Is the United Kingdom still a powerful country? The question comes up often, usually with a note of scepticism.
Years of political upheaval, anaemic growth and the fallout from Brexit have made many wonder if the UK has slipped into a more modest role. Yet power is not a single measure, and when Britain’s military, intelligence, nuclear deterrent and global influence are weighed together, the picture looks more robust than the pessimists allow.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
The armed forces are smaller than a generation ago, down from more than 200,000 in 2012, yet the equipment they operate is among the most advanced in the world. The Royal Navy sails two modern aircraft carriers and fields, sometimes, Astute-class attack submarines, with Dreadnought ballistic missile submarines under construction to replace the Vanguard fleet. The RAF flies Typhoon and F-35 jets and is experimenting with uncrewed systems that will play a larger role in the coming decade.
Defence spending remains significant. At more than $80 billion in 2024 for our American readers, Britain ranks among the top six globally. That is dwarfed by the United States and China, but it compares favourably with France and is higher than most other NATO allies. Successive governments have promised to move the budget towards 2.5 or even 3 per cent of GDP, though fiscal pressures will make that difficult to deliver in practice.
Nuclear weapons continue to anchor Britain’s strategic position. Since 1969 the country has maintained a submarine on patrol at all times, ensuring an independent deterrent. The stockpile is smaller than those of other nuclear states, but its credibility is not in doubt. With the Dreadnought programme moving ahead, Britain will retain this status well into the 2030s and beyond. Only a handful of countries can claim the same.
Intelligence is another source of weight. MI6, MI5 and GCHQ remain central to the global security architecture. The Five Eyes partnership provides access to information streams that most nations simply do not see. In cyber security, the National Cyber Security Centre has given Britain a central hub for countering digital threats, and industry assessments regularly place the UK near the top of the global rankings. These assets, though often invisible to the public, underpin both national defence and international standing.
Soft power adds a further layer. The reach of the English language, the global presence of British universities, and the continuing role of the BBC give the UK a cultural footprint far larger than its size. London remains one of the world’s leading financial centres. The Commonwealth provides diplomatic links across Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. And Britain continues to hold a seat at the top tables of international politics through NATO, the G7 and the UN Security Council.
All of this is balanced by constraints that cannot be ignored. The economy has been sluggish, growing just over one per cent last year, and productivity has struggled since the financial crisis. Debt, inflation and pressure on public services squeeze government spending. In global terms, Britain’s share of economic output is far lower than it was in the mid-20th century, and sheer manpower is not what it once was.
Yet the overall balance remains clear. Britain is not a superpower on the scale of the United States or China, but it is not a minor player either. Its nuclear arsenal, advanced military, world-class intelligence agencies and extensive diplomatic network put it in a category of its own alongside France, and ahead of most peers. When combined with cultural reach and the capacity to operate alongside allies, these factors ensure that Britain still counts in 2025.
The question is less whether the country is powerful than how it chooses to use that power. The resources exist to play a significant role in global affairs, but they require sustained investment and clear political direction. Britain’s influence is no longer guaranteed by default; it must be maintained through choices made at home.
If those choices are made wisely, the UK will continue to matter in the world for decades to come.
We don’t seem to have a lot to show for our money. The army is tiny and still using largely outdated equipment, the navy is tiny, with very few frigates and 5 subs in service, the number of F-35B’s are growing slowly but they still have very few weapons integrated so the carriers don’t have anywhere near the combat power against a peer or near peer enemy that they should have. The RAF is probably in the best shape of the bunch but it has still fallen in number and lacks in critical areas like SEAD & DEAD and could do with more E7’s and P8’s.
I think if you have to ask the question, then the answer is at best measured decline. It hasn’t the capacity to act unilaterally to any material extent in any conflict. The Falklands was the last unilateral act of a old dame. Trump has done Europe a favour by forcing it to protect itself. As its purchasing power enables an expansion of its defence the UK’s best hope is to try and find a snug fit with its neighbours.
Ability to project military force – not what it was, but still significant. Global influence, absolutely. MRSS would be something of a Dr Who regeneration.
Half a dozen 20k ton ‘strike frigates’ with well decks, helicopters and Mk41, would give the UK a powerful graduated, tiered ability to intervene globally:
OPVs >T31>MRSS>CSG.
The answer is that the United Kingdom is no longer a super power (that ended in 1942) but is still a regional great power. However that power would be extremely hard to mobilise. It would probably take ten years of high defence spending to realise the country’s military potential. That is not great especially as modern wars are usually come as you are affairs and are over before any widespread rearmament takes effect. But what about the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent I here you say? Well this is an all or nothing strategy/weapon. We are lacking in military capacity in any conflict short of nuclear oblivion. That’s why our defence policy needs both a strategic nuclear deterrent and fully capable conventional forces.
Well they could try to find out.
surely the blame lays squarely at the door of our government and politicians . that have little or no interest in military matters.. but always seem to offer up our military at every opportunity.
first duty is to have a military to defend us. but. perhaps we may get a decent government in the future, who knows.
just my humble opinion…