The Group of 7 summit that concluded on Saturday went remarkably smoothly by the standards of a gathering where the leaders of major powers come together. That was a measure of the anxiety leaders feel about worsening trends in Ukraine, the Middle East, China and their own political future.
There was a row over the use of the word “abortion” in the announcement, sparked by the host, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, but this was seen as a gesture to her home constituency. On important issues of geopolitics, there was little that divided the group.
President Biden may appear politically vulnerable and uncertain about his re-election, but this summit was another example of unquestionable American leadership of the West, especially on contentious issues of war and peace.
With headlines about new support for Ukraine — a $50 billion injection based on money earned from frozen Russian assets and long-term security pacts with Ukraine signed by the United States and Japan — this rally it was only the first in a series intended to bolster President Volodymyr Zelensky’s war against Russia.
It is followed this weekend by a so-called peace summit in Switzerland, which aims to show that Ukraine has global support and is willing to negotiate on fair terms with Russia, even though Moscow has not been invited. NATO then holds its 75th anniversary summit in Washington in mid-July.
While Ukraine will not receive an invitation to begin membership talks with NATO, the alliance, led by the United States, is preparing what Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken called a “bridge to membership” — a coordinated package of long-term military and economic support for Kiev that some have likened to a diplomatic and military “mission”.
All are aimed at convincing Ukrainians and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that his efforts to subjugate the country will not succeed.
“These summits have become easier to manage as the geopolitical situation has worsened,” said Jeremy Shapiro, director of research at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former US diplomat. “The same will happen at the NATO summit. Everyone is nervous and sees greater benefit in unity and American leadership.”
With the leaders of countries such as Britain, Canada, France, Germany and Japan politically weakened by recent or looming elections, “It’s easy for the Americans to orchestrate,” Mr. Shapiro. “The luxury of big disagreements at summits has almost disappeared.”
A few years ago, it would have been more hectic in the room, Mr. Shapiro said. “But no one is undermining the United States now, not even Emmanuel Macron,” he noted, referring to the French president who became a Ukraine hawk and just suffered a major political defeat in European elections, as did Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany. .
Even on issues like Israel and Gaza, where Europeans are passionately divided and far less willing than Mr. Biden to give Israel up for waging war, the discussion at the summit was calm and the communiqué was mild and silent, just repeating the view of the Biden administration.
Likewise in China, where European and American interests do not always coincide, there has been a new harshness in language, led by Washington. Unlike a few years ago, there were at least 25 references to China in this communique, almost all critical of Beijing.
But the message on Ukraine was the most important, trying to convince Mr. Putin that “you can’t wait us out,” as Charles A. Kupchan, a former U.S. official and professor of international affairs at Georgetown University, put it.
Noting the $50 billion loan, bilateral security commitments and new NATO commitments in Kiev, “Concrete progress is being made, if progress is measured in terms of extending the time horizon to support Ukraine,” Mr. Kupchan.
“It’s important now because Putin thinks he can still win, conquer or subjugate Ukraine by destroying its infrastructure and economy, forcing people to flee and then installing a puppet regime,” Mr Kupchan added. . “But the only way the war ends is when Putin is convinced he can’t achieve any of those goals, so the time horizon is key.”
On Friday, as Mr Zelensky left Italy to travel to a peace summit in Switzerland, Mr Putin laid out his terms for negotiations – an offer that would amount to handing over Ukraine. Currently, Ukraine and Russia are talking to each other.
They will be willing to negotiate seriously, Mr. Kupchan suggests, “when there is a clear military stalemate and neither side believes they can take more.” That situation may arrive sometime next year, he added, as Ukraine continues to build better defense lines.
To get there, however, the West must ensure that Ukraine “survives as a sovereign state,” said Robin Niblett, former director of Chatham House, an international affairs think tank in London. “Each of these meetings and steps in recent months and the NATO summit is a course to ensure Ukraine’s long-term survival,” he said.
“We’re investing in Biden and preparing for Trump,” Mr. Niblett said, given the real possibility that Mr. Biden could lose the election to Donald J. Trump, who is not a fan of helping Ukraine.
“A key element of the Western strategy is to have an effective transition from the United States leading that support to Europe taking over,” Mr Niblett added. The message to Mr. Putin, he said, is “maybe Ukraine can’t push you back, but you can’t win.”
Just this week, NATO defense ministers agreed that the alliance will take a bigger role in training Ukrainian troops and coordinating arms supplies to Ukraine, taking over from the United States in an effort to preserve the process.
Europe already provides more overall economic and military aid to Ukraine than Washington, but not nearly enough, said Claudia Major, a defense analyst at the German Institute for International Affairs and Security.
The West is increasing its support to Ukraine for urgent military, fiscal and reconstruction needs, he said. “But my fear is that we’re congratulating ourselves and that’s really great, but it’s not enough for Ukraine to win or end the war on its own terms.”
Sending Western troops to train Ukrainian soldiers in Ukraine, as some NATO countries argue, would send an important political message, Ms Mejor said. But it would also require more protection for them when Kiev needs all its forces engaged in real combat, he added.
Similarly, Mr Macron’s offer of Mirage jets to Ukraine is a significant gesture, but, Ms Major noted, “It adds to Ukraine’s accounting headaches with yet another sophisticated weapon system, so its military benefit is questionable.”
Ms Major said South Korea, West Germany and even Finland were great examples for Ukraine of how a country can lose territory but become a democratic and economic success fully anchored in the West. “Are we ready to do that much for Ukraine?” asked.
Mr Niblett and Mr Kupchan say the war in Ukraine is slowly moving towards some form of working ceasefire. “Ukraine is starting to strengthen a relatively stable front line, even if Zelensky doesn’t want to say it, fearing that the line could become a new border,” Mr. Kupchan said.
But no one expects a serious debate about the realism of Ukraine’s war aims until after the US presidential election. “There are a few people who are still optimistic that Ukraine can win this war, but publicly there is no serious discussion of an alternative war objective, and that leaves everyone at a standstill for now,” Mr. Kupchan said.
“The level of Western unity is not false and there remains remarkable solidarity with Ukraine,” he added. “The problem is what we do with this solidarity.”
