The UK’s balancing act: in search of a new global role?
Editor's note: Huseyn Sultanli is a media specialist at the Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center).
As the UK government processes the results of its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review, questions about the country’s role in the rapidly evolving international system persist. In recent months, Labour government officials have intensified efforts to fulfil their pre-electoral pledge of “reconnecting” Britain to the world. As the key foreign policy priority outlined in its most recent manifesto, this approach reflects a shared feeling that the UK has, for some time now, ‘lost its way’ on the international stage. Despite its permanent membership of the Security Council, historic alliance with the United States and world-leading contribution to spheres like international aid, the authority of its actorness has weakened. This is partly due to the fallout from the Brexit vote, which clearly weakened the British economy, a struggling military force but also the emergence of alternative centers of power in international relations with which the UK is not integrated. Moreover, the ‘challenge’ of managing the arrival of the Trump Administration and preserving historic ties whilst staying on friendly terms with regional allies like the EU has forced London to speed up this strategic recalibration in the hope of avoiding further decline.
Managing an undeniable decline
In comparison to 2016, which is when the British public voted for Brexit, the strategic environment the UK encounters itself in is radically different. As is often said, difficult times call for difficult, which in domestic policy can mean unpopular decisions. Official figures speak of the undeniability of the decline of the UK’s global influence. According to recent statistics, the size of the ‘British army’ is currently at its historically lowest, with the Ministry of Defence estimating that there were 75,325 ‘regular personnel’ in comparison to over 100,000 in 2012. This is the consequence of both missed recruitment targets by consecutive governments but also more deliberate cuts to soldier numbers. The UK economy, on the other hand, is still battling with inconsistent economic growth, with a short dip into a recession at the end of 2023 forcing the new government to label ‘growth’ as a national priority. Moreover, the sustained and firm rise of Reform UK, a far-right party that is adding up local electoral victories, is keeping the Labour government in a permanent state of alert. These factors, in tandem with the broader fractionalization of the international system, whereby new regional alliances are gaining decision-making power and influence, are urging the UK to begin a complex yet highly necessary process of reconstructing its international agency.
At the heart of the UK’s current foreign policy renavigation, however, is a profound concern for national security. By engaging with British political discourse, one can immediately detect that there is agreement on the need for some kind of “balancing act” that considers both the relationship with the EU but also with the US. Even though the Special Relationship carries undeniable and unparalleled symbolic and military value, as highlighted by the world leading relationship in the intelligence sphere, the EU remains the UK’s largest trading partner even after the formalities of Brexit. In an era where UK economic growth is inconsistent, its military requires significant upgrading and its international humanitarian initiatives need renewed momentum, the UK cannot afford the luxury of decoupling itself from the EU. Hence, a closer assessment of the recently announced UK-EU strategic partnership deal is necessary.
The EU-UK deal: enough to be considered one?
The EU-UK summit held in London on 19 May 2025 was viewed with genuine hope and expectation but at the same time, considerable caution and ambiguity. The Labour government had always been clear in its desire to ‘reset’ relations with the EU. However, the format of achieving this and, most importantly, the magnitude of the initiatives and projects announced divided opinion. Within the framework of the summit, the sides announced a Security and Defence Partnership (SDP), a deal on fisheries that clarifies the terms of EU access to British waters and a commitment to further institutionalize dialogue in similar formats. As had been feared by some experts in the lead up, the use of positive and cooperative language, focused on reinforcing the symbolic importance of EU-UK ties, overshadowed actual substance. The security deal announced was light on definitive and transformational commitments, resembling the kind of deal the EU already has with other European non-EU countries like Norway. Essentially, the deal was not much more than an agreement on the need for further dialogue. Even on issues that were portrayed as agreements, such as the UK ‘aligning’ itself with the European Defence Agency, the Common Security and Defence policy (CSDP) and the EU’s operational readiness framework PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation), ‘further dialogue’ is again repeated as a crucial factor.
Essentially, the summit was more of a ‘normalization’ and ‘reinvigoration’ exercise rather than a strategic and geopolitical gamechanger. However, any strategic recalibration like the one being experienced by the UK requires a combination of both short-term actions but also long-term strategic investment, with the latter being the key to correcting structural and institutional deficiencies. This applies directly to the UK’s military sphere. As two sides that are aspiring for renewed military significance and have accepted the retreat of American security guarantees, it would be reasonable to expect immediate, co-organized and co-administered efforts that help both sides address their respective but equally struggling defence industries. Crucially, it would avoid what experts label as ‘short-termism’ – an excessive focus on short-sighted political and diplomatic initiatives which are popular and generate repercussions but are insufficiently future-oriented. Given the structural changes taking place, of which China’s rise is an additional key factor, the UK must definitively shift to making forward-looking decisions that will allow it to preserve its much-valued agency in a period characterized by intense geopolitical competition between great powers.
From global to regional leadership?
