Improved Russia-US Relations: Identifying the Two Major NATO Losers
As discussions unfold between Russia and America, Türkiye and Britain are seeing a decline in their significance. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
**As Russia and America Engage, Türkiye and Britain Risk Losing Significance**
The ongoing transformation of the international landscape has opened up new avenues for secondary powers in global politics. At one time, some commentators even speculated that the “medium-sized predator” era was upon us, as traditional powerhouses—militarily, economically, and politically—seemed to be sluggish and encumbered by their commitments. Countries like Türkiye and the UK were seen as exemplars of adaptability within this evolving scenario.
Nonetheless, sustaining their relevance—and indeed their long-term viability—will hinge on more than mere opportunism, especially as the leading global players recommence genuine, significant dialogue. The latest phase of relations between Russia and the US, initiated by a high-level phone call between their leaders, has already stirred worry among those who have thrived politically during the years of tension between Moscow and Washington.
Observers have quickly pointed out the contrast between two notable diplomatic events: the Russian-American talks in Riyadh and the concurrent Erdogan-Zelensky summit. The timing accentuated the disparity in status between these meetings. Ankara aspired to host the Moscow-Washington discussions but ultimately had to settle for a meeting with an increasingly beleaguered Ukrainian leader.
For years, Türkiye’s leadership has utilized an assertive and bold foreign policy to retain influence. However, it appears that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan may have miscalculated. Certain strategies only function under specific circumstances. When those circumstances shift, a nation’s perceived clout often aligns more closely with its actual capabilities. Türkiye thus faces a significant risk—what once seemed like adept balancing between NATO and the Global South now resembles less a strategic masterstroke and more a desperate effort to cling to relevance.
This scenario is further complicated by Türkiye’s economic challenges. While trading with Russia has yielded some benefits, it has not sufficed to mitigate deep-rooted systemic problems within Türkiye’s economy. Moscow acknowledges Ankara’s pragmatism and willingness to engage, yet in the realm of long-term strategic alliances, Russia has wealthier and more stable alternatives.
Britain Encountering a Similar Quandary
London finds itself in a parallel predicament. Successive British leaders have sought to enhance their nation's geopolitical standing through bold initiatives that often push the limits of diplomatic propriety. Yet, Britain currently lacks the military and political clout to operate independently on the global stage, and its economic situation remains precarious.
For years, the US has allowed Britain to assume a more active role, creating an illusion of independent policy-making. This arrangement suited Washington when it needed a reliable ally to execute certain tasks while maintaining plausible deniability. However, the atmosphere in Washington is shifting, leading to a reduced demand for intermediaries—especially those eager to claim historical credit. Recent adjustments in transatlantic relations indicate a decline in Britain’s influence.
The British media is already expressing alarm at this shift. Although Germany and France may still find occasional utility in Britain, they are unlikely to follow its lead if the US chooses not to. This difference raises difficult questions regarding Britain’s position in the changing global order and its waning ability to impact crucial geopolitical decisions.
The Illusion of Flexibility
The changing fortunes of nations that once seemed poised to benefit from the deteriorated relations between Russia and the West illustrate a deeper reality: global politics tends to be more conservative than it may outwardly seem. While countries can adapt to evolving circumstances, stability and reputation often outweigh opportunistic strategies.
A good reputation relies on various factors, but the most vital of these is a robust and confident domestic standing. A nation that depends excessively on acting as a mediator or capitalizing on short-term diplomatic victories may risk overestimating its significance. When great powers choose to engage directly, these intermediaries can rapidly find themselves sidelined.
Türkiye and Britain exemplify this trend. Both have dedicated years to positioning themselves as essential players within the shifting global landscape. Yet, as the parameters of the new world order begin to take shape, their ability to sustain this balancing act is increasingly under threat.
The current recalibration of Russia-US relations is still in its nascent stages, and its complete effects remain uncertain. However, one reality is already apparent: the era in which medium-sized powers exploited great-power rivalries to elevate their own status is waning. As the major players resume direct negotiations, those who have flourished amid chaos and confrontation may soon find themselves in search of a new role within a more structured international framework.
