G7 without the US: how world media are commenting on Trump’s demarche at the summit in Canada
The G7 summit in Canada, which was supposed to be a platform for unity and global leadership, turned into a demonstration of geopolitical imbalance. US President Donald Trump left the meeting early without waiting for its conclusion. With his departure, not only one chair at the common table disappeared, but also the consensus. For the first time in a long time, the G7 summit ended without the traditional final communique. World leaders were forced to leave without a clear common word, leaving the world wondering: is there still a “seven” if one of its key players does not want to play by team rules?
The reaction of foreign media did not take long. Some speak of a political fiasco and a return to the logic of blocs, others speak of the beginning of a new era where America is less and less interested in the role of global coordinator. The focus is not only on Trump’s personal behavior, but also on its systemic consequences: blurred signals regarding Iran, uncertainty on the issue of Israeli security, Washington’s isolationist tone, and at the same time the impressive solidarity of the “remaining six” regarding Ukraine.
The Times – Great Britain. London’s The Times describes the reaction of the summit participants to Trump’s departure:
“He has left the rest of the G7 not only embarrassed, but completely confused. One country and one man can now play a decisive role in the crisis in the Middle East and in global markets. However virtuous the statements of the remaining leaders of the G6, they have little bearing on Israel’s attacks on Iran or Trump’s mood swings on the issue of international trade tariffs.
Perhaps more worrying than Trump’s indifference to the opinion of the most important allies of the United States is the insistence with which he emphasizes that the G7 allegedly made a mistake by excluding Russia from the then format of the G8.”
Süddeutsche Zeitung – Germany. The Munich Süddeutsche Zeitung wonders why Trump allowed himself such an affront to the other participants of the summit:
“Long live the Big Six. The same six are humiliated. Six heads of state and government who have power in their countries, and together still make up a significant part of the world economy. However, they allowed themselves to be treated like dwarfs at the summit in Kananaskis, Canada – and they allowed this to a man who considers himself a giant and – in terms of the concentration of political, economic and military power – he is.
Everything is possible for the “big one” – i.e. Donald Trump. Namely – lying without fear of hearing objections, sabotaging the choreography of the summit and, of course, early departure. And why is he allowed all this? But because he can afford it.”
Corriere della Sera – Italy. The Milan-based Corriere della Sera believes that Trump and Netanyahu are acting according to an agreement:
“Trump, who is becoming increasingly nervous, played the card of coercive diplomacy. His proposal to Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei very quickly turned into an ultimatum – a demand for complete surrender, and not just a refusal to enrich uranium, which is needed to create an atomic bomb.
Netanyahu is determined to draw the United States into this conflict – he claims that only they can destroy the underground facilities at Fordow – with a GBU megabomb weighing almost 15 tons.
Some analysts believe that Trump and Netanyahu are playing good and bad cop: while Donald thinks about negotiations and peace, Benjamin strikes.”
Diena – Latvia. Diena from Riga is sure that Trump will delay the decision regarding the conflict in the Middle East:
“The American president is now basically at a crossroads and is torn between that part of the MAGA movement [“Make America Great Again”], which categorically rejects any participation of the United States in foreign wars, and is supported by influential American evangelicals in conservative circles, who, based on their faith, take exclusively pro-Israel positions.
.Moreover, the views of both conservative groups are inherently uncompromising, and neither of them will give up their views. However, it can be assumed that Trump will try to conclude various agreements to the last – and avoid making a decision at all costs.”
