The G7 Summit held in the Kananaskis region of Alberta, Canada on June 16-17, 2025, should be evaluated not merely as an annual meeting but as an important turning point in the process of rebuilding the global system. It is particularly crucial to properly interpret this summit organized during a period of conflicts where phenomena such as multilateral structure, liberal balances, and collective security are being questioned.
The G7 Summit is one of the most powerful structures where the economic policies of these countries that drive global wealth can be observed alongside their political policies. The events that marked the summit, particularly the United States’ (US) increasingly “unilateral” foreign policy line and the European Union’s (EU) search for strategic autonomy, reflect the transformation of global alliance systems.
US President Donald Trump’s participation in the summit, his statements regarding Iran, and his early departure once again made visible the tension over G7’s transatlantic harmony. Trump’s statement “Iran can never possess nuclear weapons,[1] was made at the peak of Israeli-Iranian tension and overshadowed the expectations of collective decision-making on the G7 platform. This situation shows that the strategic division between states defending neoliberal institutional structures and the US is deepening. Trump’s unilateral statements of this kind reflect the power-focused national interest logic of Realist theory in direct contradiction to both international law norms and the international community’s common threat perceptions. However, this situation also points to a normative rupture in terms of alliance politics: According to the Neoliberal institutionalism approach that advocates the effectiveness of institutions in international relations, such behaviors damage trust in institutions and reduce collective action capacity.
Throughout the summit, the EU adopted an approach based on soft power elements and long-term strategic autonomy vision in contrast to the US’s hard power policies. The 2025 Digital Decade Report presented by Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas emphasizes the EU’s strategy to reduce external dependency in technology and security areas.[2] This report reflects Europe’s aim to become an actor that determines its own norms in artificial intelligence, 5G network infrastructure, digital identity systems, and cybersecurity. In this context, when the EU is evaluated within the framework of Joseph Nye’s concept of “soft power,” it aims to play an active role in constructing the global order through technological standards, legal regulations, and normative values. Becoming a global standard-setter in digital fields is both an economic and geopolitical shield for the EU.
One of the notable developments at the summit was the defense cooperation negotiations carried out between the EU and Canada under the title “Readiness 2030.”.[3] While resource allocation of 800 billion euros is planned within the scope of the ReArm Europe initiative, serious steps have been taken toward establishing collective defense mechanisms outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Canada’s participation in this effort indicates that the transatlantic security understanding is diversifying. Such initiatives show that NATO’s collective defense paradigm is no longer the sole legitimate model and that Europe’s strategic autonomy efforts are gaining momentum. According to Structural Realism, security architectures are reshaped according to the needs of power centers. Therefore, the EU’s effort to increase its own defense capacity is a harbinger of a multipolar security system.
The participation and statements of Mark Rutte, who began his new role as NATO Secretary General at the summit, demonstrated the alliance’s determination to maintain its institutional existence.[4] It was emphasized that NATO functions not only as a military but also as a diplomatic balance mechanism. This serves as an important security guarantee function for European countries, especially against the US’s unilateral moves. However, it is clear that internal dynamics within NATO are also changing. Particularly members like Germany and France demand that EU defense structures be more flexible and Europe-focused, while not being completely independent from NATO. This shows that expectations for intra-institutional reform are rising and that NATO may evolve into a more “modular” structure in the future.
The symbolic images reflected to the public regarding the summit, the “family photo” of G7 leaders taken against Canada’s natural landscape, although conveying a message of unity, does not cover up the disagreements experienced at the diplomatic table. Particularly Trump’s appearance with a “MAGA (Make America Great Again)” hat and his dialogue with indigenous leader Steven Crowchild revealed how the US’s domestic policy problems regarding indigenous peoples are perceived at the international level. Such symbols provide important data on how “normative image” is constructed in international relations. Unlike Europe as a normative power, the identity of the US represented by the Trump administration draws a more “exceptionalist” and “competitive” profile. This situation can be evaluated as a weakening in the US’s soft power capacity.
The picture that emerged at the end of the G7 Summit shows us that certain trends are strengthening. We can briefly explain these as follows:
- Expansion of Security Level: NATO, EU defense structures, and bilateral cooperations are developing simultaneously. This situation shows that the security architecture is evolving toward a modular and multi-actor order rather than a single-centered one.
- Digital Sovereignty: Based particularly on the report presented by the EU, it is possible to observe that digital fields will emerge as new competition areas.
- Trust Problem in International Institutions: The US’s increasingly isolationist rhetoric is damaging the effectiveness of global institutions and questioning the sustainability of the liberal international order.
- Increasing Impact of Social Demands in Diplomatic Processes: Contacts with indigenous leaders show that social movements are now more visible in foreign policy agendas.
The Kananaskis G7 Summit is not merely an interstate diplomatic meeting; it is also a moment that documents the transformation process of global politics. The US’s early departure from the summit by prioritizing national priorities shows that the international system is caught between the ideal of “collective decision-making” and “national interest maximization.” The EU and Canada’s efforts to build new institutional models based on multilateralism principles show that they are trying to build an alternative that offers hope for the future international order but still faces many structural obstacles.
[1] “Photos of world leaders in Canada’s Rocky Mountains for the G7 summit”, AP News, https://apnews.com/photo-gallery/canada-g7-photos-1a20cd3e8ef1f49accdb811e9322417b, (Date Accessed: 18.06.2025).
[2] “President von der Leyen participates in the G7 Summit with focus on global economic security and geopolitics”, European Comission, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ac_25_1562, (Date Accessed: 18.06.2025).
[3] Ibid.
[4] “NATO Secretary General attends G7 Summit, welcomes Canada’s commitment to defence spending”, NATO, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_236327.htm, (Date Accessed: 18.06.2025).
