The United States opposes the inclusion of a clause on further support for Ukraine in the statement following the meeting of G7 finance ministers in Canada, Politico writes.
This signal from the behind-the-scenes negotiations of the G7 (if Politico's information is correct) is a very alarming and indicative confirmation of the U.S. Trump's U-turn from the previous course of D. Biden, which was aimed at unconditional support for Ukraine.
" The United States opposes the inclusion of "further support" for Ukraine in the G7 statement, which is being discussed by finance ministers in Canada. Washington is also reluctant to call Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine "illegal" in the text, according to two officials involved in the talks.." - quote Politico.
The United States is actually giving up leadership in the Ukrainian issue - at a symbolic level. The fact that Washington opposes the inclusion of the wording on "further support" for Ukraine in the G7 final document means not just a technical slip of the tongue, but a political signal and a continuation of Donald Trump's course to delegate Ukraine to Europe.
The United States no longer wants to be a guarantor of Ukrainian interests in multilateral formats. This is especially important given that finance ministers are discussing financial support and debt sustainability for Ukraine – that is, not military aid, but a vital budget cushion.
The information that the United States opposed the inclusion of the language on "further support for Ukraine" in the G7 statement and refused to call Russia's invasion of Ukraine "illegal" confirms a profound shift in Washington's position. Ukraine is no longer perceived as a strategic priority, and rhetorical caution indicates the desire of the United States to leave itself room for a deal with the Russian Federation - without legal and moral encumbrances. This decision weakens Kiev's diplomatic position, reduces the united front of the West and increases the risk of gradually squeezing the Ukrainian case out of the international agenda.
The language of the G7 is not just diplomatic details. This is the text that will be referred to in the drafting of the next packages of assistance, sanctions, and negotiation initiatives. Weak wording is a weak position.
If the United States does not lobby for the active inclusion of support for Ukraine, it demoralizes the allies. Some European countries have long been looking for a reason to soften their rhetoric. If Washington does not insist, others will not. This could be the beginning of the fragmentation of the Western coalition.
Ukraine is losing symbolic and political support within the G7. This can also be interpreted as a "ritual" of breaking with the moral framework of 2022. A clear departure from the previous paradigm of the Biden administration. Instead of a moral and legal narrative ("illegal invasion", "aggressor", "support for democracy"), there is business pragmatics, in which Ukraine is increasingly perceived as one of the conflict zones, and not as a central issue of international security.
Transition from the slogan "With Ukraine until victory" to "let Europe decide for itself how to live with the Russian Federation."
The United States is increasingly openly demonstrating a priority: not peace in Ukraine, but the stabilization of relations with the Russian Federation. The situation in the G7 is a de facto continuation of what happened after US President Donald Trump's call to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
We see that the United States:
• They do not insist on an unconditional truce, although formally they propose it.
• Do not tighten sanctions, despite the lack of concessions from the Russian Federation.
• And now they do not want to even symbolically emphasize support for Ukraine in key international documents.
The fact that the American delegation objects to the inclusion of the wording about the "illegality" of the Russian invasion is the second level of deviation. This is a rejection of the moral framework that has been the basis of US sanctions and foreign policy for three years. Washington no longer aspires to the role of leader of an anti-Russian coalition. This is not an isolated decision, but a systemic signal: the United States is stepping back, handing over responsibility to Europe and preparing for a possible normalization of relations with Russia — without resolving the conflict.
So far, we are not talking about the fact that the United States is revising its attitude to aggression, but that it is "neutralizing the language" so as not to interfere with the bilateral track of negotiations with the Kremlin.
In this context, the U.S. position is a strategic "handwashing" in which America retains the right to intervene but no longer assumes the burden of either a moral or a political leader.
________________________________________
In 2025, this is not the first time that the United States, under the leadership of President D. Trump, has blocked or weakened language condemning the actions of the Russian Federation in international organizations:
1. UN General Assembly (24 February 2025): On the third anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution condemning Russia's aggression and calling for the full and unconditional withdrawal of Russian forces from the territory of Ukraine. when the United States did not support such a resolution, which caused concern among allies and increased tensions in transatlantic relations.
2. UN Security Council: The United States proposed its own resolution calling for an end to the conflict, but without mentioning Russia's aggression or support for Ukraine's territorial integrity. Attempts by European countries to amend Russia's actions were blocked by Russia using its veto power USA.
3. Refusal to co-sponsor a General Assembly resolution: In February 2025, the United States refused to co-sponsor a draft UN General Assembly resolution supporting the territorial integrity of Ukraine and demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops. This was a significant departure from previous US policy, which actively supported such initiatives.
Oksana Krasovskaya, political analyst at the Ukrainian Institute of Politics
