G7 leaders will come together this June 15-17 in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada for the 51st Summit of the organization G7. Leaders of the world’s seven largest democratic economies will discuss a wide range of issues over three days, with the establishment of a lasting and just peace in Ukraine taking center stage.
As world leaders gather in Alberta for the G7 Summit, international relations expert Dr. John J. Kirton reflects in an Ukrinform interview on the stakes of this year’s meeting, from global conflicts to climate crises and what it all means for Ukraine, Russia, and the Global South.
G7 WILL REAFFIRM ITS STRONG COMMITMENTS TOWARDS UKRAINE
What makes this year’s G7 Summit in Canada particularly significant in the current geopolitical climate?
Well, above all, because it’s taking place when several critical wars are raging around the world. The first, of course, is Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, with dramatic developments both on the battlefield and deep inside Russia, with Ukrainian strikes.
The second is the continuing war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, now intensified by a new outburst between Israel and Iran, on the brink of developing nuclear weapons of its own. We’ve also just seen a deadly exchange between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan.
More broadly, there are forceful advances by the Chinese military against democratic Taiwan. North Korea continues flaunting its missiles and nuclear weapons. And then, of course, the United States – spread thin across these global fronts. Never before have we been so close to war on so many fronts at the same time. So yes, there are many priorities on the Kananaskis agenda.
What are those key agenda items?
Economic security, energy security, and technological security, especially with artificial intelligence and quantum computing. And perhaps most literally burning: the wildfires raging in many parts of Canada, with deadly smoke pouring into the United States and even across the Atlantic into Europe.
– Ukraine has been a consistent item on the G7 agenda since at least 2022. What can we realistically expect in terms of new commitments this year?
At a bare minimum – if Donald Trump is in a bad mood – we’ll see a reaffirmation, now at the leaders’ level, of the stronger commitments we already saw from G7 finance ministers at their Banff meeting a few weeks ago, and from G7 foreign ministers before that in Charlevoix and at the Munich Security Conference.
This really shows a consensus at senior levels. The communiqués were fully agreed upon with Scott Bessent, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, and with Marco Rubio, the foreign minister. There’s a real sense that the United States – even under Trump – understands it must stand with its G7 allies to support Ukraine more strongly and tighten sanctions on Russia.
UKRAINE WILL WIN SOONER THAN MANY THINK
– Do you think G7 unity on Ukraine will hold in the long term, especially given political shifts in some member countries?
Oh, I do. We’ve just seen the EU send another tranche to Ukraine, despite stretched budgets and competing demands of all G7 members. New weaponry is arriving from once-reluctant partners. The shift in German policy under its new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, shows Europe is stepping up like never before, backed by the British, French, and, of course, Canadians.
I also believe the war will be over sooner than many think, with Ukraine and the democratic world emerging victorious. It took the Soviet Union nearly a decade to lose in Afghanistan. A much weaker Russia won’t last that long against a much stronger Ukraine.
There’s no doubt about the relative capabilities. The only doubt is political will. And we’re still confronting the curious and unfortunate fact that President Donald Trump struggles to say anything unkind about Vladimir Putin. We still don’t know exactly why.
– There’s increasing talk about using frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. What’s your assessment – can the G7 reach consensus?
It’s a slow but steady march in one direction. Some G7 members and their allies are understandably cautious about the legal complexities and the impact on their financial markets (Belgium, for instance). But many are already transferring interest earned on frozen Russian assets to Ukraine.
This incremental approach will continue and scale up. Beyond that pot of gold, there are other instruments: multilateral development banks, like the EBRD, the European Investment Bank, the IMF, and the World Bank – all largely controlled by G7 countries. They can all provide support.
If needed, countries can run larger deficits or simply boost their defence spending (simultaneously pleasing Donald Trump) and buy military equipment that also serves Ukraine’s needs. Older gear being replaced can then be sent to the Ukrainian frontlines in days. Western hardware of previous generations is still better than the stuff Russia is heavily relying on. Credit guarantees are another option, not as good as real money, but still helpful.
