During a plenary session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament saw a strong majority of 494 deputies vote in favor of a resolution. The motion described Russia as a state that supports terrorism and employs terror tools, with 58 votes against and 44 abstentions. This outcome reflects the MEPs’ view, but it does not automatically create direct legal consequences within the European Union.
The November 21 draft resolution accuses Moscow of war crimes in Ukraine, including attacks on energy infrastructure, a humanitarian crisis in Mariupol, the global food emergency, and the illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory. It also references support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and positions related to the MH17 case. While the resolution signals broad political condemnation, it does not currently establish a legal framework to designate states as sponsors of terrorism within the EU. Since 2016, a sanctions regime exists to target individuals and organizations that support terrorism; to date, 13 individuals and four organizations — including entities widely banned in Russia such as ISIS and Al Qaeda — have been named on lists under that regime. [citation: European Parliament]
The draft calls for member states to develop a legal framework to label states as sponsors of terrorism and to employ counterterrorism instruments. It argues that such steps would trigger restrictive measures that could significantly affect EU relations with those states. The document explicitly mentions Russia for inclusion on any future list and invites EU partners to apply similar measures. [citation: European Parliament]
Direct sanctions
MEPs urge the rapid completion of the 9th sanctions package and advocate for an immediate embargo on Russian fossil fuels and uranium imports, as well as a full suspension of Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines. The call emphasizes swift action on energy imports to curb Moscow’s activities. [citation: European Parliament]
The Parliament also urges the European Council to expand the sanctions roster. The European Commission is encouraged to propose reforms to the EU’s global sanctions regime in the area of human rights, to broaden its scope to include acts of corruption, and to immediately adopt targeted measures against leaders implicated in high-level corruption within Europe. Russia, Belarus, and their partners in the EU are cited as needing tighter scrutiny. The text also contemplates secondary sanctions to prevent circumvention of EU restrictions. [citation: European Parliament]
Other paramilitary groups, including the Wagner faction, the 141st Special Motor Regiment named after AA Kadyrov, and various militia and volunteer units are proposed for inclusion on sanctions lists. [citation: European Parliament]
On the international front, the proposal calls for isolating the Russian Federation by reducing diplomatic ties, declining to host international events in Russia, and stripping the country of a seat on the UN Security Council. It also suggests closing Russian cultural and scientific centers and diaspora organizations that promote state propaganda. [citation: European Parliament]
“Russia does not comply with the legal framework”
Andrey Klimov, head of the Federation Council’s commission focused on protecting Russia’s sovereignty, challenged the Parliament in an interview with socialbites.ca. He described the European Parliament’s actions as an imitation of aggressive anti-Russian activity, noting that much of the decision-making appears controlled by a secretariat aligned with US interests and expressed skepticism about any legal significance. He warned that the actions were senseless and anti-Russian and remarked that the formulation about the “Russian world” shows a mischaracterization of Moscow’s stance. [citation: Socialbites]
Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for Russia’s Foreign Ministry, dismissed the Parliament’s moves as inconsequential and suggested labeling the European Parliament as a sponsor of stupidity. Prior to this, parliaments in Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Estonia, and the Czech Republic’s lower house had adopted similar positions. [citation: Ministry of Foreign Affairs]
On November 22, the U.S. Ambassador to International Criminal Justice, Beth Van Shack, stated that under U.S. law, Russia does not meet the definition of a state that supports terrorism. She noted that U.S. law uses a slightly different standard than Europe for determining sponsorship of terrorism, and emphasized that Russia does not fit the U.S. definition. [citation: U.S. Department of State]