This is absolute nonsense. First, it was Trump who originally negotiated the Afghanistan withdrawal, and the UK was not in favour then and they are not now. Second, the UK Conservative Party has very little shared ideology with the Trumpian worldview—with the exception of a resistance to identity politics, most Tories have far more in common with centrist Dems than with Republicans of any stripe, still less Trump-style republicanism. Third, although it's often been said, Johnson is not a British Trump—he's an altogether different character and his politics are far to the left of Trump's.

Did you bother to read the article, or did you simply decide to take the headline here on HN personally and then respond snidely? Did that somehow improve matters? Did it help re-inflate the stature of your great land?

"Wallace started by saying: “It is obvious that Britain is not a superpower,” before appearing to switch focus to the US." ... "a superpower that is also not prepared to stick at something isn’t probably a superpower either. It is certainly not a global force, it’s just a big power”.

Well, compared to 95% of countries the UK is. You've got the US as top dog, an unproven China, and Russia able to act with impunity in their back yard but nowhere else. Then you've got the UK and France, able to project solid power anywhere that isn't landlocked, and quite a few that are.

Yes, neither is Canada. In our case we're still inexorably bound to the US's interests and there's not much to do, really. It's not a measuring contest here. It's dealing with the new realities. The UK is not as nearly bound to the USA. If they wish to retain autonomy, security, and also influence in the 21st century despite their small stature, they may need a new strategy if the sun is setting on their closest ally's empire. Especially if said ally is prone to fits like recently happened regarding their dependability. (I still can't fathom why the the UK would choose to leave the EU at this delicate point where mid-sized democratic powers need every friend they can get.)

The UK is much less than a super power, but it is more capable of projecting power globally than most middle-ranking countries, largely because of the Royal Navy.

Yes. It takes one to know one, after all.

This is exactly the point the article is making.

> Those close to the defence secretary acknowledged that his remarks could be read as being aimed at the US. An insider argued that the British minister was emphasising the importance of political will as well as sheer military power.

It now doesn't matter as much how much of GDP you spend on military but also political power as well.

Well, that position was held by the British Empire until the Second World War, and look where they are now.

The US is able to print more money than anyone else because it is the reserve currency right now. The rest of the world pays for it...

Ministers can redefine the word superpower, and you can downvote me, but with it being defined as, "A superpower is a state with a dominant position characterized by its extensive ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale."[1] the US still is in that set of countries with extensive influence.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower