I swear I could have predicted the outcomes of the last G7. I couldn't see how Trump could take a different stance that what we witnessed. Given the recent events, a different response would go against U.S interests. Especially given the recent efforts the U.S has made to secure their position as a leading global oil producer. Also after recently securing their alliance (presumably against OPEC) with the soon to be world's largest oil producer - Saudi Arabia. I had to burst out laughing when I saw "Paris Agreement - climate change" also known as a war on "oil and coal dependent economies" as the main topic. Seriously? Was today "interns day" at the foreign policy analyst office in Brussels?
After the Paris agreement, it became clear what Germany and the EU had and wanted to do to maintain their economic advantage. Britain not so much, as you know, as they'll still profit off a rising oil producing market. Given their persistent connections to oil producing states, control of strategic trade routes and investment loss aversion bias (hence Brexit being tactical behavioral economic brilliance that it is, as opposed to the mistake some think it to be). Britain's economy, much like the Americans, don't yet have the capacity to loose billions of investments as well as an economic dance off with China, from an energy reform. So clearly Germany (sometimes too practical & agile for their own good) and the EU already tuned their tech-conomic strategy, to positioning them as a leader in the next wave of clean energy tech. A strategy that depends on the the US & Britain's commitment to Paris agreements (I could tell May was in on the outcome), an open/non isolationist trade market (potentially leveraging U.S influence to minimize adoption costs) and a slowly declining global dependence on other energy forms like oil and coal to actually work.
The migration issue & military quota session was also a bit of a comedic ask, as it also clearly goes against U.S interests. Why would the U.S who's looking to finally exercise some trade deficit options from selling/upgrading EU's military equipment want a more secure and terrorist free EU borders?How does a non-threatening Russia drive a call to action for increased military spending? How does a non-isolationist Europe since world-war 2, emphasize the importance for an external arbiter? I swear could almost hear EU leaders whisper under their breath, "But you caused this conflict mess to escalate around us, now you're making us clean up by ourselves, you bastard!" as Donald Trump scolded them like a principal to his students. The cameras made it even more so.
I'm shocked the One Belt one Road was silently brushed under the rug. Even though it must be a major US, UK sense of betrayal. A connecting Asia to Europe just like the Berlin Bagdad Rail would have is one sure way to ignite the romantic memories of the world wars.
In all there's never been a more interesting time in geopolitics.