The spectre of large-scale conflict between three great nations – United States, China, and Russia – looms larger than at any time since the Cold War ended. The post-9/11 era, described initially as the War on Terror, has morphed into a complex web of escalating military tensions, regional proxy wars, and unprecedented arms races, particularly in the Indo-Pacific.
The War on Terror, launched after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S., saw the U.S. and its NATO partners engage non-state actors and rogue regimes across North Africa, Afghanistan, and Iraq, costing trillions of dollars and reshaping global alliances. A report from the Costs of War project at Brown University revealed that two decades of post-9/11 wars have cost the U.S. an estimated $8 trillion and have killed more than 900,000 people.
Yet, the focus has shifted from terrorism to state-on-state rivalries, with new flash points exposing the fragility of global stability.
Israel’s simmering conflict with Iran – marked by cyber-attacks, assassinations, and proxy battles in Syria and Lebanon – on top of the ongoing Gaza War, threatens to ignite a broader Middle Eastern conflagration. Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Israel’s preemptive posture raise the stakes, potentially drawing in great powers.
A case in point was Operation True Promise in 2024, which saw Iran’s first direct attack on Israel from Iranian soil. The assault involved 170 drones, 120 ballistic missiles, and 30 cruise missiles, targeting Israeli military sites such as Nevatim and Ramon airbases.
Similarly, U.S. and U.K. strikes against Iran-backed Yemen’s Houthi rebels in 2024 and 2025 signal a widening arc of confrontation, with the U.S. and Iran edging closer to direct conflict.
Meanwhile, Pakistan and India, nuclear-armed neighbours, clash repeatedly over Kashmir, their border skirmishes risking escalation under the weight of nationalist fervour and military modernization.
And the Indo-Pacific emerges as the crucible of great power rivalry.
China’s rapid naval expansion, fortified artificial islands, and assertive claims in the South China Sea challenge U.S. dominance. Russia, in the throes of its Ukraine campaign, aligns with China, conducting joint exercises to project power. The U.S. responds with minilateral alliances such as AUKUS and QUAD, funneling advanced weaponry to Australia, Japan, and India.
Hypersonic missiles, AI-driven warfare, and space-based systems proliferate, shrinking decision windows and amplifying miscalculation risks.
Cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and disinformation campaigns now prelude kinetic conflict, blurring lines between war and peace.
The erosion of Cold War-era arms-control treaties, coupled with nationalist surges, fuels distrust and feeds geopolitical tensions today.
Since 2001, global military spending has soared, with NATO, China, and Russia modernizing arsenals at breakneck speed. In 2000, global military spending was estimated at $1.1 trillion in 2023 constant dollars. By 2024, this figure had surged to $2.7 trillion, marking a dramatic rise driven by geopolitical tensions, technological advancements, and regional conflicts.
Next, I outline both the top 5 nation-state military budgets globally, in terms of total funds spent nationally, as well as the size of their respective weapons export industries as of 2024.
United States:
In 2024, the United States spent approximately $997 billion (3.4% of GDP) on its armed forces, per SIPRI estimates, covering the Department of Defense (DoD) and related activities. The top five expenditure categories, based on DoD budget breakdowns and Congressional Budget Office data, with absolute dollars spent:
Operation and maintenance: $365 billion – Funds training, equipment maintenance, fuel, civilian salaries (795,000 DoD civilians), and healthcare (excluding veterans). Largest category due to operational readiness costs.
Military personnel: $211 billion – Covers salaries, benefits, and pensions for ~1.3 million active-duty troops and reserves. Reflects high compensation for an all-volunteer force.
Procurement: $170 billion – Purchases new equipment including F-35 jets, Reaper drones, and M1 Abrams tanks. Increased for Ukraine aid and modernization.
Research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E): $140 billion – Finances R&D for advanced technologies, including hypersonics and AI. Supports prototyping and testing.
Military construction and family housing: $12 billion – Builds and maintains facilities, bases, and housing for personnel. Smaller but critical for infrastructure.
In 2024, the United States led global arms exports with approximately $319 billion in sales, fueled by geopolitical pressure and Ukraine-related demand. The industry thrived on combat aircraft, drones, missiles, and armoured vehicles, with major contracts to Poland, Israel, and Taiwan. F-35 jets (Lockheed Martin) led by $5.62 billion in deals to the Czech Republic. Reaper drones (General Atomics) met rising surveillance needs. Javelin missiles (Raytheon/Lockheed Martin) surged in Ukraine, with 1,000 sent monthly.
