If it was wanted to refer to the English, who are closest to the ones 'running' the Economist and FT (lol), then one should say English.
Let's switch it over to talk about Russians, but replace for them the word Slav, which is also a real word. To say, "Slavs trying to undermine the EU with their backroom corruption and espionage, long standing tradition." would be 1) weird 2) pretty racist and 3) the word Slav would sound like a slur.
It means Brits + Americans (and occasionally other anglophone countries too), no reason to overthink it. To be fair, I should have added the NYTimes to that list because it very much belongs to it.
I understand you :) Now I'm overthinking, What's in a name? Maybe whether it's 'slurrish' has to do with the assumed tone of voice it was written in. On the one hand, it's a great word, exactly as you said, on the other, I've heard Russian propagandists use it and really _mean_ it in an ugly way. Anyways, it's not important and I feel I've over stayed my welcome.
Let's switch it over to talk about Russians, but replace for them the word Slav, which is also a real word. To say, "Slavs trying to undermine the EU with their backroom corruption and espionage, long standing tradition." would be 1) weird 2) pretty racist and 3) the word Slav would sound like a slur.