The G7 Summit and Its Consequences for Ukraine
Leaders of the leading countries are trying to counteract new threats to global security, which are growing as a result of Russiaэs aggressive policy, supported by other totalitarian countries;
one of the directions of such counteraction is assistance to Ukraine. Today, Ukraine is considered a tangible force in deterring Moscow. Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, including by force, is also becoming an urgent matter;
all of this is confirmed by the results of the G7 Summit in Canada in June. Despite numerous problems, the Summit showed that the unity of the G7 countries on major issues related to their security and other interests remains;
against this background, US President D. Trump continues to pursue an isolationist course, while flirting with Russia. However, this does not mean that he will go over to Russia’s side and break relations with partners, Ukraine included.
According to leading experts, the situation in the world has deteriorated significantly. As a result, existing armed conflicts may intensify and new ones may emerge. Moreover, they may escalate into global wars.
This is already happening as part of the escalating confrontation between Russia and the West and the growing competition of America and Europe with China, accompanied by Russia’s war against Ukraine, as well as the intensification of armed clashes in the Middle East and other parts of the world. The reason for all this is Moscow’s aggressive foreign policy, which is implemented militarily and supported by other totalitarian countries. At this, the UN, OSCE and other instruments in the field of collective security have lost their effectiveness.
An additional problem is President D. Trump’s policy, which weakens the United States’ international position and authority in the world, harming the unity of the collective West. As a result, its ability to deter totalitarianism and counteract aggression from Russia and its partners is decreasing.
All of this has a negative impact on the global economy, destabilizing and slowing down the pace of its development. As a result, inequality between different countries and regions is deepening, their internal socio-economic problems are intensifying, which further worsens the overall state of affairs in the world.
All of this was reflected in the work and results of the G7 Summit on June 15-17 in Canada. Given the economic specifics of the G7, the main issues on the agenda were declared to be: consideration of the prospects for the development of the global economy, seeking ways to resolve its problems, and determining the ways to improve the world’s energy security.
The consideration of such issues was mostly in an advisory form and did not involve any specific, let alone binding, decisions. Therefore, the most important element of the Summit, including for Ukraine, was the military-political one. It concerned two main aspects: Russia’s war against Ukraine and Israel’s military operation against Iran. Everyone knows the results of the discussion on these issues, so I will just remind you.
Thus, in general, the G7 members demonstrated that they remain firmly committed to supporting Ukraine, condemned the Russian-Ukrainian war, and called for further pressure on Moscow to force it to reconcile. In fact, these approaches are shared by D. Trump. However, he again avoided harsh statements against Russia. At the same time, the G7 leaders failed to make a specific decision to strengthen sanctions against the Russian Federation. But they assured that they were ready for it.
The G7 reacted more clearly to what is happening in the Middle East. The Summit participants justified Tel Aviv’s actions as aimed at countering a critical threat to the security of Israel and the region. This threat was identified as Iran’s achievements in the production of nuclear weapons. The G7 leaders recognized Tel Aviv’s right to self-defense and demanded that Tehran immediately stop attacking Israeli civilian targets. D. Trump’s position was even tougher, as he ultimately demanded that Tehran surrender. At the same time, he emphasized the need to peacefully resolve the conflict.
The reason for the unity of the G7’s views on this issue is the concern of all members of the organization about the possibility of nuclear proliferation and the threat of its use, which outweighs the differences between them over Israel’s methods of action. Against this background, US President D. Trump has once again demonstrated the inadequacy of his policy, with elements of subjective perception of reality. Thus, he actually withdrew from global leadership, put America’s interests (or his own goals) above the common interests of the Western world, and limited himself to just another warning to Moscow and flirting with it.
In particular, D. Trump refrained from publicly demonstrating his attitude to key global issues, except for the situation in the Middle East. In addition, he withdrew from resolving trade disputes with the G7 partners. Only a trade agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom was signed at the Summit. At this, D. Trump’s postponement of his intentions to raise tariffs expires on July 9, 2017.
At the same time, D. Trump again criticized the decision in 2014 to exclude Russia from the G8. According to him, if this had not happened, there would have been no war. Thus, he indirectly insulted his former political opponent J. Biden and the US Democratic Party, which he represented.
