The Munich Security Report 2025 comes in a turbulent global context, where trends toward a multipolar world are increasing, offering both opportunities and challenges. The report examines these transformations, starting with internal divisions in major countries, shifting strategies of emerging powers, and the future of the international system amid escalating geopolitical competition. The main themes explored in the report include the waning unipolarity of the post-Cold War world, the competition between democratic and so-called “autocratic” governance models, and the implications of global ideological polarization.
The report also examines the role of economic interdependence in shaping geopolitical decisions, emphasizing that while globalization remains a significant force, the fragmentation of supply chains and economic nationalism are creating new uncertainties. The rise of nationalist policies and trade protectionism in various countries is exacerbating geopolitical rifts, making cooperation on pressing global challenges more difficult. The decline in multilateralism and the weakening of global institutions, including the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), further complicate the international landscape.
The Concept and Development of Multipolarity
The report indicates that “multipolarity” is no longer just a theory but has become a tangible reality, with an increasing number of international actors capable of influencing global issues. This is evident in the growing roles of nations like China, India, and Brazil, alongside other regional powers seeking to increase their influence on the global stage. However, the report highlights that this transition is not smooth, as it is accompanied by power struggles and increasing tensions among major players. Additionally, the rise of multipolarity is leading to ideological conflicts between competing governance models, affecting global cooperation on issues such as climate change, economic regulation, and security alliances.
The transition to a multipolar world is also reshaping traditional alliances and regional dynamics. As new poles of power emerge, longstanding strategic partnerships are being reconsidered. The report notes that countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America are increasingly pursuing non-alignment policies, seeking to maximize benefits from multiple competing powers rather than aligning strictly with the U.S. or China. This trend reflects a broader strategic recalibration, where regional players assert greater autonomy in global affairs.
The Impact of Multipolarity on Global Stability
The report presents two main perspectives on the impact of multipolarity on global stability:
- Optimistic View: Sees multipolarity as an opportunity to build a more inclusive and fair international system, lessening U.S. dominance and allowing other states to participate in global decision-making. According to this viewpoint, a multipolar world could foster economic diversification, diplomatic engagement, and a reduction in unilateral interventions by dominant powers. Advocates of this view suggest that increased geopolitical competition could lead to more balanced negotiations in international institutions, preventing any single country from dictating global norms unilaterally.
- Pessimistic View: Argues that multipolarity leads to more chaos and conflicts, making it harder to reach international agreements due to differing strategic agendas among rising powers. The report highlights how global governance structures, such as the UN Security Council and international financial institutions, are facing challenges in adapting to a world where power is more diffused. Additionally, multipolar competition increases the risk of military confrontations, trade wars, and regional instability, especially in conflict-prone areas such as Eastern Europe, the South China Sea, and the Middle East.
Munich Security Index 2025
The report cites findings from the Munich Security Index (MSI) 2025, an annual index that measures global risk perceptions across different countries. The MSI is built on five key metrics: the overall perception of risk, expectations of whether the risk will increase or decrease, the anticipated severity of damage if the risk materializes, the imminence of the threat, and the level of preparedness in each country. The final index score, ranging from 0 to 100, provides a comprehensive view of how different demographics and nations perceive risks over time.
The MSI 2025 reveals that the G7 and BICS (BRICS minus Russia) countries have a growing difference in their perceptions of geopolitical threats. While both groups express significant concerns about non-traditional risks, such as cyberattacks, economic crises, and environmental threats, their views on major powers differ greatly. Among G7 nations, the perceived risks posed by Russia and Iran have increased the most since 2021, whereas concerns about China have stayed mostly the same. In contrast, respondents in BICS countries see China as significantly less of a threat than they did four years ago, with its position dropping 16 places in the risk index since 2021. Meanwhile, Russia and Iran continue to be perceived as among the least threatening risks in these countries.
The report registers an overall increase in risk perception, with 20 indicators rising, 10 decreasing, and 2 remaining steady. Notably, the perceived risk posed by the United States surged in several G7 nations, especially Germany and Canada, as well as in India, following the election of U.S. President Donald Trump. In China and Brazil, perceptions of the U.S. as a risk remained stable, while in South Africa, the perceived risk from the U.S. decreased. Meanwhile, after a slight improvement last year, the perception of Russia as a threat has increased again in Canada, France, Germany, India, and the UK. This may be linked to growing fears of trade wars and the potential use of nuclear weapons by an aggressor. On the other hand, concerns over COVID-19, energy supply disruptions, and radical Islamic terrorism have declined significantly in most countries.