United States – General Atomics Reaper drone.
China:
In 2024, China spent about $471 billion ($2.5% GDP) on its armed forces, per a 2024 study by Fravel, Gilboy, and Heginbotham, reflecting a more accurate estimate than the official $231 billion due to purchasing power parity (PPP) and hidden costs such as the People’s Armed Police (PAP). The top five expenditure categories, based on China’s 2019 Defense White Paper, SIPRI data, and UN budget shares, with absolute US dollars spent:
Operation and maintenance: $180 billion – Funds training, base operations, fuel, and civilian salaries (~500,000 paramilitary/civilians). Largest share due to PLA’s 2.035 million active troops and regional operations (e.g., South China Sea).
Military personnel: $135 billion – Covers salaries, benefits, and pensions for ~2.035 million active and 510,000 reserve personnel. Lower wages than U.S. enhance PPP efficiency.
Procurement: $90 billion – Purchases equipment including Type 054A frigates (CSSC), Wing Loong drones (AVIC), and VT-4 tanks (NORINCO). Supports naval and air force expansion.
Research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E): $61 billion – Develops hypersonics (DF-27), AI, and satellite systems (Y-20U tankers).
Military construction and infrastructure: $5 billion – Builds bases (e.g., Djibouti), silos for DF-5 ICBMs, and dual-use South China Sea facilities. Smaller due to domestic cost advantages.
In 2024, China’s arms export industry ranked fourth globally with a 6% global market share, generating ~$8 billion, focused on Asia and Africa. Key exports included drones, popular in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; missiles supplied to Myanmar; tanks exported to Thailand; and frigates (Type 054A) sold to Pakistan. Despite growth in niche markets, political constraints and quality concerns limited sales. State-owned giants such as AVIC, NORINCO, and CSSC drove exports, leveraging low costs and lax regulations, though sanctions targeted firms including NORINCO for human rights issues.
Chinese Navy – Type 054A guided-missile frigate.
Russia:
Russia’s total military spending in 2024 is estimated at approximately $149 billion USD (6.8% of GDP), according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), representing a 38% increase from 2023. This figure is based on SIPRI’s comprehensive methodology, which includes official budget data adjusted for off-budget funding and other sources, though some X posts suggest higher estimates ($400–460 billion USD) when accounting for hidden expenditures.
Operations and maintenance: $29.8 billion – This covers operational costs, including fuel, logistics, maintenance of equipment and facilities, and support for military operations in Ukraine and other regions (e.g., Syria). Forbes Ukraine estimated Russia’s daily cost of the Ukraine invasion at $400 million in 2022, implying significant operational expenses.
Military personnel: $37.25 billion – This includes salaries, bonuses, and financial allowances for military personnel, including sign-on bonuses (30 billion rubles annually, ~$315 million) and compensation for families of fallen servicemen (5.8 billion rubles, ~$60.8 million).
Procurement: $59.6 billion – This category covers the purchase and production of weapons, vehicles, and equipment, including tanks, aircraft, drones, and munitions, driven by the war in Ukraine and replenishing depleted arsenals. The Carnegie Endowment notes that war-related industries (e.g., transport production up 66.7%, electronics up 42.6%) have seen significant growth, fueled by procurement.
Research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E): $22 – $30 billion – This funds the development of new weapons, technologies, and systems, such as hypersonics and electronic warfare, as well as upgrades to existing platforms. Estimate uses NATO’s 15–20% benchmark, adjusted for Russia’s opaque budgeting and prioritization of advanced weaponry.
Russian weapons exports decreased by approximately $14 billion or 87.5% in financial value from 2021 ($14.6 billion) to 2024 (less than $1 billion). Western sanctions and international pressure, together with the massive increase in wartime demand, virtually ended Russian weapons exports.
France:
In 2024, France spent approximately $60.4 billion on its armed forces, per GlobalData and SIPRI estimates, reflecting a 2% GDP share to meet NATO targets. The top five expenditure categories, based on France’s Military Programming Law (LPM 2024–2030) and budget analyses, with absolute US dollars spent:
Operation and maintenance: $22 billion – Funds training, fuel, base operations, and civilian salaries (~67,837 DoD civilians). Supports high readiness amid Ukraine aid.
Military personnel: $17 billion – Covers salaries, pensions, and benefits for ~270,000 active personnel and 63,700 reservists.
Procurement: $12 billion – Purchases Rafale jets (Dassault), Caesar howitzers (Nexter/KNDS), and Scorpène submarines (Naval group). Boosted by €3.1 billion LPM increase.
