US aligns with G7, urges Russia to accept Ukraine ceasefire

By John Irish and Daphne Psaledakis

LA MALBAIE, Canada (Reuters) -The United States drew closer to its G7 allies on Friday, overcoming differences, at least momentarily, to back Ukraine's territorial integrity and warn Russia to follow Kyiv in accepting a ceasefire or face possible further sanctions.

A joint foreign ministers' communique followed weeks of tension between U.S. allies and President Donald Trump over his upending of Western trade, security and Ukraine-related policy.

G7 officials had feared they would not be able to agree on an all-encompassing document touching on geopolitical issues from across the world, divisions that they said could have played into the hands of both Russia and China.

Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. felt good about the joint statement.

"When it comes to different issues, Ukraine and the Middle East, we've had sessions talking about these different issues, subjects, and the goal was to keep strong G7 unity," Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly told reporters.

The Group of Seven ministers from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States, along with the European Union, convened in the remote tourist town of La Malbaie, nestled in the Quebec hills, for meetings on Thursday and Friday that in the past have been broadly consensual.

But in the run-up to the first G7 meeting of Canada's presidency, the crafting of a final statement had been difficult with wrangling over the language regarding Ukraine, the Middle East and Washington's desire for tougher wording on China.

The communique "reaffirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine in defending its territorial integrity and right to exist, and its freedom, sovereignty and independence."

Ukraine's territorial integrity has largely been absent from the U.S. narrative since the Trump administration came to power on January 20. The U.S. under Trump has so far not ruled out the possibility that Kyiv might cede territory. 

Officials said they had been surprised by the United States' signing off on parts of the Ukraine language, saying that American diplomats and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were repeatedly asked whether the White House backed the language.

While satisfied with Friday's outcome, which was in line with U.S. efforts at present to pressure Russia, they cautioned that constant shifts by the Trump administration did not make the stance definitive.

'SECURITY ASSURANCES'

"The territorial integrity is an important element of the communique and the (reference) to the United Nations," EU's foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas told Reuters, referring to a call for a "comprehensive, just and lasting peace in line with the Charter of the United Nations."

An earlier text referring to the need for security guarantees to ensure a truce was replaced by "assurances," but they did warn Moscow to follow Kyiv in agreeing to a ceasefire or face further sanctions, including oil price caps.

"G7 members called for Russia to reciprocate by agreeing to a ceasefire on equal terms and implementing it fully.

"They emphasised that any ceasefire must be respected and underscored the need for robust and credible security arrangements to ensure that Ukraine can deter and defend against any renewed acts of aggression," they said in a reference to Ukraine's territorial integrity. 

British Foreign Secretary David Lammy called the statement "very good."

Washington had sought to impose red lines on language around Ukraine to not harm its talks with Russia and opposed a separate declaration on curbing Russia's so-called shadow fleet, a murky shipping network that eludes sanctions, while demanding more robust language on China. 

In the end the G7 also approved a separate statement on maritime security, including a task force to tackle the shadow fleet, something that Canada had pushed for.

G7 foreign ministers took a tough stance on China, stepping up language on Taiwan and omitting some conciliatory references and reassurances from past statements, including to "one China" policies, something sure to be a significant concern for Beijing.

There had been wrangling over language regarding Gaza and the Middle East, notably the notion of a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, something the U.S. was resisting.

The final version made no mention of a two-state solution, dropping language that had stressed its importance in earlier drafts of the text. 

The communique read: "They underscored the imperative of a political horizon for the Palestinian people, achieved through a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that meets the legitimate needs and aspirations of both peoples and advances comprehensive Middle East peace, stability and prosperity."  

(Additional reporting by Susan Heavey; Writing by John Irish; Editing by Hugh Lawson and Howard Goller)