What is really behind the story that Trump will replace the G7 with C5, a new global structure that would include Russia and China as well?
In recent days there has been talk—very unverified—that an idea of a “new global organization” is being considered in Washington, one made up of the five most powerful states. But the story may be far from the truth.
Right at the outset, it is important to say clearly that the story about an American “Core Five” – a C5 format of the US–Russia–China–India–Japan as a replacement for the G7 – at this moment is nothing more than speculation. Politico itself, where the story originated, describes it as an “apparently far-fetched idea,” and the alleged expanded document of the US National Security Strategy has been seen by no one outside a narrow circle of anonymous sources. The White House officially claims that no such document exists. In other words, we can only theorize about what C5 would mean, since we are talking about Trump, who certainly knows how to surprise and shock. On the other hand, it is worth leaving room for the rational possibility that these stories are a by-product—more precisely, a “psychological operation”—of the current high tensions on both sides of the Atlantic.
Even the very basis of the story—the claim by an anonymous former official that already during Trump’s first administration there were discussions about how the G-formats and the Security Council were “outdated”—is itself difficult to verify. Of course, Trump calls all sorts of things “outdated,” but it’s not as if he actually withdraws from major clubs. After all, Macron said NATO was “brain-dead,” yet these days he behaves like NATO’s general who would lead some new armée against Russia.
So, regarding the claims: perhaps they really do reflect internal debates in Washington, or perhaps they are simply a convenient quote inserted into the story to give it the appearance of insider insight. If the first document is allegedly a “longer, unpublished version of the strategy,” and the White House categorically denies that anything like that exists, we arrive at a classic problem—it is impossible to say where real information ends and where political construction begins.
In that vacuum of truth, interpretations emerge. One of them is certainly the idea that information about C5 was launched as part of an intimidation campaign. Intimidation of whom? Primarily Europeans. The image of Trump “joining forces with Russia and China against Europe,” abandoning the G7 and traditional allies, fits perfectly into the narrative of part of the European elite. Such a story, placed at a sensitive moment of tense relations between Washington and European capitals, feeds paranoia—especially in Berlin and Brussels—and mobilizes the public against Trump as someone who will “sell out” Europe to Putin and Xi.
It is no coincidence that the German Der Spiegel comes out with a cover showing Trump standing behind Putin as Putin slices up a map of Europe with a knife, under the headline “Zwei Schurken, ein Ziel – Wie Trump und Putin Europa angreifen” (“Two villains, one goal – How Trump and Putin are attacking Europe”). Visually, it is an almost comic-book depiction of two villains jointly preparing to dismember the continent. If that cover is placed alongside Trump’s recent statements about Europe’s “civilizational degradation,” the frame is complete. The European media apparatus shifts into defense-and-attack mode, creating an image of a besieged fortress threatened by both Moscow and Washington (at least the “Trumpian” one).
In this light, the story about C5 functions as a perfect lever. It allows Trump to be attacked at the same time (“abandoning democratic allies, working with autocrats”) and the continuation of Europe’s militarization and economic sacrifices to be justified (“we must defend ourselves, no one will protect us anymore”). The greater the fear, the easier it is to sell even larger military budgets, sanctions, geopolitical discipline, and even the suppression of internal protests. That is why it is legitimate to ask: is this real news, or an element of psychological-information warfare?
On the other side, some Russian media have embraced the story with visible enthusiasm. In their interpretation, C5 (even if it is complete “fake news”) is confirmation that the US can no longer ignore Russia, that it is abandoning the narrow Western club and showing readiness for a “concert of powers” in which Moscow sits at the table as an indispensable great power. But just as European paranoia may be exaggerated, Russian triumphalist interpretations may be nothing more than wishful thinking. For now, there is no sign that the Kremlin has received any official offer, let alone indications that Washington would truly be ready to design a world order in a format that, at least formally, recognizes multipolarity.
Still, it is not pointless to ask what sense such a format would make, if it were ever to come to life. A quintet of the US–Russia–China–India–Japan would indeed look like a contemporary version of the old “concert of powers”*: at the same table would sit most of the planet’s nuclear power, industrial production, and population. Europe would be pushed out of the front row, the G7 reduced to a historical relic, and the G20 turned into a ceremonial framework in which decisions made by a narrower circle are presented to the rest of the world. In theory, such a club could make decisions about wars, energy, and finance more quickly, but the price, of course, would be the further silencing of smaller countries.
* The “concert of powers” was a historical system of managing international relations that emerged after the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The great powers of the time—Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria-Hungary, and later France—agreed to maintain continental stability through regular meetings, coordinated decisions, and mutual compromises. There was no formal alliance or joint institutions (unlike today’s UN Security Council); it was an informal club of the most powerful states that, behind closed doors, decided on war and peace in Europe while bypassing smaller countries. The goal was to preserve the balance of power and prevent any state from becoming dominant like Napoleon.
For Washington, such a “concert” would actually be something quite interesting: a way to accept multipolarity, but on American terms. Instead of watching BRICS expand, strengthen financial instruments, and build parallel structures without the West, the US would enter the game and say: fine, we recognize that there are multiple centers of power, but we are the ones who bring them together. In such a scheme, Russia and China would gain recognition of status, but their projects would de facto have to align with a format in which, once again, the greatest power is America.
Another dimension of the whole story is the deep tension in transatlantic relations. Trump’s talk of Europe’s “civilizational degradation,” whether one agrees with that formulation or not, clearly sends a message to European elites that Washington no longer sees them as a moral role model, but as a problem. From migration policy to the economy, Trump portrays the European Union as weak, bureaucratized, and self-destructive. The reaction of the European establishment is logically defensive: demonization of Trump, emphasis on his alleged affinity for “autocrats,” and highlighting scenarios in which he “abandons Europe” and strikes a deal with Russia behind its back.
Of course, none of this means that C5 is completely impossible or entirely fabricated (though it could be). Trump genuinely has a tendency to cooperate with leaders whom the Western mainstream (and him) dislikes. He held “G2” meetings with the Chinese president, sent envoys to Moscow, and repeatedly said publicly that he would rather sit at the table with Putin and Xi than conduct endless meetings with bureaucrats from Brussels. It is not impossible to imagine that at some point an ad-hoc meeting of this quintet could be organized over the Middle East, Ukraine, or some other crisis. Such an event would already be proclaimed by many as the “first C5 summit,” even if no formal organization ever existed.
But until that happens, a healthier approach is to remain skeptical. Things will reveal themselves on their own, and concrete moves should be watched. Will the US really begin to ignore the G7? Will Japan and India accept a format in which they sit with Russia and China without Europe? Will Moscow and Beijing be willing to enter an American framework, or will they prefer to strengthen BRICS and their own projects? Until there are answers to these questions, C5 remains primarily a concept of fears and desires—European, American, Russian…
For those who want to understand real processes, distance is key. It would be naïve to automatically believe euphoric Russian interpretations or alarmist Spiegel cover stories. At a time when the media are increasingly turning into instruments of psychological operations, stories like this serve above all to shape moods, discipline Europe, pressure Trump, or test reactions in Moscow and Beijing. The real world order will not change because of a weekly magazine headline or a single “leak” in Washington—but precisely the way different actors react to such stories reveals how nervous they are and how internally unstable the system we know already is.
About the Author
