Great Britain has always presented and perceived itself as a “bridge” between America and Europe. However, following Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. elections on November 5, 2024, this position has been called into question. The new U.S. president, who had not hidden his dissatisfaction with NATO even during his first term and recently stated that he could end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours, has further put the United Kingdom in an unfavorable position on many geopolitical, political, and military issues.
The role of the former colonial empire in the new global movements, unless there are significant changes in Trump’s announced foreign policy, is also uncertain. In this context, Great Britain faces serious unresolved internal defense issues that it should address as soon as possible. However, it seems that the current Labour government, led by Keir Starmer, is not prepared to confront these challenges.
PROBLEMS PUSHED UNDER THE RUG
British defense has been gradually losing strategic autonomy since the Cold War, and today it stands at a critical point, facing a significant lack of readiness and the absence of a clear geopolitical or military strategy. In an article published for EagleEyeExplore, I recently pointed out the government’s inability or powerlessness to address one of the most important internal issues—the immigration crisis. As such, the same government is unable to confront other political, economic, social, or cultural crises in the country.
The impression is that the UK is incapable of solving almost any of its pressing problems or addressing any issues crucial to the brighter future of its own nation. Instead, as Dušan Dostanić noted, the problems are being “pushed under the rug.” A striking example from a few months ago illustrates this situation. On the day Russia launched intercontinental ballistic missiles at Ukraine, threatening all NATO bases in Europe, British Defense Minister John Hill announced a reduction in British defense forces. This decision is a clear sign of the profound incompetence and incapacity of the British political elite, which is strongly influenced by the deep state of both the U.S. and the UK.
From once being the largest empire in the world, Great Britain has become a state with limited defense funding, poor management, and the absence of a clear political direction. This situation is not merely a matter of finances, resources, or readiness; it is the result of a chronic problem that the UK has been grappling with since 1945—its geopolitical role in the modern world.
LONDON – CONFUSED AND LONELY
As Frank Ledwidge, Senior Lecturer in Military Strategy and Law at the University of Portsmouth, stated, since 2014, when the last British combat forces left Afghanistan, there has been no serious attempt to increase resources and personnel, which are steadily decreasing. It seems that the UK Ministry of Defense is increasingly relying on the assumption that the U.S. will always be there to provide support, in any scenario, regardless of the circumstances.
However, with Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential elections and his assumption of office, the time for dilettantism in the UK is running out. Even Western military experts admit that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia, and that the best the West can now do is help Kyiv secure a post-war future. This is evident in Donald Trump’s naïve peace plans, as well as in the possibility that NATO may occupy the remaining parts of Ukraine. Meanwhile, with growing prospects that the U.S. will focus on China, Europe—and with it, the UK—remains somewhat confused and lonely.
RATIO 150:1
The British armed forces today face serious challenges that prevent any strategic planning or decision-making regarding defense. According to an analysis by Matthew Saville of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), the British Army is unable to deploy a full division—around 10,000 combat-ready soldiers. Compare this to Russia, which, in addition to a reserve force of two million people, currently has 1.5 million active soldiers. The power ratio is therefore 150:1. Patrick Benham-Crosswell highlights that a major problem for the British military is the large number of high-ranking officials who are ineffective, technological backwardness in expensive and heavy armored vehicles, and a lack of a coherent vision for the development of the armed forces. Today, as reported by Global Britain, the UK’s only three “combat” divisions have never trained as a complete formation… If we start examining the details, the situation gets even worse.

WEAPONRY IS THERE, BUT WHO WILL USE IT?
As reported by British media, the army lacks sufficient tanks, reconnaissance and assault troops, and an entire division is missing artillery, along with a large number of helicopters for air brigades. Two of the three divisions were not formed to fight as divisions, and the formation of ranger brigades, which are not capable of independent combat, further weakens readiness. At the same time, a large number of soldiers are leaving the military, while the reserve forces are lacking.
According to George Ellison from the UK Defence Journal, the Royal Air Force (RAF) is facing serious issues with existing air defense systems. Patrick Benham-Crosswell, in his analysis, points out that only 10% of the RAF is at full operational capacity. Trainee pilots are waiting several years to begin their flying training, while experienced pilots are retiring due to austerity measures. Moreover, the number of new pilots is insufficient, leading to billions of pounds’ worth of weaponry becoming useless.
