Introduction
In the crisp alpine air of Kananaskis, nestled amidst the brooding Rockies of Alberta, world leaders gathered to forge consensus in a time of crisis. The 51st G7 Summit was supposed to offer clarity in chaos, a collective voice on trade tensions, climate instability, and the volatile Middle East. But as events unfolded, it became less about unity and more about absence. Because one man, the leader of the world’s most powerful democracy, chose to walk out.
President Donald Trump’s abrupt exit from the G7 on the second evening wasn’t just a scheduling change. It was a rupture. A signal that in the era of sharp elbows and shifting alliances, even the most established multilateral groupings can splinter under pressure.
A Summit Shaken from the Start
The mood at Kananaskis was tense from the beginning. With Israel and Iran teetering on the edge of open war, the summit had become a live wire. Reports of Iranian missile deployments and Israeli retaliatory raids were streaming in by the hour. The agenda, meant to include discussions on trade, climate change, and digital economy regulations, was quickly overwhelmed by the escalating crisis in West Asia.
Leaders huddled in private. Advisers worked round the clock. Everyone was watching Trump, the wild card in a deck of weary statesmen.
True to form, the U.S. President chose his moment not in a closed-door session, but in front of a camera. On June 16th, after a flurry of bilateral meetings and sharp exchanges with European leaders, Trump announced he would be returning to Washington “to handle more pressing matters at home.” He offered no apology. No courtesy call to his counterparts. Just a cold, calculated exit.
Macron and the Microphones
French President Emmanuel Macron, ever the tactician, was quick to fill the vacuum. “President Trump has left to focus on brokering peace in the Middle East,” he told reporters, suggesting a behind-the-scenes initiative to mediate between Tel Aviv and Tehran.
But Trump fired back on social media before his jet left Canadian airspace. “Fake. Macron’s just seeking headlines. This isn’t about a photo-op ceasefire. It’s bigger. Much bigger.”
The world was left to decipher, what, exactly, was bigger?
A Chair Left Empty, A Room Left Divided
Inside the summit rooms, Trump’s absence was more than symbolic. It disrupted key meetings on transatlantic trade, delayed consensus on sanctions, and stymied progress on climate cooperation. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, hosting his first major international summit, was forced to recalibrate the entire schedule.
European diplomats privately voiced frustration. “We came here to make decisions as a bloc,” said a senior German official. “Instead, we’re watching one nation turn its back at the height of global uncertainty.”
And it wasn’t just about Iran. Trump had walked out on planned meetings with Canadian, British, Indian, and Ukrainian delegations. The Canadian-American trade reset, once billed as the summit’s headline act, was left hanging mid-sentence. The India-U.S. energy pact? Unspoken. Ukraine’s reconstruction roadmap? Postponed.
India’s Rising Gravity
One leader, however, seemed determined to remain above the fray: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Modi arrived in Kananaskis not just as a guest of the summit, but as a voice of stability in a region engulfed by flames. In bilateral meetings, he quietly urged restraint from both Israel and Iran, drawing on India’s longstanding ties with both sides. He spoke of energy security, digital cooperation, and the need for a multipolar approach to diplomacy.
His tone was firm, not flamboyant. And perhaps because of that, he was taken seriously.
“He isn’t trying to dominate the room,” said a European diplomat. “He’s trying to keep the room together.”
In a world polarised by Western assertiveness and Eastern ambiguity, India is emerging as a balancing force, not aligned, but aligned with reason.
Ghosts of the G8
Before leaving, Trump lit one last match. “Why not bring Russia back into the fold?” he said at a breakfast meeting. “Hell, maybe even China.”
The suggestion sent a chill through the halls. Memories of Crimea, cyber attacks, and coercive diplomacy weren’t easily erased. Germany and France immediately pushed back, citing democratic principles and security commitments.
Russia’s expulsion from the then-G8 in 2014 wasn’t just procedural, it was moral. Its return, many felt, would be an insult to Ukraine and an endorsement of aggression.
As for China, even the suggestion seemed surreal. How could a nation locked in economic combat with half the G7, and actively surveillant the other half, be admitted as a partner?
Yet Trump’s words weren’t dismissed. They were noted, dissected, and filed away, as signals of a potential G7 realignment should he return to power.
What the Communiqué Won’t Say
In the days that followed Trump’s exit, the remaining G7 leaders struggled to craft a meaningful joint communiqué. Without Washington’s full buy-in, consensus on language was hard to reach. The eventual statement on the Middle East was softened, vague references to “urgency” and “dialogue” replacing calls for ceasefire or de-escalation.
On climate, language was ambitious but toothless. On digital regulation, progress was made but overshadowed by geopolitical distraction. On Ukraine, solidarity was strong, but less so without a clear American voice.
Instead of a comprehensive declaration, Canada opted for segmented outcome statements. It was, as one adviser said, “not ideal, but realistic.”
A Summit Reimagined or Reduced?
What does it say about the state of global diplomacy when the G7, long a bastion of consensus, struggles to speak as one?
It says the world is changing. That power is no longer defined solely by GDP or military strength, but by presence and participation. And that presence must mean more than just attendance.
For some, Trump’s departure was a betrayal. For others, it was a liberation, a chance for the rest of the G7 to speak freely, unbound by unpredictability. But for all, it was a reckoning.
Beyond the Optics
As leaders boarded their planes at summit’s end, the mood was mixed. Some carried home signatures on trade agreements. Others carried questions.
Is the G7 still fit for purpose? Can it adapt to new geopolitical realities? Or will it fracture under the weight of diverging interests?
Trump may have physically left the summit, but his shadow lingered. Not just in his absence, but in what it revealed: a world hungry for unity but starved of consensus.
What the Future Holds
In the weeks ahead, attention will shift to bilateral follow-ups. Canada and the U.S. will likely resume trade talks. India’s proposals on energy collaboration may move forward through regional groupings. Europe will double down on climate commitments, even if Washington drags its heels.
But the real story lies in how the G7 reimagines itself.
Will it cling to tradition, or evolve into a more inclusive, more agile platform? Will it remain a club of rich democracies, or embrace the changing architecture of global power? Will its next summit be remembered for what was said, or again, for who wasn’t there?
Conclusion: When Presence Matters More Than Power
The G7 of 2025 was not a summit of outcomes. It was a summit of optics. Of messages sent not just through speeches, but through silences. And perhaps the most powerful silence was the one that followed the click of President Trump’s departing motorcade.
In an era of increasing uncertainty, the world isn’t just watching what leaders say. It’s watching who stays when the fires burn brightest, and who walks away.
Because in the end, diplomacy isn’t about dominance. It’s about commitment. And at Kananaskis, the world saw both, in sharp, unforgettable relief.
By Col Mayank Chaubey (Retd,)
