Over the past 30 years, the world has changed drastically with the rise of new revisionist powers which threaten the free and open international order. In this new era of geopolitical confrontation it is important for the United Kingdom (UK) to protect its national interests, but British economic, technological, diplomatic and military strength is not the same as it once was. So, in this week’s Big Ask, we asked eleven experts: To what extent is Britain still a great power?
Director, British Foreign Policy Group
The current geopolitical context is rapidly changing and as economic power shifts, so too does political power. The rise of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), but also of nations such as India and Brazil is therefore shifting global power dynamics away from the UK, Europe and to some extent the United States (US). For Britain, its economic influence has fallen and so too has the power of many of the institutions – not least the United Nations (UN) – through which the UK has been able to exercise outsized global influence for decades.
As such, if a ‘great power’ is defined as the five most influential nations in the world, then Britain is no longer a great power. If it's defined as the top ten, then maybe the UK still remains a great power for now – but is unlikely to hold on to this position by mid-century.
However, this is not to say Britain doesn’t remain a hugely influential global actor. The UK consistently ranks among the top in the world for soft power and the impact of institutions such as the Premier League, the Royal Family and its world-class universities have on how Britain is perceived, and how much influence the UK has internationally, should not be underestimated.
Similarly Britain's close relationship with the US, and the potential for the UK to play an increasingly important part in Europe – particularly when it comes to global security – mean that while it may not be a great power (and if it is it won't be for long), it nevertheless remains a very influential mid-sized power.
Researcher, Defence Studies Department, King’s College London
Britain is no longer a great power, at least not in the historical sense. The intensification of global security competition has arguably redefined what it actually means to exercise influence. Where Britain was once touted as a ‘soft power superpower’ by the 2021 Integrated Review, hostile aggression and hard power capabilities actively erode the ideational framework which underpins the UK’s global influence.
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Chinese maritime expansionism, and the spectre of a regional conflict looming over the Middle East, all stand to propel military force to the forefront of a states’ international standing. Therefore, despite Britain’s ability to project soft influence, overall standing is hampered by the myriad issues facing the armed forces, including those in force-generation, funding and sustainment. As a result, the UK may struggle to credibly deter adversaries, which is arguably the ultimate measure of influence.
However, among its global allies and partners, Britain retains considerable influence. Leadership on supporting Ukraine has particularly afforded Britain considerable credibility in Europe. This has enabled the UK to retain its voice in shaping a shared threat perception with its allies. In turn, this can be leveraged to further embark on the joint development of advanced capabilities with allies, thereby compensating for where sovereign resources may not stretch.
Senior Lecturer in National Security Studies, King’s College London
Any discussion of whether a nuclear power is still a great power is a nonstarter. Let alone one with a veto in the UN Security Council and Article 5 protection under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) umbrella. Not to mention, Britain’s reach extends through all levers of statecraft, whether that is the information access afforded by the Five Eyes, the trading power it wields as the second-largest economy in Europe, and the insight and influence generated from over 200 diplomatic representations worldwide. Just last week, the fact that 14 million hopefuls tried to buy tickets for the Oasis reunion gives a taste of the tremendous soft power that Shakespeare’s homeland still exercises in music, sport, and other cultural industries.
At the same time, none of this should be taken for granted. Brexit has impacted upon the attractiveness and prosperity of the UK, and strengthening the relationship with the European Union (EU) must remain a priority under the new government. The armed forces also require greater investment, given the serious challenges Europe confronts today, and there are many other areas for continued improvement that British policymakers should humbly remain live to.
Finally, the question of whether Britain is ‘still’ a great power depends on timelines, context, and definitions. Arguably, on the grounds of no longer practicing historical extractive imperialism – and cultivating relationships today based on multilateralism and more equitable terms with partners – then Britain is even ‘greater’ in the eyes of the international community today.
Research Fellow on National Security, Council on Geostrategy
Defining what makes a great power is notoriously difficult, open to various interpretations of national power and the character of the international system. That the US and the PRC are superpowers is a relatively straightforward conclusion. That there exists a small number of countries with power (however defined) in significant excess of most but well below that of the superpowers is also true.
Individually the UK’s nuclear arsenal, its economy, the level of expenditure on and capabilities of its armed forces, its scientific/technological edge, and other elements often grouped together as ‘soft power’ may not be the third best globally, but a strong case could be made that the sum of the parts firmly places Britain as a great power.
