▪ The United States is the main beneficiary of the arms trade. While it already accounted for 35 per cent of all the transfers conducted worldwide from 2015 to 2019, during the period from 2020 to 2024 it went on to represent 43 per cent of the total, and has 41 out of the world’s top 100 defence companies. During the 2020-2024 period, it supplied arms to 107 countries and was the leading arms supplier to 22 of the world’s 40 main importers, with Saudi Arabia heading the list, accounting for 12 per cent of its total exports.

▪ During those same years, and as a direct result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the European members of NATO (23 of the 27 countries in the European Union, where 18 of the world’s top 100 companies are headquartered) increased their arms imports by 105 per cent on the previous five-year period. And while from 2015 to 2019, 42 per cent was material from the US, in the last five years, the percentage rose to 64 per cent.

▪ The US came first in terms of exports growth, with an increase of 21 per cent from 2020 to 2024. France took second place, displacing Russia, with an increase of 11 per cent on the 2015-2019 period, with exports to 65 countries and a 9.6 per cent share of the global market. Next in line came Russia – with a fall of 64 per cent, only 7.8 per cent of total world transfers and two companies among the world’s top 100 – China – with a fall of 5.2 per cent and a share of 5.9 per cent, with nine companies among the world’s top 100 – Germany – with a loss of 2.6 per cent and 5.6 per cent of world trade – Italy – which moves from tenth to sixth place, with an increase of 138 per cent, reaching 4.8 per cent of the global total – the United Kingdom – with a decrease of 1.4 per cent and a world share of 3.6 per cent – Israel – with a fall of 2 per cent and a world share of 3.1 per cent – Spain – although it has gone down a place, it increased its exports by 29 per cent and accounts for three per cent of world trade – and South Korea – with an increase of 4.9 per cent and 2.2 per cent of the global total. Others are climbing up the ranking at a rapid pace, such as Turkey – in eleventh place, with growth of 104 per cent and 1.7 per cent of world trade – the Netherlands – despite suffering a fall of 36 per cent, it now represents 1.2 per cent of the world total – and Poland – with an increase of 4,031 per cent to reach 1 per cent of the global total.

▪ Ukraine, with 8.8 per cent of total imports, has become the world’s largest arms importer. More than 35 countries appear as suppliers to Kiev, with the US (45 per cent), Germany (12 per cent) and Poland (11 per cent) in the lead. In second place is India (although its imports fell by 9.3 per cent over the last five years, it absorbed 8.3 per cent of all global arms imports), followed by Qatar (which in the previous five-year period was in tenth position and which increased its imports by 127 per cent in 2020-2024 to account for 6.8 per cent of global imports), Saudi Arabia (with a fall of 41 per cent compared to the previous five-year period, when it was the world’s leading importer of arms, and a global share of 6.8 per cent) and Pakistan (with an increase of 61 per cent and a global share of 4.6 per cent).

What is behind the escalation in the militarist trend?

A hasty interpretation of this data could lead to the conclusion that this intensification of militarist tendencies is solely due to the power of defence companies, imagining them capable of convincing governments and political actors of all kinds that the path of arms is the most beneficial in the defence of their interests. Without by any means denying their considerable sway and their constant search for profit at all costs, this would mean leaving aside many other factors that contribute to explaining a dynamic that points to even greater intensification.

Firstly, the imperialist drive mobilising Russia, China and the United States is becoming increasingly visible. Russia, as is instantly clear from its invasion of Ukraine, is seeking at all costs to recover a sphere of influence of its own, in both its European and Asian neighbourhoods. The other two, while battling each other for world leadership, make no secret of their respective claims on Taiwan or Panama and Greenland. And in all three cases, there is a recurring pattern of behaviour that leads them to think that the best way to achieve their aims is to arm themselves even more.

On a lower level, there is also a clear militaristic tendency on the part of aspiring leaders in various regions of the planet, taking advantage of the weakening of the United States’ role as global policeman. This weakening has led some countries to believe that they are being offered an opportunity to consolidate or secure a leadership that they consider their natural destiny and, following a pattern of behaviour deeply rooted in human history, they focus on rearming themselves with the intention of bending the will of their neighbours. In such cases, it is not unusual, returning to the competition between the three major powers already mentioned, that each of them choose to give military support to the relevant candidate in an attempt to rally new allies against their rivals.

Meanwhile, the weakening of multinational bodies for the prevention of violent conflict, with the UN at a low ebb, is also creating widespread concern as many medium and small powers feel that the serious decline in the international order leaves them defenceless against potential violations of their national sovereignty.

This concern is leading to a new arms race, as many, fearing defencelessness should anyone decide to violently attack their vital interests, are resorting to strengthening their defence capabilities.

Driven by this impulse, the members of the European Union are misguided in backing a rearmament plan such as that recently presented by the president of the European Commission. It is understandable that the EU27 want to become independent of Washington and have their own means of defending their own interests. But the way forward — which is unanimously identified as a peace project, not an imperialist one — cannot be a return to the past. Military means must be seen as instruments of dissuasion and a last resort; therefore, the path of arms – which also implies continuing to count on the US as the main supplier in the short and medium term – is an inadequate response to the challenges we face today.

For one, weapons are of no use in neutralising many of the security threats affecting us – the climate crisis or the rise of anti-democratic movements, for example. For another, the EU’s political structure and decision-making process would have to be changed first, so that, as is the case in any constitutional state, such arms are subject to civilian government. It does not in any case seem likely that the European Union will be able to resist the militarist wave in which we are already submerged.

Jesús A. Núñez Villaverde

Click here to subscribe to ESSF newsletters in English and or French.