In 2024, global military expenditures reached $2.7 trillion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). This represents a 9.4% increase in real terms over 2023, the highest year-on-year rise since the end of the Cold War. All world regions have shown substantial increases over the past decade, except for Africa and South America.

These are among the many alarming statistics highlighted in the UN secretary-general’s new report: “The Security We Need: Rebalancing Military Spending for a Sustainable, Peaceful Future.” The report warns of the ongoing surge in global military spending and its impact on achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It challenges the widespread assumption—particularly prevalent in Western policy discourse—that higher levels of armament lead to peace and security. Instead, it calls for rebalancing priorities toward prevention, peacebuilding, and sustainable development.

This trend is on track to continue. Earlier this year, NATO members, which collectively account for the majority of global military spending, agreed to increase their national defence spending targets from the current 2% of GDP to 3.5% of GDP by 2024, with an additional 1.5% of GDP to be spent on “other defence and security related expenditure.” The UN report’s authors estimate that, depending on how this target is interpreted and how close NATO members come to reaching it, global military expenditures could reach between $4.7 and $6.6 trillion in today’s prices by 2035.

This surge in spending is accompanied by a sharp escalation in the use of arms in war and other armed conflict around the world—from the war in Ukraine to the genocide in Gaza to the conflicts in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Myanmar. War rhetoric is in vogue, and efforts at diplomatic solutions to conflicts, peacebuilding, and arms control have been marginalized.

The Impact on the SDGs

The rise in military expenditures comes alongside another troubling trend: the world’s weak progress on achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Only 35% of SDG individual country targets are either “on track” or showing “moderate progress,” while nearly half are stagnating and 18% are regressing. A growing body of new and recent research shows that the growth in military expenditures will likely push progress even further off track.

Some of this can already be seen directly. In 2024, total official development assistance (ODA) from OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members fell for the first time in many six years. In the US, the Trump administration has gutted USAID, while the UK cut its ODA from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI in 2025—explicitly reallocating the difference into military spending. While the “guns vs. butter” trade-off is not always so explicit, statistical analysis shows that, in lower- and middle-income countries, a 1% increase in military expenditures as a share of GDP (the “military burden”) is associated with a near equal reduction in health expenditure.[1]

While governments do have, to varying extents, the capacity to increase total spending by raising taxes or borrowing, their resources are constrained. Even if increased military spending does not come directly at the expense of lower social spending, the additional taxes or borrowing are not being used in areas such as health or education. Moreover, governments in many of the Western countries that are rapidly increasing their military spending are reluctant to raise either taxes or borrowing, thus crowding out social expenditures.

Beyond diverting financial resources, higher spending on domestic arms research and development (R&D) diverts human resources from other areas. Defence industries draw heavily on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) talent—the same expertise needed for green innovation. In countries such as the UK that already have shortages of STEM skills, higher spending on military R&D will intensify competition for talent, pushing up costs for renewable energy projects and other green technologies.

Military spending also impacts the SDGs by exacerbating climate change and causing environmental degradation. Recent studies have suggested that military production and activity account for roughly 5.5% of global carbon emissions—more than double the sector’s share of global GDP. Military aircraft and ships are major “gas guzzlers,” while arms production is highly carbon- and resource-intensive, relying on critical minerals such as rare-earth metals, whose mining often causes severe environmental damage. The 5.5% figure does not include the direct climate and environmental impacts of armed conflict, including the carbon emissions and toxic pollutants caused by munitions. Post-conflict reconstruction is also highly carbon-intensive.

NATO and the New 3.5% Target

NATO members are not alone in increasing military spending. Russia, Ukraine, Israel, and Myanmar, all involved in high-intensity conflicts, have  massively increased spending. China has increased its military spending by an estimated 72% in real terms between 2014 and 2024, though this spending has remained around 1.7% of GDP—well below the global average and even the former NATO target of around 2%. Most Asian countries have followed suit, posting substantial increases in their military budgets—in many cases in response to China’s growing military power.

But as the world’s most powerful military alliance, NATO’s decisions have a disproportionate effect on global military spending patterns. According to SIPRI, NATO members accounted for 55% of total global military expenditures in 2024. Their budgetary choices not only directly raise aggregate spending but also can trigger reactive increases by enemies and rivals. Even other US allies—such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia—may face pressure to increase in tandem to “pull their weight” and respond to China’s growing military power. Moreover, because NATO members provide the bulk of ODA, their reallocation of resources can further undermine the gap in development and climate finance.

If implemented, NATO’s new 3.5% target would require all members to significantly increase defense spending, with the exception of Poland, which met the target in 2024, and Latvia and Lithuania, which did so in 2025. Even with zero economic growth, reaching the new target would demand an additional $474 billion annually compared to 2024.[2] This alone would add 17.4% to global military expenditures, and, based on estimates by Scientists for Global Responsibility, lead to an additional 132 million tons of carbon emissions annually.

Recent increases in military spending by NATO members are to a large extent a response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has naturally raised threat perceptions (and arguably reality); although they also reflect political trends that predate it. The 3.5% target is also presented as a response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its hostile actions against NATO states, including cyberattacks and airspace violations, but such huge and rapid rearmament is arguably an overreaction that risks escalating the arms race and provoking greater hostility. Many politicians and military figures have argued that there is a high probability of a full-scale Russian attack on European NATO members within 4–5 years, or even sooner. However, given that Russia has been fought to a stalemate in Ukraine, a far smaller and less powerful country, sustaining heavy troop and equipment losses, it seems hard to believe that Russia could launch an all-out war on NATO, whose European members alone possess far more troops and advanced military equipment than Russia. As one senior Western intelligence official stated, Moscow has already “bitten off more than it can chew.”

The figure of 3.5% does not appear to be based on any strategic calculation of what is actually needed to deter a Russian attack. Rather, it is a political measure to appease Trump and ensure his continued commitment to NATO and Europe. It also offers untold bounty to European arms industries, whose share prices have surged, and whose influence within several Western governments has grown markedly. Defense contractors are increasingly shaping security agendas, narrowing the space for alternate visions of peace and security.

To the extent that this new target is met, it will further divert resources away from domestic social spending, ODA, and efforts to tackle the climate crisis, including climate finance, while also fueling additional carbon emissions. Whether it is met or not, the target will provoke an ever-accelerating global arms race, increasing the risk of regional or even global conflicts.

NATO leaders’ rhetoric has further heightened concern. These leaders speak of war with Russia as though it is inevitable—or already underway. If this mindset takes hold, military spending may be seen not as a means of deterring war but of fighting and winning an inevitable confrontation. Such an approach risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That said, the responsibility for rising global military spending does not lie solely with NATO or US allies. Russia has shown little to no interest in an end to the war in Ukraine on acceptable or sustainable terms. All major powers—including China and the US—must recognize that the current trajectory of rising militarization undermines not only security but also the SDGs and efforts to avert catastrophic climate change. It is essential that all major powers change course, sooner rather than later.

[1] Fan, H., Liu, W., & Coyte, P. C. (2017). Do Military Expenditures Crowd-out Health Expenditures? Evidence from around the World, 2000–2013. Defence and Peace Economics, 29(7), 766–779.

[2] These figures are based on NATO’s own definition and figures, rather than SIPRI’s, as it is the NATO definition against which countries will be assessed. Operating on different economic growth assumptions, SIPRI estimates that an additional $1.4 trillion would be required.