likewise, Bulgarian Prime Minister Rosen Jeliazkov emphasised that ‘the security of Ukraine is essential for EU security – close coordination between the US, the EU and Ukraine, and reliable long-term guarantees for Ukraine’s future, are key’.

Mirroring the principles set by EU leaders, in their joint statement on the same day, the chairs of the foreign affairs committees of 20 European countries’ parliaments emphasised that a just and lasting peace cannot be achieved by yielding to the aggressor; instead, it must be grounded in international law and respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty. On 26 November, the European Parliament held a debate on the proposed plan and the EU’s engagement for a just and lasting peace for Ukraine, with von der Leyen outlining again the core principles of the EU’s position in favour of a sustainable peace. These principles – together with the full involvement of EU and NATO members on decisions concerning them – also reflect the main lines set in the statement adopted by G20 and European partners, as well as the amendments made in the counter-proposal to the 28-point plan. They also served as a ‘solid basis’ for the 25 November videoconference call of leaders of the countries comprising the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ supporting Ukraine, whose co-chairs, French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, issued a strong statement after the meeting.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the informal EU leaders’ meeting of 24 November 2025‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Les banques alimentaires lancent vendredi leur opération annuelle de collecte de produits essentiels. Cette opération est destinée à 2,4 millions de personnes précaires accompagnées par des associations.

Die im Sudan kämpfende RSF-Miliz hat eine einseitige humanitäre Waffenruhe ausgerufen. Doch laut dem früheren UN-Sondergesandten Volker Perthes kämpft sie trotzdem weiter. Dass die USA den Krieg im Blick hätten, könne etwas bewirken.

Following sensational espionage cases that came to light in June, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te (IO, 21/10/25) has privately spoken of his deep concern about Beijing-controlled triads operating in his country, according to our sources. Investigations have revealed that local mafia figures recruited [...]

Benjamin Landa's nomination as the next US ambassador to Hungary is facing opposition from some key Republican senators amid controversy [...]

It's 14 January 2008, and Pierre-Marie H., a civil servant with France's DGSE foreign intelligence service has travelled to Thailand [...]

Free zones in the emirate of Sharjah, one of seven that make up the United Arab Emirates, have since 2022 [...]

Over the past few months, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has signed a raft of bilateral agreements on judical cooperation [...]

The making of a new model of military rule.

Only a long-term strategy can counter the threat from Beijing.

As they have grown more alienated from the West, relations between the two repressive governments have blossomed.

The two reports relate to the Nellie massacre of 1983, when mobs attacked villages inhabited by Bengali-origin Muslims, killing over 1,800 people.

The country faces many deadly security challenges, leaving the army and police severely overstretched.

Instead of challenging China’s maritime claims unilaterally, outside powers would do better to collaborate more closely with Southeast Asian claimant states.

The deluges and flash floods of the past week have capped off an unusually destructive wet season in Southeast Asia.

The fight against impunity remains a key challenge for the international community, as efforts to hold perpetrators of serious international crimes accountable are increasingly strained by geopolitical rivalries, fragmented enforcement and weak political will. This paper examines three accountability mechanisms – international criminal tribunals, universal jurisdiction and transitional justice – through comparative analysis and case studies. International criminal tribunals, from ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda to the International Criminal Court, have advanced legal norms and secured landmark convictions. Yet, their legitimacy is weakened by high costs, slow trials, selective enforcement and limited cooperation from states. Universal jurisdiction allows national courts to prosecute atrocities irrespective of territorial or personal links. Its growing use in Europe, especially in cases linked to Syria and Ukraine, demonstrates potential, although inconsistent application and political frictions limit its effectiveness. Transitional justice, through truth commissions, reparations and institutional reforms, offers societies pathways to reconciliation and peace, but faces recurring challenges of political interference, resource scarcity and insufficient victim participation. Case studies from the Balkans, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Colombia, Syria and Israel-Palestine highlight that no single mechanism is sufficient. Instead, effective accountability requires context-sensitive and context-specific combinations of tools. The paper concludes with recommendations for strengthening the European Union’s global role.
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

- Agenda / Serbie, Région parisienne