By who? Did you even open your own link? They rank below the global powerhouse Indonesian Navy.

Yeah, because Indonesia has a really substantial greenwater fleet. You can look at other rankings, if you prefer:

https://www.globalmilitary.net/navies/gbr/
globalfirepower.com - Navy force by tonnage

The point is that you keep asserting that the UK has very little military power left, but that's contradicted by every analysis out there that assesses the comparative strength of global military powers. How is that possible?

I used your data and assertions and proved that friggin' Poland has almost as much stuff as the three countries you assert are just totally awesome *combined*.

No, they don't. As I pointed out upthread, those three countries have annual military expenditures of $340 billion, compared to $57 billion for Poland. They have 600K active duty military personnel, compared to 220K for Poland. They have 2,200 military aircraft, compared to 450 for Poland. They have 300 naval vessels, compared to 45 for Poland.

That's nowhere near "almost as much stuff." Those figures show those nations are, unsurprisingly, contributing many multiples of resources to national defense than Poland is. You're not "proving" anything, just ignoring the data and information, and mistakenly thinking that it shows something that it doesn't.

The Brits have 2 aircraft carriers. One is laid up in the yard. The other can't be deployed because they don't have the ability to provide escorts.

Which would be much more of an issue if the British Navy needed to operate a major military operation requiring a carrier in complete isolation. Fortunately for them, they don't need to, since their forces are going to operated in tandem with those of other military allies. Once more, these countries' militaries are not designed to be complete standalone military forces, but rather to work in concert in collective defense.