фото
With growing ties between Russia, China, Iran and others, how can the G7 remain an effective counterbalance to autocratic alliances?
The G7 has been clear: China must not send military equipment to Russia or face sanctions. And there’s an added deterrent. Once the war is over and Ukraine is rebuilt, any company that supported the Russian war machine will be banned from reconstruction contracts.
This initiative, reportedly from Scott Bessent, sends a clear signal. It makes countries and companies – especially in China – think twice. Would you rather risk sanctions for covert sales to Putin, or tap into lucrative G7-supervised reconstruction contracts paid for by Russian assets?
ALL IMPORTS OF RUSSIAN ENERGY AND RESOURCES MUST BE BANNED
– Many Global South leaders feel alienated from the Western-led response to crises like the Russian aggression or climate change. How can the G7 engage them more effectively?
Let’s look at recent G20 summits. In Indonesia, even with Lavrov present, the communiqué acknowledged Russian aggression, echoing the UN’s broader consensus. We saw similar language at Modi’s summit in New Delhi and likely will again when President Ramaphosa hosts in Johannesburg.
BRICS, meanwhile, is expanding numerically but weakening in relevance. Its membership is growing, but hollowing out politically. Even India sees it increasingly as a Chinese fan club.
The G7 must still pressure India to stop buying Russian oil. But equally important, G7 members must fully ban imports of Russian energy – oil, coal, natural gas, uranium. Canada, with the world’s fifth-largest oil reserves and as a top-three uranium producer, can help fill the gap. We can give our friends in the USA every isotope they need so they don’t have to rely on anything from Russia or even Kazakhstan. However, Kazakhstan could be more on our side than on the side of the Russian Federation.
– Some still say the G7 is losing influence to more inclusive bodies like the G20. Do you still see it as relevant and effective?
If we’re talking sheer inclusivity, then sure – go all the way to the UN. But effectiveness? That’s another matter.
Trump has already said he won’t go to South Africa for the G20, citing alleged genocide against white farmers. But there was never any doubt he’d attend the G7. The G7 has had perfect attendance for 50 years. The G20 lost that record back in 2010. And last year? Neither Putin nor Xi showed up.
So yes, the G7 remains the premier forum for real decisions among democratic powers.
Climate change, pandemic recovery, economic inequality – they’re still on the G7’s plate. Can the Summit realistically address all of that while also focusing on security and Ukraine?
Not directly, no – and it probably shouldn’t. Income inequality, pandemic recovery – they’re not on the agenda per se. If you try to include climate change in explicit terms, the U.S. delegation might just pull out the red pens and say “niet,” turning it into a word game.
But that doesn’t mean progress isn’t happening. Take wildfires: a real crisis and a climate signal. This will be a standout initiative of the Kananaskis Summit, and it links directly to climate action.
Artificial intelligence is another example. Not only will AI be discussed as a tool to detect wildfires early, but the G7 will aim to avoid a digital divide, sharing innovations with the Global South. This is part of the broader effort to empower developing countries, particularly in critical mineral supply chains.
That’s why Australia’s Anthony Albanese is attending: Down Under has minerals that Canada doesn’t. The idea is to build a “trusted club” of democratic suppliers that includes the Global South, not just extract resources, but help countries add value, create jobs, and maintain transparency and labor rights.
It’s also a clear contrast to Donald Trump’s fantasy of self-sufficiency, his belief that everything America needs must come from the ground beneath it, processed and secured within its own borders. He knows that’s impossible. That’s why he floated the idea of annexing Greenland – and even Canada – because many of the world’s critical minerals still lie in the Global South and among the democratic allies America needs.
That’s how the G7 can work for the world, not just through declarations, but through economic architecture that brings others in.
Maksym Nalyvaiko, Ottawa
Photo courtesy of International Academy for Multicultural Cooperation, University of Toronto
Source: Dr. John J. Kirton, Director of the G7 Research Group at the University of Toronto
