On Tuesday 28th July 2026 Politics in Pubs Manchester met to discuss whether a third world war is inevitable.  We were delighted to welcome one of our members, Joan, to introduce this topic and lead the discussion.

Introduction

Joan began by illustrating how the political rhetoric on readiness for war has become more forceful in recent years.  Since late 2024 the head of NATO, Mark Rutte, has been saying that NATO members must “shift to a war-time mindset and turbo charge defence spending”. He has said several times since that NATO must become “more lethal”.  In the year since, politicians and the media have broadly voiced agreement – with the only official debate being about how quickly we can reach NATO’s target of 5% spending of GDP on defence.

We are told we are already at war – and there is truth in that as the Ukraine war has increasingly become NATO’s proxy war with Russia and US planes and bombs fly from British bases.  Are we being pressured into the inevitability of World War 3?  Should we question why we must join that war?  We are living in dangerous times but let’s take time to ask who wants such a war and why. And what our – the people that live here in Britain – response should be.

World War increasingly likely

A UK survey in 2024 reported that 53% of respondents felt that a World War is likely in the next five to ten years.  In 2026, following an international poll, Politico reported that the vast majority of respondents felt that a World War was increasingly likely.  The amplified political language of force and lethality is being accompanied by government plans to increase spending on defence by £298bn 0ver the next 4 years to create ‘war-fighting readiness’ by 2035.  This includes spending on nuclear weapons, AI, and homeland security.  According to the Stockholm International Peace Reasearch Institute the countries who spent the most on defence in 2025 are, in order of expenditure, the US, China, Russia, Germany, India and the UK.  TheUS spent $954bn, more than the other five countries combined. The UK was the sixth highest spender in the world, spending $89bn dollars – more than Ukraine (£84.1bn).  According to the European Policy Centre EU countries, collectively, spend more than China and Russia combined. These figures may come as a surprise to some people listening to media coverage of the UK’s defence spending.

Have recent wars solved anything?

Britain’s recent involvement in conflicts with Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan haven’t solved anything – they only succeeded in making things worse.  Our involvement came at a great cost to Britain, with the loss of British lives and many physical and psychological injuries to some of its personnel.  Would another war be any different? We are currently sending some of our precious few troops away to Estonia. In the meantime, while our government may consider that it is preparing for war, it is failing to enhance Britain’s food and energy security – essential for a nation’s survival whether or not it is in a state of conflict.

Undermining sovereignty

Earlier this year, the EU proposed a security financing mechanism offering billions in defence loans to its members.  The bill was vetoed by Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki, who argued that the loans would threaten Poland’s sovereignty and lead to long term debt (Poland would be required to pay back twice as much as they borrowed).  Why is the EU attempting to push this loan scheme at such unfavourable terms to its members?  (NB Our political leaders have been less canny than Poland’s, signing Britain up to procurement contracts under the EU’s multi-billion ‘Ukraine Support Loan’ initiative instead of exercising its sovereign right to deal directly with Ukraine.  Our sovereignty is undermined further by trade agreements which stipulate that other nations must be allowed to bid for British government procurement contracts in spite of the recent disingenuous pronouncements by Rachel Reeves and John Healy to ‘Buy British’).

Richard North has recently written on ‘Defence: the Reality Gap‘, highlighting that any base used to launch missiles against Iran is regarded by them as a legitimate target.  North observes that the UK is now fundamentally exposed as a target – not because of direct action against Iran but because of arrangements with NATO allies to use our bases. Of the £298bn that the government plans to add to defence spending over the next four years only £790 million will be spent “to enhance protection of the UK homeland and overseas bases from air, drone and missile threats. That is less than 0.3% of the total and it has to cover not just the UK but basa abroad.

Conclusion

We need to be able to defend our country robustly – that is absolutely true.  But Britain appears to be spending its defence budget attaining a war ready lethal attack mode aimed at war overseas rather than building the defences we need here to defend our own nation.  The unanswered question is – why?  Has World War Three already been determined?

