Eternal friends or eternal interests? Why European security is important for Great Britain

In 1997, American Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his book “The Grand Chessboard” that Great Britain had dropped out of the European game. The fate of Europe was being shaped by France and Germany. Brzezinski called Britain a geostrategic player in retirement, whose policies were not worth paying much attention to: "It is neither an irrepressible great power nor internally driven by ambitious prospects. It is a key supporter of America, a very loyal ally, an important military base and a close partner in the extremely important field of intelligence."

Brzezinski was right. Britain won the Second World War, but lost its vast empire and, with it, its global influence. Britain became a second-rate power, but never wanted to accept this. For a long time, London searched for its new role in the world, but could not find it, as former US Secretary of State Dean Acheson sarcastically said in the early 1960s. Once a great power, Britain became merely a ‘very loyal ally’ of the United States — its former colony and now a new superpower that had replaced its former metropolis at the top of the pedestal. Then, in 1972, Britain joined (on its third attempt, incidentally) the European Economic Community, although it was never satisfied with the ambitious image of a united Europe. For the United States, the British were a junior partner, and for Europe, an awkward partner.

Map of the British Empire as of 1921

However, just as the Second World War had seriously weakened British influence in the world, another war, the largest in Europe since 1945, strengthened it, at least on the European continent. By strongly supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia, Great Britain found itself at the forefront of a new era of European security. London has gained a reputation as a reliable security partner for the countries of Northern and Central-Eastern Europe, which cannot be said about Paris, Berlin or Washington.

The United Kingdom has returned to the European game. But why is European security so important to this country?

Former glory haunts

In June 2016, the British voted to leave the EU, finally leaving it on 1 January 2021. Brexit resurrected the idea of ‘Global Britain’.

In 2021, the UK government presented its grand strategy vision in a document entitled ‘Global Britain in an Age of Competition’ (IR21), which, according to then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, was one of the biggest projects since the Cold War. The document defined Great Britain as a ‘European country with global interests’ (Global Britain), ready to take an active part in shaping the new world order.

Why does Great Britain need to be global? And aren't the ambitions of a second-rate state a little too high? Great Britain's ambitions have always been high. They are a remnant of its former imperial greatness. Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote: "For whatever reason — a desire for national greatness, ideological fulfilment, religious messianism, or economic growth — some countries seek regional dominance or global affirmation. They are driven by deeply rooted and complex motives.”

Britain does not want to be a geostrategic player in retirement. It sees itself not as a regional but as a global power, due to its history as a maritime trading empire and its deep roots in the international system.

Surely, every British prime minister — from Churchill to Johnson — has reminded us of the United Kingdom's exceptional role in the world. For example, Winston Churchill, back in the 1930s, called on European countries to unite in a United States of Europe in order to finally put an end to the wars that had been tearing the European continent apart forever. However, in his vision, Great Britain was to remain outside a united Europe: ‘We have our own dream and our own task... We belong not to one continent, but to all, we are not in one hemisphere, but in both, in the Old World and in the New.’

In 1952, Prime Minister Anthony Eden stated: “British vital interests extend far beyond the European continent. These interests are the meaning of our existence.” Even when Britain was already part of a united Europe, Margaret Thatcher said that “the European Union needs us more than we need it.”

Britain has always preferred to coordinate its foreign policy, security and defence outside the EU. Therefore, Brexit became an opportunity to pursue a more ambitious and far-reaching British foreign policy. Boris Johnson described “Global Britain” as a means of “restoring our natural and historic role as an enterprising, outgoing country” The rhetoric of “Global Britain” has become a tool for rethinking the country’s long-standing role as an actor with status ambitions on the international stage.

Critics of Britain portray it as a “middle power” playing at being a great power. Yes, unlike the United States, Britain is not a superpower; nor can it become one, like China. The United Kingdom is indeed slowly sliding down the league table of nations. However, few middle powers in the world have as much influence in the world as Britain.

The United Kingdom is the sixth largest economy in the world, outweighing Russia's by a factor of one and a half. Britain has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and possesses a nuclear arsenal. London retains jurisdiction over 14 overseas territories, some of which are of strategic importance (e.g. the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, military bases in Cyprus), allowing the British to maintain a global projection of power and a presence in key geopolitical regions.

