The European Parliament adopted a resolution on November 27 setting out the conditions for a peace deal to end the war in Ukraine that starkly clashes with the US proposals and will almost certainly be rejected out of hand by the Kremlin.

In contrast to the US’ 28-point peace plan (28PPP), which Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s top foreign policy advisor, have said were “very close” to being acceptable. The EU’s suggestions that emerged at a summit in Geneva last weekend have already been rejected by the Kremlin as “unacceptable” earlier this week.

The new EU resolution is similar to a 24-point peace plan (24PPP) released earlier this week by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. It represents a principled maximalist position with half a dozen points that it is already clear the Kremlin will not accept, including an assurance that Ukraine can apply for Nato membership and that all the territories currently occupied by Russia remain Ukrainian.

The new resolution also returns to the previous EU position that no serious negotiations on occupied territories or other points can start until an unconditional ceasefire has been put in place. Putin has insisted that a ceasefire will come at the end of negotiations, not at the beginning.

The resolution also demands robust security guarantees for Ukraine, legal accountability for war crimes, and full reparations from Russia, European Pravda reported on November 27.

The resolution, titled “On the EU position on the proposed peace plan and the EU's participation in achieving a just and lasting peace for Ukraine”, underlines that peace cannot be based on concessions to the aggressor and calls for an international framework grounded in law and justice.

"Peace cannot be achieved through concessions to the aggressor," the resolution states, echoing von der Leyen earlier comments. It says any agreement must be based on accountability under international law.

The European Parliament ruled that any viable peace agreement must include the following core legal and political conditions:

• Credible security guarantees for Ukraine, equal to:
  • Article 5 of the NATO Washington Treaty (collective defence clause)
  • Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union (mutual defence among EU states)
• Avoid a repeat of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which failed to prevent Russian aggression
• Reaffirm Ukraine’s sovereignty and its right to choose its own security and political alliances, “without any Russian veto”
• No legal recognition of occupied Ukrainian territories as Russian by the EU or its member states
• A ceasefire must precede any peace agreement
• Full reparations: Russia must compensate Ukraine for all material and non-material damages and losses
• Full accountability under international law, including:
  • Prosecution for the crime of aggression
  • Prosecution of war crimes committed by Russia, its allies, and proxy forces
  • Trials to take place at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression
• EU member states should establish a legally and financially sound “reparation loan” for Ukraine, secured by frozen Russian assets

The resolution also took aim at recent diplomatic moves outside the EU framework. On November 25, US president Donald Trump announced that he had instructed US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and US Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll to finalise a draft peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Witkoff is expected to travel to Moscow very soon. Trump has said he would personally meet Presidents Putin and Zelensky if a deal was signed.

The EU is in increasing opposition to Washington, which it has openly criticised as “ambivalent” at best on peace, and actively working in Russia’s interests at worst.

Driscoll recently visited Kyiv and presented a 28-point peace plan to Zelenskiy, telling him that “Ukraine is on the verge of defeat.” Driscoll urged Zelenskiy to consider territorial concessions as a necessary part of any workable ceasefire negotiations with Russia – so far a red line for the Ukrainian president.

European plan at odds with the US version

The new EU plan is starkly different from the original US 28-point version. It appears designed to ensure a peace deal is not reached, rather than introducing compromises or changes that would be acceptable to the Kremlin but at the same time improve Kyiv’s deal. Many of the points in the EU plan are known red lines for Russian President Vladimir Putin that he will not accept.

The EU's version is rooted in principle and international law. The US version is more pragmatic and contains sops to the Russian demands that the Kremlin says it could agree to. The European Parliament’s resolution insists on a justice-first approach, built on international law, full Ukrainian sovereignty, and no concessions to the aggressor, fully focused on Ukraine rights and conceding nothing to Russia. The US version is more deal-based and makes little reference to international law or sovereign rights.

The outline of the US deal was already thrashed out during the Alaska summit on August 15 between Putin and US President Donald Trump, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. It centres on geopolitical trade-offs, partial recognition of Russian gains, and economic reintegration of Russia. It has been widely criticised as there is little emphasis on accountability or binding protections for Ukraine.