Some may argue that the UK is in long-term decline, and if it is a great power currently it won’t be for long. Many forget that Britain has been in far worse positions that it has managed to recover from. For example, the 1970s saw inflation reach double digits, stagnant economic growth, and a three day working week – all in an economy that had already fallen well behind its closest competitors.
The UK still possesses a potent power base with which it can maintain its position as a great power; solving some of the seemingly intractable economic problems facing Britain will be key. But this will require political leadership with fresh energy and ideas in place of what has seemed to be an approach for some time of overseeing managed decline.
Senior Advisor, Pacific Forum
Being a great power is not only an account of capability, but also includes having a geopolitical mindset. This mindset involves a willingness to defend one’s interests over the global system’s norms and rules.
When compared against its own past, the UK’s aggregate military, industrial, and economic powers have clearly declined, but when its power is considered against the standards of most states in the world – particularly the once -dominant European states – then the picture is more optimistic.
Britain spends 2.9% of its gross domestic product on research and development, knowing that technological advancement generates both civil and military industrial progress and innovation. It is a top five global cyber power and retains one of the world’s largest defence industrial bases.
The UK’s willingness to project power globally in defence of the free and open international order can be seen in its long-term defence of the freedom of the seas, even in the far-flung South China Sea: Britain clearly still thinks like a great power. It does not simply accept the dictates of other great powers, but rather seeks to mould the rules and shape the norms which govern the international system.
Finally, the UK draws from centuries of international diplomacy to amplify its voice at the top tables of the current system. From the UN Security Council to the Group of Seven (G7); from NATO to the Five Powers Arrangement in Southeast Asia, the UK shows an international mindset and savvy diplomatic adroitness which much larger powers – such as the PRC – completely lack.
Director of the Strategy, Statecraft, and Technology (Changing Character of War) Centre, University of Oxford
What defines a major power is its ability to shape the strategic environment in its favour. The UK only partially has the strength required to protect and project its interests.
In terms of technological development, a major power will be advanced, and able to contest the electromagnetic spectrum and its associated information environment. It will be able to assert itself in every domain. It will possess global reach and a persistent presence in its own region. It will have the ability to uphold the free and open international order through alliance or coalition. Here, too, Britain has partial strengths.
In terms of its willingness to project power, the UK will tend to seek justifications to coerce others and prefers multilateralism. In terms of humanitarian assistance, Britain contributes and delivers support in some volume.
Yet, major states are defined by their combat power, defined by their competence in warfare, mass, the morale of their personnel, their level of training and proficiency, and experience among their military leadership. The UK has competent, experienced, motivated personnel, and capable leadership. But it has too few and insufficiently trained reserves, hollowed-out regular armed forces, and, while able to manage crises, it lacks the resilience for sustained high-intensity conflict.
In essence, the UK has an unsound strategy: it speaks loudly and carries a small stick.
Assistant Professor of International Relations, University of Waterloo (Canada)
Defining great power status is hard to do. Those who try to do so often fall prey to circular reasoning: a great power is great because it has a lot of power. Some scholars think they can get around the problem by looking at whether a state can fight a major war abroad. Even so, aside from problematically inferring inputs (power) from outputs (war-making), such a working definition seems ill-applied to an age such as ours where military operations tend to be limited in scope.
Yet, here is what we know: the UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, retains a nuclear arsenal, sits atop an international association of 56 countries through the Commonwealth of Nations, has constitutional links with fourteen countries via the British monarch. Britain also forward deploys military units across the world, boasts some of the world's greatest universities, and holds significant appeal through its dynamic popular culture.
Unlike the US, the UK is not a superpower nor can it aspire to be one like the PRC. Its stature is much diminished from its peak in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, few countries around the world can boast of having such enviable reach and influence as Britain today.
Dr Timothy Less
Convenor, Geopolitical Risk Study Group, Centre for Geopolitics, University of Cambridge
If you take a snapshot of Britain today, by most metrics, the country is among the most powerful in the world, alongside Russia, France, Germany and Japan. Its economy is either the fifth or sixth largest, its military is similarly powerful and Britain wields huge diplomatic influence and soft power. Critics of the UK who depict it as a ‘middle ranking’ country which plays at being a major power are factually wrong. However, there can be no question that Britain is slowly sliding down the league table of powers. It is no longer a global superpower, a status held only by the US and the PRC, and its future trajectory is downwards, certainly in relative terms.
