
Map Shows Nations Raising Military Spending As Global Tensions Escalate
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Newsweek has created a map to show how much money countries around the world spent on defense, as global military expenditure surged to an all-time high of reaching $2.718 trillion.
This marks a 9.4 percent increase from 2023—the steepest annual rise since the end of the Cold War, according to new data released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
The sharpest rises occurred in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, driven largely by ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as escalating tensions in East Asia.
Why It Matters
SIPRI's findings illustrate how military investments are being reprioritized globally amid security crises. The increase marks the tenth consecutive year of growth and comes amid record inflation and stagnant humanitarian funding in many regions.
The increases raise questions about long-term economic trade-offs and the future stability of international relations, considering that more resources are being funneled toward defense at the expense of other public spending areas.
What to Know
The United States remained the dominant military power with spending of $997 billion—accounting for 37 percent of the global total and 66 percent of NATO's collective $1.506 trillion expenditure. China spent $314 billion, up seven percent from the previous year, while Russia increased its defense budget by 38 percent to $149 billion.
Germany became Europe's top military spender for the first time since reunification, reaching $88.5 billion—a 28 percent jump. Poland increased its budget by 31 percent to $38 billion. Ukraine's spending grew to $64.7 billion, 34 percent of its GDP, the highest burden globally.
Israel posted the largest proportional increase worldwide, with its military expenditure rising 65 percent to $46.5 billion in response to war in Gaza and clashes with Hezbollah. Its defense budget amounted to 8.8 percent of GDP, second only to Ukraine.
Saudi Arabia remained the top Middle Eastern spender at $80.3 billion, with modest year-on-year growth of 1.5 percent. Iran, however, saw a 10 percent decrease to $7.9 billion, constrained by international sanctions.
Among Asian nations, Japan's defense budget rose 21 percent to $55.3 billion—the largest increase since 1952. India's spending reached $86.1 billion, while Taiwan increased its defense budget to $16.5 billion.
What People Are Saying
Xiao Liang, a researcher at SIPRI said: "As governments increasingly prioritize military security, often at the expense of other budget areas, the economic and social trade-offs could have significant effects on societies for years to come."
What Happens Next
With 18 of NATO's 32 members now meeting the alliance's 2 percent GDP defense target—up from 11 in 2023—the bloc is expected to continue ramping up military investment amid strategic uncertainties and political shifts.
European NATO members alone spent $454 billion last year, spurred by concerns over Russia and potential U.S. disengagement. Meanwhile, countries like Japan, Germany, and Sweden, which joined NATO in 2024, are signaling long-term increases in military budgets.
SIPRI analysts warn that unless there is a political shift toward diplomacy and peacebuilding, the global trend of rising military spending is likely to continue into 2025 and beyond.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russia sends its most valuable planes as far away from Ukraine as possible
Russia has scattered its most valuable warplanes to a remote airbase in the far east of the country, after a surprise Ukrainian drone attack devastated its strategic bomber fleet last Sunday. Two Tupolev Tu-160 planes have been moved 4,000 miles from the front lines to the remote Anadyr airbase, which can only be accessed by air and sea, satellite imagery showed. Located on the desolate Chukotka Peninsula, the airfield is around 410 miles from Alaska and was set up during the Cold War to defend Russia from potential US attacks. The supersonic Tu-160 bombers can carry nuclear weapons and are by far the most expensive in Russia's inventory, with a price tag of around $500 million per unit. By comparison, the B-52 Stratofortress, the mainstay of the US's bomber fleet, has an estimated value of roughly $94 million. In addition to being expensive, Tu-160s are rare. Russia is thought to have only 16 operational airframes, and Ukraine said it damaged some in last Sunday's attacks. Prof Justin Bronk, a senior research fellow for air power at the Royal United Services Institute, told the i newspaper that imagery from the Anadyr base could suggest Moscow was trying to reduce the risk of more drone attacks. Dubbed 'Operation Spider's Web', the June 1 strikes were the result of 18 months of meticulous planning by Ukraine's security service (SBU), which on Wednesday released a video detailing how the strikes played out. Agents smuggled 'cheap drones' into Russia, 'right under the nose' of the Russian security agency, captions from the video read. These drones were placed inside modified wooden cabins mounted on the back of lorries, then driven to locations near their targets by drivers who were seemingly unaware of their cargo. Once near the airbases, the cabins released the drones to attack aircraft on the bases. 'Everything was planned down to the second,' the video explained. 'It happened simultaneously in three different time zones, involving 117 drones.' 'The SBU's web was to entangle all of Russia,' it said. The SBU planned to attack five airfields, although only four were hit, as drones exploded prematurely while en route to a base in Russia's far east. Admiral Pierre Vandier, Nato's Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, lauded the operation, saying it was a reinvention of the 'Trojan horse method', with new 'technical and industrial creativity'. Sergei Ryabkov, Russia's deputy foreign minister, on Wednesday said Moscow's nuclear deterrence 'has not suffered significant damage', and that the affected equipment 'can and will be restored'. Experts, however, said it would take years for Russia to recover from the assault, which Ukrainian officials estimated caused $7 billion worth of damage. Several Tu-95 and Tu-22 bombers are believed to have been destroyed in the operation. Kyiv said last week that Russia had used a Tu-160 to launch a cruise strike against Ukraine. It claimed this indicated a shortage of Tu-95s and Tu-22s, as Moscow usually uses these older models for strikes rather than the more expensive and scarce Tu-160. Both the Tu-95 and Tu-22 are no longer produced. Russia does assemble new Tu-160s, however only two are thought to have been completed since 2022. Though the Tu-160 is a Soviet-era design, in 2018 the Russian ministry of defence ordered 10 new airframes at a cost of 160 billion roubles. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Participants of Ukraine–Southeast Europe Summit support Kyiv's path to NATO
Participants of the Ukraine–Southeast Europe Summit, held in Odesa on Wednesday 11 June, have confirmed their support for the European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations of Kyiv and other countries in the region. Source: the summit declaration released by the press service of the Office of the President of Ukraine, as reported by European Pravda Details: The leaders of Ukraine and Southeast European states agreed that "NATO membership remains the best cost-effective security option for Ukraine". "We reaffirmed our support to the Euro-Atlantic aspirations of partners of the region. We support Ukraine on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership," the declaration reads. The summit participants also stated that neither Russia nor any other non-NATO state "has the right to veto the Alliance's enlargement". "In the same vein, we fully support Ukraine's right to choose its own security arrangements and decide its own future, free from outside interference," they added. Background: The fourth Ukraine–Southeast Europe Summit in Odesa has been attended in person by the leaders of Greece, Croatia and Montenegro, as well as President of Serbia Aleksandar Vučić, marking his first visit to Ukraine. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
History Shows the Danger of Trump's Health Policies
U.S. President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attend an event in the East Room of the White House on May 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit - Chip Somodevilla—Getty Images On May 11, 2023, President Joseph Biden ended the COVID-19 public health emergency, calling an finish to the pandemic. By the end of 2023, COVID-19 claimed the lives of over 20 million people around the world. But through international cooperation and evidence-based science, vaccines were developed and the world moved on. Indeed, perhaps the biggest success of the period was the quick production of a COVID-19 vaccine. The research behind the mRNA vaccine had been ongoing since the 1970s, but the emergency of the pandemic and international sharing of knowledge helped bring the vaccine to fruition. Today, the COVID-19 vaccine has been credited with saving 2.4 million lives around the world. But now, the U.S. is choosing competition over cooperation. With President Donald Trump's day one executive order to leave the World Health Organization (WHO)—blaming their COVID-19 response—and the shuttering of USAID, the country is taking steps towards further dividing health efforts across the globe. Here in the U.S., a sudden end to $11.4 billion of covid-related grants is stifling national pandemic preparedness efforts on the local and state levels. And most recently, Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr. purged experts from the CDC Advisory Committee, putting lives at risk. Historical lessons demonstrate the need for global health infrastructure that works together, shares knowledge, and remembers that pathogens do not stop at borders. White House's Pandemic Office, Busy With Bird Flu, May Shrink Under Trump One of the greatest global health achievements of all time—smallpox eradication—provides a perfect example of what can be done with independent scientific research and international cooperation. During the Cold War between the U.S. and USSR, decades of tension brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Yet, incredibly, the nations managed to find common ground to support the efforts of smallpox eradication. Indeed, they understood the strategic benefits that came from letting public health practitioners and scientists work outside of political divides. The WHO was founded after World War II in 1948. Its formation marked a move from international health, that focused on nations, to global health, that would serve humanity first. The WHO's first eradication effort was the failed, U.S.