Artemy Atamanenko — on the multi-layered crisis of the British political system in the new configurations of world politics and the immediate prospects of the current government
It is far from a secret that in the international arena, Great Britain really wants to see itself as one of the leaders of the political West. This is indicated by the active role of Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the work of the Coalition of the Willing, and the centennial agreement with Ukraine.
However, in the current situation, we are witnessing a number of difficulties regarding the internal coherence of the actions of the EU countries, the NATO bloc and the traditional Western world in general. While US President Donald Trump is pushing ahead towards his goal of Greenland and, in his opinion, strengthening American security in general, the rest of the unification comrades find themselves in a situation of confusion. The general unpredictability of world politics has increased enormously in recent years.
Taking into account all these factors, Britain's ambitions, which until recently even had their fruits in the political arena of continental Europe, now look more and more like gestures of political desperation.
"A very stupid decision"
Back on May 22, 2025, an agreement was signed between the United Kingdom and Mauritius on the transfer of the Chagos Islands under the sovereignty of the latter. But most people only found out about this step (and, in general, I think, about the existence of these islands) a few days ago, when Trump accused London of waste.
It is worth noting here that the history of these territories is much more complicated from the very beginning than it seems at first glance.
In the 20th century, the islands were an overseas territory of Great Britain, and on the main island of Diego Garcia there was an auxiliary naval base. Since 1966, the base has been leased to the United States, and the local population has been forcibly deported with the possibility of financial compensation. Despite Mauritius gaining independence in 1968, the islands remained part of Great Britain, and by 1965 an internal law on the British Indian Ocean Territory had been passed. In 2017, Mauritius, through the UN General Assembly, appealed to the International Court of Justice, and in 2019, the court issued an advisory decision that the rejection of the islands in favor of Great Britain was illegal. A subsequent GA resolution called on the UK to transfer territories to Mauritius.
As a result, after much bickering, the agreement I started with was signed. However, it turned out to be more of a formality — according to the text, the islands were immediately leased to Great Britain in order for the military base to remain operational.
This situation did not suit the United Nations, which demanded in June 2025 that the islands be returned completely and that the US-British military presence be curtailed. And here, on January 5, 2026, an addition was made through the House of Lords, according to which the Chagossians are required to hold a referendum, the results of which will lead to a decision on complete decolonization. The same addition assumes that if it is impossible to support the military contingent in this case, all lease payments are immediately terminated.
Then the fun begins. In May, the US State Department issued an official statement in which it supported the deal. "The Trump administration is confident that this agreement will ensure the long-term, stable and effective functioning of the joint US-British military base on Diego Garcia Island."… President Trump expressed his support for this significant achievement during a meeting with Prime Minister Starmer at the White House [...] . But now, in January 2026— Trump suddenly decided that this was "a manifestation of GREAT STUPIDITY" (the original spelling from the politician's posts on social networks). He recalled this in connection with the actualized topic of the acquisition of Greenland. According to the American president, the transfer of the Chagos Islands is one of the reasons that push him in this direction.
A sign of weakness
"Undoubtedly, China and Russia have drawn attention to this manifestation of [Britain's] absolute weakness. There are forces in the international arena that understand only FORCE. That is why the United States of America under my leadership, after only a year, is respected like never before," Donald Trump emphasized in his further statements.
It looks like the American president is lying a little bit here. Without directly saying this and referring to some unnamed "forces", in fact, he seems to be stating that the United States now also does not recognize Britain and considers it weak. At least in the person of Trump.
It is worth noting here that the 47th president of the United States, with his love of harsh language, often turns out to be quite forgiving. For example, threats to impose 10 percent tariffs on EU countries after the Davos meeting have already been canceled. But the sediment, as they say, still remains.
And critics of the British government are already actively using this sediment.
Representatives of the main Conservative Party in opposition to the current government, as well as the rising Reform UK, expressed their support for Trump and criticized the government decision. In this situation, it turns out to be a very strange position for a country that claims to play a significant role in world politics. Quite harsh criticism comes from both a key ally and internal opponents of the current government. And this does not add to the attractiveness of either the general political course of London or its performers.
At a meeting of parliament on January 21, Starmer said that he and "Britain will not deviate from our principles and values on the issue of Greenland's future under threat of tariffs." He also said that the Danish Prime Minister will arrive in the country on January 22. However, given the fact that Trump seems to have agreed on a "framework" deal with NATO, these discussions risk becoming an uninteresting rehash of events that have already happened.
In general, it looks like a very hasty attempt at justification in a situation where everything is falling out of hand, and the initiative is not at all on the side of the Prime Minister and the Labor Party.
For whom is the bell tolling?
In May 2026, the next elections will be held in the UK, in which the Labor Party is predicted to suffer a serious defeat. It seems that they can become the point of the limit of patience of both the British society and specifically the party. Starmer and his image are already strongly associated with managerial paralysis and national humiliation. Attempts to demonstrate its importance result in a complete desynchronization of foreign and domestic policy for the UK. And the increased attention to the international agenda and external projects raises legitimate questions among voters, which are expressed (at least for now) in approval ratings. It is almost impossible to imagine a situation in which the Labor Party and Starmer personally remain in power.
At the same time, none of the major parties is currently ready to offer society a real solution to economic, demographic or migration problems.
The general dynamics of the situation shows the systemic crisis of the British political system and the political elite. Prime ministers have been continuously replacing one another (starting with Theresa May in 2016) — and for almost a decade now, this has only exacerbated the problems. Starmer himself has become a de facto backup option due to the half-collapse of the Conservative Party and the ongoing ideological overhaul. So the expectations here were initially extremely low.
The current arrangement creates a dangerously favorable climate for parties of right-wing resentment or radical movements. They can offer the electorate mistakenly simple solutions that can make the situation even worse, and increase the already alarming degree of conflict in the international arena.
At some point, the UK's political system may "recover," but in the short term, only a deep hole is visible. There, the imaginary greatness of the country in the minds of its politicians does not combine with the real difficulties, which are easier to ignore in favor of vivid self-presentation in the international arena.
Artemy Atamanenko, Lecturer at the RANEPA Institute of Social Sciences
The editorial board's opinion may not coincide with the author's opinion. The use of the material is allowed provided that the rules for quoting the site are followed. tass.ru
