Our Editorial Director offers a reflection in light of Papal Magisterium on current defence spending in the international context.
By Andrea Tornielli On 18 September 2025, in an interview with the Daily Mail, the former NATO Deputy Commander General Sir Richard Shirreff declared that in 100 hours – that is, in less than five days – Russian President Vladimir Putin would be able to destroy Europe. But setting aside any moral considerations, is it really possible to destroy the other side, the enemy, through conventional warfare, without using nuclear weapons – which would lead to a nuclear apocalypse? Shirreff’s claim is questionable, to say the least, and is contradicted by what is happening on the ground, in this war and in all others, where it is clear that the reality is far more complex. Reports on drones In the same weeks in which alarms were sounded in NATO military circles regarding Russian military power, reports emerged of drones flying over European skies: on 9 September, fighter jets had taken off in Poland and several airports had been closed; on 22 September it was the turn of Copenhagen and Oslo; in early October air traffic was halted in Munich; in late October and early November it was the turn of the airports in Berlin and Bremen; on 7 November in Belgium; and finally, on 4 December, at the nuclear submarine base near Brest, in France. In all the cases mentioned, no confirmation was subsequently provided to the public regarding either the actual origin of the drones (initial reports had raised the possibility that they came from Russia) or their potential danger. By way of example, it is worth noting that in 2025, in Germany alone, there were as many as 225 flight disruptions caused by drones, according to a report published last January by the German Air Traffic Control Agency (DFS). It is therefore legitimate to ask whether those alerts were overestimated. National laws on rearmament During those same weeks, the EU countries’ budget laws were being approved, with member states called upon to decide on a significant increase in military spending: eurozone countries must, in fact, submit their Draft Budgetary Plans (DBPs) to the European Commission and the Eurogroup by 15 October, and these are then discussed, amended and approved by national parliaments by the end of the year. Global military spending, as is well known, has risen steadily in recent years (+9.4% in 2024 alone, according to the SIPRI Yearbook: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security 2025), and NATO, with the agreement taken at the Hague Summit last June, aims to reach the objective of spending 5% of GDP on defence by 2035 (3.5% on weapons and 1.5% on extended security). Unfortunately, the strategic decision to rearm will inevitably necessitate a different allocation of resources, diverting them away from social, health, educational, employment and environmental protection policies. “The Holy See’s policy since the First World War” has been to “press at international level for general and controlled disarmament, so we cannot be pleased with the direction in which things are heading”, commented Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State, in March 2025. Situations of perceived grave danger can make public opinion more receptive to justifying the rearmament race, and the emphasis on the imminent risk of a Russian invasion of Europe – in addition to the ongoing invasion of Ukraine – falls into this category, effectively narrowing the scope for critical debate at the very moment when national budgets are being approved. The arms race throughout history Recent history shows how military spending is cyclically perceived as an inevitable necessity. In the aftermath of the Second World War, after the devastation of the world conflict that cost the lives of sixty million people, and the subsequent onset of the Cold War, rearmament appeared to be an essential condition for survival. The aim of nuclear deterrence, the balance between blocs and the real threat of a global conflict made increased military spending an almost obligatory step. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the situation changed: in many areas of the world, military spending decreased or stabilized, while the armed forces expanded their remit to include peacekeeping missions, humanitarian interventions and regional crisis management. Defence thus took on a more cooperative dimension, focused on stability and international law. As we are well aware, war has made a comeback in everyday vocabulary. High intensity conflicts, geopolitical tensions and competition between the great powers, along with the decline in attention to international law, have once again placed military spending at the forefront of the political agenda. We have reached a point where important treaties against the proliferation of weapons are no longer being renewed: the latest example is “New Start”, a treaty which expired on 5 February 2026, and which had the aim of reducing and limiting the deployment of nuclear and strategic weapons by the United States and Russia. The United States has argued for the need for a new treaty involving China. It is legitimate to ask, with hindsight, to what extent certain decisions on rearmament were actually taken on the basis of a structural analysis of threats. Comparing the data A useful element in this regard is the comparison of data on GDP and military spending by the NATO states, Russia and China. Estimates for 2025* paint the following picture. Last year, the United States had a GDP of $30,620 billion and military expenditure of $921 billion (3.01% of GDP), whilst the other NATO countries, with a combined GDP of $26,380 billion, spent $574 billion on arms and security (2.18% of GDP). The sum of these figures gives the total for the NATO countries, namely a GDP of $57,000 billion and military expenditure of $1,495 billion, equivalent to 2.62% of GDP. As for Russia and China, based on estimates contained in the SIPRI 2025 report**, it is noted that Russia, with a