Foreign ministers from the G7 countries and the European Union have opened a two-day meeting in France amid overlapping crises in Ukraine and the Middle East, with European governments seeking clarity on Washington’s position on both fronts.
Foreign ministers from the Group of Seven countries and the European Union began a two-day meeting near Paris on Thursday against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine, the escalating conflict involving Iran, and growing uncertainty over the direction of US foreign policy under President Donald Trump. The meeting, held at the Abbaye des Vaux-de-Cernay, comes at a moment when the group’s traditional consensus is under strain and no joint communiqué is expected.
The participants are the foreign ministers of the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, together with the EU’s top diplomat.The meeting is taking place as ministers try to manage simultaneous crises with direct implications for European security, energy flows and wider global stability. Those discussions are also unfolding as France’s 2026 G7 presidency prepares for the leaders’ summit later this year.
One of the immediate questions for European and other G7 ministers is whether US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will provide a clearer account of Washington’s objectives in the conflict with Iran. The State Department had earlier said Rubio would attend the meeting to discuss Ukraine and the Middle East. That issue has acquired wider significance because the conflict has already disrupted maritime traffic and energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a development that the G7 had addressed in a statement last week backing maritime security and saying it was ready to act to protect global energy supplies.
Ukraine remains the other central file. Several ministers want a clearer understanding of Washington’s approach to the war, amid concern in European capitals that a US push for a settlement could result in pressure on Kyiv to accept terms favourable to Moscow. Those concerns were sharpened on Thursday by comments from EU High Representative Kaja Kallas, who warned against pressuring Ukraine to cede territory and described such demands as part of the “Russian playbook”.
The meeting is therefore significant less because of any expected final text than because of what it reveals about the present state of alignment within the Western coalition. No communiqué is planned, a decision intended to avoid exposing divisions too openly. That in itself is notable. In previous years, G7 foreign ministers’ meetings have often been used to project unity on Ukraine, sanctions, Middle East security and the functioning of multilateral institutions. The absence of a final joint statement suggests that preserving a minimum working consensus now takes precedence over public declarations that might prove difficult to negotiate.
The wider agenda goes beyond the two wars. Ministers and invited partner countries are also expected to discuss drug trafficking, global governance and other cross-cutting international issues. Canada’s foreign ministry, in advance of the meeting, said the foreign ministers would work on coordination with partners on global governance, reconstruction and wider threats. That broader agenda reflects the effort by G7 governments to present the meeting as more than a crisis-management session, even though Ukraine and Iran are likely to dominate the political attention.
For a European audience, the diplomatic importance of the meeting lies in whether the G7 can still function as a strategic coordination forum when the United States is taking a less predictable line than in previous years. Reuters characterised current US policy as increasingly erratic from the perspective of its allies, particularly in relation to the Middle East and Russia. That does not mean cooperation has broken down. It does mean that meetings such as this one are becoming tests of whether the G7 can still shape events collectively, or whether it is reverting to a looser format in which allies compare positions without producing common policy language.
The economic dimension is also difficult to separate from the diplomatic one. The disruption to Hormuz has already raised concern over global energy stability, and the G7’s statement of 21 March explicitly linked maritime security to the protection of energy supplies. For Europe, that matters directly: any prolonged instability in the Gulf feeds into inflation risks, industrial costs and pressure on governments already managing higher defence expenditure and continued support for Ukraine.
What emerges from the meeting may therefore be measured less by formal deliverables than by political signals: whether Washington reassures allies on Ukraine, whether ministers can maintain a common line on maritime security and energy stability, and whether the G7 still appears capable of coordinated action in an increasingly fragmented strategic environment. Thursday’s opening suggests that the need for coordination remains clear, but so too do the constraints under which that coordination now operates.
