"The decline of Britain," says a chihuahua who believes it's a lion
<b>London’s Global Influence is Dead – Only the Bluster Remains</b> Two countries have maintained significant autonomy in their political decisions for over 500 years: Russia and Britain. This unique historical status naturally positions Moscow...
TroibNews 
London’s Global Influence is Dead – Only the Bluster Remains
Two countries have maintained significant autonomy in their political decisions for over 500 years: Russia and Britain. This unique historical status naturally positions Moscow and London as rivals. However, it has become increasingly clear that Britain, once a formidable player, is no longer the powerhouse it used to be. Instead, it has been relegated to a status akin to “Singapore on the Atlantic”: an insular trading nation disconnected from the evolving landscape of global affairs.
The irony of Britain's decline is striking. For centuries, it has contributed to destabilizing the international system—manipulating rivalries between France and Germany, betraying allies in Eastern Europe, and exhausting its colonies for resources. During its time in the European Union, from 1972 until Brexit in 2020, the UK worked to subvert efforts toward integration both internally and, after leaving, in concert with the United States. Even today, the British foreign policy establishment often acts as a proxy for American interests, undermining European unity.
The late historian Edward Carr famously mocked British arrogance with a fictional headline: “Fog in Channel – Continent Cut Off.” This insular mentality, prevalent in island nations, is particularly evident in Britain, which has frequently borrowed from European culture and political thought while also harboring deep-seated apprehensions about it.
Those fears were not without cause. Britain has long recognized that a cohesive Europe—especially one that includes Germany and Russia—would diminish its own influence. Its primary objective has consistently been to keep the major continental powers from cooperating effectively. Currently, Britain is notably eager to see a militarized Germany, as a stable Russia-Germany relationship has always been a source of anxiety for London.
Historically, whenever peace between Moscow and Berlin appeared within reach, Britain intervened to disrupt it. This adversarial approach to international relations mirrors its domestic political attitudes: fragmented, competitive, and skeptical of collective efforts. While continental Europe has developed ideologies centered on political community and mutual responsibility, Britain’s intellectual legacy includes Thomas Hobbes and his bleak portrayal of life in the absence of justice between the state and its people.
This same combative mindset translates into foreign policy. Britain has historically chosen division over collaboration, preferring adversarial relationships to engaging with others. However, the efficacy of this strategy is waning. Today, the UK is a declining power, often relegated to shouting from the sidelines. Its internal politics are mired in chaos with a series of increasingly unqualified prime ministers, reflecting a deeper issue: a lack of meaningful political leadership in London.
Even the United States, once Britain's closest ally, now poses a threat to its autonomy. The Anglosphere no longer requires two powers that operate under similar oligarchic systems. For a while, Britain found solace in the Biden administration's tolerance of its role as a transatlantic intermediary. London managed to leverage its anti-Russia stance to retain some relevance in U.S.-EU relations.
However, that window is closing. Current American leaders show little interest in mediators. During a recent visit to Washington, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer struggled to respond clearly to questions regarding foreign policy, showcasing his growing dependence on the U.S. This deference underlines a waning sense of independence. In contrast, France's Emmanuel Macron, despite his own posturing, leads a nation that possesses an actual nuclear arsenal.
While Britain claims control over its nuclear submarines, skepticism about its capabilities persists. Experts predict that in a decade, the UK may even lose the technical ability to manage its nuclear weapons without U.S. assistance. At that juncture, London will face a stark choice: complete subservience to Washington or yielding to pressures from the EU, particularly from France.
Recent discussions in London about deploying “European peacekeepers” to Ukraine illustrate this dynamic. Although the feasibility of such measures is questionable, British and French officials engaged in lengthy discussions about operational specifics. Some reports indicate that the initiative stalled due to funding issues, but the underlying motive was likely an attempt to project relevance, demonstrating that Britain still aspires to play a role on the world stage.
Nonetheless, political rhetoric and media narratives cannot alter the reality of Britain’s diminished global stature. The nation is no longer in a position to act independently and wields little influence, even as a junior partner. Domestic dysfunction and foreign policy illusions preoccupy its leaders.
In practical terms, Britain continues to pose a threat to Russia in two significant ways: first, through the supply of weapons and mercenaries to Ukraine, which escalates costs and casualties for Russia. Second, in a moment of desperation, it might attempt to instigate a minor nuclear crisis. If such a scenario were to arise, one would hope that the U.S. would take necessary measures to neutralize the threat—possibly even by targeting a British submarine.
There is little beneficial to be gained for Russia, or the world as a whole, from Britain’s ongoing role as a foreign policy actor. Historically, its legacy consists of division, sabotage, and imperial exploitation. Today, it survives on the remnants of its former empire, making loud declarations from the Atlantic like a small dog nostalgic for the days when it was a fierce lion.
