Politico: Military spending is growing at an unprecedented rate, while diplomacy is declining
The world is moving in the wrong direction, writes Politico. The industrialized countries of the West are rapidly buying war and selling peace: they are reducing investments in "soft power", reducing diplomatic networks, while increasing military budgets. Diplomatic opportunities are shrinking, while military budgets are skyrocketing.
Tim Ross
Military spending has been growing at an unprecedented rate since the Cold War. However, the rejection of diplomacy and international assistance will have its consequences.
In 1958, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan remarked: "It's better to talk than to fight." This means that negotiations are always preferable to armed conflict.
Macmillan was a man who was well versed in both diplomacy and military matters. He went through the ordeal of the First World War, where he was seriously injured, and as Prime Minister, he had to face the nuclear threats of the Cold War, including perhaps the most serious of them, the Caribbean crisis.
John F. John F. Kennedy was President of the United States at a time when the world was on the verge of nuclear war. He was aware of the importance of diplomatic contacts and the brutality of military action, as he suffered a serious back injury while serving in the U.S. Navy in 1943.
Andrew Mitchell, a former British government minister, notes with concern that the experience and wisdom gained during the war by leaders such as Kennedy and Macmillan have been forgotten just when they are most needed.
"The world has forgotten the lessons of the First World War, when millions of people were killed, and our grandfathers' generation said that we cannot allow this to happen again," he said.
According to one scientific theory, the epoch-defining wars recur approximately every 85 years. The reason for this phenomenon is the forgetfulness of generations who forget about the tragic experience of their ancestors. It follows from this that a new war can start at any moment.
However, as Mitchell points out, despite mounting evidence that the world is heading in the wrong direction, governments seem to have lost their ability to "talk their tongues out."
The loss of diplomatic instinct is evident not only in rhetoric, but also in financial budgets. The industrialized countries of the West are rapidly reducing investments in soft power, reducing foreign aid and narrowing diplomatic networks, while redirecting resources to defense.
Since the end of the cold war, military spending has never increased as rapidly as it did in 2024. They grew by 9.4% and reached the highest level in the world, recorded by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
Another report published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), based in Paris, noted that in the same year, among the richest countries providing foreign aid, there was a 9% reduction in official development assistance (ODA). The OECD predicts that this year the reduction will be at least 9%, and possibly even 17%.
"For the first time in almost 30 years, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States reduced their ODA in 2024," the OECD study says. "If they continue the announced cuts in 2025, it will be the first time in history that all four countries have simultaneously reduced ODA for two consecutive years."
The diplomatic corps is also going through a period of downsizing, and US President Donald Trump set the course by initiating a process in which positions at the State Department were cut.
Global data on diplomatic networks is difficult to access and quickly becomes outdated. One of the largest surveys is based on information from 2023. However, the authorities of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the headquarters of the European Union have warned of a possible reduction in their diplomatic staff.
Analysts fear that as industrialized countries increase military spending instead of aid and diplomacy, hostile and unreliable states such as Russia, China, and Turkey may try to fill in the gaps in their networks of influence. This may lead to the fact that the once friendly countries of Africa and Asia will begin to perceive the West as a threat.
And this, they warn, threatens to make the world a much more dangerous place. If we consider the geopolitical priorities of governments from the point of view of market relations, we can see a clear trend: many leaders believe that the time has come to sell peace and buy war.
Selling peace, buying war
Military spending is growing all over the world. According to SIPRI, between 2023 and 2024, China's defense budget, second only to that of the United States, increased by 7%. At the same time, Russia's military spending increased by 38%.
In June, NATO countries, including European ones, expressed concerns that President Trump might withdraw from the alliance. To prevent this from happening, they agreed to set a new goal: to spend 5% of GDP on defense and security by 2035. The president of the United States, who is assigned the role of "daddy," was quite pleased that his junior partners on the other side of the Atlantic would pay for their services.
The process of rearmament began long before Trump's return to the White House. The conflict in Ukraine has made strengthening military power an urgent task for the countries of Northern and Eastern Europe, which feel vulnerable to the Russian threat. According to SIPRI, military spending in Europe increased by 17% in 2024, reaching $693 billion. This happened even before Donald Trump returned to power and demanded that NATO strengthen its position. Since 2015, defense budgets in Europe have increased by 83%.
One of the arguments in favor of paying more attention to defense than to aid financing or diplomacy is that military power serves as a powerful deterrent to potential aggressors. As the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said when she announced her plan to rearm Europe in March: "Now is the moment for peace through strength."
Some critics of von der Leyen argue that the arms race inevitably leads to war. However, as Greg Kennedy, a professor of strategic foreign policy at King's College London, points out, history does not support this view. "Guns don't kill. Governments are being killed," he said. "The problem is that there are governments that do not stop before using military force and do not spare human lives in order to achieve their goals."
