Wider Europe

A week after the NATO summit in Washington, there is another gathering of leaders. This time, it's the European Political Community (EPC) summit -- a powwow that brings together leaders from pretty much all European nations, barring Belarus and Russia, that is taking place in the United Kingdom on July 18.

More specifically, they are all descending on Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire, not too far from London, the birthplace of legendary British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

Perhaps the biggest spotlight will be on one of his successors, the newly elected U.K. leader Keir Starmer, who as the host of the summit will make his first real attempt to reorient his country toward Europe in general and the European Union in particular, after eight years of complicated and sometimes calamitous post-Brexit relations.

While most of the planning and preparation for the meeting took place under the previous Conservative government, Brussels is in compliments mode, noting how smooth the run-up to the summit has been and how little disruption the U.K. general election in early June has meant for the EPC gathering.

Make no mistake about it: EU types in general are excited about Starmer -- the first Labour prime minister since Gordon Brown back in 2010. They all note that the first impressions of him at the sidelines of the recent NATO summit in Washington was generally enthusiastic and the early exchanges with him have been described as “positive.” Or as one senior EU official noted at a briefing to the media recently: “It’s all been good vibes so far. Now we need to go into content.”

And there is a sense of urgency that Britain and the EU need a political rapprochement. The ongoing war in Ukraine is one reason for this, but the increasing prospect of another Trump presidency across the Atlantic is something that is concentrating minds on the continent and in the new center-left government in London.

Don’t expect any big breakthroughs at the Blenheim meeting, but further down the road you could foresee an improved security pact between the EU and the U.K., possibly stronger trade relations, and maybe even increased mobility between the two entities. We soon might see a proper EU-U.K. summit where some of these things can be thrashed out.

What About The EPC Itself?

So far, it seems that around 45 leaders are showing up, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Don’t expect much in terms of content and deliverables. The EPC has never been big on those sorts of things. The brainchild of French President Emmanuel Macron in 2022, shortly after Russia’s full-scale attack of its neighbor, it was meant to bring the rest of Europe closer politically -- “strategic intimacy,” as Macron first put it. That means that the leaders gather twice a year with the host rotating between EU and non-EU member states. And it appears the leaders quite like it.

First of all, because it's rather short. They only meet for half a day or so. And it tends to be hosted in spectacular places. The inaugural meeting two years ago took place at the monumental Prague Castle, followed by an exquisite winery outside Chisinau, then in Granada, where the leaders had dinner at the Alhambra, and now a classic British country house. Not bad settings for “political speed-dating,” which is in fact what they are doing but in much less formal structures compared to other similar bodies like the Council of Europe and the OSCE.

What's On The Menu?

They kick off with an opening plenary, a family photo, some thematic roundtables and then a closing roundtable -- all in five hours. Then there is room for various bilateral meetings, before they can attend a reception hosted by King Charles. The roundtables will deal with three specific topics: defending democracies (meaning coordination in combating foreign interference in things such as electoral processes), migration (notably cooperation on how to tackle “irregular migration” and to create legal pathways to come to Europe), and energy connectivity.

Macron and the Moldovan President Maia Sandu will co-chair the roundtable on defending democracies, which is so popular that there is a second group on the same topic co-chaired by the European Council President Charles Michel and the Montenegrin prime minister, Milojko Spajic. The prime ministers of Italy and Albania, Giorgia Meloni and Edi Rama, respectively, will host the migration roundtable. A controversial choice indeed as their two countries recently struck a much-criticized deal in which Albania would house migrants intercepted by Italian boats at sea. Slovenia and Norway will spearhead the energy roundtable.

Keep An Eye Out For...

Apart from indicative photos of who is speaking to whom, some potential bilaterals can be worth following. It was at the EPC that the EU, under Michel and Macron, attempted to get a peace deal between the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan. The talks that then continued on and off in Brussels for some time have not really been successful. But there are chances that Michel might try one last stab in Blenheim before he finishes his current mandate towards the end of the year. An EU official with knowledge of the matter said there are contacts but that the format (bilateral, trilateral, or nothing at all) depends on what is the most conducive and appropriate.

And then, of course, there is the next EPC summit. It will take place on November 7 -- just a couple of days after the U.S. presidential election. So far, the deal is that the meeting will take place in Hungary with the country’s premier, Viktor Orban, as the official host. But his recent trips to Moscow and Beijing have enraged many other EU members to the point that they no longer may send ministers to various EU-related events in Hungary.

Now, the EPC is not an EU body, and so far there have been no open calls to change the location of the meeting. But can the other leaders really stomach a big gathering in Budapest, notably if a predictably gleeful Orban greets them hot on the heels of his political ally Trump capturing the White House again?

Welcome to Wider Europe, RFE/RL's newsletter focusing on the key issues concerning the European Union, NATO, and other institutions and their relationships with the Western Balkans and Europe's Eastern neighborhoods. To subscribe, click here.

I'm RFE/RL Europe Editor Rikard Jozwiak, and this week I'm drilling down on two issues: How Viktor Orban's trips have riled Brussels, and what Ukraine took away from the NATO summit.

Briefing #1: Hungary Rattles Brussels, Again

What You Need To Know: It was clear from the very start of Hungary's six-month presidency of the Council of the EU that it would be controversial. Not so much because of legislative work in Brussels (as there isn't much happening on that front right now), but rather because of what top Hungarian politicians have been up to in recent days.

After spending time in Kyiv and meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban continued to Susa (known as Shushi in Armenian) in Nagorno-Karabakh to participate in the informal summit of the Organization of Turkic States.

Then Orban went to Moscow for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, before jetting off to Beijing to catch up with Chinese President Xi Jinping. He finished his tour by participating in the NATO summit in Washington, D.C., where, according to several sources I have spoken to on background as they don't have the authority to speak on the record, he made a scathing speech during the closed-door NATO-Ukraine Council against Kyiv's possible membership in the military alliance. That position was apparently in contradiction to an official NATO communiqué adopted with Orban's consent just 24 hours earlier.

Several leaders spoke out against the Hungarian prime minister, creating the only real flash point at the summit. Orban finished his U.S. leg of the journey by visiting the Republican presidential candidate, political ally, and former U.S. President Donald Trump at his home in Florida.

Deep Background: Of course, Orban, is free to go wherever he pleases, calling his own efforts his "peace mission." But what has irked Brussels and many other EU member states is, because Hungary is holding the rotating presidency, it is giving the impression that he is representing the EU on these trips, notably in Moscow and Susa.

Another concern in Brussels is what Orban is saying on those visits, especially in Russia. After the trip, he did send a letter to Charles Michel, president of the European Council, which is composed of the EU heads of state and government, and all the bloc's leaders.

Seen by RFE/RL, the letter concerns Orban's meeting with Putin, who is sanctioned by Brussels and wanted by the International Criminal Court. The Hungarian prime minister notes that he "did not put forth any proposal and did not articulate any opinion on behalf of the European Council or the European Union."

He did, however, note that time was ripe for a cease-fire and a road map to peace talks and added that "political leadership provided by the United States is limited, due to the ongoing [presidential] election campaign. Therefore, we can expect no such proposal coming from the United States in the coming months. We should consider -- in the spirit of European strategic autonomy -- launching a European initiative."

Interestingly, Orban has not been pushing for the EU-backed Ukrainian peace plan, nor does his letter indicate that he urged Moscow to stop its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began in 2022.

Instead, he noted in the letter that "we see the buildup of dangerous military capabilities, and the negative economic effects of the war place a great burden on the everyday lives of our citizens and on the competitiveness of the EU."

Orban also relayed some of Putin's talking points: that Moscow had detailed plans for a new European security architecture after the war, that Putin estimates that Kyiv loses 40,000-50,000 soldiers every month, and that time is on Russia's side in the war.