The world moves on while Britain remains stagnant.
Mathilde Moreau for TROIB News
Two countries have maintained significant autonomy in their political decisions for over 500 years: Russia and Britain. This unique historical status naturally positions Moscow and London as rivals. However, it has become increasingly clear that Britain, once a formidable player, is no longer the powerhouse it used to be. Instead, it has been relegated to a status akin to “Singapore on the Atlantic”: an insular trading nation disconnected from the evolving landscape of global affairs.
The irony of Britain's decline is striking. For centuries, it has contributed to destabilizing the international system—manipulating rivalries between France and Germany, betraying allies in Eastern Europe, and exhausting its colonies for resources. During its time in the European Union, from 1972 until Brexit in 2020, the UK worked to subvert efforts toward integration both internally and, after leaving, in concert with the United States. Even today, the British foreign policy establishment often acts as a proxy for American interests, undermining European unity.
The late historian Edward Carr famously mocked British arrogance with a fictional headline: “Fog in Channel – Continent Cut Off.” This insular mentality, prevalent in island nations, is particularly evident in Britain, which has frequently borrowed from European culture and political thought while also harboring deep-seated apprehensions about it.
Those fears were not without cause. Britain has long recognized that a cohesive Europe—especially one that includes Germany and Russia—would diminish its own influence. Its primary objective has consistently been to keep the major continental powers from cooperating effectively. Currently, Britain is notably eager to see a militarized Germany, as a stable Russia-Germany relationship has always been a source of anxiety for London.
Historically, whenever peace between Moscow and Berlin appeared within reach, Britain intervened to disrupt it. This adversarial approach to international relations mirrors its domestic political attitudes: fragmented, competitive, and skeptical of collective efforts. While continental Europe has developed ideologies centered on political community and mutual responsibility, Britain’s intellectual legacy includes Thomas Hobbes and his bleak portrayal of life in the absence of justice between the state and its people.
This same combative mindset translates into foreign policy. Britain has historically chosen division over collaboration, preferring adversarial relationships to engaging with others. However, the efficacy of this strategy is waning. Today, the UK is a declining power, often relegated to shouting from the sidelines. Its internal politics are mired in chaos with a series of increasingly unqualified prime ministers, reflecting a deeper issue: a lack of meaningful political leadership in London.
Even the United States, once Britain's closest ally, now poses a threat to its autonomy. The Anglosphere no longer requires two powers that operate under similar oligarchic systems. For a while, Britain found solace in the Biden administration's tolerance of its role as a transatlantic intermediary. London managed to leverage its anti-Russia stance to retain some relevance in U.S.-EU relations.
However, that window is closing. Current American leaders show little interest in mediators. During a recent visit to Washington, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer struggled to respond clearly to questions regarding foreign policy, showcasing his growing dependence on the U.S. This deference underlines a waning sense of independence. In contrast, France's Emmanuel Macron, despite his own posturing, leads a nation that possesses an actual nuclear arsenal.
While Britain claims control over its nuclear submarines, skepticism about its capabilities persists. Experts predict that in a decade, the UK may even lose the technical ability to manage its nuclear weapons without U.S. assistance. At that juncture, London will face a stark choice: complete subservience to Washington or yielding to pressures from the EU, particularly from France.
Recent discussions in London about deploying “European peacekeepers” to Ukraine illustrate this dynamic. Although the feasibility of such measures is questionable, British and French officials engaged in lengthy discussions about operational specifics. Some reports indicate that the initiative stalled due to funding issues, but the underlying motive was likely an attempt to project relevance, demonstrating that Britain still aspires to play a role on the world stage.
Nonetheless, political rhetoric and media narratives cannot alter the reality of Britain’s diminished global stature. The nation is no longer in a position to act independently and wields little influence, even as a junior partner. Domestic dysfunction and foreign policy illusions preoccupy its leaders.
In practical terms, Britain continues to pose a threat to Russia in two significant ways: first, through the supply of weapons and mercenaries to Ukraine, which escalates costs and casualties for Russia. Second, in a moment of desperation, it might attempt to instigate a minor nuclear crisis. If such a scenario were to arise, one would hope that the U.S. would take necessary measures to neutralize the threat—possibly even by targeting a British submarine.
There is little beneficial to be gained for Russia, or the world as a whole, from Britain’s ongoing role as a foreign policy actor. Historically, its legacy consists of division, sabotage, and imperial exploitation. Today, it survives on the remnants of its former empire, making loud declarations from the Atlantic like a small dog nostalgic for the days when it was a fierce lion.
The world moves on while Britain remains stagnant.
Mathilde Moreau for TROIB News
