A sweeping new international survey has uncovered a profound shift in public sentiment across major Western democracies, with citizens increasingly convinced that the world is careening toward a third global war. The poll, commissioned by POLITICO and executed by the independent research firm Public First, reveals that voters in four out of five allied nations now view the outbreak of World War III as more probable than not within the next five years.
The research, conducted between February 6-9 through interviews with over 2,000 registered voters in each country, paints a sobering picture of deteriorating confidence in international stability. The five nations surveyed—the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, and Germany—represent the core of the Western alliance, making their collective anxiety particularly significant for policymakers.
The most dramatic finding concerns the accelerating fear of global conflict. When asked about the likelihood of World War III breaking out by 2031, respondents in the United States, Canada, France, and Britain all indicated that such a scenario appears more likely than unlikely. Only German voters maintained a more sanguine outlook, representing a notable outlier among the surveyed populations.
The United Kingdom experienced the most striking surge in concern. Forty-three percent of British respondents now consider a new world war "likely" or "very likely" within the next five years, a dramatic increase from the 30% who held that view in March 2025. This 13-percentage-point jump suggests the British public has undergone a fundamental reassessment of global security risks in less than a year.
The United States showed a similar, though slightly less pronounced, trajectory. Forty-six percent of American voters now anticipate a global conflict, up from 38% in the previous survey. This increase likely reflects the country's direct involvement in multiple international military engagements and the central role American power plays in global security calculations.
France and Canada also registered significant majorities viewing world war as a credible threat, while Germany's skepticism stands in stark contrast. This German divergence may reflect the nation's unique historical relationship with military conflict and its traditionally cautious approach to defense matters, though it also raises questions about transatlantic alignment on threat perception.
The Defense Spending Conundrum
While security fears have clearly intensified, the poll exposes a critical paradox that complicates policy responses. Although voters express broad support for increased defense spending in principle, that backing evaporates when confronted with the practical trade-offs required to fund such increases.
Initial questioning in the U.K., France, Germany, and Canada revealed widespread approval for boosting military budgets. However, when researchers presented the same respondents with potential funding mechanisms—higher taxes, reduced public services, or increased government debt—support collapsed dramatically.
Seb Wride, who leads polling efforts at Public First, described this dynamic as a fundamental constraint on political leadership. "Our polling shows the growing concern about war does not give leaders license to spend heavily on defense," he observed. "If anything, voters are now less willing to make the trade-offs needed to improve military security."
This creates what Wride terms a "bind" for European leaders. They face an increasingly dangerous security environment with diminished confidence in American security guarantees, yet they cannot leverage public fear to justify major defense investments. The traditional political formula—rallying public support through threat awareness—appears to be breaking down.
Implications for NATO and Global Security
The findings arrive at a pivotal moment for the Western alliance. As policymakers from across the globe prepare to gather at the annual Munich Security Conference, they must confront this gap between threat perception and policy willingness. The conference, which begins Friday, will address precisely these dilemmas against a backdrop of ongoing Russian aggression in Ukraine and expanded U.S. military operations across multiple theaters.
The poll results highlight NATO's core challenge: the alliance requires substantial investment to meet evolving threats, but member state publics show limited appetite for the necessary budgetary sacrifices. With public finances already constrained across most Western democracies, leaders lack both the fiscal space and political mandate for major military buildup.
The survey also illuminates how specific geopolitical developments shape public opinion. Russia's four-year all-out war against Ukraine continues with no resolution in sight, serving as a constant reminder of conventional military threats to European security. Meanwhile, U.S. military actions under President Donald Trump in Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and Africa have expanded America's global military footprint, potentially contributing to American voters' heightened threat perception.
Country-Specific Patterns and Political Dynamics
The American response reflects the unique position of a global superpower directly engaged in multiple conflicts. With 46% of U.S. respondents anticipating world war, the American public shows the highest baseline concern among the surveyed nations, likely influenced by the country's active military operations and polarized domestic political discourse around foreign policy.
British voters demonstrated the most volatile shift, with their 13-point increase suggesting a population rapidly reassessing long-held assumptions about national security. This transformation may reflect intensifying media coverage of global conflicts and growing uncertainty about Britain's post-Brexit role in international security architecture.
French and Canadian majorities similarly view global war as increasingly probable, indicating a broad-based transatlantic consensus on deteriorating security—except in Germany. The German outlier status could complicate EU defense initiatives, as Berlin's cautious approach may clash with more alarmist positions from Paris and other European capitals.
The Trade-Off Problem and Fiscal Reality
At the heart of the poll's findings lies a fundamental tension between security priorities and economic constraints. Western voters appear to want enhanced protection without accepting the associated costs. This suggests that traditional funding mechanisms for defense buildup—tax increases, spending cuts elsewhere, or debt accumulation—lack democratic legitimacy.
The political implications are profound. Leaders cannot simply invoke external threats to justify defense spending, as voters increasingly connect such spending to personal financial sacrifice. This may force policymakers toward more creative solutions, such as defense bonds, private-public partnerships, or efficiency measures that deliver more capability for less money.
Alternatively, governments may need to engage in more honest public conversations about the true costs of security, attempting to build sustainable consensus rather than relying on temporary threat-driven support. The Munich Security Conference provides an ideal forum for such discussions, though the poll suggests any resulting initiatives will face skeptical publics.
The Broader Democratic Challenge
This situation illuminates a deeper challenge within Western democracies. The poll suggests that crisis-driven governance may be losing its effectiveness as a tool for mobilizing public resources. Voters have become more sophisticated in connecting policy proposals to personal impact, and more resistant to what they perceive as fear-based appeals for spending.
This evolution in public attitudes could have far-reaching consequences beyond defense policy. It may signal a broader skepticism toward government initiatives that require significant public sacrifice, whether for climate change, infrastructure, or social programs. Leaders may need to develop new frameworks for building public consensus around national priorities.
The Munich Conference as a Testing Ground
The upcoming Munich Security Conference will serve as an early test of whether Western leaders understand and can respond to this new political reality. Traditional speeches emphasizing external threats may no longer suffice to build domestic support for alliance commitments.
Instead, policymakers might need to present concrete, costed proposals that demonstrate value for money and minimize public sacrifice. This could include emphasizing burden-sharing within NATO, highlighting economic benefits of defense spending, or proposing innovative financing mechanisms that separate military investment from immediate fiscal pain.
Conclusion: A Democratic Dilemma
The POLITICO Poll ultimately reveals a Western electorate caught between two powerful impulses: growing fear of global conflict and steadfast resistance to the sacrifices required for preparation. This creates a democratic dilemma for leaders who must balance legitimate security concerns against public fiscal preferences.
As global tensions continue to escalate across multiple fronts, this gap between threat perception and policy support may become the defining challenge for Western democracies. The poll suggests that simply raising awareness of dangers proves insufficient to mobilize public resources for defense. Instead, leaders must craft more sophisticated arguments and potentially innovative funding approaches to bridge the divide between what voters fear and what they are willing to pay for.
The coming years will test whether Western political systems can adapt to this new reality—maintaining credible deterrence while respecting democratic constraints on military spending. The Munich conference may offer early indications of whether leaders have grasped the depth of this challenge and developed strategies to address it.