Drilling Down

• So how will the rest of the EU react to all of this? After a request from Poland, EU ambassadors on July 10 discussed Orban's trips. In that discussion, all other 25 member states, with the exception of neighbor Slovakia, criticized Hungary's behavior. The legal service of the Council of the EU also gave a clear assessment that the rotating presidency has no role in the external representation of the bloc. It was also noted that all EU member states, including Hungary, had agreed at an EU summit back in 2022 to refrain from contacts with the Russian leadership.
• Before Hungary took over the rotating presidency, several EU officials told me that diplomats were looking into the legal possibilities of stripping Hungary of the presidency. And while not openly discussed at last week's ambassadorial meeting in Brussels, my sources in the EU capital indicate that those legal files were being studied again.
• In fact, all that is needed to cut short Hungary's presidency is for a qualified majority of member states (55 percent of the bloc's members, representing 65 percent of the EU population) to back it. Such a drastic move doesn't seem to be on the near horizon, but with several member states growing increasingly frustrated with Budapest, it cannot be totally ruled out in the future.
• Some symbolic steps against Budapest have already been taken. For example, all European Commissioners normally make a trip to the country holding the presidency to meet the government. This trip was supposed to happen in July and then was postponed till September. But, on July 15, the European Commission announced it won't happen at all and added that meetings in Hungary during the presidency will only be attended by senior civil servants and not commissioners.
• Another potential avenue are boycotts of other EU events taking place in Hungary for the next six months. Every presidency has a number of informal ministerial meetings in which relevant ministers from the member states come to discuss various issues.
• One of those was the Informal Competitiveness Council, a gathering of ministers responsible for competitiveness-related matters in the EU member states, which took place in Budapest on July 8-9. Normally, all the bloc's economy ministers should have attended, but only five ministers did so, including the Hungarian host. All other countries were represented by deputies or lower-level officials.
• Now, there were no official words about downgrading the participation, and the meeting did take place in July when many are on vacation. But normally, these sorts of informal meetings are attended by most of the 27 ministers, and the low attendance could be telling.
• Since then, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden have announced that they won't send ministers to informal council meetings in Hungary later this fall, and it remains to be seen if more member states follow suit.
• It's also possible that the informal EU foreign affairs council, which was supposed to take place at the end of August in Budapest, might be moved to Brussels. A final decision on the venue of that meeting is expected when the bloc's foreign ministers assemble in Brussels on July 22.

Briefing #2: Ukraine Inches Closer To NATO. But Will It Be Quick Enough?

What You Need To Know: While debate and speculation about U.S. President Joe Biden's presidential candidacy overshadowed the NATO summit in Washington, D.C., last week, Ukraine inched closer to the military alliance. There were plenty of decisions, pledges, and promises, but the question remains: Is it enough for Kyiv?

It was clear long before the meeting that Ukraine was never going to get an invitation to join NATO in Washington. That won't happen as long as the war with Russia is raging. But even after the war ends, the 32 allies will still need to reach unanimous agreement to send out such an invitation -- a consensus that simply doesn't exist today.

Heavyweights such as the United States and Germany are still against Ukraine joining, as are Hungary and Slovakia, who are critical of Kyiv. Instead, NATO diplomats were once again busy crafting a summit communiqué that was meant to sound more encouraging for Kyiv than the previous one. And the Washington text is a bit better for Ukraine than the one agreed at the previous summit in Vilnius last summer.

Deep Background: Like in 2023, it is stated that Ukraine's future is in NATO, that NATO foreign ministers will continue to assess reform efforts, and that "we will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the alliance when allies agree, and conditions are met."

What was new this year were the words "bridge" and "irreversible." It was noted that "the summit decisions by NATO and the NATO-Ukraine Council, combined with allies' ongoing work, constitute a bridge to Ukraine's membership in NATO."

Both in the run-up and during the meeting, officials were musing what this "bridge," in fact, entails and metaphorically wondering whether it's a long or a short one and how solid it, in fact, is.

The more crucial sentence was that "as Ukraine continues this vital work, we will continue to support it on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership."

