Gordon Brown has warned the Doomsday Clock is ticking (Image: Getty)
Fears of a third world war are stronger than at any time since the 1960s, former prime minister Gordon Brown has warned. He said the “doomsday clock”, which indicates how close humanity is to a global catastrophe, is “moving ever closer to midnight”. And he warned that Russia and China, along with the US under Donald Trump’s leadership, had abandoned international law to create a world “where might is deemed right and brute force dominates”.
But Mr Brown also named the countries he believed could provide the leadership the world needs. The verdict came after a Kremlin adviser threatened “semi-military action” against the UK in retaliation for Britain’s support of Ukraine. Andrei Fedorov, a former deputy foreign minister of Russia, said British drone factories could be targeted. Russia’s attempted invasion of its neighbour is just one of the conflicts with global implications taking place today.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more Invalid email
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
Mr Trump has threatened “economic D-Day” on Iran, after military action failed to topple its regime, but his threat to impose sanctions against countries doing business with the Islamic Republic prompted concern in China, one of Iran’s major trading partners. China also claims ownership of Taiwan, which the US is committed to protecting.
Mr Brown raised the spectre of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when the world came close to nuclear war. In an essay published by The Guardian, he said: “Now, more than at any time since the 1960s Cuban Missile Crisis, the European public fears a third world war.
“With the nuclear Doomsday Clock developed by atomic scientists moving ever closer to midnight, and Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Poland and Germany contemplating either acquiring nuclear weapons or siting them on their soil, our world is descending from a rules-based order to a power-based one, where might is deemed right and brute force dominates.”
But the former prime minister said surveys of public opinion across the globe found people were looking to nations including Canada, Australia, Italy, Japan, the UK, France, Brazil and South Korea to provide leadership where the great powers failed. The findings are included in his book, The Future Starts With Us, published on September 1.
Russia’s threats against the UK are nothing new, but should be taken seriously, according to Solomiya Khoma, co-founder and head of international co-operation at the Ukrainian Security and Co-operation Centre, a major Ukraine-based think tank.
Get the latest politics news straight to your phone Join us on WhatsApp
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
She said: “Russia has long been engaged in hybrid activities against NATO member states, while Russian propaganda has systematically promoted anti-Western narratives, a campaign that began long before the full-scale invasion.
“In particular, Russian propagandists have openly threatened London during television broadcasts, including as far back as 2022.
“The Kremlin regards the United Kingdom as one of its key adversaries, as Britain understands the strategic intentions of the Russian leadership better than many of its European partners.
“Therefore, we can expect further attempts at disruptive influence, including acts of sabotage, cyberattacks and information operations, while the prospect of direct military aggression appears significantly less likely.”
Meanwhile, mystery surrounds a visit to Moscow this week by John Ratcliffe, head of the US Central Intelligence Agency. Ms Khoma said: “The CIA director’s visit to Moscow is an extraordinary event given Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in recent years.
“The head of the US intelligence agency last visited Russia in November 2021 to warn Moscow of the consequences of a possible invasion of Ukraine. The current meeting may also have served as a warning to the Russian side regarding the consequences of continuing aggression against Ukraine, as well as possible plans for further escalation – both against Ukraine and against European countries.
“At the same time, the CIA director may have presented US proposals to Russian officials regarding the parameters and prospects of the negotiation process. If such proposals were indeed put forward, this could indicate a strengthening of the US’s role as a mediator. Washington is demonstrating its readiness to convey directly to the Russian leadership the possible consequences of refusing to engage in substantive and genuine negotiations.”
Gordon Brown Delivers Terrifying World War Three Warning – But There Is Hope
Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has issued a stark warning about the growing danger of a major global conflict, arguing that the world is entering a period of instability that should not be ignored. His concerns come at a time when international tensions are rising, wars are continuing in several regions and confidence in the global system of cooperation is weakening. For many people, the idea of a possible Third World War is deeply frightening. Yet Brown’s message is not simply one of fear. Alongside his warnings, he offers an argument for hope: international cooperation, stronger communities and a renewed commitment to democratic values could still prevent the world from descending into wider conflict.
Brown’s warning is particularly significant because of his long experience in international politics. During his time as Prime Minister, he dealt with major economic and geopolitical crises, and since leaving office he has remained active in international affairs. His latest arguments focus on what he sees as the weakening of the rules and institutions that were created to prevent countries from resolving disputes through uncontrolled confrontation.
The greatest danger, according to this perspective, is not necessarily that governments suddenly decide to begin a world war. Instead, a series of smaller conflicts and political crises could gradually become connected. When powerful countries support opposing sides, increase military spending, threaten one another or abandon diplomatic agreements, the possibility of miscalculation becomes greater. A conflict that begins in one region can therefore create consequences far beyond its original borders.
