Key Takeaways
- The international order is deteriorating as major powers flout UN Charter norms and wield economic coercion.
- Russia’s war in Ukraine, the US strike on Iran, and China’s maritime assertiveness illustrate a shift from rules‑based to power‑based politics.
- Institutions such as the ICC, WTO, and UNCLOS are being weakened or ignored, eroding collective security mechanisms.
- Economic tools—rare‑earth monopolies, SWIFT sanctions, tariffs, and alternative development banks—are now central to great‑power competition.
- The UK’s strategic reviews recognise a “darker world” but have not matched rhetoric with adequate defence or soft‑power funding.
- To remain influential, Britain must revitalise both hard power (armed forces, nuclear deterrent) and soft power (BBC, British Council, aid) while deciding whether to defend the existing order or shape a new one.
Andy Burnham’s Warning and the Question of a Darker World
Former Prime Minister Andy Burnham warned in The Times that Britain must rebuild its hard power to confront a darker world, prompting the central inquiry: how much more perilous has the global environment become, and what response should the UK formulate? His remark frames the ensuing analysis of rising great‑power aggression, institutional decay, and the strategic choices facing Britain.
Russia’s War on Ukraine and the US Strike on Iran
For over four years, Russian missiles and drones have bombarded Ukrainian cities, inflicting thousands of civilian casualties each month—part of a twelve‑year campaign against its neighbour. In February 2026, the United States launched an attack on Iran with scant legal justification, underscoring a pattern where permanent UN Security Council members resort to force without adhering to the Charter’s procedural safeguards.
Violations by Permanent Security Council Members and Historical Precedents
Both Russia and the United States, as veto‑wielding members of the UN Security Council, have repeatedly violated the UN Charter while blocking any sanctions against themselves. The 2014 and 2022 invasions of Ukraine, the 2003 US‑led Iraq war, and the 1999 NATO intervention in Serbia are cited as contemporary breaches of the sovereignty principle. Moreover, the US seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro under domestic law and threats to annex Greenland further illustrate a disregard for internationally agreed norms.
Undermining of International Institutions
In 2025, the US imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio denouncing ICC rulings as infringements on American sovereignty. Simultaneously, China stretches the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to justify artificial islands that expand its exclusive economic zones, ignoring a 2013 Hague tribunal ruling against its claims. The World Trade Organisation, tasked with managing trade disputes, is increasingly impotent as states revert to mercantilist tariffs and trade barriers, signalling a broader retreat from rules‑based governance.
Economic Coercion and Supply‑Chain Leverage
Global economic interdependence has not curtailed military coercion; instead, states exploit asymmetric linkages for strategic gain. China leverages its monopoly on rare‑earth metals, the G10 uses its control over SWIFT to sanction Iran (2012) and Russia (2022), and the United States wields punitive tariffs against both allies and adversaries. These tools demonstrate how economic dependence is now weaponised, reshaping the landscape of power politics.
Alternative Financial Structures and Alliance Shifts
Russia’s exclusion from the G7 after its 2014 invasion of Ukraine has pushed Moscow toward alternative forums, while China promotes the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank as a rival to the IMF, offering loans with fewer regulatory strings but taking infrastructure as collateral. Such initiatives reflect a concerted effort by rising powers to bypass established Western‑led institutions and create parallel systems that serve their strategic interests.
The International Order Under Strain
The cumulative effect of these actions is a strained international order: long‑standing challengers actively undermine it, while traditional supporters increasingly fail to uphold its principles. Although the post‑Cold War system was once anchored by US hegemony and liberal norms, the erosion of rule‑enforcement by major powers has transformed the order into a power‑based arrangement where strength dictates outcomes, leaving middle‑rank states like the UK uncertain about their role.
UK Policy Assessments: Integrated Review and Strategic Defence Review
The 2021 Integrated Review affirmed that UK policy had aimed to preserve the post‑Cold War rules‑based system, which had benefited Britain and its partners. It acknowledged that today’s environment is marked by intensifying state competition, rendering a mere defence of the status quo insufficient. The 2025 Strategic Defence Review echoed this, warning that great‑power rivalry and the collapse of the post‑WWII consensus have cast doubt on the certainties of the international order, urging a reassessment of British strategy.
Gap Between Rhetoric and Defence Investment
Despite recognising the “darker world,” the UK’s Ministry of Defence and Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office objectives remained largely unchanged between 2020 and 2025. The Defence Investment Plan allocated a paltry 0.01 % of GDP to new defence spending—a figure criticised as grossly inadequate by former Defence Secretary John Healey, who resigned over the shortfall. This disconnect between strategic acknowledgement and fiscal commitment raises doubts about Britain’s ability to sustain credible deterrence and honour NATO allies who now target 5 % of GDP for defence.
Conventional Military Atrophy and Nuclear Deterrent Status
Years of political neglect have left conventional British forces weakened; capabilities have atrophied since 2010, with little evidence of a major acquisition push even under a “NATO first” focus. The nuclear deterrent relies on ageing Trident submarines already past their design lives, and the Integrated Review’s decision to raise the maximum warhead stockpile does not inherently enhance deterrence or operational readiness. Consequently, the UK’s hard‑power foundation appears fragile amid mounting security pressures.
Erosion of Soft Power Assets
Britain has traditionally leaned on soft power to amplify its global influence, a strategy lauded in the Integrated Review which labelled the UK a “soft‑power superpower” thanks to the BBC and British Council. Since 2021, however, Official Development Assistance has been cut by 30 %, the British Council has closed offices in 27 states, and BBC World Service funding suffered a 21 % reduction, silencing radio services in Chinese, Russian, and Hindi and shifting Arabic and Persian streams to digital‑only. Although some funding was restored in 2026, the overall trend undermines the nation’s capacity to win the narrative battle in pivotal “middle ground” countries.
Conclusion: The Imperative to Reinforce Hard and Soft Power
The UK finds itself between a rock and a hard place: to preserve the elements of the existing order it values, and to shape any forthcoming international arrangement, it must simultaneously bolster hard power (modern, capable armed forces and a credible nuclear deterrent) and revitalise soft power (aid, broadcasting, cultural outreach). Such a dual approach demands real fiscal commitment and political will—choices that will determine whether Britain remains a dependable NATO partner and a relevant global actor in an increasingly anarchic and competitive world.