As the G7 leaders gather in Kananaskis, they face a security environment more complex and contested than at any time in the group's history. What began as an economic forum has, over decades, become an informal but influential security council for the West yet the boundaries of its influence and the coherence of its purpose are under unprecedented strain. Russia's grinding war in Ukraine, the specter of a wider conflict in the Middle East, and rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific all demand attention. But so too do the subtler, insidious threats: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and the weaponization of energy and supply chains. In 2024 alone, G7 nations faced over 1,200 significant cyber incidents targeting critical infrastructure, a 40% increase from the previous year. In this polycrisis era, the G7's challenge is not just to respond, but to lead with credibility in a world where power is diffuse, alliances are fluid, and old certainties have evaporated.
From Cold War Consensus to Fragmented Response
The G7's security role has evolved from Cold War consensus to a patchwork of responses to contemporary crises. The 2014 annexation of Crimea was a watershed, prompting Russia's expulsion and the imposition of sweeping sanctions a move that signaled resolve but also exposed the limits of Western leverage. Since then, the G7's toolkit has expanded: coordinated sanctions on Iran and North Korea, oil price caps, and humanitarian interventions. Yet these measures are increasingly circumvented by adversaries, with Russia rerouting oil eastward and sanctioned regimes finding lifelines through alternative financial systems, notably those fostered by China. As Beijing expands its own influence through currency swaps, the CIPS payment system, and deepening ties with sanctioned states the G7's ability to enforce discipline is blunted by the emergence of rival power centers.
The Numbers Behind the Power and Its Limits
Despite a shrinking demographic and economic share, the G7's security footprint remains formidable. In 2024, its members accounted for over $1.2 trillion in defense spending, more than half of global military outlays, and provided $110 billion in humanitarian aid, with Ukraine alone receiving $78 billion since 2022. Over 15,000 individuals and entities have been targeted by G7 sanctions since the Crimea crisis. Yet, these numbers also reveal the group's constraints. While G7 defense spending dwarfs that of rivals, its ability to project power is checked by political divisions, the asymmetries of modern warfare, and the growing sophistication of hybrid threats. Recent ransomware attacks on the UK's energy grid and coordinated disinformation campaigns during the 2024 EU elections have made the threat landscape alarmingly tangible.
The Voluntary Alliance Paradox
The G7's architecture is voluntary, not contractual. Its strength lies in consensus, but so too does its vulnerability. Unlike NATO, the G7 has no treaty obligations or standing forces. The analogy is apt: it is less a formal alliance than a coalition of the willing, effective only when interests align. Divergences are increasingly apparent. France's call for "strategic autonomy" within Europe reflects a wariness of overdependence on Washington. Japan and the UK advocate for a more robust Indo-Pacific posture, while Germany and Italy remain cautious on China. The United States, oscillating between calls for solidarity and bouts of transactionalism, has at times unsettled allies most recently in debates over Ukraine aid and Middle East policy. The result is a solidarity that is real but fragile, always at risk of being eroded by domestic politics and divergent threat perceptions.
Sanctions, Technology, and the Limits of Leverage
Sanctions remain the G7's instrument of first resort, but their effectiveness is increasingly questioned not only by Western analysts, but by the Global South, which often views them as self-interested or neo-imperial. Recent studies by the Peterson Institute and the European Council on Foreign Relations suggest that sanctions can impose costs, but rarely deliver regime change or rapid conflict resolution. Russia's economy, battered but resilient, has adapted; Iran's nuclear program continues apace. As Fiona Hill, a leading Russia expert, observed, "Sanctions are a slow-acting poison, not a silver bullet." Meanwhile, China's growing role as a sanctions spoiler offering alternative markets, technologies, and payment systems has created new avenues for sanctioned states to survive and adapt.
The technological dimension is equally fraught. The G7 faces a rising tide of hybrid threats: cyber intrusions, AI-powered disinformation, and the proliferation of dual-use technologies that blur the line between civilian and military. Coordinating export controls on sensitive technologies has proven difficult, as national interests diverge and enforcement is patchy. The challenge is compounded by the rapid pace of innovation and the global diffusion of expertise a reality that no single bloc can control.
Civil Society, Humanitarianism, and the Migration Dilemma
The G7's credibility is also tested by its engagement with civil society and its response to humanitarian crises. NGOs and human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International's Agnès Callamard, have criticized the group's uneven response to Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine, questioning whether its actions match its rhetoric. The migration crises triggered by conflict and climate change have further exposed divisions, particularly within Europe, over refugee policy and burden-sharing. In 2024, G7 countries admitted just 220,000 refugees collectively, a figure dwarfed by the scale of displacement in the regions affected. As former UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband has warned, "Solidarity is not a slogan. It is a discipline, and it requires sacrifice." The G7's ability to uphold international law and human rights is under constant scrutiny not just from adversaries, but from its own citizens and partners in the Global South.
Energy Security, Green Transition, and Economic Resilience
The weaponization of energy most notably by Russia has forced the G7 to rethink its dependencies and accelerate the search for alternative supplies. Yet, the race for energy security is now inseparable from the green transition. Securing critical minerals, building resilient green tech supply chains, and financing the energy transition have become central to both economic and national security. In 2024, G7 investments in renewable energy reached $310 billion, but fossil fuel imports still accounted for 58% of the group's energy mix. Here, too, the G7's promises often outpace delivery: infrastructure commitments to the Global South remain underfunded, and the competition for resources risks fueling new geopolitical rivalries. Meanwhile, the African Union's mediation in Sudan and India's leadership in the Global Biofuels Alliance exemplify how non-G7 actors are shaping the global agenda, not merely reacting to it.
Internal Democratic Resilience and Strategic Vision
Perhaps the most profound challenge to G7 solidarity comes from within. Rising populism, polarization, and election cycles threaten to erode the group's ability to project unity and consistency. The resilience of the G7's own democracies is now a strategic variable, shaping foreign policy credibility and the willingness to sustain costly commitments abroad. The temptation to manage crises reactively, rather than pursue a long-term strategic vision, remains ever-present.
The Credibility Test
As the G7 meets in Kananaskis, the world will judge not just its declarations, but its capacity for unified, principled action. Can the G7 remain a credible force for stability in a world where fragmentation is the new normal? Or will it become a forum for managing decline, its influence diluted by internal rifts, external circumvention, and the rising assertiveness of non-Western actors? The stakes are clear. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has put it, "Leadership is not just about power, but about purpose and persistence."
The G7's legacy will be measured not by the volume of its communiqués, but by its willingness to act and adapt when it matters most. In this crucible of geopolitics, the G7's test is not just of solidarity, but of substance, strategy, and the ability to inspire trust beyond its own circle. As the world looks ahead to the next summit, the question remains open: will the G7 shape the future, or be shaped by it?
[Major General Dr Dilawar Singh is an Indian Army veteran who has led the Indian Army's Financial Management, training and research divisions introducing numerous initiatives therein. He is the Senior Vice President of the Global Economist Forum AO ECOSOC, United Nations and The Co President of the Global Development Bank.]
