KEY POINTS
- Large scale war has emerged as a leading global risk in the 2026 UN assessment.
- Thirty six per cent of respondents expect its effects to reach a significant share of humanity within one year.
- Political risks have overtaken other concerns in the latest assessment.
- Climate inaction remains the most important risk overall.
- Respondents identified stronger cooperation between governments as the most effective response.
MAIN STORY
The risk of a large scale war has risen sharply on the global risk agenda, with more than one third of experts surveyed by the United Nations expecting its effects to reach a significant share of humanity within a year.
The finding is contained in the UN Global Risk Report 2026, based on the views of 1,300 stakeholders across 155 countries. Participants from government, international organisations, civil society, the private sector and academia assessed 28 political, economic, environmental, societal and technological risks according to their likelihood, potential impact and the preparedness of the international system to respond.
The UN said political risks have moved to the centre of the global risk landscape, with large scale war and geopolitical tensions becoming considerably more prominent than they were two years ago.
The report found that large scale war moved 16 places higher in the rankings, representing the biggest rise recorded among the risks assessed. Thirty six per cent of respondents said they expected its effects to affect a significant share of humanity within one year, while 76 per cent expected such an impact within seven years.
UN Secretary General António Guterres said the findings showed a shift in the way global risks are perceived, with the prospect of large scale conflict now regarded as both more important and more immediate.
The report also found that large scale war and geopolitical tensions now feature among the 10 most significant risks in all seven regions covered by the survey and among the top five in six regions.
Weapons of mass destruction also entered the top 10 in Central and Southern Asia, Sub Saharan Africa and Oceania.
At the same time, concerns about artificial intelligence and other frontier technologies have increased, particularly over the concentration of power that they could create. AI related risks have entered the top 10 in Europe and North America, while respondents also expressed concern about a global financial crisis and the growing influence of technology companies in Eastern and South Eastern Asia.
The shift in perceived risks has also affected health concerns. Pandemics and biological threats have fallen out of the top 10 across all regions, after ranking among the leading concerns in several regions two years earlier.
The report links several of the risks together, arguing that resource shortages, economic fragmentation, misinformation and weakening multilateral institutions can intensify geopolitical tensions and increase the risk of large scale conflict.
Of the 705 connections between different risks identified through the survey, the strongest was the relationship between geopolitical tension and large scale war.
Climate change remains a major concern despite the shift towards geopolitical risks. Inaction on climate change was rated the most important of the 28 risks overall, while resource shortages also remained prominent across regions.
The report cautioned that declining attention to some environmental risks should not be interpreted as evidence that those risks have become less dangerous. Reduced visibility can also result in lower funding for risk reduction.
Respondents identified weak governance and coordination, limited political consensus, declining trust and accountability, poor prioritisation and gaps in data among the major barriers to effective risk management.
Funding was another concern, with 86 per cent of respondents saying available financing for risk reduction was insufficient.
The UN stressed that the report measures perceptions rather than predicting future events. It found that cooperation between governments continues to be viewed as the most effective means of preventing and managing global risks.
THE ISSUES
- The growing prominence of geopolitical risks indicates that international security concerns are increasingly competing with environmental and health threats for attention and resources.
- The connection between different risks means that a major conflict could interact with existing pressures such as resource shortages, economic fragmentation, misinformation and weakened international institutions.
- The rise in technology related concerns shows that the risks associated with artificial intelligence are extending beyond the technology itself to questions about power, governance and institutional preparedness.
- The fall in the ranking of pandemics and some environmental risks does not necessarily indicate reduced danger. The report warns that declining attention can also affect the funding available for preparedness and prevention.
- The gap between the risks identified and the resources available to manage them remains a major challenge, with most respondents saying funding for risk reduction is insufficient.
WHAT’S BEING SAID
“The findings are sobering. Political risks have moved centre stage. The prospect of large scale war is seen as far more important and far more immediate than it was two years ago.” – António Guterres, UN Secretary General
“At the same time, the institutions expected to respond are seen as less able to act.” – António Guterres, UN Secretary General
“The choice is ours.” – António Guterres, UN Secretary General
WHAT’S NEXT
The UN report calls for stronger international cooperation, improved governance and greater investment in risk reduction. Respondents continue to regard coordinated action between governments as the most effective way to prevent and manage major global risks.
BOTTOM LINE
The 2026 UN Global Risk Report shows a sharp rise in concern over large scale war, with geopolitical tensions now occupying a central position in global risk assessments. The report also warns that weaker institutions, inadequate funding and fragmented international action could make it harder to manage interconnected threats.
