Earlier this week, Trump abruptly left the G7 summit early on account of needing to focus on the recent conflict developments between Israel and Iran. This year’s summit, the 51st of its kind, took place in Alberta, Canada. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had flown 5,000 miles to attend and was due to meet with Trump on June 17th. However, Trump’s lack of priority placed Ukrainian diplomats in a precarious state, especially in light of the recent Russian drone and missile attack on Kyiv.
According to the Guardian, some Ukrainian officials lack hope that next week’s N.A.T.O summit will be productive for Ukraine. One stated the following: “It is a permanent hazard that Ukraine is a victim of events and Trump’s short attention span. Vladimir Putin knows that, which may be why there was such a large attack in Ukraine last night. There had been all sorts of promises for this summit – including new US arms deliveries being offered.” This last statement is in reference to Ukraine’s recent proposals to buy U.S. weapons, a move that would aim to appease Trump’s grievances regarding Ukraine’s use of the U.S. defence budget.
President Trump’s decision to skip the scheduled discussion with Zelenskyy, although premised on a need to focus on the escalation of conflict between Israel and Iran nonetheless cast Ukraine aside in terms of international peace plans. Considering the global hegemonic role of the West, its leaders have a political responsibility to mediate international conflicts, especially ones where the West has been historically integral in the development of (such as those of Russian affairs and in the Middle East). However, rather than participating economically or bureaucratically, leaders of the West must instead harness their ideological obligation toward promoting humanitarianism and transparent politics. While idealistic in theory, these virtuous practices could be executed by divesting from arms trading, condemning human rights violations—which includes both the weaponization of conflict and indirect forms of violence—and a genuine commitment to permanent ceasefire among both regions.
This year’s G7 Summit, for the “Group of Seven,” an intergovernmental forum including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K., and the U.S., was a pivotal event in international affairs, particularly due to the multitude of active international conflicts across the globe. The collection of world leaders present at this conference had the opportunity to discuss peace negotiations, violence escalation and ceasefire strategies between different regional conflicts. However, much of the focus remained on discussions of oil prices and efforts to hinder Russian energy revenues. While many leaders are in agreement regarding sanctions on Russia, Trump expressed reluctance, stating Europeans should “do it first” and that “sanctions cost us a lot of money, billions and billions of dollars,” according to the Guardian.
In a statement regarding the newest sanction package against Russia, the E.U. foreign affairs chief, Kaja Kallas, stood by the global efforts of sanctions: “Russia has lost tens of billions in oil revenues. Its economy is shrinking, and its GDP has dropped.” She continued with a justification for defensive economic warfare, specifically the goal of stopping Russia from financing continued violence. Kallas adds, “by cutting off revenue streams, we prevent them from refilling their war chest.”
Despite Trump’s premature absence, the summit managed to engage in discussions on a variety of relevant global topics, including various conflicts, trade deals, artificial intelligence, and more. According to Reuters, Canadian PM Mark Carney stated in the chairman’s summary statement that the G7 “expressed support for President Trump’s efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine,” and that G7 leaders are committed to maximizing pressure on Russia, which would include efforts for financial sanctions. Moreover, according to the BBC, the G7 urged for a de-escalation of violence between Israel and Iran, but stopped short of calling for an immediate ceasefire.
Considering the leaders’ direction, it is evident that the G7 is focused on economic retaliation to curb violence. While this is seemingly preferable to combative solutions, financial sanctions still lack the humanitarian focus that encompass genuine peace-building strategies. Without explicit calls for ceasefire, violent conflict will likely ensue.