MORE PLANES THAN PILOTS
The Ministry of Defence stated back in 2022 that it had more F-35 aircraft than trained pilots, with eight years required to train a single pilot. Furthermore, there is a serious shortage of radars, and the costs for further armament of the air force have become too expensive for the national budget. A similar situation exists within the Royal Navy, which is facing a lack of crew for existing ships. Dissatisfaction among staff due to low salaries further complicates the issues. The British Navy depends on other countries for fuel, food, and ammunition, which seriously threatens its operational capability.
All branches of the British military suffer from a chronic shortage of ammunition and supplies. This shortage further highlights the UK’s inability to keep pace with the current tempo and rhythm of economic, industrial, military, and morale recruitment dictated by Russia. However, despite these significant difficulties, the United Kingdom has announced it will send a mechanized brigade equipped with the latest Challenger 3 tanks to Estonia in 2025. Nevertheless, this move appears more as a display of “nonexistent muscles” than as proof of actual military strength. Despite efforts, the British military is far from leading world powers like the U.S., Russia, or China.
SECOND-GRADE MILITARY POWER
According to a senior defense academic and former Ministry of Defence official, Rob Johnson, the armed forces of Great Britain “are not ready for any conflict of any scale.” A small military budget, inefficient resource management, logistics issues, and inconsistent leadership have reduced the UK to the level of a second-rate military power. The British armed forces are currently facing a crisis on all four key fronts: the army, air force, navy, and nuclear weapons. This multiple deficit clearly indicates the need for deep reforms in the defense system.
According to an analysis by Frank Ledwidge, Great Britain is failing to meet its NATO obligations, including securing an operational carrier strike group and two brigades of troops.
VICIOUS CIRCLE
The operational readiness of the British armed forces was called into question in a report from the Defence Committee of the House of Commons, published on January 30, 2024. The report highlighted the following key conclusions:
Changing Threats in Europe: “The full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia has dramatically altered the nature of threats, showing that Russia possesses both the capability and the intent to wage war in Europe. This requires fundamental changes in approach, including greater resilience in warfare, both within the UK and among allies.”
Global Instability and Industrial Capacities: “Global instability coincides with a decline in recruitment and reduced industrial capacities, requiring long-term investments. The government risks failing to build the necessary readiness for warfare due to the speed of operational demands, which could jeopardize the security of the United Kingdom.”
Personnel and Resources: “Personnel need time to recover and train. But operational demands make this very difficult. It is not surprising that more people are leaving than joining the armed forces. All three branches are facing growing capacity shortages, which have been emphasized in our investigations. As these deficiencies grow, they exert greater pressure on those who remain, creating a vicious circle.”
Urgent Call to Action: “The government must act quickly to break this cycle and ensure that the UK is ready to face not only today’s challenges but also the storm clouds ahead.”
HOSTAGE TO AMERICAN GOODWILL
These findings indicate the urgent need to reform the British defense strategy to ensure not only operational readiness but also the long-term sustainability of its armed forces. In such a crisis situation, Trump’s victory in the presidential election further worsens the position of Great Britain. The UK will be forced to rely entirely on the U.S., including dependence on American nuclear weapons. According to the 2014 Trident Commission statement, the entire British nuclear program is essentially a “hostage to American goodwill.” This view was first expressed by Professor Colin Gray back in 2006 before the Defence Committee, and what the Trident company confirmed: “I am not at all concerned about the American connection, but for anyone who wants to question the real independence of British nuclear deterrence, I must admit that it is… a hostage to American voluntarism… dependence is critical and will continue.”

NO AUTONOMY IN THE DEFENSE SPHERE
This means that British projectiles and key guidance systems are based on American technology, while the submarines that should launch ballistic missiles also rely on American components. Therefore, even this small sustainability that Britain is trying to maintain is completely dependent on American engagement. Without American support, the UK’s defense systems practically do not exist.
