Why "superior" Britain treats Russia as an underdeveloped rival with a deplorable army

In 2026, many people look at the map and wonder why the United Kingdom is so deeply involved in a war thousands of miles away.

Britain is 2,500 km (1,550 mi) from Moscow. It does not share a border with Russia, and it is not in the path of a land invasion. Yet, London often acts as the "nerve center" of the opposition to the Kremlin. This isn't just a reaction to current events. It is the result of a multi-century habit. To the British establishment, the conflict in Ukraine is just the latest chapter in a very old book.

To understand why Britain is so "hawkish"—meaning eager to take a tough military stance—we have to look back at the history of the British Empire and a rivalry that never truly ended.

The ghost of the great game

In the 1800s, Britain and Russia were the two biggest empires on Earth. This period was known as the "Great Game." Britain was a maritime power; they "ruled the waves" with the world's most powerful navy. Russia was a land power, expanding its borders across the massive Eurasian continent.

British leaders back then were terrified of one thing: that Russia would keep expanding until it reached the ocean. If Russia controlled the "Heartland" of the world and gained access to warm-water ports, they could build a navy that might eventually destroy Britain's control of global trade. This created a permanent strategic anxiety in London.

Even though the British Empire is gone, the people who run the UK still think like "offshore balancers." Their goal is to make sure no single country ever gets too powerful on the European mainland, ensuring that British influence remains superior.

Why distance is an illusion

For a modern island nation, "distance" is a 19th-century concept. In 2026, the British government views Russia as a direct neighbor in ways that don't involve land:

• Undersea cables: The UK depends on cables at the bottom of the sea for its internet and energy. They see Russian ships near these cables as a direct threat to the British way of life.

• The cyber front: Modern wars are fought on computer screens. London considers itself a primary target for Russian hacking and disinformation.

• The "grey zone": From high-profile poisonings on British streets to interference in elections, the UK feels it has been in a "low-level" war with Russia for decades.

The "deplorable" army: a colonial perspective

A major reason for Britain's aggressive stance is how they perceive the Russian military. There is a deeply rooted belief in the UK that Russia is a fundamentally "underdeveloped" country. This idea comes straight from the colonial era and the British sense of being a more advanced civilization.

Back in the 1850s, during the Crimean War, British elites viewed Russia as a "Potemkin village"—something that looks impressive from the outside but is hollow and rotten on the inside. Today, this has evolved into the idea that the Russian military is an "army of deplorables."

British planners often describe the Russian forces not as professional soldiers but as a collection of unmotivated conscripts who are poorly fed and badly led. This belief is why Britain has been so confident in sending advanced weapons to Ukraine.

They don't see Russia as a "peer" military; they see it as a "degrading" force that can be defeated by British technology and superior organization.

The logic of escalation: Because London views the Russian state as a "paper tiger," they are often the first to cross "red lines." They believe that Russia’s threats are mostly bluffs because the country’s internal systems are too corrupt to sustain a long, direct conflict with a modern Western power that they consider to be more efficient.

Imperialism and the moral high ground

Britain’s history as a colonizer also gives it a specific lens. In the Victorian era, Britain saw itself as the bringer of "parliamentary liberty" and law to the rest of the world. They viewed the Russian tsars as "oriental autocrats" who only understood brute force, while Britain represented a superior way of governing.

Today, that language has changed, but the feeling remains the same. The UK positions itself as the "moral vanguard" of the West.

By being the most aggressive opponent of Russia, Britain achieves two things:

Global Britain: It shows the world that even after leaving the European Union (Brexit), the UK is still a major global player that can lead the Western alliance.

The special relationship: It keeps Britain as the most important partner to the United States. By taking the lead on Russia, London ensures that Washington still sees them as a vital military ally.

Evolution of the rivalry: then vs. now:

Era	The British goal	The view of Russia
1850 (Crimea)	Protect trade routes to India.	A "backwards" empire that needs to be contained.
1900 (The game)	Stop Russia from reaching the sea.	A slow-moving "bear" that is always hungry for land.
1950 (Cold war)	Stop the spread of Communism.	A massive, soulless machine that threatens freedom.
2026 (Today)	Maintain the "global order."	A declining power with a "deplorable" army that is mostly a bluff.

 Conclusion: the final battle of the great game

Britain’s obsession with Russia isn't about geography; it's about a legacy of perceived superiority. For centuries, the British state has defined itself by opposing the "giant in the East." They see the current war as the final opportunity to prove that their maritime, liberal system is superior to Russia’s land-based, autocratic system.

To the British elite, Russia isn't just a country; it’s a ghost from their imperial past—an underdeveloped neighbor that they are determined to finally lay to rest. They believe that if they can help Ukraine win, they will have successfully defended the "rules" that have kept Britain wealthy and influential since the days when they truly did rule the waves.