The question remains whether this irreversibility is just a word on paper, as Ukraine's NATO fate will ultimately be decided as much on the battlefield as at the negotiating table. And with Ukraine still not getting any green light to strike deeper into Russian territory during the Washington meeting, the scope of the West's support -- and Ukraine's chances of victory in the war -- remain limited.

Drilling Down

• Of concrete deliverables, the American hosts noted with some triumph that F-16 fighter jets from Denmark and the Netherlands are on their way to Ukraine and that they will fly over Ukrainian skies this summer.
• A boost, sure, but then again, the hope was that they would have arrived already in the spring after Kyiv had pleaded for them for nearly two years. It's also clear that by 2027, the war-torn country will only get about half of the 128 jets it has requested.
• In a similar vein, it was announced that Ukraine would get five new air-defense systems, even though it was already known before that four of those were forthcoming. With searing images being shown of a Russian strike on Kyiv's main children's hospital in the lead-up to the summit, the feeling very much was one of too little, too late.
• Within the NATO framework, the NATO training mission for Ukrainian troops on allied territory was rubber-stamped, which according to the military organization will increase the country's interoperability with it even further, even though it was quick to emphasize that creation of the scheme won't make NATO "a party to the conflict."
• Then there was the pledge to deliver 40 billion euros' ($44 billon) worth of varied military assistance to Ukraine in the next year, based on the 32 NATO members' share of alliance gross domestic product (GDP). It was emphasized that this was a minimum baseline, especially since there had been loftier figures considered beforehand.
• Considering the rather generous interpretation of what counts as aid, it's hard to see this target being missed. Countries can, for example, include costs related to maintenance and transport of equipment for Ukraine, training of its soldiers, investment into Ukraine's defense industry, and cash to NATO's trust funds for the country, which include nonlethal aid.
• Yet, there were no complaints from Kyiv this time around, with the organizers keen to avoid the scenes from Vilnius during which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy openly questioned the level of ambition on display.
• This time, Zelenskiy didn't miss an opportunity to express his "gratitude" in all public appearances he had, careful not to ask for too much as the United States readies for a tense presidential election in November and other countries, such as France, grapple with domestic political deadlock.
• Beyond Ukraine, it was rather remarkable that Georgia, which has been an aspirant for NATO membership since 2008, wasn't mentioned at all in the final declaration, apart from Russia's occupation of part of the South Caucasus republic.
• Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is another NATO aspirant, and Moldova, which is constitutionally neutral, got more of a mention and positive wording than Tbilisi did, with the summit declaration noting that "we welcome Moldova's efforts to continue democratic reforms as it advances, as does Bosnia- Herzegovina, with its European integration, and we are committed to supporting their security and defense capabilities, and to enhance their capacity to counter hybrid threats."
• Speaking to several NATO officials after the summit, they confirmed that Georgia is still a NATO aspirant but that "the snub" in the declaration very much is a reflection of the country's move away from the West in recent years.

Looking Ahead

The newly elected European Parliament will have its first session in Strasbourg this week. On July 16, the lawmakers are due to select Robert Metsola as the president of the chamber, but the real nail-biter will be two days later when MEPs vote via secret ballot on whether Ursula von der Leyen will get another mandate as president of the European Commission. To approve her staying on in the job, 361 out of 720 MEPs need to back her, and most analysts and political observers believe it will be a close call.

The same day as the Von der Leyen vote, July 18, another summit of the European Political Community, a forum that fosters political dialogue and cooperation among European countries, takes place in the United Kingdom. Few concrete outcomes are expected as leaders from all European countries, bar Belarus and Russia, attend. So, the most we can expect is probably a lot of political speed dating.

That's all for this week! I'll be on vacation for the next three weeks, so you'll get the next Wider Europe Briefing in your inbox on August 13.

Feel free to reach out to me on any of these issues on X @RikardJozwiak or on e-mail at jozwiakr@rferl.org.

Until next time,

Rikard Jozwiak

If you enjoyed this briefing and don't want to miss the next edition subscribe here.