Research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E): $8 billion – Develops hypersonics (ASN4G missile, MBDA), cyber defences, and space systems (Yoda nanosatellites). Focuses on emerging threats.
Military construction and infrastructure: $1.4 billion – Builds and upgrades bases, including Charles de Gaulle carrier refits (Naval group). Smaller due to equipment prioritization.
In 2024, France solidified its position as the world’s second-largest arms exporter with a 9.6% market share, valued at ~$30 billion, driven by Ukraine’s demand and Russia’s decline. The industry thrived on combat aircraft, naval vessels, artillery, and missiles, with exports to India, Qatar, and Egypt. Rafale jets (Dassault Aviation) led, with 500 units ordered globally. Caesar howitzers (Nexter/KNDS) tripled production for Ukraine. Scorpène submarines (Naval Group) secured Indian contracts. France’s strategic sovereignty and export policies capitalized on global rearmament, challenging U.S. dominance.
French Rafale 4th-generation multi-role fighter.
Germany:
In 2024, Germany spent approximately $88.5 billion on its armed forces, per SIPRI, driven by a €100 billion special fund and just shy of NATO’s 2% GDP target. The top five expenditure categories, based on Bundeswehr budget breakdowns and NATO spending patterns, with absolute US dollars spent:
Operation and maintenance: $34 billion – Funds training, fuel, base operations, and civilian salaries (~80,761 civilians). Boosted for Ukraine aid and readiness.
Procurement: $21 billion – Purchase of Leopard 2 tanks (Rheinmetall), Patriot missiles (MBDA), and U-212CD submarines (Thyssenkrupp). Record 97 projects approved.
Military personnel: $20 billion – Covers salaries and benefits for ~180,215 active personnel and 34,600 reserves. Strained by recruitment issues.
Research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E): $12 billion – Develops next-generation aircraft (FCAS) and cyber defences. Supports innovation hubs including CIHBw.
Military construction and infrastructure: $1.5 billion – Upgrades barracks and funds Lithuania brigade (€5–7 billion total).
In 2024, Germany’s arms export industry hit a record €13.7 billion, driven by Ukraine’s €8.4 billion in purchases amid Russia’s invasion. Ranking fifth globally, Germany exported Leopard 2 tanks (Rheinmetall), PzH 2000 howitzers, Patriot missiles, and Type 212 submarines (Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems) to Norway, Hungary, and Israel. The industry, bolstered by relaxed export rules post-2022 is pivoting from restraint to rearmament, which reflects geopolitical shifts, challenging its post-WWII caution.
German PzH 2000 howitzer.
The evolution of military weaponry is being shaped by lessons learned from conflicts in Iran, Yemen, Syria, and Ukraine.
These engagements have demonstrated the increasing reliance on asymmetric warfare, autonomous systems, and precision-guided munitions. Iran’s military strategy, for example, has emphasized proxy warfare and missile technology, allowing it to project power without direct confrontation.
This approach has influenced other nations seeking to enhance their deterrence capabilities while avoiding conventional warfare.
The war in Ukraine has highlighted the transformative role of autonomous systems, particularly unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Both Russia and Ukraine have deployed drones for reconnaissance, precision strikes, and electronic warfare, reshaping battlefield dynamics.
The conflict has underscored the importance of electronic warfare and contested logistics, as both sides struggle to maintain supply chains under constant disruption.
In Yemen and Syria, the use of low-cost, high-impact weapons such as loitering munitions and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) has demonstrated the effectiveness of unconventional tactics. These weapons allow non-state actors to challenge conventional military forces, forcing governments to adapt their defence strategies.
The proliferation of cheap, mass-produced drones has further complicated traditional air-defence systems, requiring nations to invest in counter-drone technologies.
Looking ahead, military forces will likely prioritize multi-domain operations, integrating cyber warfare, space-based assets, and AI-backed decision-making into their arsenals.
The Ukraine conflict has shown that information warfare and digital resilience are as critical as physical weaponry. Future conflicts will likely see an increased emphasis on networked warfare, where AI-driven platforms co-ordinate attacks across land, air, sea, and cyberspace.
Ultimately, the lessons from these conflicts suggest that traditional military superiority is no longer solely determined by firepower. Nations must adapt to hybrid warfare, leveraging technology, intelligence, and adaptability to maintain strategic advantages. As military technology continues to evolve, the ability to integrate emerging innovations into existing doctrines will define the next generation of warfare.