Territories: The biggest differences between the two plans are on territories. The US version acknowledges Russia’s control over some 20% of the country and assumes that not all of these territories are recoverable. One concession Russia appears to have made is that it is no longer insisting on de jura recognition as Russian of the occupied territories.

EU Resolution:

• No territorial concessions
• “Temporarily occupied Ukrainian territory will not be legally recognised by the EU and its member states as Russian territory.”
• Peace must reaffirm Ukraine’s right to choose its alliances.

US 28-Point Plan:

• Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk: Recognised de facto as Russian by the US
• Zaporizhzhia and Kherson: Front lines frozen; no further territorial claims by Russia
• Donetsk buffer zone: Ukrainian forces must withdraw; demilitarised zone created
• Ukraine's sovereignty is “confirmed,” but this is undermined by territorial concessions

Security: The two plans also differ sharply on the question of security, where the EU continues to insist that Ukraine has the right to apply for Nato membership, despite the fact that Nato has repeatedly refused to even discuss a road map (MAPS) towards Ukraine’s eventual membership. The original US plan concedes that Ukraine will never join and should return to neutrality, but this clause has reportedly been dropped as too controversial. Both versions offer some form of security guarantees by the West for Ukraine.

EU Resolution:

• Ukraine should receive security guarantees equivalent to NATO’s Article 5 and EU’s Article 42(7)
• Rejects repetition of Budapest Memorandum’s promise of membership
• Ukraine free to choose alliances

US 28-Point Plan:

• Ukraine becomes permanently neutral by constitutional amendment
• NATO barred from expansion and deployment in Ukraine
• NATO Charter to be amended to block future Ukrainian membership
• US offers conditional security guarantees with compensation demanded
• Guarantees voided if Ukraine "unintentionally" strikes Russia

War crimes: The two versions are diametrically opposite with the EU calling for full accountability and the US calling for a full amnesty.

EU Resolution:

• Full accountability under international law
• Trials before the International Criminal Court (ICC) and a Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression
• Explicit rejection of impunity

US 28-Point Plan:

• Full amnesty for all parties
• No international legal process or war crimes trials
• “No claims or grievances” permitted after agreement

Reparations: There is partial agreement on reparations. The EU calls for Russia to take full responsibility and pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine, without specifying where the money comes from. The US calls for partial reparations using $100bn from Russia’s frozen assets with the remaining $200bn going into a joint US-Russia investment fund for commercial projects. This clause has also reportedly been dropped for now.

EU Resolution:

• Russia must fully compensate Ukraine for all material and non-material losses
• Calls for “reparation loans” backed by frozen Russian assets

US 28-Point Plan:

• Partial unfreezing of Russian assets
• $100bn each from US and EU for reconstruction
• Russia allowed to profit through joint US–Russia reconstruction fund
• US to receive 50% of returns from its investments
• No mention of Russian liability or compensation obligation

Sanctions: Again partial agreement, but again the EU taking a much harder line than the US. The EU says there will be no sanctions relief in the short-term and not until reparations are paid. The US calls for immediate but phased sanctions relief without any details or timeline. The US plan treats Russia as a future economic partner without first requiring accountability, which the EU views as a precondition

EU Resolution:

• No sanctions relief unless Russia complies with international law
• No reintegration until accountability and reparations are achieved

US 28-Point Plan:

• Phased sanctions relief regardless of accountability
• Russia to be reinvited to G8
• Long-term US–Russia business cooperation (energy, minerals, AI)
• Frozen assets returned or invested jointly

Culture and politics: The EU skips over Russia’s demands for equal language status for Russian in Ukraine and the role of the Russian orthodox church. The US includes these points, a long standing Russian demand. The EU also makes no mention of presidential elections, whereas the US insists on them in 100 days.

Enforcement: The EU version is pitched under the umbrella of international law, whereas the implementation of the US version will be overseen by Trump personally as head of an “International Peace Council.” The US enforcement structure is outside of recognised international institutions and subject to Trump’s whims, whereas the EU version is within the existing international institutions.