London also retains symbolic leadership in the Commonwealth of Nations, an international association of 56 countries, most of which were formerly part of the British Empire. The British monarch is also the head of state in 15 independent countries, such as Canada and Australia.

Map of the Commonwealth of Nations

Add to this a “special relationship” with the United States, membership in NATO, a maritime location, and enormous “soft power” thanks to its culture and education. Therefore, Great Britain is an unusual “middle-level” country.

The Global Britain in Europe

The government's document Global Britain in an Age of Competition (IR21) identified maintaining international security as a key strategic priority. IR21 recognised Russia as the ‘most critical threat’ to British security. At the time, the Johnson government declared its determination to be ‘the leading European ally within NATO’. At the same time, IR21 confirmed the ‘tilt’ towards the Indo-Pacific region, which is becoming the epicentre of the confrontation between the US and China.

The updated Integrated Review 2023 (IR23), conducted under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, concluded that ‘the transition to a multipolar, fragmented and contested world has been faster and more complete than expected’. IR23 has already made clear that the Euro-Atlantic region is a top priority for the UK, with a particular focus on Northern Europe.

IR21 set out the aim of the new policy to prevent crises from escalating into open conflicts. London planned to achieve this through a permanent advanced presence in key regions of Eurasia and by strengthening the capacity and resilience of allies and partners.

Britain relied on identifying priority countries in each region of the world and forming bilateral and trilateral alliances. For example, long before Russia's full-scale invasion, London became seriously involved in strengthening Ukraine. Between 2015 and 2022, the UK trained more than 22,000 Ukrainian soldiers as part of Operation Orbital. The British began supplying Ukraine with lethal weapons, such as NLAW anti-tank systems, a few weeks before the start of the major Russian-Ukrainian war, setting a precedent for other countries to transfer weapons. Also in February 2022, the idea of a trilateral partnership between the UK, Ukraine and Poland was discussed.

Over the past decade, the UK has been developing deeper political and defence relations with the countries of Eastern and Northern Europe, Europe's new geopolitical core. Despite Brexit, London has presented itself as a reliable security partner for states in geographical proximity to Russia. In NATO's northern, Baltic and eastern capitals, the UK is seen as Europe's most effective military force. The UK leads the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) - a coalition of ten countries in Northern and Eastern Europe - and has also permanently deployed a battle tank group to Estonia since 2017.

British Presence in Europe. Council on Geostrategy

Why is London doing all this? This country is relatively far from the theatre of operations and NATO's eastern border, as Spain or Italy are, for example. However, we have already found part of the answer. Britain wants to be a global power. It wants to influence and shape the world order as it once used to. And where better to do this than where the new world order is being formed?

Russia – the biggest threat

The second reason why the security of Europe is important to the UK is the direct threat to the country from Russia. In IR21 and IR23, Russia was identified as the greatest threat to the security of the UK and Europe. IR23 established a direct link between the collective security of the UK and Europe and the outcome of the Russian-Ukrainian war. The document set a clear goal of depriving Russia of any strategic benefits from its invasion.

Russian-British relations are not without ambiguity. According to Ukrainian historian and journalist Yegor Brailyan, Russian oligarchs have been investing in Britain for decades. In the 2000s, Russians bought up media outlets, football clubs, and business schools in the UK. Thanks to the mechanism of ‘golden visas’, Russian oligarchs such as Boris Berezovsky, Oleg Deripaska, and Roman Abramovich did business in the UK. Financial influence turned into informational and political influence. Russian oligarchs were donors to the Conservative Party, which was in power in 2010-2024.

The poisoning of former GRU agent Sergei Skripal in the British city of Salisbury in March 2018 became a turning point in the perception of Russia as a threat to Britain. In July 2020, the UK Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee report a report entitled Russia. The report identified Russia as a ‘significant threat ... on many fronts, from intelligence to interference in democratic processes and serious crime’. For example, Russia interfered in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. However, instead of responding to the Russian threat, British governments have welcomed Russian oligarchs and their money ‘with open arms,’ as the report states.