In saying this, I have two thoughts in mind. One is the success of countries such as Mexico, Indonesia and India which are set to overtake Britain in economic terms by mid-century. The other is that Britain is currently not succeeding, hastening its relative decline. The country is burdened by a socio-economic model which is holding back growth, there is a lack of support for structural reform and the UK is politically disunited, undermining its ability to amass and project international power. For Britain to maintain its current position and protect its interests abroad, it will need to overcome these problems at home.
Expert Associate, National Security College, Australian National University
The term ‘great power’ is increasingly tenuous in a multipolar world, and by definition is wholly subjective. However, Britain retains significant economic and military heft. For Australia, the UK’s military weight, while not essential to Australia’s Indo-Pacific strategy, remains an important element. Britain’s presence and focus on the Indo-Pacific, while managing flashpoints closer to home demonstrates its continued relevance as a military power.
In an increasingly multipolar world, the term ‘great power’ is unhelpful in assisting nations define their place in the world. Perhaps the question should be what is the level of influence the UK holds in moulding the geopolitical landscape. From a security perspective, Britain’s influence remains significant. It is one of the nine nuclear-weapon states, and one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council.
For Australia, the UK is an important balancing partner in the AUKUS trilateral agreement. Reportedly key to the US agreeing to Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, showing clearly Britain’s continuing influence.
Similarly to Australia, the UK’s investment in its military capability has not kept pace with the rising threat levels in the Euro-Atlantic, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. This has clearly put existing capabilities under stress. However, Britain wields significant force projection capability. This is evident by its persistent Indo-Pacific presence, while providing significant support to Ukraine against Russia’s illegal invasion and undertaking operations in the Middle East.
From Australia’s perspective, the UK is a significant military power with global influence. Retaining Britain’s presence in the Indo-Pacific is important to Australia, it adds weight to Australia’s position and complexity to Beijing’s calculations.
Co-founder and Director of Research, Council on Geostrategy
The original theorist of ‘great power’ – Leopold von Ranke – claimed a great power was one which could defend itself against any combination of other great powers. That is a high standard, but it is also a negative one. In the 19th and 20th centuries, France, Russia and Germany were all disqualified – in 1815, 1917 (or 1989) and 1918 (or 1945), respectively. Japan ceased to be a great power in 1945. Only Britain and the US remained.
The advent of nuclear weapons compounded von Ranke’s definition, reanimating some countries’ claim to great power status. Today, any power with a guaranteed second strike nuclear delivery system is a great power. Such countries can deter threats from other great powers to their vital interests. Armed with Trident, Britain is today a greater power than at any time in history. Unlike the Royal Navy’s Vanguard class Trident missile-carrying submarines, the mighty Men O’ War of Nelson’s navy and the Dreadnought battleships of the Grand Fleet could not deter war with other major powers.
But power is not only negative. It also has a positive dimension. There, Britain remains a major force in international affairs; note how British efforts have constrained Russia, aligning a coalition behind Ukraine. Note how the UK is at the forefront of AUKUS and a plethora of other organisations.
Where the UK is weak is in terms of self-belief. Like never before, British history and the British state is questioned from within. Unless this problem is overcome, the UK will not punch at its true weight, even if it is able to deter threats to its vital interests.
Programme Director for Security Studies,Centre for Defence Strategies
Some may challenge Britain’s status as a great power, arguing that it has long past its peak. However, the UK remains formidable and has adapted to new geopolitical realities and transitioned to a more streamlined military force.
Budget constraints and reduced defence spending have driven this shift, leading the UK to focus on specialised military capabilities such as cyber, intelligence, and nuclear deterrence. Likewise, its nuclear arsenal and strong defence ties with Washington positions the UK to be a key player in NATO, particularly in the context of global security frameworks.
For Ukrainians, Britain demonstrated its position as a strong security actor during the joint visit to Kyiv this week by David Lammy, Foreign Secretary, and Antony Blinken, US Secretary of State, with both diplomats blaming Russia for escalating the war, and with London authorising the use of Storm Shadow cruise missiles by Ukraine for long-range strikes into Russia.
This decision underscores Britain’s influence, particularly if it can convince the US to also remove restrictions on American missiles being used in Russian territory. Even if the US doesn’t follow suit, the UK’s decisive actions in Ukraine will have immediate and strategic consequences on the war and highlights Britain’s enduring influence as a great power, especially in matters of international security.
If you enjoyed this Big Ask, please subscribe or pledge your support!
What do you think about the perspectives put forward in this Big Ask? Why not leave a comment below?