As the 51st G7 Summit unfolds in the rugged seclusion of Kananaskis, Alberta (June 2025), the world looks on with equal parts hope and anxiety. The G7—once the bedrock of Western unity and liberal economic governance—is facing a mirror of its own contradictions. From Gaza to Kyiv, and across the turbulent arcs of South Asia, the Pacific, and the Sahel, global crises have mushroomed faster than the group’s ability—or willingness—to respond.
What was meant to be a quiet summit hosted by Canada’s newly minted Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has instead become a pressure cooker of ideology, rivalry, and realpolitik. The liberal order is bruised, US. leadership is transactional, and China’s shadow is lengthening. Meanwhile, in a startling twist, President Donald Trump, once a proponent of expelling Russia, has now hinted that “excluding Russia was a strategic blunder”—a usual trademark offhand remark with far-reaching implications.
- G7 Dilemma: Carney’s Calculated Gamble and the Sikh Surge
- Massive Destruction in Israel After Iranian Missile Strike
- WTI Oil Slides, Analysts Eye Hormuz Threat
G7: More Fragmented Than Forward
Far from unified, the G7 enters this summit with more questions than common ground. Carney’s decision to ditch the traditional communique for a sanitized “chair’s summary” shows a tactical aversion to collapse, not a confident vision. Without a joint statement, what remains is a carefully choreographed dance of words over a burning global stage.
The US, led by Trump 2.0, remains the gravitational center—but also the destabilizing force. His off-script jabs, from floating the idea of Russia’s return to joking about annexing Canada, have leaders walking on eggshells. “The G7 can’t pretend to lead the free world if its biggest member is playing by a different rulebook,” said a senior EU diplomat while having off the record onversation with the media corps.
Middle East in Free Fall, G7 in Free Spin
The most urgent crisis lies in the Middle East. The Israel–Iran war has devastated regional stability, pushed oil prices near $110/barrel (Bloomberg, June 2025), and provoked humanitarian catastrophes from Gaza to Beirut. Yet, the G7 remains sharply divided: France and the UK are urging restraint and humanitarian corridors, while Germany is aligning closer to Israeli policy and Japan is calling for de-escalation and diplomatic mediation—implicitly critiquing US silence.
But Trump has remained aloof, privately dismissing ceasefire efforts and suggesting “Israel should finish the job” (Politico, June 15, 2025). Europe’s frustration is palpable but muted—fear of fracturing the alliance overrides open dissent.
Successes, If One Can Call Them That
Continued rhetorical commitment to Ukraine and NATO’s 2% defense target.
High-level pledges on critical minerals and AI governance, though light on specifics.
Canada’s Mark Carney is managing to keep the summit from collapsing under the weight of egos and egosystems.
Failures—Too Numerous, Too Familiar
No unified trade framework or tariff consensus.
No joint climate commitment—despite record-breaking heat waves in India, Spain, and Texas.
No clear position on Middle East escalation, with major rifts behind closed doors.
Trump’s veiled call for Russia’s reintegration casts a long shadow over G7’s credibility.
Global South: Watching but Not Waiting
From Africa to the Indo-Pacific, the G7’s voice is increasingly drowned out by China’s Belt & Road echo chamber. While the G7 debates language, China builds roads, ports, and digital networks. Over 150 countries have now signed MOUs under China’s new Digital Silk Road 2.0 (Brookings, May 2025).
In South Asia, India walks a tightrope—warming to Western tech cooperation but unwilling to alienate Russia or China. In the Pacific, small island nations see more climate ambition from Beijing than from Washington. In Africa, US development funds remain eclipsed by Chinese-built railways, infrastructure loans, and drone diplomacy.
“G7 meetings are becoming echo chambers of the past,” remarked a Nigerian analyst while talking to this scribe from Abuja. “The future is being written elsewhere.”
Russia: The Elephant Trump Invited Back into the Room
Trump’s statement that “kicking Russia out in 2014 was a mistake” has reignited an old debate. While Moscow continues its assault on Ukraine’s Donbas and Odessa, Trump’s comment reveals a readiness to embrace great-power pragmatism over democratic principle. The message to allies: values are negotiable, and Russia’s reintegration is not unthinkable. That undermines not only G7 unity, but the very premise of post-Cold War global order.
China Rising, G7 Reacting
The G7’s slow-motion reaction to China’s rise is proving costly. While G7 finance ministers debated terminology at Banff, China signed new digital infrastructure deals in Latin America, expanded yuan-based oil trading in the Gulf, and floated a “Peace and Development Council”—a Beijing-led mediation platform as a foil to UN deadlock. G7 members talk of a rules-based order; China builds one. Quietly, methodically, and globally.
What Must the G7 Do—Now
The G7 cannot afford to limp from summit to summit. If it wants to remain relevant, it must:
- Forge a unified front on global security, including coherent policy on Gaza, Ukraine, and Taiwan.
- Anchor an AI and tech governance regime that rivals China’s digital authoritarian model.
- Reboot climate leadership with tangible transition funds for the Global South.
- Engage emerging powers like India, Indonesia, and Brazil—not lecture them.
A Summit of Symbolism, Not Strategy
Kananaskis 2025 may be remembered not for its breakthroughs but for what it failed to arrest: the slow unravelling of Western cohesion, the re-entry of old autocrats into polite discourse, and the loss of narrative momentum to Beijing’s assertive worldview.
Mark Carney avoided a summit disaster—but couldn’t turn it into a defining moment. And as the world burns, balances, and builds anew, the G7 remains reactive. And in geopolitics, those who react too slowly eventually serve those who act boldly. This is my humble saying, which I have said at many times during lectures and conferences, that “If democracies don’t lead with intent, they’ll wake up governed by the intent of others.”