Environmental risks dominate global concerns, with extreme weather events and forest fires, the destruction of natural habitats, and climate change ranking as the top three risks worldwide. This trend is particularly pronounced in India, Brazil, and Italy, where all three leading risks are environmental. Cyberattacks rank as the fourth greatest risk globally and are among the top three concerns in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Russia is perceived as the top security threat in the UK, Canada (tied), and Germany (tied), and as the second-greatest concern in the United States. Interestingly, while concerns about China have remained stable overall, only Germany and the UK have reported an increase in their perception of China as a risk.
The wider geopolitical competition continues to shape public opinion on international threats and alliances. All G7 nations consider Iran, China, and Russia to be more of a threat than an ally. However, in BICS nations, the perception is largely different, with the exception of India, which views China as a threat, and Brazil, which sees Iran as a concern. Notably, Chinese respondents remain the only group that perceives the United States as a greater threat than an ally. Compared to the previous year, the reputations of Israel, the United States, and Russia have declined significantly in global perception, while South Korea, Poland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom have seen the largest improvements.
The survey also reveals stark differences in how respondents from G7 and BICS countries perceive the future of their national security and economic prosperity. A prevailing sense of decline is evident among G7 countries, where, except for the United States, none believe they will be more secure and wealthier in ten years. In contrast, majorities in China and India are optimistic about their future economic and security conditions, while Brazil and South Africa remain divided on their outlook.
The U.S. in a Multipolar World
Donald Trump’s presidency marks a decisive break from the post-Cold War consensus on U.S. foreign policy, which had prioritized liberal internationalism, democracy promotion, free trade, and military primacy. Even before his election, challenges such as China’s rise, U.S. struggles in Ukraine and the Middle East, and shifting global power dynamics had led to calls for adapting American grand strategy. However, Trump’s victory effectively buried the idea that the U.S. should remain the world’s unrivaled leader. He views the U.S.-led international order as a burden that benefits other countries at America’s expense. His approach favors selective, transactional engagement based strictly on U.S. interests, which will have profound global consequences.
Trump’s foreign policy vision diverges sharply from his predecessors. Unlike Biden, who sought to revive alliances and international commitments, Trump sees allies as economic and security liabilities. He has repeatedly criticized NATO, demanding European allies pay more for their defense, and suggested that the U.S. could reduce its military footprint in Europe. His administration’s approach could weaken NATO’s credibility, leaving Europe more exposed to Russian “aggression” while potentially forcing it to take greater responsibility for its defense.
In prioritizing China as the main geopolitical rival, Trump has proposed aggressive economic policies, including tariffs and cutting China off from U.S. technology. However, there is uncertainty over his military stance toward China, particularly regarding Taiwan. While some in his administration advocate for a stronger U.S. presence in Asia, Trump has been noncommittal about defending Taiwan.
Trump’s policies will likely deepen multipolarization, as reduced U.S. engagement in multilateral institutions and alliances could lead other powers—China, Russia, and regional actors—to fill the vacuum. His transactional diplomacy, particularly with the Global South, may further fragment the global order, raising questions about whether a more isolated U.S. will help contain or accelerate global instability.
China’s Alternative to the Liberal Order
China presents itself as the foremost advocate of a multipolar world order, aiming to reshape global governance institutions to reflect shifting power dynamics favoring non-Western nations. President Xi Jinping has emphasized that a multipolar order would allow all countries to play their due roles. However, while Beijing claims to support the Global South and oppose Western hegemony, its strategic behavior often contradicts these stated principles. Many nations perceive China’s push for multipolarity as a means to secure its own power and expand its influence rather than foster genuine global equality.
China’s vision of multipolarity is tied to its broader strategic goals, which include reducing Western influence, promoting alternative governance models, and legitimizing its authoritarian approach. This includes prioritizing economic development over political rights and reinforcing sovereignty to prevent external interference in governance matters. While this message resonates with many in the Global South, critics argue that Beijing’s actions—such as its strategic alignment with Russia, Iran, and North Korea—undermine its claims of advocating for a more just international order.
The U.S. and European states increasingly view China’s ambitions as a challenge to the liberal international system. Beijing’s extensive economic and military support for Russia following its invasion of Ukraine, including circumventing Western sanctions and allegedly aiding in military development, has fueled concerns about China’s revisionist agenda. Meanwhile, China continues to expand its influence through BRICS, positioning it as a counterweight to the G7, yet it resists meaningful UN Security Council reforms that might dilute its own power.
