Global militarisation: A disturbing trend in contemporary international relations Caliber.Az analysis

Active militarisation is taking place in all regions of the planet, reflecting a deep systemic crisis in contemporary international relations. With each new "record" in military spending, the long-term risks of major wars increase, because the logic of deterrence in the nuclear age has obvious limitations.

On April 22, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released its annual report "Trends in World Military Spending-2023". Based on a huge array of open data, experts measure quantitative changes in military spending in the world over the past year and record the dynamics of indicators over longer periods of time. There were no surprises: 2023 set an absolute record for all 35 years when the study is conducted.

The language of numbers

World military spending has increased for 9 consecutive years and last year, according to SIPRI, rose 6.8 per cent year-on-year to $2.443 trillion. That is, 2.3 per cent of global GDP was spent on military needs. For the first time since 2009, the growth of the indicator was recorded in all regions of the planet. At the same time, the US ($916 billion), China ($296 billion), Russia ($109 billion), India ($83.6 billion) and Saudi Arabia ($75.8 billion) spend the most on military needs. Together, the share of these top 5 countries is 61 per cent of the world's total relevant spending. The combined share of the two major military powers - the US and China - is 49 per cent.

Compared to 2022, the list of the top five leaders has not changed, although some of them have seen their military budgets change more noticeably than others. In Russia, for example, the annual growth in spending was 24 per cent. And this is by no means the highest figure among all countries. For example, Ukraine increased its military spending by 51 per cent (64.8 billion and 8th place in the ranking), Finland - by 54 per cent (7.3 billion and 35th place), Poland - by 75 per cent (31.6 billion and 14th place), and the absolute leader in growth among the top 40 countries with the largest defence budgets was Algeria. There, the figure jumped 76 per cent to $18.3 billion. Algeria's defence budget jumped 76 per cent to $18.3 billion (19th place in the world).

If we add up the expenditures of NATO member states, we get $1.341 trillion, or 55 per cent of the global pie. This represents US$ 1.341 trillion, or 55 per cent of the global pie. Taking into account the growing attitude of the North Atlantic Alliance to fix defence budgets at 2 per cent of GDP or higher (last week the UK called for setting the standard at 2.5 per cent), it is safe to predict that NATO will not give up its statistical position in the coming years. At the same time, it is interesting that the leader in reducing military spending in 2023 among the top 40 countries was the Alliance member state Greece. Its defence spending fell by 17 per cent. Italy (-5.9 per cent) and Romania (-4.7 per cent) also spent less.

All countries in the top 10 of the list of military expenditures in the world increased their defence budgets in 2023. Their "contribution" increased by $105 billion over the year, and in total they spent $1.799 trillion, meaning they incurred 74 per cent of all global spending. Numerous records can also be found here. For example, Russian military spending is expectedly rated as the highest since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And China demonstrates the most consistent trend of military-technical strengthening over the three and a half decades of SIPRI observations: its defence expenditures have been growing continuously for 29 years.

The United States usually stands apart in the list. Washington's military budget is more than three times higher than that of China, which not only ranks second in the ranking, but which the US doctrinal documents officially define as its main strategic opponent.

The overwhelming military performance of the United States is associated not only with the development of its own armed forces in line with the same doctrinal documents that emphasize the central importance of military force to ensure Washington’s global interests. Another significant factor is the powerful American military-industrial complex. Its traditional political and economic influence lies on the surface. For example, it is easy to notice in US relations with European allies. The military-industrial complex in the North Atlantic space is structured in such a way that an increase in military spending in Europe leads, first of all, to an increase in orders from the giants of American industry.

The global arms market is similar. According to the US State Department report, in 2023, US arms sales abroad increased by 16 per cent and also reached a historic record of $238 billion. In such conditions, stock exchange quotations of key manufacturing companies such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, RTX and Northrop Grumman are steadily growing. At the same time, US arms exports take place under two schemes: commercial and political. The former involves direct contracts with manufacturers (though also usually requiring government approval), which last year reached a value of $157.5 billion. On the purely political side, where supply negotiations are directly handled by Pentagon and State Department officials, nearly $81 billion worth of arms were exported. For comparison, ten years ago, in 2013, political exports totalled $27.3 billion.

In this context, it is understandable why the main category driving overall growth in the US military budget is spending on "research, development, testing and evaluation". They grew by 9.4 per cent in 2023. Another obvious factor in the growth of US military expenditures is assistance to Ukraine, which means both direct military supplies to Kyiv and replenishment of the US own stockpiles of weapons.

In any unclear situation - militarisation

Of course, the open data on which SIPRI researchers rely cannot reflect the full picture. Due to the reluctance of some governments to provide the necessary information, some of the indicators in the report are estimates. In addition, the peculiarities of the work of statistical services in different states can make some data "invisible". Therefore, in reality, the figures of military expenditures in many countries and regions are probably even higher. However, in any case, the SIPRI report does a good job of showing the trends that are unfolding so obviously that they are easily visible even to the unarmed eye not armed with professional research tools.

As with the near-total collapse of the arms control system, this rapid militarisation is a natural response to the worsening global crisis in international relations. The less states can rely on international institutions such as international law and multilateral organisations to ensure their own security, the more they rely on the factor of force. The less diplomats can do, the more emphasis on the military.

Therefore, the spiral of militarisation is an inevitable companion of systemic transformations in world affairs, as we are witnessing now. Specific hotspots, which are becoming more and more numerous in various corners of the planet, are superimposed on a general crisis of confidence and institutional dysfunction. Unfortunately, there is no end in sight to this trend. Global militarisation will continue to expand, and SIPRI reports will continue to record new records.

Negotiations are still inevitable

Nevertheless, both history and common sense strongly suggest that the trend of increasing global militarisation cannot continue indefinitely. Until the middle of the last century, similar trends were interrupted by major wars. Their results at least temporarily removed questions about the real balances of power, and, accordingly, the possibility and necessity to change these balances through more active militarisation disappeared. Today, this logic can still work in regional contexts. At least if the main antagonists are non-nuclear-weapon regional actors.

However, at the level of confrontation between global nuclear powers, including their proxy clashes within the framework of regional conflicts, calculations on military power alone cannot be justified. Behind any even very large-scale and rapid development of conventional capabilities today, the nuclear threat factor immediately begins to loom. We have seen this clearly in the conflict in Ukraine and will see it many times in other crisis contexts. Even the typical reliance on militarisation as a means of deterring specific or potential enemies in the nuclear era has serious limitations due to the phenomenon of the "security dilemma" well described in the scientific literature.

That is, because the conflicting sides will in any case perceive even purely defensive actions of each other as a direct threat to their security and will therefore constantly fuel the escalation spiral. And nuclear weapons limit the permissible number of turns of such escalations. So we will still have to come to an agreement! Unless, of course, we hope for experiments with nuclear Armageddon.

The views and opinions expressed by guest columnists in their op-eds may differ from and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff.