Argument: Simply narrows the G8 making it irrelevant

The G8 has been losing its relevance with the rise of other countries economically. It can no longer claim to be the top eight economies as Canada is the world’s eleventh largest economy with India, Brazil and China all bigger. It is even lower (14th) if done by Purchasing Power Parity. [1] Newer more inclusive institutions such as the G20 that include other vital economies like China have been taking over its primacy on the economy. The G8 is no longer the best grouping to steer the global economy as was recognised during the 2008 financial crisis where the G20 took the lead. [2] Throwing out Russia would simply be making the G8 narrower and less important globally so reducing the institution’s influence.

[1] The World Bank, ‘GDP (current US$)’, data.worldbank.org, 2012 figures

[2] Cooper, Andrew F., ‘The G20 as an improvised crisis committee and/or a contested ‘steering committee’ for the world’, International Affairs, Vol.86, No.3, 2010 pp.741-757

Candidate 1: "The G8 countries are the world’s most powerful countries. As such most of the powers involved in the G8 have at some point been involved in aggressive foreign interventions. The Iraq invasion did not lead to calls to throw the US and UK out, neither did the bombing of Libya lead to France’s expulsion. Using Russian actions in Ukraine as an excuse would be simple hypocrisy."
Candidate 2: "It is wrong to say that Russia is not an industrialised country, it is considered by the World Bank to be a high income country. [1] It is also a democracy that holds regular elections. President Putin is held in high regard by Russians 67.8% of Russians approve of Putin’s job performance [2] – far higher than any other member of the G8.

[1] The World Bank, ‘Russian Federation’, data.worldbank.org, accessed 7 March 2014

[2] Luhn, Alec, ‘Ukraine crisis and Olympics boost Vladimir Putin’s popularity in Russia’, The Guardian, 6 March 2014 , note however the pollster is state run!"
Candidate 3: "If there needs to be a response to Russian actions it does not need to be this response. Much more useful would be economic sanctions against Russia; either targeted freezing of state assets and the assets of leaders, or more comprehensive sanctions that would damage Russia’s economy. Such actions would provide a real cost to aggressive action, not simply a symbolic cost. [1]

[1] Verhofstadt, Guy, ‘Russia will bow to economic pressure over Ukraine, so the EU must impose it’, theguardian.com, 6 March 2014"
Candidate 4: "But Russia, as with any country – particularly any powerful country – is interested in symbolism and international prestige. Many analysts suggest that Putin’s takeover of Crimea may be about revenge for having ‘lost’ Ukraine, or out of a desire to set up a new greater Russia. [1] In each of these cases it is about prestige as the practical gains to Russia are small. Russia wants to be seen as a great power, kicking it out of one of the globe’s top clubs damages that ambition.

[1] Speck, Ulrich, ‘Opinion Putin planning ‘Soviet Union lite’’, CNN, 4 March 2014"
Candidate 5: "The address by Putin was before Russia’s illegal intervention into Crimea and as such ‘settling regional conflicts’ almost certainly refers to Syria, not Crimea. Russia’s role in Syria has hardly been constructive, it has until recently stopped any resolutions on Syria [1] , but not so onerous as to require throwing the country out of the G8. With Putin in charge of the summit and so setting the agenda we can be sure that discussion of Crimea will be kept off the agenda so ensuring that any discussion is purely informal. Putin is hardly likely to make concessions at his own summit.

[1] BBC News, ‘Syria crisis: UN Security Council agrees aid resolution’, 23 February 2014"
Candidate 6: "Getting rid of Russia would not make the G8 irrelevant; it would simply return it to its core. The remaining members would me much more likely to agree and actually come up with meaningful outcomes to the summits. It might be a less effective steering committee for the global economy but at the same time it could ensure greater unity between the western powers."
Candidate 7: "While strength in numbers may seem to be useful when there are conflicts between Russia and the other G8 members this is not what the G8 should be about. Using the G8 in such a way will simply encourage Russia to dig its heels in and encourage the growth of other rival institutions. An example would be the BRIC summits between Brazil, Russia, India and China; would these have happened at all if the G8 has been more inclusive and recognised that these nations need to be involved in the G8? It is notable that the very first summit included discussion of the desire by India and Brazil to play a greater role in world affairs. [1]

[1] Presidents of Russia, Brazil, China and Prime Minister of India, ‘Joint Statement of the BRIC Countries’ Leaders’, kremlin.ru, 16 June 2009"
Candidate 8: "Sanctions by necessity harm both sides. However Russia is a much smaller economy than either the EU or US (both of which are seven-eight times bigger). Any economic retaliation and escalation will therefore harm Russia more. The threat to cut off gas supplies is a major threat but Russia can’t simply sell the gas elsewhere because its pipelines mostly go to Europe. In the 2009 ‘gas war’ which involved supplies to Europe being restricted (though not completely cut off) for 20 days Russia’s state gas company Gazprom lost $1.1billion in revenues. [1] A more complete cut off would have higher losses.

[1] Pugliaresi, Lucian et al., ‘Is it time for Gazprom to hit the reset button?’, Oil&amp;Gas Journal, 3 September 2009"

Getting rid of Russia would not make the G8 irrelevant; it would simply return it to its core. The remaining members would me much more likely to agree and actually come up with meaningful outcomes to the summits. It might be a less effective steering committee for the global economy but at the same time it could ensure greater unity between the western powers.
