London's global influence is dead - only the bluster remains

There are only two countries in the world that have exercised full autonomy over major political decisions for more than 500 years: Russia and Britain. No others come close. That alone makes Moscow and London natural rivals. But now, we can say with confidence that our historical adversary is no longer what it once was. Britain is losing its foreign policy clout and has been reduced to what we might call "Singapore on the Atlantic": an island trading power, out of sync with the broader trajectory of world affairs.

The fall from global relevance is not without irony. For centuries, Britain caused nothing but harm to the international system. It played France and Germany off one another, betrayed its own allies in Eastern Europe, and exploited its colonies to exhaustion. Even within the European Union, from 1972 until Brexit in 2020, the UK worked tirelessly to undermine the project of integration - first from within, and now from without, with backing from Washington. Today, the British foreign policy establishment still attempts to sabotage European cohesion, acting as an American proxy.

The late historian Edward Carr once mocked the British worldview with a fictional headline: "Fog in Channel - Continent Cut Off." This egoism, common to island nations, is especially pronounced in Britain, which has always existed beside continental civilization. It borrowed freely from Europe's culture and political ideas, yet always feared them.

That fear was not unfounded. Britain has long understood that true unification of Europe - especially involving Germany and Russia - would leave it sidelined. Thus, the primary goal of British policy has always been to prevent cooperation between the major continental powers. Even now, no country is more eager than Britain to see the militarization of Germany. The idea of a stable Russia-Germany alliance has always been a nightmare scenario for London.

Whenever peace between Moscow and Berlin looked possible, Britain would intervene to sabotage it. The British approach to international relations mirrors its domestic political thought: atomized, competitive, distrustful of solidarity. While continental Europe produced theories of political community and mutual obligation, Britain gave the world Thomas Hobbes and his "Leviathan," a grim vision of life without justice between the state and its citizens.

That same combative logic extends to foreign policy. Britain doesn't cooperate; it divides. It has always preferred enmity among others over engagement with them. But the tools of that strategy are disappearing. Britain today is a power in steep decline, reduced to shouting from the sidelines. Its internal political life is a carousel of increasingly unqualified prime ministers. This is not simply a result of difficult times. It reflects a deeper problem: the absence of serious political leadership in London.

Even the United States, Britain's closest ally, is now a threat to its autonomy. The Anglosphere no longer needs two powers that speak English and operate under the same oligarchic political order. For a time, Britain found comfort in the Biden administration, which tolerated its role as transatlantic intermediary. London leveraged its anti-Russian stance to stay relevant and inserted itself into US-EU relations.

But that space is narrowing. Today's American leaders are uninterested in mediators. During a recent trip to Washington, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer could barely answer direct questions on foreign policy. His deference reflected a new reality: even the illusion of independence is fading. Meanwhile, France's Emmanuel Macron, for all his posturing, at least leads a country that actually controls its nuclear arsenal.

Britain claims to have authority over its nuclear submarines, but many doubt it. In ten years, experts believe it may lose even the technical capacity to manage its nuclear weapons without US support. At that point, London will face a choice: full subservience to Washington or exposure to EU pressures, especially from France.

Recent talk in London of sending "European peacekeepers" to Ukraine is a case in point. Despite the unrealistic nature of such proposals, British and French officials spent weeks debating operational details. Some reports suggest the plan stalled due to lack of funds. The real motive was likely to project relevance and show the world that Britain still has a role to play.

But neither the media spin nor the political theater can change the facts. Britain's global standing has diminished. It is no longer capable of independent action and has little influence even as a junior partner. Its leaders are consumed by domestic dysfunction and foreign policy fantasy.

In practical terms, Britain remains dangerous to Russia in two ways. First, by supplying weapons and mercenaries to Ukraine, it increases our costs and casualties. Second, in a moment of desperation, it might try to manufacture a small nuclear crisis. If that happens, one hopes the Americans would take the necessary steps to neutralize the threat - even if that means sinking a British submarine.

There is nothing positive for Russia, or the world, in the continued existence of Britain as a foreign policy actor. Its legacy is one of division, sabotage, and imperial plunder. Now, it lives off the crumbs of a bygone empire, barking from the Atlantic like a chihuahua with memories of being a lion.

The world moves on. Britain does not.

This article was first published by 'Vzglyad' newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.