The G7 summit that concluded on Saturday was unusually smooth by the standards of a gathering of leaders of major powers. This reflects the anxiety leaders feel about deteriorating trends in Ukraine, the Middle East, China and their own political future.
The use of the word “abortion” in the communiqué, prompted by host Italian Prime Minister Giorgio Meloni, sparked controversy but was seen as a gesture to her domestic constituency. On issues of geopolitical importance, the group is virtually undivided.
President Biden may appear politically fragile and his re-election is uncertain, but the summit is another example of America’s undisputed leadership of the West, especially on contentious issues of war and peace.
While the main headlines are about new support for Ukraine – a $50 billion injection using funds earned from Russia’s frozen assets – and a long-term security agreement between the United States and Japan with Ukraine – the gathering is just the first in a series of planned .
This will be followed by a so-called peace summit in Switzerland this weekend aimed at demonstrating that Ukraine has global support and is willing to engage in fair negotiations with Russia, although Moscow has not been invited. Subsequently, NATO will hold its 75th anniversary summit in Washington in mid-July.
While Ukraine will not receive an invitation to start membership talks with NATO, the U.S.-led alliance is preparing what Secretary of State Antony Blinken has called “a bridge to NATO membership” – a coordinated set of long-term military plans. and financial support for Kyiv, which some likened to a diplomatic and military “mission.”
It’s all an attempt to convince Ukrainians and Russian President Vladimir V. Putin that his attempts to subordinate the country will not succeed.
“As the geopolitical situation gets worse, these summits become more manageable,” said Jeremy Shapiro, research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former U.S. diplomat. “The same goes for the NATO summit. Everyone is nervous and thinks unity and American leadership will bring greater good.
With leaders in countries such as Britain, Canada, France, Germany and Japan all politically weakened by recent or upcoming elections, “it’s easy for Americans to plot,” Mr. Shapiro said. “The big brawls at the summit are almost gone.”
A few years ago, Shapiro said, the room would have been louder. “But no one is undermining the United States now, not even Macron,” he said, referring to the French president, who has become a hawk on Ukraine and has just suffered a major political defeat in the European elections, and German Chancellor Olaf. So does Scholz.
Even on issues like Israel and Gaza, where Europeans are deeply divided and less willing than Biden to give Israel a pass on its conduct of war, discussions at the summit were muted and communiques lackluster Nothing fancy, just a reiteration of the Biden administration’s point.
Likewise, European and American interests have not always aligned when it comes to China, and under Washington there has been a new hardiness in the language. Compared with a few years ago, there are at least 25 references to China in this communiqué, almost all of which are critical of Beijing.
But the message about Ukraine was the most important, trying to convince Putin that “you can’t wait for us to withdraw,” said Charles A. Kupchan, a former U.S. official and professor of international affairs at Georgetown University. .
Noting $50 billion in loans, bilateral security commitments and new NATO commitments to Kyiv, “if progress is measured by an extended time frame to support Ukraine, we are making concrete progress”, Mr Kupkan said.
“This is important now because Putin thinks he can still win, conquer or conquer Ukraine by destroying its infrastructure and economy, forcing people to leave and establishing a puppet regime,” Kupkan added. “But the only way to end the war is for Putin to be convinced that he cannot achieve any of these goals, so the time frame is key.”
On Friday, as Zelensky left Italy for a peace summit in Switzerland, Putin laid out the terms for negotiations – an offer that amounted to a surrender for Ukraine. Currently, Ukraine and Russia are arguing with each other.
Kupkan said they would be willing to negotiate seriously “only when there is a clear military stalemate and both sides believe that no further benefits can be gained.” He added that this could happen sometime next year as Ukraine continues to build better defenses.
To achieve this, however, the West must ensure Ukraine “survives as a sovereign state,” said Robin Niblett, the former director of international affairs think tank Chatham House in London. “Every meeting and step over the past few months and at the upcoming NATO summit has been aimed at ensuring Ukraine’s long-term survival,” he said.
Niblett said, “We are investing in Biden and preparing for Trump” because Biden is likely to lose to Donald J. Trump, who does not like aid to Ukraine.
“A key element of Western strategy is to achieve an effective transition from US-led support to a European baton,” Mr. Niblett added. The message to Putin, he said, was “Maybe Ukraine can’t drive you away, but you can’t win.”
Just this week, NATO defense ministers agreed that the alliance would take on a greater role in training Ukrainian forces and coordinating arms supplies to Ukraine, taking over from the United States to safeguard the process.
Claudia Major, a defense analyst at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, said Europe’s total financial and military aid to Ukraine already exceeds that of Washington, but it is far from enough.
She said the West was stepping up support for Ukraine to meet urgent military, budgetary and reconstruction needs. “But my concern is that we congratulate ourselves, which is great, but it’s not enough for Ukraine to win or end the war on its own terms.”
Major said sending Western troops to train Ukrainian soldiers in Ukraine, as some NATO countries have advocated, would send an important political message. But she added that when Kiev needs all its troops for real fighting, it also needs to provide them with more protection.
Likewise, Macron’s supply of Mirage jets to Ukraine was an important gesture, but Ms. Major noted that “it adds to Ukraine’s logistical difficulties as yet another advanced weapons system whose military benefit is questionable.”
Ms. Major said South Korea, West Germany and even Finland were excellent examples for Ukraine of how a country could lose territory and still achieve democratic and economic success that was firmly rooted in the West. “Are we ready to do the same for Ukraine?” she asked.
Niblett and Kupkan said the war in Ukraine is slowly moving toward some form of functional ceasefire. “Ukraine is starting to strengthen a relatively fixed front line, even if Zelensky doesn’t want to say it, for fear that this line could become a new border,” Kupkan said.
But before the U.S. presidential election, no one expected a serious conversation about the reality of Ukraine’s war goals. “Few people are still optimistic that Ukraine can win the war, but in public no one is seriously discussing alternative war goals, which leaves everyone in a difficult position right now,” Kupkan said.
“The level of unity in the West is not false and there is still significant unity with Ukraine,” he added. “The question is how do we leverage that unity.”