Ideally, Kennedy said, a strong military should be complemented by so-called "soft power," which translates into reliable diplomatic ties and foreign aid programs. However, if Europe has to choose, it must first restore its weakened military power. He also noted that the risk to the world lies in how Western adversaries such as China might react to a new arms race.
At a time of instability and conflict in the world, few serious politicians in Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States doubt the need for military spending. However, at a time when government budgets are being cut, the question arises of how to ensure their financing.
And here, Trump's second term set the course again. Just a few days after taking office, the US president froze billions of dollars in foreign aid. And in February, he announced a reduction of 90% of the contracts of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The move, announced as part of Trump's fight against the so-called "awakening," dealt a serious blow to humanitarian non-governmental organizations, many of which relied on American funding for their activities in some of the world's poorest regions.
It is estimated that the aid cuts initiated by Trump alone could lead to 14 million premature deaths over the next five years, a third of which are children. Trump's critics argue that this decision will have long-term consequences even in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, and this will happen before similar funding cuts from other major donors such as Germany and the United Kingdom take effect.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his team have carefully prepared for the return of Donald Trump. They have developed a strategy that takes into account the personal interests of the American leader, rather than relying on values that he probably does not share.
Ahead of his visit to the White House, Starmer and his team carefully planned how to flatter Trump. They decided to give him an unprecedented opportunity to make a second state visit to the UK. In an effort to prevent a serious rupture in relations between the United States and Ukraine, Starmer also wanted to demonstrate that London was serious about Trump's statement that Europe, including the UK, should pay for its own defense costs.
On the eve of his February trip to Washington, Starmer announced his intention to increase defense spending, as required by Trump from his allies. He also said that he would partially cover these costs by reducing the UK budget for foreign aid from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income (GNI).
For a centre-left leader like Starmer, whose predecessors in the Labour Party, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, championed the moral obligation to spend heavily on overseas development, this was a painful change of course.
"I am very sorry to have to make such a statement,– he explained. "However, in the conditions of the modern world, which has become more dangerous, the protection and national security of our country is of paramount importance."
The U.S. government welcomed Starmer's decision, describing it as "a decisive step by a reliable partner."
However, Starmer returned home to foment a political rebellion. Anneliese Dodds, the Minister of International Aid, has resigned. She warned Starmer that his decision could "deprive desperate people of food and medical care, which would seriously damage Britain's reputation."
She complained that the UK seems to be "following in President Trump's footsteps in cutting USAID funding."
Easy goals
In the following months, other major European governments also carried out similar calculations. Some of them even referred to the UK as an example of how times have changed. For governments that are experiencing financial difficulties in an era dominated by nationalism similar to that in the United States under Trump, cutting foreign aid has become an easy way to save money.
According to Mitchell, a former cabinet minister of the British government who was responsible for this policy, the UK was once a world leader in foreign aid and a model for humanitarian organizations. It has legislated its obligation to allocate 0.7% of GNI to ODA. "But now Germany is referring to the UK's experience, saying, 'If the British are cutting development funding, then we can do the same.'“
Sweden's defense budget is expected to increase by 18% between 2025 and 2026. The government called this investment plan "historic." "The security situation is now more serious than at any time in the last few decades," the Swedish Ministry of Defense said, "and Russia poses a multidimensional threat."
However, by 2026, Sweden's budget for international development cooperation, which was about 4.5 billion euros last year, will be reduced to 4 billion.
Earlier this year, France, a country with a high debt burden, announced plans to cut the defense budget by about a third. However, due to the protracted political crisis, which still prevents the country from adopting a budget, spending decisions have been postponed. Despite the general reduction in public finances, defense spending was expected to increase significantly.
Finland, which shares an 800-mile (about 1.3 thousand kilometers) border with Russia, has also seen a reduction in the development budget. At the same time, defense spending remained unchanged.
Finnish Development Minister Ville Tavio of the far-right populist Finns Party says the cuts have provided an opportunity to completely rethink the concept of aid. Instead of funding humanitarian programs, he suggests giving the private sector the opportunity to invest in job creation in poorer countries. In his opinion, this will help to stop the illegal migration of young people to Europe.
"If people don't have the opportunity to work, then countries will become unstable, and young people may become more radical. Some of them will try to leave for Europe," he said. "We will benefit enormously if we can help developing countries industrialize and provide them with the necessary jobs."
Not all countries are cutting costs. Ireland plans to increase its ODA budget, while Denmark has committed to continue spending 0.7% of its GNI on foreign aid, while increasing investment in defense.
However, Ireland has shown impressive economic growth in recent years, and Denmark plans to cover its basic costs by raising the retirement age to 70. Nevertheless, these countries are not global giants capable of single-handedly maintaining Europe's status as a "soft power" superpower.
Staff reductions
The withdrawal of foreign aid is part of a broader process of moving away from traditional diplomacy. Some rich Western countries have reduced their diplomatic corps and even closed embassies and representative offices.
