By Timofey Bordachev, Programme Director of the Valdai Club
The ongoing restructuring of the international order has created new opportunities for the second-tier powers in global politics. At one point, some observers even speculated that the era of the ‘medium-sized predator’ had arrived, as the world’s traditional giants – militarily, economically, and politically – appeared sluggish and burdened by commitments. Countries such as Türkiye and the UK were hailed as models of adaptability in this shifting environment.
However, their relevance – and certainly their long-term success – will require more than opportunism, as the world’s major players begin to engage in direct, meaningful dialogue once again. The latest phase of Russia-US relations, which began with a high-level phone call between the two leaders, has already created unease among those who have politically benefited from the years of confrontation between Moscow and Washington.
Observers quickly noted the contrast between two significant diplomatic events: The Russian-American talks in Riyadh and the simultaneous Erdogan-Zelensky summit. The timing made the difference in status between these engagements even starker. Ankara had hoped to play host to the Moscow-Washington discussions but instead had to settle for a meeting with the increasingly beleaguered Ukrainian leader.
For years, Türkiye’s leadership has leveraged a bold and assertive foreign policy to maintain influence. However, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems to have miscalculated. A certain kind of behavior works only under specific circumstances. When those circumstances change, the perceived power of a nation often reverts to match its actual capacity. The risk Türkiye faces is clear – what once looked like skillful balancing between NATO and the Global South now appears less like strategic genius and more like a desperate scramble to maintain relevance.
The situation is further complicated by Türkiye’s economic struggles. While trade with Russia has been beneficial, it has not been enough to offset deep-seated systemic issues in Türkiye’s economy. Moscow appreciates Ankara’s pragmatism and willingness to engage, but when it comes to long-term strategic partnerships, Russia has wealthier and more stable options.
Britain faces a similar dilemma
London also finds itself at a crossroads. Successive British leaders have attempted to bolster their country’s geopolitical standing by taking aggressive initiatives, often pushing the boundaries of diplomatic decorum. Yet Britain lacks the military and political strength to act independently on the world stage, and its economy remains in a fragile state.
For years, the US allowed Britain to play an active role, sometimes giving the illusion of independent policy-making. This suited Washington when it needed a loyal ally to carry out specific tasks while maintaining plausible deniability. Now, however, the mood in Washington is shifting, and the need for intermediaries – especially those eager to claim credit for shaping history – has diminished. The latest realignments in transatlantic relations suggest that Britain’s influence is waning.
The British press is already expressing alarm over this shift. While Germany and France may still find uses for Britain in specific instances, they will not follow its lead if the US is no longer inclined to do so. This raises uncomfortable questions about Britain’s role in the evolving global order and its diminishing ability to influence major geopolitical decisions.
The illusion of flexibility
The fluctuating fortunes of nations that once appeared to be the main beneficiaries of the crisis in relations between Russia and the West highlight a deeper truth – world politics is far more conservative than it may appear. Nations may adapt to changing circumstances, but stability and reputation matter more than opportunistic maneuvering.
A good reputation is built on multiple factors, but the most critical is a strong and confident position at home. A country that relies too heavily on playing the role of mediator or leveraging short-term diplomatic gains risks overestimating its importance. When the great powers decide to engage directly, these intermediaries can quickly find themselves sidelined.
Türkiye and Britain provide clear examples of this phenomenon. Both have spent years attempting to position themselves as indispensable actors in the shifting global landscape. However, as the contours of the new world order take shape, their ability to maintain this balancing act is diminishing.
The current recalibration of Russia-US relations is still in its early stages, and its full impact remains to be seen. However, one thing is already clear: The period when medium-sized powers could exploit great-power rivalries to enhance their own status is coming to an end. As the global giants resume direct negotiations, those who thrived on chaos and confrontation may soon find themselves searching for a new role in an increasingly structured international system.
