No tracking. No cookies
Subscriptions
Subscriptions
Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on ‘what the papers don’t say’ – without fear or favour.
To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.
The election of Donald Trump as the 47th President of the US has raised the hopes of Putin and his allies and the anxiety levels of most European governments.
The result has raised fears that Trump could soon force an unjust peace on Ukraine, and reduce the US commitment to NATO.
While it’s possible that he could live up to this reputation for unpredictability and be tougher with Putin than expected, in times like these Europe needs a plan B.
If Trump is wobbling on Ukraine and NATO, Europe’s NATO allies might want to work hard to keep NATO afloat but also need a framework to work out their defence options which is not dominated by Trump.
That framework might be an international body already to hand and short of useful things to do – the European Political Community (EPC).
President Macron called for the creation of the EPC in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He argued it could strengthen the security and stability of Europe.
The EPC was launched in 2022 and its membership is made up of EU countries along with all other European countries except Russia and Belarus – 47 in all.
‘Europe and Canada Must Forget Trump and Form a Coalition of the Willing to Defend Ukraine’
Senior politicians, military leaders and experts send an open letter calling on Europe and Canada to join forces in defending Ukraine from Russian aggression
The EU’s Presidents also attend. One of its aims was to bring the UK closer to the EU and perhaps surprisingly Prime Minister Liz Truss enrolled the UK in the EPC at its first meeting in Prague, where she agreed with President Macron to resume UK-France defence summits. Leaders at the first summit expressed support for Ukraine, and support for Ukraine has been a recurring theme and unifying factor at EPC summits.
The summit hosted by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer in July 2024 at Blenheim Palace was the perfect picture of what President Macron had always wanted the EPC to be. Starmer signalled a clear shift in UK policy towards Europe and gave President Zelensky pride of place at the summit. The plenary meeting was focussed on Ukraine.
The latest EPC summit was hosted by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán – a pro-Putin populist and admirer of Donald Trump.
As heads of state and government gathered in Budapest on 7th November it was already clear that Trump had won the race for the White House. Orbán declared that Trump’s victory would mean support for those who wanted peace in Ukraine. That was interpreted by his audience as meaning a peace which was loaded in favour of Russia and against Ukraine. That was not the outcome favoured by most leaders present, and certainly not by President Zelensky, who attended and addressed the summit.
As a result of either a misunderstanding, or dirty tricks to undermine Zelensky, his speech was neither broadcast nor posted online by Hungarian officials. European leaders insisted Zelensky could count on their support, but they knew it would not be enough if the US ended its military backing for Ukraine.
Critics doubt whether the EPC can perform any useful function, apart perhaps from giving candidates for EU membership the chance to enjoy the international limelight, particularly when a candidate country hosts the EPC, as Moldova did in 2023 and Albania will do in 2025.
Macron has called for a defence role for the EPC.
But President Macron’s vision for the EPC has not stood still. In a speech at the Sorbonne in April 2024 he proposed a new “security and defence framework” for Europe, and identified the EPC as the “best place to build” it. Macron’s thinking is that some key European NATO allies are not in the EU. Macron singled out the UK in particular, which he described as having a “unique partnership” with France. There are other countries which are in NATO and the EPC, but not in the EU, such as Turkey and Norway.
The new security framework described by Macron looks very much like NATO without the US – a configuration of increasing significance if President Trump plans a passive or dormant role for the US in NATO.
But it has to be said that the structure, or rather lack of structure, of the EPC seems ill-fitted to providing a home for a military alliance.
Amerexit: Oligarchy Comes to the United States
Peter Jukes in the December Print Edition of Byline Times
A New G6?
EPC summits do not produce conclusions agreed by participants – in contrast to, say the G7.
Under the Presidency of Italy’s Giorgia Meloni the G7 declared in November that Russia was the sole obstacle to a just and lasting peace for Ukraine.
No such pin-point consensus from the much larger EPC, but informal meetings in the margins or sidelines of summits may result in declarations and even plans, such as the eight-point plan on irregular migration produced at the Grenada summit by Rishi Sunak and Giorgia Meloni and supported by Albania, France, the Netherlands and the European Commission.
European leaders could, if they chose, use the EPC as an umbrella for regular working groups operating at or in the margins of the EPC.
If Trump dominates or obstructs NATO summits, EPC summits could provide a backup venue for Europe’s NATO allies which need not amount to an in-Trump’s-face outright challenge to Trump and NATO itself.
This EPC ‘NATO within NATO’ could take the form of a Defence Working Group comprising European NATO allies who wanted to participate.
Pro-Putin Hungary and Slovakia might turn up, but their ability to block or disrupt would not be great. The group could be flexible, perhaps meeting virtually between summits as well as at scheduled events. It could invite Canada, EU Presidents, and NATO’s Secretary General – former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
Unlike NATO summits, which are chaired by the Secretary General, Defence Working Group summits might be chaired by France and the UK. Germany should be in the frame too, but Germany under Scholz, who has wobbled badly on Ukraine and controversially phoned Putin recently, is currently a less than reliable partner. Perhaps the “snap” German elections in 2025 will bring somebody with more steel.
For the EPC to accommodate a ‘NATO within NATO’ would not be risk-free for participants in terms of relations with President Trump – not least for a UK keen to salvage whatever might be left of its special relationship with the US. Other allies will be hedging their bets too. But a NATO hamstrung by an uncommitted US administration could be a green light to Putin’s further aggressive ambitions, and an alternative framework for NATO allies could be part of Europe’s response.
The EPC could provide a venue for European leaders stranded in other international bodies dominated by President Trump.
Global Economy expert Creon Butler argues that Trump could paralyse the G7 and suggests a new low-key G6-type alternative.
One possibility would be an Economic Working Group of the European Political Community. Its Members could be France, Germany, Italy, and the UK, with invitations being extended to Canada and Japan. A G6 in disguise, with no Trump.
European leaders will need to work with the incoming US President, but not all the time.