Militarily, China is rapidly expanding its capabilities, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, where it seeks regional dominance while deterring U.S. intervention. With the world’s largest naval fleet and an expanding nuclear arsenal, China’s military buildup directly contradicts its rhetoric of peaceful multipolarity, raising concerns about escalating great-power competition.
The European Union Between Internal and External Pressures
The report portrays the European Union (EU) as one of the entities most affected by global shifts. It is caught between internal challenges such as rising populism and divisions among member states and external pressures from declining U.S. security commitments and increasing Chinese and Russian influence.
The EU’s liberal vision for the international order faces a severe crisis on multiple fronts. Russia’s war against Ukraine has shattered Europe’s security framework, the increasing weaponization of economic interdependencies threatens its economic model and growing internal and external challenges are undermining the EU’s liberal democratic foundations. These crises are compounded by Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency, which could further destabilize European security, economy, and unity.
The EU has long championed liberal internationalism, supporting democracy, free trade, and multilateral institutions. Through its economic and regulatory influence—often called the “Brussels Effect”—the EU has shaped global norms and institutions. However, growing global power shifts, rising nationalist populism, and economic protectionism have weakened this influence. The EU’s ability to promote its model is further undermined by Brexit, internal fragmentation, and declining economic power.
The war in Ukraine has severely tested Europe’s security order. While EU members have increased defense spending and military aid to Kyiv, concerns persist about long-term deterrence against Russia. Trump’s administration signals potential reductions in U.S. security commitments, forcing Europe to take greater responsibility for its own defense. His rhetoric on reducing NATO support and pressuring European allies to increase military spending raises fears about NATO’s credibility and Ukraine’s future.
Economically, the EU’s free trade agenda is under threat as global actors, including the U.S. and China, prioritize national security over economic efficiency. Trump’s proposed tariffs on China and broader trade restrictions could lead to economic fragmentation, harming European industries. Internally, rising far-right movements and political polarization are weakening democratic institutions, complicating decision-making, and undermining the EU’s credibility as a global advocate for democracy.
To navigate these crises, the report suggests that the EU must either recalibrate its relationship with the U.S. or pursue greater strategic autonomy. Whether it can effectively reinvent itself remains an open question.
Russia and the “Civilizational Powers” Vision
The report highlights that Russia continues to challenge the current international order by promoting the concept of “civilizational powers,” which justifies its interventions in neighboring countries like Ukraine under the pretext of protecting historical interests. However, ongoing Western sanctions and increasing international isolation pose economic challenges that could impact Russia’s ability to achieve its geopolitical objectives.
Despite its military behaviors and attempts to assert dominance over former Soviet states, Russia faces significant domestic constraints, including a stagnating economy, population decline, and reliance on energy exports, which could limit its long-term strategic ambitions. The report raises questions about whether Russia can sustain its revisionist policies without further economic or political fallout. Additionally, Russia’s deepening ties with China, Iran, and North Korea are examined as potential counterbalances to Western pressures.
The Role of Emerging Powers (India, Japan, Brazil, and South Africa)
- India: Seeks to strengthen its global role but faces internal economic and political stability challenges. India’s approach to multipolarity includes balancing ties with both the West and other emerging powers, though its regional tensions with China and Pakistan remain a significant concern.
- Japan: Is highly concerned about multipolarity and is working to enhance its defense capabilities to address potential threats. Japan has increased its military spending and strengthened its alliances with the U.S. and other Indo-Pacific partners to counterbalance China’s influence.
- Brazil: Views multipolarity as an opportunity to reform the global system and elevate the status of developing nations. However, domestic political instability and economic challenges may hinder its aspirations for a more prominent global role.
- South Africa: Criticizes the current international system and aims to increase African representation in global institutions, though it faces significant domestic economic and political challenges. South Africa’s foreign policy has increasingly aligned with non-Western actors, reflecting broader discontent with Western-led governance structures.
Conclusion: Toward a More Polarized or More Cooperative World?
The report concludes by posing a central question: Will multipolarity lead to a more inclusive and cooperative system, or will it result in increased polarization and conflicts? The report emphasizes the need for “depolarization” as a foundation for ensuring global stability.
Ultimately, the future trajectory of the global order will depend on whether emerging powers and established nations can find common ground on major issues such as trade, security, technology, and climate change. The report underscores that while multipolarity offers new opportunities for global governance, it also introduces significant risks that must be managed through diplomacy, multilateral cooperation, and a commitment to upholding international norms.
