Luanda — European Union leaders convened in Luanda, Angola, on November 24, 2025, during the 7th African Union–European Union (AU-EU) Summit for an extraordinary informal meeting dominated by a single issue: the United States’ new peace proposal to end the war in Ukraine. Though the gathering occurred on the margins of a broader AU-EU agenda focused on multilateral partnerships and global development, the urgency of the Ukraine conflict occupied the centre of European diplomatic engagement.
The Luanda consultations marked one of the most consequential moments in EU foreign policymaking since the full-scale Russian invasion began in 2022. Faced with a US-drafted peace framework containing several controversial elements, European leaders sought to articulate a united position, one that balances transatlantic cooperation with the longstanding principles of European security and international law.
Context: The US Peace Plan and International Reactions
The informal European Council meeting was called to review the American 28-point peace proposal. While the plan aimed to generate momentum toward ending the conflict, several early proposals were met with concern in European capitals.
Reported elements of the initial US proposal included:
- Ukraine surrendering or ceding occupied territories to Russia
- Limiting Ukraine’s armed forces, reportedly to around 600,000 personnel
- Formally abandoning Ukraine’s bid to join NATO
- Stationing European fighter jets in Poland, a NATO member state
Although US officials emphasized the draft was preliminary and open to amendment, many European leaders regarded several provisions as misaligned with European security priorities and potentially damaging to Ukraine’s sovereignty.
A joint statement issued by key allies including France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan noted that while the plan provided “a basis which will require additional work,” several components were “unacceptable” and required “substantial reworking.” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called for clarity regarding the “authorship and origin” of the controversial elements, reflecting broader unease among frontline and Eastern European states.
EU Leaders Establish Clear “Red Lines”
The Luanda meeting aimed to clarify the European Union’s stance and consolidate amendments to the American proposal before subsequent negotiations in Geneva. The discussions produced a clear set of “red lines” grounded in the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, European security, and international law.
Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity
At the top of the EU agenda was a firm rejection of any provision that would require Ukraine to cede territory or accept a permanent Russian presence in illegally occupied regions.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasized:
“Only Ukraine, as a sovereign country, can make decisions regarding its armed forces. The choice of their destiny is in their own hands.”
This principle extends to Ukraine’s borders. The EU maintained that no durable peace can be built on forced territorial concessions. As a result, the European counter-proposal reportedly removed all clauses referencing Ukraine’s capitulation of territory, including Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk.
Instead, the EU plan suggests that any territorial discussion must begin only after a ceasefire and must start from the current line of contact, without pre-emptively obliging Kyiv to renounce its claim to any part of its internationally recognized territory.
Military Capacity and Security Guarantees
A second critical area of disagreement concerned Ukraine’s military size and security posture.
EU officials stressed that no external actor should dictate the size or capacity of Ukraine’s armed forces. The European counter-proposal not only removed the US-drafted cap of 600,000 personnel but reportedly allowed for a larger force of up to 800,000 troops during peacetime.
The rationale is clear: limiting Ukrainian defensive capability could expose the country to renewed aggression in the future.
Additionally, the EU rejected the idea of binding Ukraine to permanently renounce NATO membership. Upholding the Alliance’s Open Door policy was framed not only as a matter of principle but also as essential to European security architecture.
European leaders also called for legally binding security guarantees for Ukraine, potentially drawing parallels to NATO’s Article 5 commitment to collective defence.
The Central Role of the European Union
The third major EU red line involved the institutional position of the European Union within the peace framework.
Leaders stressed that issues directly affecting the EU including sanctions policy, post-war financing, and the use of immobilized Russian assets cannot be negotiated without full EU participation. Any framework that bypasses Brussels on matters falling within its competence was considered unacceptable.
This position is tied to broader EU goals to support Ukraine’s long-term integration into European economic and security structures, including the Single Market, defence industries, and eventual EU membership.
Justice, Accountability, and Humanitarian Priorities
A fourth area of strong divergence from the US draft concerned provisions relating to war crimes and humanitarian conditions.
European leaders were particularly critical of the US draft’s reported suggestion of a broad amnesty for Russian war crimes, a position fundamentally at odds with EU commitments to international justice.
The EU instead emphasized:
- Accountability for war crimes
- The unconditional return of Ukrainian children abducted by Russia
- Continued documentation and investigation of human rights violations
Von der Leyen described the safe return of Ukrainian children as “personally important and non-negotiable,” underscoring the moral dimension of Europe’s stance.
The AU-EU Summit: A Broader Context for Global Diplomacy
The informal EU meeting took place alongside the 7th AU-EU Summit (November 24–25), which focused on the theme:
“Promoting Peace and Prosperity through Effective Multilateralism.”
The summit brought together African and European leaders to discuss:
- Peace, security, and governance
- Sustainable prosperity and global financial reform
- Migration and mobility
- Climate policy and green industrialization
A major objective of the summit was to restructure the AU-EU relationship into a more balanced and mutually beneficial partnership. Areas such as critical minerals, value-added manufacturing, and the reform of international financial institutions were highlighted as priorities.
The timing of Europe’s internal deliberations on Ukraine was significant. By arriving in Luanda with a clear and united position, EU leaders sought to demonstrate that Europe remains a coherent global actor capable of partnership, leadership, and principled diplomacy even amid ongoing conflict on the European continent.
Toward a Refined Peace Framework
The outcome of the Luanda meeting was a reinforced European consensus. EU leaders presented a unified set of red lines and amendments, prompting both Washington and Kyiv to acknowledge the need for revisions to the initial peace plan.
In the days following the Luanda discussions, the US and Ukraine agreed to develop an “updated and refined peace framework” in Geneva that incorporates the amendments and concerns raised by European allies. This outcome underscores the significance of the EU’s coordinated diplomatic position.
While the path to a lasting peace remains complex and uncertain, the Luanda meeting solidified Europe’s expectations for any agreement: a settlement rooted in sovereignty, security, justice, and multilateral legitimacy.
0 Comments