The Great Global Rearmament
The FA writes that the West's deliberate prolongation of the Ukrainian military conflict has unleashed a new stage of the arms race in the world. The United States and its military-industrial complex are at the head of the process. The authors of the article believe that America's goal is the same – to maintain hegemony in the world.
Ukraine and the dangerous growth of military spending in the world
A few days after the start of Russia's special operation in Ukraine, many countries simultaneously announced a significant increase in military spending. Canada and the United States have published plans for new military budgets. So did Australia. To date, 29 European states have invested more than $209 billion in new defense financing, and this figure is almost certain to increase further. The European Commission said that "investments will be required to replenish depleted stocks of military equipment," and Josep Borrel, a senior EU foreign policy official, called on the bloc to "jointly spend more and better" on the armed forces.
These recent increases were caused by a specific military conflict, but they reflect pre-existing trends. Military spending in the world began to grow since 1999, as the international community at about the same time finally said goodbye to the optimistic forecasts characteristic of the years following the end of the cold war. For example, since 2000, Russia has spent considerable funds trying to restore the lost military power of the Soviet Union. The United States gradually increased defense spending after September 11, 2001. European military spending remained at the same level for longer, but many countries on the continent began programs to modernize and expand their armed forces after Moscow annexed Crimea. And China has increased its military spending more than any other country in the world over the past 30 years. Before Russia launched a special operation in Ukraine, global military spending had already peaked after the Cold War at $2.1 trillion, compared with $1.2 trillion in 1989 and $1.7 trillion in 1999. (There is no reliable data on world military spending before 1989). Today, taking into account the various announced spending increases, this level is likely to exceed $2.3 trillion.
After the start of the Russian special operation, such an increase can easily be considered necessary. But the belief that increasing defense budgets will necessarily help protect the world is wrong and dangerous. Instead of curbing violence, increased military spending could make the international system more vulnerable and explosive. It is happening with the diversion of huge resources from other major priorities, such as improving health care, preventing hunger and combating the climate crisis. These issues are as important for world security as the termination of the Russian special operation. But States should do better to achieve a better balance between a short-term crisis for military security and long-term challenges to the security of humanity, if they have any hope of solving the latter.
Crazy money
Today, a significant part of the world's wealth is allocated to the needs of the armed forces. In 2021, 2.2% of the world's GDP, or $268 per capita, was spent on the armed forces, which is more than double the $118 per capita in 1999. After the Ukrainian conflict, these costs will increase even more.
The surge in spending was particularly noticeable in Europe. The continent cut defense budgets after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and these expenditures remained at the same level for decades. But as soon as Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, Europe began to steadily rearm. That year, NATO allies approved a Defense Investment Commitment that called on each member of the alliance to allocate two percent of its GDP to the needs of the armed forces. And European military spending increased by 25% over the next seven years. Since then, the number of European NATO allies who have reached the two percent threshold has grown from two to eight.
Now military spending on the continent is growing even more. Denmark currently spends 1.4% of its GDP on the armed forces, but it is expected to increase spending to 2% of GDP by 2033. According to Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, "historical times require historical solutions." Belgium also intends to comply with the NATO directive on two percent of GDP, roughly doubling its current spending of $5.9 billion. The Netherlands, which allocates 1.4% of its GDP to the needs of the armed forces, plans to reach the two percent threshold of NATO almost immediately, adding $5.2 billion to the armed forces this year.
The increase in military spending is so active that it covers even countries that have long been afraid of military power. On February 27, for example, Germany announced plans to create a special fund of $ 104 billion to strengthen its armed forces, which it will use to finance several large-scale procurement projects (including the purchase of F-35 combat aircraft from the United States). Sweden has been neutral for a long time, but now it is ready to join NATO and increase spending on the armed forces to 2% of its GDP. To do this, the Swedish government will increase current military spending by almost 60%.
Even those few states that have already fulfilled NATO's defense investment commitments are in the process of further arming. Poland plans to increase military spending from 2.1% to 3% starting in 2023.
It is expected that this increase implies a significant expansion of the Polish armed forces, including a doubling of the number of personnel. Romania, another NATO ally, currently spends 2% of its GDP on the armed forces, but from next year the military budget will increase to 2.5%. And since February, Washington has increased its military spending by $90 billion, intended both to provide military assistance to Ukraine (which it carries out in a much larger volume than any other Ukrainian donor) and to strengthen its own armed forces.
The new spending by the United States is particularly noteworthy. The country has long ranked first in the world in military spending, and additional allocations only support the long-term trend of increasing military funding. Over the past two decades, US military spending has increased by about 40%, first because of the war on terrorism, and now because of the growing geopolitical rivalry with China and Russia. The new money partially goes to the maintenance of the army, but it is mainly directed to expensive and long-term projects for the acquisition of weapons, as well as research and development. The Obama administration, for example, launched a $1.2 trillion initiative to modernize American nuclear weapons. This initiative, introduced in 2010, is expected to last until 2046.
The stakes are rising
The United States and its allies are not the only countries increasing military spending. One of Vladimir Putin's main political goals was to reverse the reduction of Moscow's armed forces after the end of the Cold War. Immediately after his election as president in 2000, Russia initiated three huge state rearmament programs. As a result, the country's military spending grew almost nonstop. It is noteworthy that Russia was one of the few European countries that did not cut military spending after the 2008 financial crisis. Instead, after a 12-day war with Georgia, it has put in place a new funding program to modernize 70% of its military equipment by the end of 2020.