The war in Ukraine is an obvious example of how a regional conflict can have global implications. Russia’s invasion has created a confrontation between Moscow and Ukraine while also placing enormous pressure on relations between Russia and Western countries. European governments have increased defence spending and provided military assistance to Ukraine, while Russia has repeatedly criticised Western involvement. Brown has warned that Ukraine is approaching another extremely difficult period and has urged its allies to provide greater support while simultaneously avoiding a direct war between NATO and Russia.
This balance is extremely difficult. Countries supporting Ukraine want to prevent Russian aggression from succeeding, but they also have to consider the possibility that direct confrontation between nuclear-armed powers could produce catastrophic consequences. The challenge for policymakers is therefore to demonstrate strength without allowing escalation to become uncontrollable.
Nuclear weapons make today’s international environment especially dangerous. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union understood that a direct nuclear confrontation could destroy both sides. That reality helped create a system of deterrence and diplomatic communication. Today, however, the international environment is becoming more complicated. Several countries possess nuclear weapons, while others are considering whether they need stronger military capabilities.
Brown’s concerns extend beyond individual conflicts. He believes that the international rules-based order itself is under pressure. Institutions designed to encourage cooperation between countries have become increasingly difficult to operate effectively. Major powers sometimes ignore international rules when those rules conflict with their national interests, while smaller countries can feel that the global system does not protect them equally.
If international institutions become weaker, there is a greater risk that countries will rely on military strength rather than negotiation. History demonstrates how dangerous this can be. The two world wars of the twentieth century were not caused by one single event. They emerged from a combination of rivalries, nationalism, insecurity, military competition and diplomatic failures. Brown’s warning is therefore partly about learning from history before similar patterns become impossible to control.
However, the most important part of his message is that disaster is not inevitable.
Brown argues that there remains a strong desire among ordinary people around the world for cooperation. Despite political divisions, many citizens continue to support international efforts to protect human rights, reduce poverty, address climate change and prevent conflict. This suggests that governments are not necessarily representative of the most extreme political attitudes within their societies.
That creates a reason for optimism.
One of Brown’s central ideas is that stronger communities can contribute to a more stable world. People who feel connected to their communities may be less vulnerable to political extremism and social division. Local organisations, charities, schools and community groups can help rebuild trust between people who otherwise have little contact with one another.
This may appear unrelated to the threat of global war, but the connection is important. International stability depends partly on domestic political stability. When citizens lose trust in democratic institutions, they can become more attracted to authoritarian leaders or extremist movements. When societies become deeply divided, politicians may find it easier to blame foreigners or international organisations for domestic problems.
Nationalism can become especially powerful during periods of economic uncertainty. If people feel that they have been ignored or left behind, they may become suspicious of international cooperation and believe that their country should act entirely alone. Brown’s argument is that this approach ultimately makes the world less secure rather than more secure.
International cooperation does not mean that countries must surrender their national identities. Instead, it means recognising that certain problems cannot be solved by one country acting alone. Climate change, pandemics, financial instability, cyber threats and nuclear proliferation all cross national borders. War is another example. Even countries geographically distant from a conflict can experience consequences through energy prices, food supplies, migration and economic disruption.
Britain therefore has an important role to play. As a major economy and a significant military power, the UK can contribute to international security while supporting diplomacy. Brown believes that countries such as Britain should work with allies to strengthen international institutions rather than abandoning them when they become difficult to manage.
The United Nations and other international organisations may have serious weaknesses, but the alternative to imperfect cooperation is not necessarily better. Without mechanisms for negotiation, countries have fewer opportunities to resolve disputes peacefully. Reforming international institutions may therefore be more productive than simply dismissing them.
Brown’s message also contains a warning to political leaders. They should not underestimate the consequences of inflammatory rhetoric. When leaders describe opponents as enemies, reject compromise and present international relations as a permanent struggle between winners and losers, they can make peaceful solutions more difficult.
Diplomacy requires patience. It does not always produce immediate results, and agreements can appear unsatisfactory because both sides have to compromise. Nevertheless, diplomacy can prevent disagreements from becoming wars. In a nuclear age, that function is more important than ever.
There is also a responsibility for ordinary citizens. People may feel powerless when confronted with geopolitical tensions, but democratic societies are shaped by the attitudes and choices of their populations. Citizens can reject political extremism, support constructive debate and demand responsible leadership. They can also strengthen their own communities by participating in local organisations and helping people who are isolated or vulnerable.
This is where Brown’s warning becomes more hopeful. The future is not predetermined. The world may be facing serious dangers, but the existence of danger does not mean catastrophe is unavoidable.
The choice between confrontation and cooperation remains open.
Governments can choose to invest in diplomacy instead of relying exclusively on military pressure. Countries can strengthen international agreements rather than abandoning them. Political leaders can encourage citizens to work together rather than exploiting social divisions. Communities can rebuild trust at the local level, creating stronger foundations for democratic institutions at the national and international levels.