-backed, Malaria Eradication Program from 1955 to 1969. The Smallpox Eradication Program, with intensive efforts beginning in 1967, provided a chance for redemption for the U.S. and WHO. For the United States, investing in disease eradication and poverty helped to mitigate growing backlash against the Vietnam War. In June of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated, 'I propose to dedicate this year to finding new techniques for making man's knowledge serve man's welfare.' He called for 1965—the same year he ordered ground troops to Vietnam to stop the spread of communism —to be a year of international cooperation that could bypass the politics of the Cold War. Previously, the USSR did not participate in the U.S. and WHO's first, failed global eradication plan for malaria. But upon rejoining the WHO in 1956, it was the Soviets who made the first call and investment into global eradication of smallpox in 1958. The WHO functioning as a mediator was crucial to allowing the USSR and the U.S. to work together. It allowed both nations to avoid giving credit to each other; rather success went to science itself. President Johnson called this 'a turning point' away from 'man against man' towards 'man against nature.' The limited role of politicians in the program proved to be key to its success. Scientists made decisions and worked together—no matter what country they came from—by focusing on disease and vaccination, not international tensions. The Soviet-initiated program was lead by Donald A. Henderson, a U.S. epidemiologist, who worked alongside the Russians until the last case of smallpox occurred in Somalia on October 26, 1977. During the 20th century, smallpox was responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths. Smallpox was officially declared eradicated by the WHO in October 1980, and is today still the only human disease to achieve this distinction. Less than a year after the declaration of smallpox eradication, the emergence of another pandemic, the HIV/AIDS crisis, reinforced the importance of science-first cooperation over politically-driven decision making. In June 1981, the first cases of a new unknown disease were reported in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. In short order, gay men were stigmatized and blamed in what would become one of the biggest public health disasters of all time. It took years of grassroots science-based activism to move beyond HIV/AIDS victim-blaming and find medical solutions. The Poster Child for AIDS Obscured as Much About the Crisis as He Revealed Too often, governments across the globe placed blame on the gay community for their 'sins' and did not provide needed support, leaving the sick to suffer and die. The pharmaceutical companies profited from the limited medications they had available and did not pursue sufficient development. The FDA process for new drugs was scheduled to take nine years, at a time when life expectancy after receiving an HIV/AIDS diagnosis was one year. These issues sparked activism, spawning the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) in 1987. ACT UP organizers took science into their own hands and began educating themselves. Members began reading scientific journals religiously, learning the chemistry and epidemiology of drug manufacturing and clinical trials. Members learned how to translate these dense scientific messages to educate the community members on what was—and what was not—being done to help. Because of this work, the FDA changed policies to allow for new treatments to be tested at accelerated rates in times of emergency. ACT UP was able to shift the cultural blame showing that the issue was a result of politics getting in the way of scientific advancements. By 1990, ACT UP influenced the largest federal HIV program to pass Congress, the Ryan White CARE Act. This program was a vital precursor to the 2003 PEPFAR (The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) global initiative. Both of these histories offer a powerful lesson: global health is national health, and national health is local health. With the recent funding cuts from the U.S. government, the future of global health is going in an unknown direction. And yet, the occurrence of pandemics is expected to increase in frequency due to climate change, mass migration, urbanization, and ecosystem destruction. It has been estimated that there is about a 25% chance we will have another COVID-sized pandemic within the next 10 years. No matter how secure the world makes borders, history shows that it can not protect us from disease if we do not have a strong, interconnected public health infrastructure. Luke Jorgensen is a Master of Public Health student at Purdue University where his epidemiology research examines human migration and infectious disease. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors. Write to Made by History at madebyhistory@