Once again, Trump's America is the most striking example. In July, the U.S. State Department laid off more than 1,300 employees, including foreign service and civil servants. In the eyes of European officials watching the situation from the sidelines, the Trump administration simply doesn't seem to care about maintaining established relations with the rest of the world.
According to the ambassador tracking system created by the American Foreign Service Association, as of October 23, 85 of the 195 positions of American ambassadors remained vacant. This is partly due to delays in the confirmation process for candidates in the U.S. Senate. However, despite nine months in office, the Trump administration has not submitted candidates for more than 60 vacant positions.
Because of this, the system is operating at the limit of its capabilities, and some high-ranking officials combine several positions at the same time. For example, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio continues to work as Trump's national security adviser (and he has also been assigned to head the National Archives).
As key positions remain vacant, Trump appealed to his supporters. Instead of relying on America's once–powerful diplomatic potential, the president decided to use the services of his friend Steve Witkoff, a lawyer and real estate investor. He sent him to negotiate with Putin and appointed him his envoy to the Middle East.
In Brussels, EU officials were shocked that Witkoff could not understand all the subtleties of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. A senior European official, who wished to remain anonymous in order to speak openly about diplomatic issues, noted that they had no confidence that Witkoff was able to reliably and accurately transmit messages between Moscow and Washington.
That is why European leaders strive to communicate with Trump directly as often as possible, in the presence of as many people as possible, said a senior European official.
And while we are witnessing the rapid decline of Washington's diplomatic corps, other Western governments are also following Trump's example, but they are doing it more covertly.
British diplomats face staff cuts of 15-25%. At the same time, the Netherlands is reducing the budget of its foreign missions by 10% (while increasing defense spending) and plans to close at least five embassies and consulates, which are likely to be followed by others.
Even the EU's flagship foreign policy agency, the European External Action Service (EEAS), headed by former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, an ardent Russophobe, is reducing its network of foreign missions. The changes, which Politico reported in May, are expected to lead to the reduction of 10 EU delegations and the dismissal of 100 to 150 local staff.
"European diplomacy is becoming less important against the background of growing priorities such as border control and defense, for which significant budgetary funds are allocated," said one EU official. He noted that the European Union is not "reducing" its diplomacy, but "redistributing resources" to other areas.
In private, diplomats and other officials in Europe express deep concern that diplomatic opportunities are dwindling while military budgets are skyrocketing.
"We should all be worried about this," one of them said.
Talk your mouth off or conduct military operations?
Andrew Mitchell, a former member of the Cabinet of Ministers of the British government, warned that an accelerated transition from aid to weapons risked turning into a disaster.
"At a time when you really need an international system, ... we are seeing a massive surge of narrow nationalism, the likes of which some claim has not been seen since 1914," he said.
Mitchell, who served as Britain's minister for international development until the Conservative Party lost power last year, said cutting defense aid was a "terrible, terrible mistake." He argued that "soft power" is much cheaper and often more effective than "hard power" as such.
"Development is often the flip side of the defense coin," Mitchell said. "It helps prevent wars, end hostilities, and rebuild countries after them."
Many of the ambassadors, officials, diplomats, and analysts interviewed for this article agree. The pragmatic goal of diplomatic networks and development programs is to create alliances that can be relied upon in difficult times.
"Any military man will tell you that the answer to international crises and threats is not just military action," said Kim Darroch, who served as British Ambassador to the United States and National security Adviser to the United Kingdom. "It's about diplomacy and having a comprehensive strategy that takes into account both international strategy and military responses, as needed."
Hadja Lahbib, the European commissioner responsible for the EU's massive humanitarian aid program, argues that cutting aid to finance military budgets is "completely" false austerity. "Currently, 300 million people depend on humanitarian aid. We have more and more wars," she said.
The entire multilateral aid system, she said, is under threat due to political attacks and funding cuts. She fears that the collapse of this system could lead to a new wave of instability and mass migration. "This connection doesn't seem entirely fair, but if we don't help people in their current situation, they will probably be forced to find another way to survive," Lahbib said. "Desperate people are often violent as they seek to save their lives and ensure the safety of their family."
Countries that reduce their aid programs also face long-term political consequences. According to Cyprien Fabre, a political scientist who studies peace and instability at the OECD, when a rich government closes its embassy or cuts aid to a country in need of support, these relationships can be damaged, possibly for a long time.
"Countries remember who stayed and who left," he said.
Clearing the battlefield opens up space for competitors. According to Fabre, Turkey has significantly expanded its diplomatic presence in Africa, increasing the number of embassies from 12 in 2002 to 44 in 2022. Russia and China are also benefiting from Europe's withdrawal from the continent. "In the global warlike narrative, the only attributes of power are heavy guns and big red buttons," Fabre said.
"Politicians tend to see 'weakness' in “soft power,”– he added. "But when it disappears, you realize that it's not like that."