Under such circumstances, D. Trump reduced his participation in the Summit, which was explained by the need for his direct intervention in the situation in the Middle East. However, according to experts, his quick departure was most likely due to a desire to avoid a heated discussion with his partners and accusations of unleashing tariff wars and pro-Russian views. The armed conflict in the Middle East was just an excuse.
Russia and China openly dismissively commented on the results of the G7 Summit.
According to Russian President’s Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, the G7 has lost its practical importance due to a decline in its share of the global economy and growing internal problems in the member countries. Compared to formats such as the G20, which includes Russia, the G7 looks pale. At the same time, Peskov pointed out as positive D. Trump’s refusal to harshly criticize Moscow and his calls for the restoration of the G8 with Russia’s participation. The Kremlin supported Trump’s view that Russia’s exclusion from the G8 was a big mistake.
In his turn, Chinese President Xi Jinping publicly questioned the United State’s leading role in the world. According to him, the world can move forward without the United States. At this, he admitted the possibility of the USA’s decline, as happened to many other former empires.
According to a number of estimates, it was D. Trump’s position that pushed Moscow to launch a massive drone strike on Ukraine on the night of June 16-17 against the background of the G7 Summit. In that way Putin’s regime once again demonstrated the aggressiveness of its course, contempt for the Western world, and unwillingness to end the war.
In general, many politicians and experts perceive all this as a failure of the G7 Summit. In this context, they recall other aspects that allegedly demonstrate D. Trump’s pro-Russian position and his refusal to further assist Ukraine, the split of the Western world and its inability to jointly put pressure on Russia, and to refocus America’s and Europe’s main attention on the Middle East. This leads to disappointing conclusions for Ukraine about a significant reduction in its capabilities in further confronting Russia. And some even advise Ukraine to agree to Moscow’s conditions for ending the war, in fact – to surrender.
At first glance, such statements seem to be true. Indeed, D. Trump is flirting with Russia and postponing the imposition of tough sanctions against it, and consideration of this issue in the US Congress has been postponed until July of this year. The US Department of Defense has reduced the amount of funds allocated to support Ukraine in its budget for next year.
The G7 leaders did fail to make a clear decision to increase pressure on Moscow. And America and Europe did increase their attention to the events in the Middle East. It was there that some of the anti-aircraft weapons intended for Ukraine were redirected. Moreover, D. Trump is trying to compensate for the failures of his efforts to end Russia’s war against Ukraine with the expected success in forcing Iran to abandon its nuclear program.
However, not everything is so bad for Ukraine as it seems, and as Russian propagandists and their conscious or unconscious followers in the West and in our country are trying to prove. Again, I hate sounding like an overly optimistic person. Therefore, I refer exclusively to reputable people and organizations, as well as to specific and reliable facts that for some reason remain outside the wide attention of experts.
Who can have more authority in Ukraine than President Zelenskyy? With this in mind, I will start with his official position. According to V. Zelenskyy’s explanation, which was made public on June 14, D. Trump is delaying the decision to impose crippling sanctions against Russia in order to preserve a window of opportunity for continuing peace talks. The same was said by the USA’s Special Envoy for Ukraine K. Kellogg. So who better than he knows and understands D. Trump’s intentions? That is, D. Trump does not have any pro-Russian views, but pursues a balanced policy. And his alleged flirtation with Moscow is part of it. However, his unacceptable statements about Russia do show that he is not aware of the situation at all. Unfortunately, this has an objective basis and applies not only to D. Trump himself, but also to a number of other politicians.
To understand this problem, we need to recall the late 1980s and early 1990s. At that time, the United States was quite cautious about the possible collapse of the USSR and the full independence of its republics, Ukraine included. The reason for this was concern about the threat of chaos in the post-Soviet space. This is not the case now, but his views on Russia and Ukraine could have been formed at that time. They can only change with deeper engagement with the situation, which is what is happening now.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine is also an authority for me. According to the MFA’s statement of June 10, Ukraine continues to receive aid packages from the United States and is negotiating the purchase of weapons in various formats, including under the agreement on mineral resources. At this, the MFA expressed gratitude to the United States for the weapons already transferred.