In the end, Russia did not meet this ambitious schedule. A combination of harsh Western sanctions (imposed after Moscow annexed Crimea) and falling oil prices forced the Kremlin to cut its military budget in 2017 and 2018. But as the economy stabilized, Russia began to increase defense spending again. Only in 2021, when Russia was concentrating troops along the border with Ukraine, the country's military spending increased by 2.9% and reached $65.9 billion, equivalent to 4.1% of the country's GDP.
But even such Russian expenses seem small compared to Chinese ones. After the crisis in the Taiwan Strait of 1995-1996, when China fired missiles at the Strait, but was forced to stop after powerful US Navy ships passed through the area, Beijing began an extensive military modernization program. China's defense spending increased by an average of 10% each year over the next two decades, and 27 years of continuous increase in the country's military budget is the longest such period for any state in the world. Last year, China's military spending reached $293 billion.
And Beijing is not going to stop. Chinese President Xi Jinping has said his long-term goal is to narrow the gap between the People's Liberation Army and what Beijing calls "the world's leading armed forces." This phrase, as many believe, refers to the US armed forces. Xi's goal is to achieve a "complete modernization" of the PLA by 2035 and transform China's armed forces into a "world-class armed force" by 2049.
China's military buildup, in turn, has prompted neighboring countries to spend more on their own armed forces. Despite a deep reluctance to seriously fund its self-defense forces, Japan still increased its military spending by 7.3% last year, which is the highest annual increase since 1972. Australia recently concluded a trilateral AUKUS security agreement with the United Kingdom and the United States. According to it, Canberra will receive eight nuclear submarines with an estimated cost of more than $ 100 billion. This is just one of many upgrades Australia is undertaking to its armed forces in response to China's growing ambitions.
A warning for buyers of weapons
In the West, one of the main justifications for increasing military spending is a deterrence strategy. As Russian troops advance on Ukrainian territory and China continues to threaten its neighbors, politicians in the United States, Asia and Europe argue that they need to reliably keep Beijing and Moscow from unleashing new conflicts or inflaming tensions. "You need to be able to fight to avoid battles," Christian Lindner, the German finance minister and founder of the fund for financing the country's new military programs, said in 2022.
There is no doubt that Governments have a responsibility to ensure the security of their peoples, but a deterrence strategy is a complex task and can have unintended consequences. When one State is rearming, it makes rival States feel less secure, and the result can be an upward spiral of military spending, modernization and expansion of armaments — in short, an arms race. The AUKUS scheme is perhaps the most striking example of how weapons programs can generate even more weapons.
If China had not been working to expand its military presence in the region, which it is most likely doing to challenge the military presence of the United States here, it is unlikely that Australia would have looked for a source of acquisition of nuclear submarines.
But even without an action-response arms race, the increase in military spending has its price. Fighting climate change and solving the problem of food shortages in the world does not promise to be cheap. And the more money countries spend on their armed forces, the more difficult it will be to solve these problems of real security of human life on earth. On June 30, for example, the Ministry of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy of the UK announced that it would "reset" part of the funds for combating climate change and foreign development assistance to finance military assistance to Ukraine. These costs that have already appeared are particularly disappointing, given that in some cases, financing human welfare programs will require only a small fraction of current military spending. A joint analysis conducted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the World Food Program showed that in order to successfully end hunger in the world by 2030, it will take $265 billion per year. This amount may seem huge, but it is only 12% of global military spending in 2021.
Countries, of course, can spend money on humanitarian programs while continuing to bear the costs of their armed forces. But the state treasury in all of them is by no means bottomless. World governments have accumulated unprecedented levels of public debt, fighting the coronavirus pandemic and covering the costs associated with Russia's special operation. Although the rapid benefits of both military and social spending are obvious, States should be aware that high and ever-increasing public debt may eventually greatly displace other future necessary expenditures. The International Monetary Fund has already warned of a "time bomb" of public debt, saying that "heavily indebted states will suffer the most" from an increase in interest rates and that "in the end, the consequences will be felt most acutely by those households that can least afford it."
This means that there are real compromises that States will have to weigh wisely when solving world problems. They are now facing two major crises: a security crisis exacerbated by the conflict in Ukraine, and an anthropogenic environmental disaster. They are also struggling with a host of other issues, such as income inequality, food insecurity, and a global lack of access to health care. All these problems compete for the same finite bank of financial resources, and the conflict in Ukraine, no matter how catastrophic it may be, cannot overshadow them. This is especially true with regard to the climate crisis, which is the most serious problem that humanity has ever faced and requires the utmost attention of the world community. States may need to strengthen their forces to counter the threat posed by Russia, but excessive armament can exacerbate the vicious circle of reducing the level of security of people's lives, taking away those resources that would be better spent on other higher priority goals. To sum up, we can say that world governments should think long and hard before adopting programs that increase military spending.
Authors: Nan Tian is a senior researcher at the Program of Military Expenditures and Arms Production at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Diego Lopez da Silva is a senior researcher at the Military Expenditures and Arms Production Program at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Alexandra Marksteiner — Researcher at the Program of Military Expenditures and Arms Production of the Stockholm International Institute
