By Wang Daning
The Group of Seven (G7) summit was held in Evian-les-Bains, France, from June 15 to 17. This year's summit marked another attempt by France to advance European strategic autonomy. However, it did little to reverse Europe's continued loss of influence within the transatlantic relationship. Europe remains caught in a dilemma: it seeks greater strategic independence but lacks the confidence and capability to achieve it, while continued reliance on the US comes at an increasing cost. As a result, its strategic anxiety continues to deepen.
Before the summit: The specter of a US military drawdown resurfaced
Public confidence in the transatlantic relationship eroded sharply. This not only reflected growing European dissatisfaction with the increasingly strained US-Europe relationship, but also cast a shadow over the G7 summit even before its convening. On June 10, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) released a survey showing that, among respondents in 15 European countries, only 11 percent regarded the US as an ally. Meanwhile, 25 percent viewed the US as either a rival or an adversary. According to Reuters, the survey highlighted Europeans' waning confidence in the Washington as a reliable security partner, observing that Europe is experiencing a collapse of trust in the US.
US moves in the defense sphere further chilled the atmosphere ahead of the summit. According to The New York Times, the US Department of War had formally submitted a plan calling for reductions in US naval and air forces deployed in Europe. Analysts argued that such adjustments would significantly weaken NATO's rapid-response capability, long-range strike capacity, and surveillance of key maritime areas. In an article, former US ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder acknowledged that defense decoupling is no longer just a European fear, it is becoming a clear policy direction of the US government, adding that the transatlantic alliance is facing a "major breach" in 80 years.
During the summit: Strategic bargaining overshadowed key issues
Before the summit, US President Donald Trump reached a memorandum of understanding on a ceasefire with Iran. During the summit, he agreed to issue a statement pledging additional assistance to Ukraine and tougher sanctions on Russia, a move portrayed by European media as a sign that the transatlantic camp had regained unity on the Russia-Ukraine issue. In essence, however, the statement is the product of transactional diplomacy. The US needed Europe's support to help safeguard navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and, in return, made limited concessions on the Ukraine issue. On the opening day of the summit, Trump remarked that the Russia-Ukraine conflict has 'no impact' on US. The contrast between these positions underscores the Trump administration's underlying diplomatic logic that virtually every international issue could be turned into a bargaining chip.
In practical terms, the joint statement is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on the course of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Although it repeatedly reaffirmed support for Ukraine and tougher sanctions against Russia, it contained neither a concrete timetable nor corresponding implementation measures. These omissions underscore Europe's difficult position on the Ukraine issue. Without US participation, Europe is neither capable of sustaining the effectiveness of sanctions against Russia on its own nor in a position to shape the direction or outcome of peace negotiations.
After the summit: The risk of Europe-Russia confrontation continues to grow
Although the G7 summit has concluded, subsequent developments have shown that its repercussions are far from over. On June 18, NATO defense ministers met in Brussels. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth criticized NATO allies for failing to facilitate US military operations against Iran and announced a six-month "NATO 3.0" Review of US forces stationed in Europe. The review will focus on US force posture in Europe, basing arrangements, and the relevant access, stationing, and overflight mechanisms. Based on its findings, Washington intends to require its European allies to assume primary responsibility for conventional defense on the continent. He warned that some countries would fail the review.
More unfavorable for Europe is the outcome of the NATO defense ministers' meeting. Following the meeting, the NATO Nuclear Planning Group issued its first statement in 19 years, declaring that strategic nuclear forces remain the supreme guarantee of Allied security and announcing that defense ministers agreed to continue enhancing NATO's nuclear deterrence. This suggests that the US is shifting its military strategy for countering Russia and defending Europe from one centered on forward-deployed conventional forces, with nuclear deterrence playing a supporting role, to one that places greater reliance on nuclear deterrence. As it reduces its conventional military presence in Europe, Washington is expected to upgrade and reinforce its nuclear deployments. Such a shift would not only risk triggering a new round of nuclear arms competition between NATO and Russia, but also increase the danger of strategic miscalculation and even raise the risk of a nuclear conflict.