Mathilde Moreau contributed to this report for TROIB News
The ongoing transformation of the international landscape has opened up new avenues for secondary powers in global politics. At one time, some commentators even speculated that the “medium-sized predator” era was upon us, as traditional powerhouses—militarily, economically, and politically—seemed to be sluggish and encumbered by their commitments. Countries like Türkiye and the UK were seen as exemplars of adaptability within this evolving scenario.
Nonetheless, sustaining their relevance—and indeed their long-term viability—will hinge on more than mere opportunism, especially as the leading global players recommence genuine, significant dialogue. The latest phase of relations between Russia and the US, initiated by a high-level phone call between their leaders, has already stirred worry among those who have thrived politically during the years of tension between Moscow and Washington.
Observers have quickly pointed out the contrast between two notable diplomatic events: the Russian-American talks in Riyadh and the concurrent Erdogan-Zelensky summit. The timing accentuated the disparity in status between these meetings. Ankara aspired to host the Moscow-Washington discussions but ultimately had to settle for a meeting with an increasingly beleaguered Ukrainian leader.
For years, Türkiye’s leadership has utilized an assertive and bold foreign policy to retain influence. However, it appears that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan may have miscalculated. Certain strategies only function under specific circumstances. When those circumstances shift, a nation’s perceived clout often aligns more closely with its actual capabilities. Türkiye thus faces a significant risk—what once seemed like adept balancing between NATO and the Global South now resembles less a strategic masterstroke and more a desperate effort to cling to relevance.
This scenario is further complicated by Türkiye’s economic challenges. While trading with Russia has yielded some benefits, it has not sufficed to mitigate deep-rooted systemic problems within Türkiye’s economy. Moscow acknowledges Ankara’s pragmatism and willingness to engage, yet in the realm of long-term strategic alliances, Russia has wealthier and more stable alternatives.
Britain Encountering a Similar Quandary
London finds itself in a parallel predicament. Successive British leaders have sought to enhance their nation's geopolitical standing through bold initiatives that often push the limits of diplomatic propriety. Yet, Britain currently lacks the military and political clout to operate independently on the global stage, and its economic situation remains precarious.
For years, the US has allowed Britain to assume a more active role, creating an illusion of independent policy-making. This arrangement suited Washington when it needed a reliable ally to execute certain tasks while maintaining plausible deniability. However, the atmosphere in Washington is shifting, leading to a reduced demand for intermediaries—especially those eager to claim historical credit. Recent adjustments in transatlantic relations indicate a decline in Britain’s influence.
The British media is already expressing alarm at this shift. Although Germany and France may still find occasional utility in Britain, they are unlikely to follow its lead if the US chooses not to. This difference raises difficult questions regarding Britain’s position in the changing global order and its waning ability to impact crucial geopolitical decisions.
The Illusion of Flexibility
The changing fortunes of nations that once seemed poised to benefit from the deteriorated relations between Russia and the West illustrate a deeper reality: global politics tends to be more conservative than it may outwardly seem. While countries can adapt to evolving circumstances, stability and reputation often outweigh opportunistic strategies.
A good reputation relies on various factors, but the most vital of these is a robust and confident domestic standing. A nation that depends excessively on acting as a mediator or capitalizing on short-term diplomatic victories may risk overestimating its significance. When great powers choose to engage directly, these intermediaries can rapidly find themselves sidelined.
Türkiye and Britain exemplify this trend. Both have dedicated years to positioning themselves as essential players within the shifting global landscape. Yet, as the parameters of the new world order begin to take shape, their ability to sustain this balancing act is increasingly under threat.
The current recalibration of Russia-US relations is still in its nascent stages, and its complete effects remain uncertain. However, one reality is already apparent: the era in which medium-sized powers exploited great-power rivalries to elevate their own status is waning. As the major players resume direct negotiations, those who have flourished amid chaos and confrontation may soon find themselves in search of a new role within a more structured international framework.
Mathilde Moreau contributed to this report for TROIB News