Discussion

Q. Isn’t having good defences a proactive course of action, whereas failing to do so is passive?

A.  Yes but Britain is not even spending a significant part of its defence budget in this country – it is being spent abroad, which doesn’t serve Britain’s national interest.

Q.  When looking at this question we should be looking at who is aggressor – is it Iran, Russia, China?  Trump was right when he said NATO allies should spend 5% of GDP on defence.

A.  Russia, China and Iran are definitely aggressors, and enemies of Britain.

Q. What does world war mean?  World Wars 1 and 2 were very different from one another.  World War 3 would probably be the West against radical Islam.  The political rhetoric we are hearing about tonight involves disinformation and corruption but the question we should really be concerned about is who is siding with the opposition and undermining our defence capability?  World War 3 if it happens will be a cyber war enabling global corporations to take money from the tax payer.

A. War is not inevitable but it is clear that the stage is being set.  The more we signal that we are the aggressor, the more instability and tension is created.  When talking about Islam it is important to note that not all factions agree with its aggression towards the West.

Q.  Britain hasn’t had an independent foreign policy since World War 2.  At least Trump has made Europe think about its defence.  Britain should always consider its own interests before engaging in conflict and shouldn’t take part in foreign interventions.  There is a democratic deficit in our defence plan – Britain can’t even use its own nuclear weapon without US agreement.  What aren’t we re-arming our Navy?  Why do we only have 75,000 troops?  The end of the US’s hegemony is approaching and it probably can’t be handed over without some kind of war event.  But Britain should stay out of it and focus on its own defence.

A.  Agree – we do not have our own policy, it is tied to other nations.  What should our policy be?  We should talk about it.

Q.  What is more imminent – civil war in Britain or World War 3?  The youth of Britain don’t want to fight – there is nothing to fight for.

A.. People are not seeing a logic to the argument for World War.

C.  The increase in defence spending is not just about looking aggressive, it’s to keep our own territory safe.  At the end of World War 2 we were in hock to the US.  Is World War 3 inevitable?  I hope not – diplomacy could be the answer but it is all very worrying.

C.  Which country has used nuclear weapons – the US.  America undermines us too.  Why do we not have control over our own nuclear weapon – what if we wanted to use it against America?  We are spending a lot on our commitments to the Commonwealth but we don’t seem to be getting much in return.

C.  The corruption of the state in league with big corporations is clear to see.  First they stoke false fear then they respond with big spending.  Our armed forces are out of date: if Britain is attacked by Iran it will be via low tech means – a drone, for example.  In the meantime, China is buying up all the resources needed to control the manufacture of microchips and lithium batteries needed in high tech equipment, weakening the West’s position even further.

C.  There are bad guys on the side of our enemies but also on our side.

C.  There will definitely be a World War 3 – the question is when.  Young people definitely have no appetite for conflict and little national pride – evident even in those who are enlisted with the Air Cadets and the TA.

C.  World War 3 is not inevitable but our current circumstances make it more likely.  Economic woes are probably one of the drivers – talk of war is a distraction technique.  The AI bubble is likely to crash with a lot of investments wiped out.

C.  A lot of things are converging.  A financial crash is likely.  We need an independent foreign policy focused upon defending our island.

C.  Where are the tensions/frictions leading to a military crisis?  Where is the emerging power?  Before World War 1, German economic power needed more resources in order to expand but was constrained, leading to tensions.  Our ruling class are like the Vichy government – gutless.

C.  Britain needs to pull back on Foreign Aid.

C.  Loss of democracy will be the first of the dominoes to fall, leading to civil war or world wide conflict.

C.  We have never really had true democracy but the contempt from the educated for the rest of us is now obvious.  War doesn’t benefit the people but sometime it is inevitable and necessary e.g . the English Civil War.  We just need to recognise the forces at play.

C.  We are currently witnessing a ‘pre-war’ event and the outcome will determine whether there is a World War.

Politics in Pubs would like to thank Joan for leading the discussion on whether World War 3 is inevitable.  Thanks also to our excellent hosts at The Welcome Inn.  Cheers all! 

Upcoming events

All our future events are advertised here: Upcoming Events.