“Progressive Realism”: Between Continuity and Change of the UK Foreign Policy

The article explores the contours of the UK foreign policy of the Labour government of K. Starmer in the context of persistent strategic dilemmas. Through the use of the theory of change, the author’s analysis of the new Cabinet’s foreign policy focuses on its attempts to refurbish the ideology behind the international course, driven by the goals of change and the departure from the Tory legacy. At the same time, external stimuli (fragmentation and newly emerged centers), domestic political factors (the political legacy of the Brexiteers, inter-party consensus on key areas of foreign policy, public opinion), as well as previous foreign policy goals leave Labour little room for maneuver and a qualitative change of course. In foreign policy planning, the new government, on the one hand, draws upon the practical developments of its Tory opponents in the spirit of neoliberalism. On the other hand, it maneuvers between the realism and idealism of previous Labour governments. The novelty introduced by the Labour Cabinet has been “progressive realism”. Central to this approach is shifting of emphasis in relation to Europe and trade, economic and military-political rapprochement with Brussels, as well as strengthening ties with the countries of the Global South while dropping the Global Britain rhetoric. NATO-first as a basic parameter of foreign policy stays put and dictates the logic of relations with the main centers of power in the Washington-Brussels-Beijing triangle, which corresponds to the approach of previous Conservative governments. At the same time, London promotes itself as a responsible player, keen on distancing itself from postcolonial practices. The article looks in detail at the first steps of the incumbent Cabinet in the foreign policy arena in the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific directions. London's attempts to build an image of a responsible player that distances itself from postcolonial practices and is guided by human rights and “moral leadership’, do not fundamentally change London’s foreign policy line. The uncompromising position on Ukraine against the backdrop of dependence on the “US factor” confirms the contradictory nature of the new concept, which may be adjusted with the arrival of a new White House administration.