In addition to Russia's covert subversive actions, Britain also faces an obvious threat from Russia's Northern Fleet, which remains in the Arctic and is ready to break through into the North Atlantic. The British think tank RUSI belives that this sub-regional space will become a key theatre for London to concentrate its defence resources. Instead, Russia's loss in the war with Ukraine and the stretching of Russian forces along NATO's eastern flank will make this threat less dangerous.

Map of the Arctic. The Economist

Britain supports Ukraine and NATO's eastern flank because it is also a buffer. The trick to benefiting from the ‘buffer’ is to strengthen its ability to continue to exist.

Between Washington and Brussels

‘A lot of people are urging us to choose between the US and Europe. Churchill did not do that. Attlee did not do that. In my view, it would be a big mistake to make a choice now,’ Prime Minister Keir Starmer told The New York Times in March this year.

Determining the UK's position between the US and Europe is the Starmer government's most important strategic decision. The new prime minister, who took office in July 2024, is now fighting to prevent the post-war alliance between Europe and the United States from breaking down. He is trying to convince Trump of the value of NATO. At the same time, unlike French President Emmanuel Macron, Starmer has not called for Europe to pursue a security policy independent of the United States. He insists that the British-American ‘special relationship’ is unbreakable.

According to the Resurgam analytical project, London does not want to make a clear choice for three reasons:

(1) the special position between Washington and Brussels, which has shaped Britain's role as a communication intermediary;

(2) an overwhelming choice in favour of the US means the failure of a dozen agreements with Europe; a choice in favour of Europe means the failure of the Brexit idea and the White House's inadequate response;

(3) the UK's fear of being left without a nuclear umbrella, as London's nuclear capability is technologically dependent on Washington.

London has so far managed to balance, or rather keep, its relations with Trump smooth. For example, London played a key role in normalising relations between Trump and Zelenskyy after their public spat in the Oval Office. But the two chairs are moving in different directions.

Trump's desire to get closer to Russia is a problem for UK-US relations. A Russian victory is not in the UK's interest. However, Trump can pressure London to stand between him and Putin by using traditional blackmail in the form of trade tariffs or limiting military support. Starmer is trying to be rational with an irrational, inconsistent ally. Britain has to balance between, on the one hand, not spoiling the ‘special relationship’ with the United States, and, on the other hand, not betraying the security of Europe, which depends on the outcome of the Russian-Ukrainian war.

Protection of Ukraine

The UK is a key ally for Kyiv. The Ukrainian issue has not become a subject of party differences in British politics. There is a public and political consensus in the country to support Ukraine.

In the future, it will be the UK and its European allies who will have to bear the brunt of not only providing assistance to Ukraine, but also ensuring its security. Moreover, they will have to play a leading role in shaping the new European security architecture.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has confirmed his willingness to send British troops to Ukraine to enforce any peace agreement and is assembling a “coalition of the willing” for this task. However, how effective and efficient could a British or multinational deterrence force deployed to Ukraine be in ensuring its security? This is an open question.

First, it depends on the scale of such forces. The British Army has less than 75,000 regular soldiers. With this in mind, it is unlikely that Britain's contribution could be serious. Second, are Starmer and British society ready for the deaths of their compatriots at the hands of the Russians? Thirdly, can Britain handle the situation without the US, especially if Russia opposes any presence of Western troops in Ukraine? For example, on 20 March, Defence Secretary Luke Pollard said that Britain would not send peacekeepers to Ukraine without US support.

The UK has done a lot for Ukraine. But if London really cares about the security of Europe, it must, along with other countries, provide Kyiv with effective security guarantees. This will be a test of the British commitment to the security of Europe. It will be a test of their aspirations to be a great power.

Eternal friends or eternal interests? In 1848, when the British Empire was at its zenith, Lord Palmerston said: ‘Britain has no eternal enemies, Britain has no eternal friends. Britain has only eternal interests’. There are no eternal friends in international politics. Palmerston was right. The world is cruel and impermanent. Ukraine needs to learn to think like Palmerston. Because in geopolitics, every friend holds a knife behind his back.