The issue of US military and technical assistance to Ukraine was also discussed at the G7 Summit in Canada. American representatives expressed their readiness to increase support for Ukraine’s defense projects.
For those who are still talking about America’s having stopped arms supplies to Ukraine, here are a few more facts. In May of this year, the US Department of State approved a decision to provide technical support for F-16 fighters to Ukraine in the amount of $310 million. Most likely, such aircrafts were also transferred to Ukraine and moved, at least to Poland, under the guise of their hulls intended for disassembly for spare parts.
And in May of this year, the US Department of State submitted to Congress a notice of arms export license to Ukraine. The contract amounted to 50 million dollars. This was the first arms sale approved by the Trump administration. Further activities in this sphere are classified for obvious reasons.
As for the reduction of funds to support Ukraine in the US Department of Defense budget for the next year, this is also quite understandable. As explained by US Secretary of Defense P. Hegseth, this decision was made in view of D. Trump’s position on the peaceful settlement of Russian-Ukrainian relations and his expectations that the war will be over by 2026. In this case, Ukraine’s need for weapons will objectively decrease. If this does not happen, funding for its defense needs will be increased.
And finally, the transfer of the air defense equipment intended for Ukraine for the needs of the US Armed Forces in the Middle East. The US Congress gave a clear explanation on this issue. It apologized and explained this fact by the urgent need to strengthen the air defense of US troops around Israel. At this, the United States has already negotiated with European countries to compensate Ukraine for such weapons from their stockpiles as soon as possible, as well as to increase the production of fuse mechanisms that were to be delivered to the Armed Forces.
To conclude this issue, I would like to respond to our experts’ assertion that in March of this year, the Ukrainian Defense Forces were made to withdraw from Kursk region because the United States suspended both arms supplies to our country and the transfer of intelligence information to it after the well-known scandal in the White House. Those who say this do not understand anything about military logistics or intelligence.
Weapons are not delivered to the front directly from the United States, but through warehouses that have enough supplies for several months. Therefore, a one-week break, if it really happened, could not affect anything. And the cessation of transferring intelligence has been officially denied, at least insofar as it concerns the tactical depth of the front line. In addition, the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine with its considerable capabilities was and still is in place.
In other words, the United States continues to supply weapons to Ukraine, and there are no critical problems with this. Although there are indeed difficulties, as in all other spheres.
The G7 summit in Canada was by no means a failure, although it did not fully meet Ukraine’s expectations. It did result in a final communiqué, albeit without D. Trump. The leaders of the Group of Seven countries supported the USA’s peace initiatives, welcomed Ukraine’s position on its readiness to engage in a peace process without preconditions, and recognized the need to study all options for putting pressure on the Kremlin to force it to engage in real negotiations.
As part of the practical realization of such intentions, Canada and the United Kingdom imposed new sanctions against Russia and announced the allocation of new packages of aid to Ukraine. At the same time, the G7 members, except for the United States, expressed their readiness to join the 18th package of EU sanctions against Russia, which may be introduced in the near future.
The events in the Middle East not only did not reduce the attention of the G7 leaders to Ukraine, but gave it a new quality. Thus, the participants of the Summit linked the armed clash between Iran and Israel to the situation around Russia’s war against Ukraine. In particular, their common features are the aggressive actions of totalitarian countries against democratic ones, the use of the same Iranian-designed UAVs by Iran against Israel and by Russia against Ukraine, and the presence of similar Russian-made SAMs in Iran and Russia.
These circumstances were called a consequence and manifestation of the strategic partnership between Iran and Russia. In view of this, the leaders of the Group of Seven countries called for the need to jointly counteract Tehran and Moscow.
Thus, the situation in the world is indeed getting worse, which complicates it for Ukraine as well. On the one hand, this creates new challenges and threats for our country, and on the other hand, it increases Europe’s role and importance as one of the main forces in deterring Russia.
At this, despite D. Trump’s rather ambiguous policy, the United States has in no way abandoned Ukraine or sided with Russia. Besides, the events in the Middle East did not divert the attention of America and Europe from our country.
All this is confirmed by the G7 Summit in Canada and the accompanying circumstances.
Yurii Ilchenko,
Institute of Global Politics
