Global Military Spending Surges to Record $2.71 Trillion in 2024, as War Becomes a Permanent Industry

New data released in April 2025 by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) confirms what many peace advocates and geopolitical analysts have long feared: the militarisation of global politics is accelerating at an unprecedented pace. In 2024, the world spent an eye-watering $2.71 trillion on armed forces, weapons systems, and war preparation — a 9.4% increase over the previous year and the largest year-on-year jump in over a decade.

On 28 April, as part of the annual Global Days of Action on Military Spending (GDAMS), peace groups and civil society organisations sounded the alarm. Demonstrations and teach-ins unfolded across dozens of countries, while the Transnational Institute (TNI), in collaboration with GDAMS, released a series of infographics (see below) and reports analysing global military expenditures from multiple angles — NATO expansion, EU militarisation, profiteering, and regional war economies.

What the SIPRI data reveals is not simply a rise in military spending. It marks a dangerous shift in global priorities: the entrenchment of conflict as a permanent condition of international life.

A Global Arms Race Without End

All of the top 20 military spenders increased their budgets in 2024. This is no longer the story of one or two aggressive powers — it is a systemic arms race, encompassing every major region of the world.

Europe recorded a staggering 17% rise in military spending, the sharpest increase of any year since the Cold War’s end. Russia, despite its bruising economy and prolonged invasion of Ukraine, raised its military expenditure by 38%, cementing its return to full-scale wartime footing. In response, NATO member states — particularly Poland, Germany, and the Nordic countries — have accelerated their rearmament plans, citing deterrence as justification, but participating in a spiral that now seems irreversible.

In the Middle East, where conflict has become endemic and diplomacy perfunctory, military expenditure rose by 15%. The most extreme case, however, is Israel: SIPRI estimates that Israel increased its military budget by an astonishing 65% in 2024, the largest percentage increase of any country. This explosive growth corresponds with Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza, which has levelled vast swathes of civilian infrastructure, displaced over two million Palestinians, and been widely condemned by UN officials and human rights experts as a form of collective punishment — potentially amounting to genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Profiteering from Carnage

The rise in global military spending is not merely a reflection of geopolitical tensions — it is also a product of a powerful military-industrial complex that thrives on permanent war. Arms manufacturers and defence contractors have posted record profits, buoyed by soaring demand and expedited procurement processes.

Companies like Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Rheinmetall, and Elbit Systems have seen their order books swell, not only from domestic governments but through international deals brokered under the guise of strategic partnerships. In many cases, these firms are effectively underwriting foreign policy — pushing for increased militarisation through think tanks, media influence, and direct lobbying of governments.

The beneficiaries are not only Western corporations. Russia’s military-industrial base, long thought to be in decline, has rebounded under wartime conditions. China continues to expand and modernise its military capacities, with emphasis on naval power and missile technology. Even relatively smaller states — such as Saudi Arabia, India, and South Korea — are committing unprecedented sums to armament, often with the explicit backing of Western suppliers.

The Disarmament Movement Fights for Relevance

April’s GDAMS events came at a pivotal moment. Organisers argue that peace and disarmament movements are being drowned out by nationalist fervour and a media climate that too often equates military might with national security.

“This level of military spending isn’t just unsustainable — it’s immoral,” said one campaigner at a GDAMS event in Amsterdam. “We’re witnessing starvation in Gaza, climate collapse, and deepening inequality, yet our governments are funnelling hundreds of billions into weapons systems that won’t make any of us safer.”

The figures underscore a glaring opportunity cost. Every billion spent on war is a billion not spent on health care, education, poverty alleviation, or climate resilience. At a time when the global South faces mounting debt crises and the global North is struggling with austerity, the continued flow of public wealth into military coffers raises urgent questions about accountability and democratic oversight.

Australia: Complicit and Expanding

Australia is no outlier in this global trend. While not among the top 10 spenders, Canberra has embraced a more assertive defence posture in recent years, heavily influenced by its trilateral AUKUS alliance with the United States and United Kingdom.

Defence spending now hovers around 2% of GDP, with projections indicating a steep climb in the coming decade as Australia prepares to acquire nuclear-powered submarines and expand its role in regional security. While framed as “deterrence,” critics argue that Australia’s growing military integration with the US positions it as a subordinate in Washington’s strategic contest with China — a gamble with profound regional and ethical implications.

Little of this spending has been publicly debated. Nor has there been serious scrutiny of the implications for civilian control, diplomacy, or Australia’s responsibilities under international law. The Albanese government, which swept to power on a platform of social justice and progressive reform, has quietly maintained — and in many cases expanded — the militarist commitments of its predecessors.

A Tipping Point

The SIPRI report is not merely a ledger of military budgets. It is a reflection of a world preparing for perpetual war — and a warning about the trajectory of global governance.

Peace advocates argue that unless citizens force a change in direction, the current momentum toward rearmament will become irreversible. They point to the vast disparities in global resource allocation: as military budgets grow, the world fails to meet even basic humanitarian goals, from climate targets to famine prevention.

2025 is shaping up to be a turning point. Whether it becomes the year global war planning was normalised — or the year the public finally said “enough” — remains to be seen.

---