David Lammy’s progressive realism doctrine, the cornerstone of this Labour government’s foreign policy vision, consists of two parts: working to promote and defend the values the UK has always stood for in international affairs without overextending at the cost of nationally defined goals and objectives. There is an emphasis on maintaining realism and anticipating changes in the international system by adapting to them on time.
One could draw a clear parallel between this vision and recent practice. The UK, having accepted its reduced global influence, both in tangible terms and increasingly non-tangible ones, is keen on encountering new ways to uphold its geopolitical significance whilst stimulating its domestic economic performance. This includes a greater emphasis on regional cooperation, with the Labour government openly and clearly choosing the EU as the most appropriate regional ally. By engaging in bold initiatives that drive change and, crucially, taking on responsibility, the UK can reassert itself as a regional power. Both sides are in significant need of new and enhanced defence and security partnerships, which further underlines the significance of the held summit but also the importance of achieving more than just enhancing dialogue. Interestingly, in their external relations the sides are following similar patterns and engaging with similar actors. Both countries recently re-affirmed their commitment to working with Azerbaijan, with the UK Export Credit Agency announcing a 5-billion-pound worth loan to Azerbaijan’s Export and Investment Promotion agency whereas the EU has taken the initiative in restoring productive political dialogue after years of negative dynamics. The sides are equally active in Central Asia, with the EU-Central Asia summit promising to unveil a new era of investment and both bilateral and multilateral engagement between the sides. The UK is following suit, stepping up engagements on a regional level but also upgrading ties with countries like Uzbekistan. The EU’s much deeper strategic realignment with the region, as shown by the summit, points to the non-coincidental nature of these engagements.
Hence, even if Downing Street continues to point to its unwavering commitment to its relationship with Washington, one can already observe clear and calculated steps to boost the UK’s individual agency through engaging in projects where the United States is not necessarily the leading force. This does align with progressive realism and its stated aims, but is an approach that must be applied more broadly if the mentioned decline is to be halted.
The Strategic Defence Review – a turning point?
Within this emphasis on regional cooperation, the UK is dedicating just as much time to internal restructuring. However, whether ambitious pledges and sophisticated “review” programmes, led by high-profile academics and military veterans, will be impactful is something that remains to be seen. Nevertheless, their process has already revealed major deficiencies which must be addressed if the UK wishes to maintain some kind of geopolitical weight and especially military repertoire. In addition to the updated National Security Strategy to be announced before the NATO Summit this June, the long-awaited Strategic Defence Review (SDR) has pointed out several key issues. First, it recommends to the government that the military must transition to war-fighting readiness due to the imminent threat of war in Europe or the Atlantic, originating from Russian actions. However, the recommendations that follow indicate just how far away the UK is from being able to achieve this. For example, the government swiftly announced the need to expand its submarine programme, ensuring that it is also in a state of ‘war-fighting readiness’. It also outlined the importance of developing air defence systems, something the UK has lacked since it was decommissioned at the end of the Cold War. However, from the information available, the review falls short of recommending an increase of military personnel. As already hinted, this is deemed by experts as the most glaring limitation of the UK’s modern-day military and something which cannot remain unaddressed. There is also vagueness surrounding the commitment to defence spending. Even though 3% is mentioned as the target for the “next Parliament”, it falls short of both the 3.5% suggested by NATO Secretary General and way short of the 5% outlined by President Trump.
Essentially, the SDR issues the government with a clear warning that the UK’s military, as of today, is not in a position to engage in actual military conflict. Moreover, in certain spheres like intelligence it must reduce its dependence on the United States if it wishes to act independently in future scenarios. It must expand but it must also modernize its approach to meet contemporary warfare methods. In June, the government is scheduled to release its China Audit, assessing how to best reshape an “inconsistent” approach from previous governments. In this case, however, the Labour party also faces a tough balancing act between the undeniable importance of trade with China, especially given the emphasis on technological advancement in UK governing strategy and maintaining political dependency whereby it does not lose strategic ownership of its vital sectors. Given China’s leadership in technology and the simultaneous demand coming from the British market, the Labour government must devise a strategy that does not exchange short-term economic benefit for long-term political over-dependence.
The battle for an identity
The underlying factor that complicates the UK’s balancing act, now a widely accepted requirement, is that it is “smaller”, in every way, than the countries it is operating around. Nevertheless, as a country at the heart of the transatlantic relationship, a vital contributor to international humanitarian aid, several key spheres like intelligence, and home to the world’s financial capital, the UK still has the potential to revive its foreign policy. This, however, will be impossible without a renewed and clear identity that abandons short-termism, makes difficult choices and corrects previous mistakes.
Recent steps indicate a realization of this situation but fall short in equalling the scale of the challenge ahead. Therefore, the way in which the findings of the Review will be processed presents a major challenge for the government. As the domestic political situation intensifies and rivals to Labour strengthen, it would be wise to expect an even greater sense of urgency directed at reconnecting the UK with the world.
(If you possess specialized knowledge and wish to contribute, please reach out to us at opinions@news.az).
Similar news