In this context, although there is no direct evidence that Trump intends to effectively disarm Britain completely, his isolationist policy and future administration may push Britain into great danger, threatening its defense. Trump’s reliance on the Monroe Doctrine, a policy of isolationism, non-interference in European affairs, and ambitions to create a firm sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere, along with the current statement about the possible occupation of Canada and Greenland, complicates the situation in the UK for three main reasons.
First, it threatens the geopolitical balance in the North Atlantic. Second, it increases U.S. military and economic dominance within NATO and in Europe. And third, the UK may absolutely lose all autonomy in decision-making regarding security.
BEHIND THE SCANDINAVIAN AND BALTIC COUNTRIES
In addition to its dependence on the U.S. and Trump’s isolationist and “pacifist” policies, Britain faces an even more serious problem—its lack of a defense strategy, which presents a much more severe challenge. British military leaders, including Tony Radakin, warn that the culture of national defense in the UK is weaker compared to other countries, such as the Scandinavian and Baltic states, which have a more comprehensive approach to defense.
On the other hand, Britain has not yet resolved its past issues. The reality is that it is no longer a global power, so it must decide whether it will remain at least a regional power. Since the end of World War II, especially after the fall of the USSR, Britain has acted as a partner to the U.S. in global goals and missions but without real power and resources to sustain them. This has been repeatedly proven in the past: one only needs to recall the Suez Crisis (1956) or the Falklands War (1982). Without concrete planning and resources, all current ideas, statements, and goals of the British government remain an empty story.
CYBER CANNOT CROSS THE RIVER
In fact, everything related to Britain’s foreign policy has been reduced to the conclusions of the 2010 techno fest, when cyber warfare became a priority over raw military power, that is, traditional combat power. This approach was perhaps best illustrated by Sir Patrick Sanders when he stated in 2022 that “you can’t cyber your way across a river,” which caused a great stir among the British. This statement illustrates the weaknesses of the British military and state, which can no longer threaten its adversaries with raw military strength but instead relies on cyber and intelligence strategies and schemes, which are often far from effective in these global contexts.
The conflict in Ukraine has proven that Britain is more suited to being a strong regional power than a weak global one. However, it should also be considered how Britain can match other Western European countries in terms of strength. For example, France has more active and reserve soldiers, as well as a completely independent nuclear program. It also possesses a stronger combat fleet than Britain and a powerful military industry that allows for autonomy in equipment and armament.
REDEFINITION OF MILITARY PURPOSE
The strategic defense review commissioned by Starmer’s government in July 2024, which is expected in the first half of 2025, is not focused on budget adjustments but on defining Britain’s military purpose in the new geopolitical landscape. As announced on the UK Parliament website, in the House of Lords library, the review examines “all aspects of defense.” Essentially, it should address major issues: from conflicts in Europe, wars in the Middle East, Britain’s values and interests, to hybrid attacks, and more. In the second case, Britain will continue to aim for maintaining the status quo, or inaction, in which it already finds itself.
It is important to emphasize that the call for the defense review was urgently initiated in late July 2024, following the failed assassination attempt on Donald Trump and Kamala Harris’s candidacy for the presidential election. Therefore, Britain began considering strategic priorities at that time, sensing that Trump might win the elections again.
WHERE IS THE POLITICS OF FACT?
Donald Trump’s return to the presidency implies the urgent need to define Britain’s defense priorities. Accordingly, Britain must decide whether to focus on a strong, independent defense strategy or accept a limited, second-rate role dictated by U.S. politics, economics, and military technology.
Most importantly, Great Britain still adheres to its centuries-old principle in conducting foreign policy, as defined by General Nikolai Golovin (in his work What Does Britain Strive For), which is to “wait and watch”; along with the principle: “The Englishman must win the battle, and it must be the last one.” However, in the past three years, Britain has completely abandoned another long-standing principle of foreign policy, which Golovin calls “the politics of fact.” The British were once known for carefully considering all facts, waiting for them to emerge, and then positioning them highly. Additionally, they were able to discern their significance and content, making decisions with a “sense of proportion.” However, from all that has been stated above, the conclusion emerges that Britain is unwilling to acknowledge the facts before it. Instead of facing reality, it stubbornly ignores it, which could pose a serious problem for this island nation.