Major summits of the world’s richest and most powerful nations are often criticized for lacking concrete results beyond vaguely worded promises of cooperation and the symbolism of group photos.

However, in times of deepening geopolitical rifts — the clash of the world’s two largest economies and continued Russian aggression in Ukraine — high-level meetings take on a deeper meaning, helping to prevent disunity.

From this perspective, the G7 meeting in Japan over the weekend had some notable achievements. The culmination of the three-day meeting was a broader but more cohesive approach by member states regarding the war in Ukraine and China’s growing assertiveness. This convergence should not be taken for granted. But ultimately, the success of the Hiroshima meeting will be determined by the ability of participants to translate the communiqué into concrete global action – and, based on this indicator, there is still much work to be done.

The meeting made positive efforts to expand international support for Ukraine. The G7 has reaffirmed its commitment to countering Vladimir Putin’s aggression, and the invitation of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyi is also a powerful gesture.

It gave Zelensky a global platform that allowed him to advocate for his program of peace in Ukraine even to the leaders of the new states that were also invited – who are much more skeptical. A special support for Kyiv is also America’s decision to approve the delivery of F-16 aircraft by its allies to Ukraine and the training of Ukrainian pilots, as well as new military aid from Washington worth 375 million dollars.

On China, the G7 criticized Beijing’s use of “economic coercion,” urged it to use its influence to pressure Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine, and called for a “peaceful resolution” to tensions with Taiwan. The most important thing is that it was rather agreed on the “detente” of economic relations with China, and not on the “disengagement” – an echo of the calls of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

Given its divergent economic interests, the West is at a loss as to how best to address China’s overwhelming dominance of vital global supply chains while seeking to defuse tensions with Beijing. The G7 agreement is a step forward in creating a framework for coordinating the event.

But gaining support from the so-called “Global South” will continue to be a major challenge for the G7. The obstacle is the economic ties between these countries and Russia and China. The truth is that India is hungry for cheap Russian oil and bilateral trade between Brazil and China is gaining momentum.

With China still building ports and funneling billions in aid and investment across Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia, more consistent dialogue will go a long way. The limited progress achieved at the climate meeting will also do little to persuade poorer countries to step up their own efforts. The G7 will have to fulfill its promise to support developing countries with investments and subsidies to meet climate goals.

The success of the G7 strategy to “de-escalate” relations with China will also depend on agreeing on the exact meaning of the term. The next step will be to outline and agree on specific measures. De-escalating relations with China will not be easy, especially if some ambiguities remain.

In fact, Beijing banned US chipmaker Micron Technology from participating in infrastructure projects in China on Sunday, citing potential security risks – a decision described by the US Commerce Department as “unfounded”.

With the G20 meeting scheduled for New Delhi this year, the challenge now is to show the “global south” that it has not been neglected. The unified approach of the world’s seven largest economic powers to Russia and China is a step in the right direction. But to go further and build a global agreement, the G7 will need to back up its words with money and more concrete details.