The small Italian coastal town hosting this year’s G7 Summit became an unexpected focal point for Canada-Ukraine relations yesterday. Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and her Ukrainian counterpart Serhiy Marchenko held what observers described as an intense 90-minute bilateral meeting on the summit’s periphery, away from the main stage dominated by discussions on artificial intelligence and climate finance.
“We cannot allow Ukraine to become yesterday’s crisis,” Freeland told a small group of reporters following the closed-door session. “The democratic world’s commitment must remain unwavering, especially as we enter the third year of Russia’s full-scale invasion.”
The meeting comes as Canada faces mounting pressure both domestically and internationally to clarify its long-term financial commitment to Ukraine. While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has provided over $9 billion in assistance since 2022, recent parliamentary budget debates have exposed tensions over the sustainability of such support amid Canada’s own economic challenges.
Marchenko didn’t mince words about Ukraine’s precarious position. “Every week without predictable financial support means difficult choices between essential services for our people and military operations defending our territory,” he said, his voice betraying fatigue that three years of wartime finance management has etched into his demeanor.
I’ve spent the last week talking with officials from both countries and regional experts who consistently point to timing as crucial. Ukraine faces a critical summer military campaign where Russian forces are expected to press advantages in manpower and artillery ammunition. According to data from the Ukrainian Ministry of Finance, the country needs approximately $3-5 billion monthly to maintain basic government functions while fighting a defensive war.
The meeting produced tangible results beyond diplomatic pleasantries. Sources close to the talks confirmed that Canada will expedite the delivery of $500 million in previously announced funds by July rather than September as initially scheduled. Additionally, both ministers signed a memorandum of understanding on long-term recovery financing mechanisms that would leverage private sector investment once active hostilities diminish.
“This isn’t just about keeping Ukraine afloat during wartime,” said Dominique Arel, Chair of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Ottawa, who was briefed on the talks. “It’s about preventing a scenario where Ukraine achieves military defense but loses the economic war through attrition.”
The timing of this bilateral engagement at the G7 is strategic. With the United States focused on its upcoming presidential election and European partners managing complex domestic political constraints, middle powers like Canada have found themselves in a position to demonstrate leadership continuity. Germany and France, while supportive, must navigate complex relationships with Russia on energy and security that Canada simply doesn’t have.
What makes the Canada-Ukraine economic relationship particularly notable is its evolution over the last decade. Prior to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, bilateral trade hovered around $300 million annually. By 2021, that figure had tripled, and a free trade agreement signed in 2017 created frameworks that have proven vital during wartime economic cooperation.
“Canada has been uniquely positioned to understand Ukraine’s situation,” explained Maria Popova, associate professor of political science at McGill University. “Like Ukraine, Canada has experience living next to a much larger power with imperial tendencies, though obviously in vastly different circumstances.”
The discussion wasn’t limited to immediate financial aid. According to three sources familiar with the talks, the ministers spent considerable time addressing post-war reconstruction scenarios. Canada has committed to helping Ukraine develop transparent procurement systems that would prevent corruption and maximize the effectiveness of international aid during rebuilding efforts expected to cost upwards of $400 billion.
These conversations occur against a backdrop of growing “Ukraine fatigue” in some Western nations, though polls from the Angus Reid Institute show Canadian public support has remained relatively stable compared to European counterparts. Nevertheless, rising inflation and housing concerns have made foreign aid an increasingly contentious domestic political issue.
Walking through the summit’s media center, I overheard multiple delegates remarking that the Canada-Ukraine bilateral meeting demonstrated rare substantive progress amid a summit otherwise characterized by broad declarations and photo opportunities. One G7 finance ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity, noted that “while the major powers make headlines with big announcements, it’s these focused bilateral engagements that often deliver the most concrete results.”
As Freeland and Marchenko concluded their press availability, the Ukrainian finance minister offered perhaps the most revealing comment of the day: “Some ask why Canada maintains such strong support for Ukraine. I remind them that international rules protecting sovereignty aren’t just abstractions for middle powers – they’re existential necessities.”
The ministers will reconvene next month in Ottawa to finalize details on several initiatives discussed during yesterday’s meeting, including a specialized tax protocol designed to eliminate double taxation for Canadian companies operating in Ukraine’s recovery efforts.
With the main G7 leaders arriving tomorrow, the question remains whether this bilateral momentum can translate into broader multilateral commitments or will remain a notable but isolated bright spot in an otherwise underwhelming summit.
