By Donika Emini*
The sixth summit of the European Political Community (EPC), held in Tirana on May 16, 2025, largely escaped international headlines. Still, it reflected an ongoing, quiet evolution in Europe’s strategic mindset that began in 2022. By convening in a region often seen as marginal and prone to instability, the summit reinforced a symbolic shift in Europe’s political centre of gravity, one that seeks to demonstrate flexibility and an understanding that unity must extend beyond the EU’s formal borders.
Unlike previous summits, the EPC meeting in Tirana unfolded against a backdrop of even greater geopolitical turbulence and a tectonic shift in relations between the EU and the U.S. Since its launch in 2022, the global landscape has become even more fractured: Russia’s war in Ukraine continues with no resolution in sight, and European leaders find themselves sidelined from negotiations dominated by the United States. At the same time, the situation in the Middle East has further escalated as transatlantic divergences in this region continue to deepen. The Western Balkans remains mired in unresolved tensions, particularly the persistent issue between Serbia and Kosovo, where the EPC has attempted to offer a platform for high-level engagement in the Chisinau Summit 2023 but has yet to demonstrate real diplomatic traction. In this context, the summit underscored Europe’s pressing need for a strategic dialogue that facilitates the development of solutions to current security challenges and debates about the future of security in Europe. Still, instead of doing so collectively, it relied on bilateral and mini-lateral alliances built on the interests of the parties involved.
Yet, while the EPC’s persistence is promising, its ambiguity remains a concern. What is the EPC, really? Is it merely a venue for high-level informal dialogue, or does it aspire to become something more concrete — a platform for policy coordination, joint projects, or even collective security initiatives? For now, the format remains informal, without a secretariat, permanent staff, or a clearly defined agenda beyond the discussions organised by rotating host countries. This flexibility is a double-edged sword: while it enables inclusivity and agility, it also risks diluting the forum’s strategic impact.
What did the Tirana Summit deliver?
Hosting the summit in Tirana was a deliberate choice. As the first EPC meeting held in the Western Balkans, it served as a symbolic and political signal, recognising the region’s European future and reaffirming its importance to the continent’s evolving security and political framework. In many ways, the EPC in Tirana was a summit of both symbols and silences. It underlined the commitment of Europeans to cohesion but fell short of delivering eye-catching breakthroughs. This was not a failure, but rather a reflection of the EPC’s evolving nature: part forum, part experiment, still searching for its defining structure and long-term utility.
That said, while the Tirana summit did not produce concrete outcomes in its own right, it contributed to advancing the European security agenda on various fronts. One significant development was the announcement of an 18th sanctions package against Russia, focusing on critical areas such as energy, maritime logistics, and financial institutions, underscoring Europe’s continued resolve to increase pressure on the Kremlin. Yet, the initiative’s reliance on coordination with the U.S., including the need for a phone call approval from former President Trump amidst fragile Russia-Ukraine talks in Turkey, exposed the limitations of Europe’s quest for strategic autonomy, an ambition championed by France but still far from being fully realised.
Meanwhile, progress was noted in the South Caucasus, as Armenia and Azerbaijan were recognised for finalising a peace treaty. The EU pledged support for connectivity and integration in the region. A joint declaration by major European states in support of Moldova also reinforced the EPC’s function as a platform for affirming political alignment among its members, especially for countries caught in geopolitical crosscurrents. This showed that, despite the summit being held in Tirana, where a multitude of issues in the Western Balkan region could have been addressed, the Black Sea security took centre stage.
Broadening the European security constellation
One of the most significant aspects of the Tirana summit was the renewed engagement of the United Kingdom, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer increasingly positioning it as a constructive player in European affairs. The UK’s active participation and the announcement of an upcoming EU-UK summit in London marked a deliberate shift from the ambivalence of the post-Brexit years. This cooperation demonstrates the EPC’s potential as a bridge-builder: a space where countries such as the UK, no longer in the EU, can still contribute to European security and strategic alignment.
Strategic engagement with Turkey remains essential. While no longer actively pursuing EU membership, Turkey is a key NATO ally and a pivotal actor in the Black Sea region. Despite its limited use of the EPC thus far, the platform presents an opportunity for Ankara to engage with Europe on vital topics, such as energy and migration, without the complications tied to its frozen accession talks. However, Turkey attended three out of six summits, with a very brief presence in Tirana, which can mainly be attributed to Erdogan’s friendship with host Edi Rama, rather than Turkey’s strategic use of the EPC.
