The fundamental character of the international system, as systematized by Kenneth Waltz in his work Theory of International Politics (1979), can be defined by the absence of a central authority, namely anarchy. In this anarchic structure, states act as “like units” that must ensure their own survival.The report published by the United Kingdom (UK) House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee on April 22, 2026, confirms the core premise of neorealism by declaring that the “special relationship” between London and Washington has ended and has been replaced by a “transactional” era; alliances are built not on emotional bonds or shared values, but on systemic pressures and the distribution of power.[i]
According to Waltz, the foreign policies of states are constrained by their positions within the system and the capacities of other states. The UK House of Lords report accepts the evolution of the United States’ (US) global strategy within the framework of the “America First” doctrine as a “systemic given.” The shift of US resources and military attention toward the Indo-Pacific region has created a power vacuum on the European flank. For the UK, this situation demonstrates that the historical policy of “leaning on” is no longer sustainable.
Today, the quest for survival has driven states to plan according to the worst-case scenario. The attacks launched by the US and Israel against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and leadership on February 28, 2026, served as a systemic test for the UK. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s refusal to provide direct offensive support for these operations, followed by a shift to a defensive position, can be characterized as the victory of rational selectivity in British foreign policy. Despite its historical ties with the US, the UK calculated that the costs of involvement in this conflict (an energy crisis, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz) would be significantly higher than the relative gains achieved. As neorealism predicts, this confirms the tendency of states to avoid risks that threaten their own systemic position rather than pursuing absolute gains.
The characterization by U.S. President Donald Trump of the UK’s hesitant stance in the Iran operation as “shocking” and “far from the spirit of Winston Churchill” is, in fact, a neorealist conflict of interest. Instead of supporting the U.S.’s revisionist moves in the Middle East, the UK issued a joint statement with France and Germany calling for diplomacy. This move can be explained by Waltz’s concept of secondary balancing. London has moved closer to its European partners rather than its traditional ally in order to restrain Washington, D.C.’s hegemonic impulsiveness and preserve regional stability. As of April 2026, during the two-week ceasefire period, the UK’s mediation efforts with Pakistan represent an attempt to consolidate Britain’s image as an independent power within the system.[ii]
From a Neorealism perspective, states adapt to changes in the system through “imitation” or “balancing.” The UK’s transition to a “transactional” phase reflects an effort to minimize systemic risks by imitating the rational and interest-based foreign policy style of the US. The fact that the relationship once assumed to be “special” is now being filtered through a cost–benefit analysis demonstrates that London is reverting to the principle of self-help under systemic pressures.[iii]
In an anarchic system, a state increasing its own security inevitably creates a perception of threat for others; this situation is referred to as the security dilemma. Russia’s revisionist moves in Ukraine and the expansion of its military capacity have become an “existential threat” for European states. In this regard, the 5th Security and Defence Dialogue held between the EU and Norway aligns perfectly with Waltz’s theory of external balancing. Despite Norway not being an EU member, its integration into the EU’s military logistics and satellite communication programs (IRIS, GOVSATCOM) demonstrates that states are setting aside “relative gain” concerns to pool their capacities against a common threat. From a Waltzian perspective, Russia’s increasing capacity has disrupted the balance of power in Europe, forcing small and medium-sized states to consolidate under a larger security umbrella.[iv]
Neorealism argues that states focus on “relative gains” rather than “absolute gains” when cooperating. The “transactional” definition of UK-US relations points exactly to this issue. The House of Lords emphasizes that the UK’s unilateral dependence on the U.S. in defense and intelligence narrows Britain’s room for maneuver within the system. Transactionalism means that both sides ask the question, “Who is gaining more from this cooperation?”.
The statement by Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide regarding the world experiencing its “most sensitive period since the Second World War” is a manifestation of systemic instability. In Waltz’s theory, multipolar systems are more unstable than bipolar systems because the risk of miscalculation is higher. Today, this “multipolar trend”—formed by the US’s hegemonic retreat and the rise of the Russia-China axis—is pushing the UK and European states toward a pragmatic and defense-oriented realism.[v]
In the context of Waltz’s structural realism, the transition of UK-U.S. relations into a “transactional” phase and Europe’s defense consolidation confirm the absolute dominance of the international system’s anarchic structure over unit-level preferences. This process, in which the systemic structure forces states toward similar behaviors through “socialization” and “competition,” symbolizes the collapse of the classic “special relationship” rhetoric, as it fails to resist the shifts in systemic polarity. From a Waltzian perspective, the stability of the system depends on the processes of balancing within the distribution of power. The shift of the US away from the unipolar moment, moving its resources toward the Pacific line within the framework of selective engagement, has created a structural power vacuum in the European security architecture. This vacuum, as neorealism predicts, has triggered the survival instinct of states, forcing them to return to the principle of self-help. The UK’s characterization of its ties with the U.S. as transactional is, in essence, the effort of a rational actor to maximize cost-benefit analysis in the face of systemic uncertainty. This represents a phase of cold realism where emotional alliances based on shared identity are replaced by concerns over relative gains.
The security integration between the EU and Norway is a clear example of Waltz’s theory of external balancing. Russia’s increasing military capacity and revisionist tendencies have deepened a classic security dilemma for European states. In this environment, where one unit’s move to increase its security is perceived as a threat by others, European states—confronted with the reality that U.S. security guarantees have become “transactional”—have moved to pool their defense capacities. The integration of non-EU actors like Norway into the union’s military and technological programs (IRIS, GOVSATCOM) demonstrates how systemic pressures push sovereignty concerns into the background.
In conclusion, as the international system evolves toward multipolarity, the risk of miscalculation among states increases. In accordance with Waltz’s observation that “states engage in similar behaviors to maintain their positions within the system,” what is witnessed today is the end of the normative rhetoric of liberal internationalism, replaced by a naked search for a balance of power based on capacity maximization and realist narcissism. Strategic autonomy is no longer a choice but an ontological necessity imposed by the anarchic system of 2026.
[i] “Adjusting to new realities: rebalancing the UK-US partnership”, UK Parliament, https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/360/international-relations-and-defence-committee/news/213225/adjusting-to-new-realities-rebalancing-the-ukus-partnership/, (Access Date: 22.04.2026); Waltz, K. N. (2021). Uluslararası politika teorisi (O. S. Binatlı, Çev.; Ç. Özen, Ed.). Phoenix Yayınevi. (Original publication date 1979).
[ii] “US/Israel-Iran conflict 2026”, UK Parliament, https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10521/CBP-10521.pdf, (Access Date: 22.04.2026).
[iii] “The not‑so‑special relationship? Can UK-US relations survive Trump 2.0?”, Chatham House, https://www.chathamhouse.org/events/all/standard-event/not-so-special-relationship-can-uk-us-relations-survive-trump-20, (Access Date: 22.04.2026).
[iv] “EU-Norway: Joint Press release on the 5th Security and Defence Dialogue”, European Union External Action, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-norway-joint-press-release-5th-security-and-defence-dialogue_en, (Access Date: 22.04.2026).
[v] “Norveç Dışişleri Bakanı Eide, dünyanın güvenlik anlamında en hassas günlerini yaşadığını söyledi”, AA,https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/norvec-disisleri-bakani-eide-dunyanin-guvenlik-anlaminda-en-hassas-gunlerini-yasadigini-soyledi/3870148, (Access Date: 22.04.2026).
