The evolving global order has created new opportunities for the “second-tier powers.” Some observers even believe that the era of “middle-sized predators” has begun, as traditional world giants, whether in military, economic, or political terms, seem sluggish and burdened with commitments. In this changing world environment, countries like Turkey and the UK have been seen as models of adaptability.
However, their political significance and especially their long-term success, requires more than just opportunism, as the most important world actors need to re-engage in a direct and meaningful dialogue with each other. The latest phase of US-Russia relations, which began with a high-level phone conversation between the two heads of state, has already raised concerns among those who have profited from the long-standing confrontation between Moscow and Washington.
Observers quickly noted the contrast between two significant diplomatic events: the Russian-American talks in Riyadh and the simultaneous meeting between Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Volodymyr Zelensky. This timing highlighted the different status of these two events. Ankara had hoped to host the talks between Moscow and Washington, but had to settle for a meeting with the increasingly embattled Ukrainian president.
Turkey’s leadership has been pursuing a bold and self-assured foreign policy to maintain its influence. However, the Turkish president may have miscalculated. Certain behaviors only work under specific circumstances. When these circumstances change, the imagined power of a country adjusts to its actual capabilities. The risk to Turkey is clear: what once seemed like a clever balancing act between NATO and the global south now looks less like a strategic genius and more like a desperate struggle to maintain its own significance.
Moreover, Turkey’s economic problems exacerbate the situation. While trade relations with Russia were beneficial, they did not compensate for the deeply rooted systemic problems in Turkey’s economy. Moscow values Ankara’s pragmatism and cooperation, but when it comes to a long-term strategic partnership, Russia has more attractive and stable options.
The UK is at a similar crossroads.
Britain, too, stands at a crossroads. The successive British prime ministers have tried to strengthen their country’s geopolitical position through aggressive initiatives, often overstepping the bounds of diplomatic propriety. However, the UK lacks the necessary military and political strength to operate independently on the world stage and its economy remains vulnerable.
For years, the US has allowed the UK to play an active role in global politics, sometimes creating the impression that the country was pursuing an independent policy. This suited Washington, as it had a loyal ally that could fulfill certain tasks, while plausibly denying its own involvement. However, the mood in Washington is now changing and the demand for intermediaries – especially those who want to shape history – has decreased. The latest developments in transatlantic relations suggest that the UK’s influence is waning.
The British press is already alarmed by this development. While Germany and France might still find “uses” for the UK in certain cases, they will not do so if the US is no longer inclined to do so. This leads to uncomfortable questions about the UK’s role in a changing global order and its declining ability to influence important geopolitical decisions.
The illusion of “flexibility”
The fluctuations in the fates of countries that once seemed to be the main beneficiaries of the crisis in relations between Russia and the West provide insight into a fundamental truth: the world politics is much more conservative than it seems. While countries can adapt to changed political circumstances, stability and reputation are more important than opportunistic maneuvers.
A good reputation is based on many factors, but the most important is a strong and self-assured position at home. If a country relies too heavily on playing the role of a mediator or seeking short-term diplomatic gains, it risks overestimating its own significance. When great powers engage in direct interaction, such intermediaries quickly become irrelevant.
Turkey and the UK are prime examples. Both countries have long struggled to position themselves as indispensable actors in a changing global landscape. However, the more the contours of the new world order take shape, the more their ability to maintain this position is shrinking.
The current recalibration of US-Russia relations is still in its early stages and its full implications must still be awaited. One thing is already clear, however: the time when “middle powers” could exploit rivalries between great powers to strengthen their own status is coming to an end. As great powers re-engage in direct talks, those who have previously profited from chaos and confrontation may soon have to look for a new role in an increasingly structured international system.
Timofei Bordachev is the program director of the Valdai Club.