For both Turkey and the UK, the EPC serves as a practical channel to stay connected to European affairs in a flexible and relatively low-pressure environment; however, its use depends on the leaders of the countries, as this is how the format is established.
One of the most contentious participants at the summit was the leader of Georgia, a country whose government is increasingly distancing itself from EU values, yet does not hesitate to engage in the EPC in the absence of strong ties to values. While Georgia’s inclusion could be viewed through the lens of strategic necessity, particularly concerning Black Sea security and broader European geopolitics, it provoked backlash from pro-EU protesters at home, who already operate in a repressive and challenging environment, calling on the EU to increase pressure on the government to change this situation. This raises a critical question: if Belarus remains excluded due to its stance toward the West and democratic values, why are countries with similarly troubling trajectories still invited? Should the EPC establish more explicit value-based criteria for participation, and if so, where should that line be drawn?
Albania on the diplomatic stage, Rama in the spotlight
Albania’s successful hosting of the summit offered a compelling picture. With a solid record of hosting the EU-Western Balkans Summit in 2022 and the Berlin Process Summit in 2023, Albania presented a state capable of organising a high-level diplomatic event inclusive of the whole of Europe with composure and purpose. This success is not only symbolic; it is reputational capital. In a region often viewed through the lens of instability, Albania has demonstrated its ability to serve as a responsible stakeholder in pan-European affairs. Moreover, it provided a good platform from which the region as a whole could be viewed through the lens of a security provider, not just a consumer.
The other five Western Balkan countries, central both geographically and symbolically to the Tirana summit, largely failed to capitalise on the spotlight the event offered. Kosovo stood out somewhat, utilising the platform to enhance its international visibility and assert itself within a multilateral setting, despite not being a member of the OSCE, NATO, or a formal EU candidate country. In contrast, Albania’s Prime Minister, Edi Rama, fresh from a decisive electoral victory, seized the moment to reiterate his government’s dedication to EU accession. Despite ongoing challenges in implementing democratic reforms, Rama received praise from EU leaders and a renewed pledge of support for Albania’s integration path. Albeit outside the formal EPC framework, French President Emmanuel Macron’s presence in Tirana the following day injected further momentum. He proposed a bold timeline of Albania’s membership within two years. However, this ambition could face procedural hurdles, notably France’s requirement to hold a referendum before any new accession. This factor could stall the process, regardless of the current political will.
For a region still grappling with unresolved questions of statehood, economic vulnerability, and competing external influences, the EPC delivered a vital message: you are still part of Europe’s strategic horizon. Yet the threat of disillusionment looms large. The future success of the region hinges not only on actions coming from outside but also on the Western Balkans’ proactive engagement beyond the confines of the enlargement agenda. The EPC presented a platform for such engagement. Unfortunately, the region did not fully rise to the occasion.
The EPC’s crisis carousel: What will Denmark deal with?
The EPC shouldn’t just chase crises to stay relevant; it should help shape the very foundations of Europe’s future security architecture. As the forum matures, the lack of formal structure is becoming more glaring. Can it continue as an ad hoc, rotating dialogue forum, or does it need a light-touch secretariat and a clearer strategic backbone, potentially led by France, to ensure it adds value beyond symbolism? To truly matter, the EPC must begin to connect existing frameworks and fill gaps in Europe’s fractured security landscape, especially as global power dynamics shift dramatically.
These questions will loom large when the EPC convenes in Denmark. With Copenhagen steering the agenda, the forum has a chance to anchor discussions around defence and strategic resilience, issues that the Danish Prime Minister strongly emphasised in Tirana. At a time when European defence is being rearmed and the U.S. signals increased interest in territories like Greenland, the EPC must navigate the space between NATO and the EU with more clarity and purpose. The Tirana summit attempted to project transatlantic unity towards Russia, but future ones may face tougher tests, especially if territorial and geopolitical issues, such as Greenland, become flashpoints, or trade wars intensify.
Ultimately, in a continent beset by overlapping crises, steady, even modest progress is a notable achievement. The EPC is still a work in progress, but if it can evolve from a diplomatic stage into a strategic force, its potential is far from symbolic. It could become Europe’s flexible engine for coherence and resilience in an age of unpredictability.