GDP of $2,540 billion, spent $187 billion on weapons (7.4%), whilst China, with a GDP of $19,398 billion, spent $314 billion on armaments (1.62%). These figures reveal an asymmetry in absolute terms between NATO’s resources and those of Russia. The vast sums allocated to armaments raise a question: does the way in which we currently attempt to respond to existing threats truly help to reduce them, or does it risk fuelling them further? The continuous rise in military spending may give the impression of bolstering security, but it does little to address the root causes of the tensions that lie at the heart of conflicts. The arms industry Every 1% increase in spending as a proportion of GDP amounts to approximately $600 billion in additional expenditure per year. It should be emphasized, however, that these are general figures, which do not take into account the actual distribution of spending, particularly between conventional weapons and cybersecurity. Another critical issue concerns the lack of a truly coordinated European approach to these matters: governments with divergent political orientations adopt unharmonized national strategies, increasing costs and reducing the overall effectiveness of collective security, with the risk of further increasing strategic dependence on individual actors. Military spending remains a fundamental component of security and a driver for highly specialized technology sectors. Over the last 52 weeks (source: Bloomberg), the performance of sector indices relating to arms manufacturing stocks has seen a +28.97% rise for the Europe Stoxx Total Market Aerospace & Defence index, and in the US a +73.45% rise for the S&P Aerospace and Defense Select Industry index. However, this arms race entails political, economic and social costs: it involves sacrifices, creates debt and constrains states’ decision-making autonomy. In Europe, US pressure — albeit within an alliance — shapes standards, priorities and spending targets. The famous 2% of GDP is now not merely a technical benchmark, but a measure of international credibility. This imbalance highlights the Old Continent’s technological and industrial dependence at a time when modern warfare is increasingly defined by digital infrastructure and cyber capabilities. Civilians, unfortunately, are no longer mere spectators, but a vulnerable and decisive part of the conflict. For this reason, investing solely in military defence risks being insufficient: true prevention lies in diplomacy – particularly economic diplomacy – and in a more informed use of technology. The constant undermining of international bodies and international law, combined with a constant sense of imminent danger – which, as we have seen, does not appear so real when looking at the figures – also leads younger generations to justify and desire that their governments engage in rearmament policies. The Pope’s words on disarmament In his recent Message for World Day of Peace 2026, Pope Leo XIV wrote: “Repeated calls to increase military spending, and the choices that follow, are presented by many government leaders as a justified response to external threats. The idea of the deterrent power of military might, especially nuclear deterrence, is based on the irrationality of relations between nations, built not on law, justice and trust, but on fear and domination by force”. After noting the 9.4% increase in global military spending compared to the previous year, which reached the figure of $2,718 billion, or 2.5% of global GDP, the Pope added: “Furthermore, the response to new challenges seems to involve not only enormous economic investment in rearmament, but also a shift in educational policies. Rather than fostering a culture of memory that preserves the hard-won awareness of the twentieth century and the millions of victims, we now see communication campaigns and educational programs — at schools, universities and in the media — that spread a perception of threats and promise only an armed notion of defence and security”. Faced with increasingly troubling war scenarios and the risk of insidious disinformation linked to the major economic interests at stake, it is becoming ever clearer that security today cannot be conceived solely through the lens of force. Disarmament — cultural, political, spiritual — becomes an alternative to be taken seriously, because it opens up a different perspective: that of a balance based on trust, cooperation and prevention. Strengthening supranational bodies, reinforcing democratic safeguards within individual countries, restoring space for critical debate and moving away from the mentality of emergency would be the first steps towards building a more stable future, in which defence does not exclude disarmament, but regards it as an integral part of a broader and more far-sighted strategy. Disarmament, understood not only as the reduction of weapons but as a cultural, diplomatic and institutional choice, represents the true alternative strategy. Not a utopia, but a path based on sound realism – the very realism that has led Popes to speak out on numerous occasions to avert military adventures that have proved disastrous. Disarmament reduces risks, fosters cooperation, strengthens international stability and restores the centrality of human dignity. In a world where wars are changing shape and technology is accelerating vulnerabilities; in a world where so-called “smart bombs” continue to slaughter innocent civilians, choosing disarmament means choosing a different model for the future: one that is more inclusive, more aware and more oriented towards preventing conflicts rather than managing them. The risk of nuclear apocalypse A realistic view should never lose sight of the fact that the risk of a nuclear apocalypse seems ever closer; and when we begin to consider the total destruction of the other side as a possibility — albeit a hypothetical one — we fail to take into account the facts on which all analysts agree: the doctrine of mutual assured destruction, guaranteed by the large-scale use of nuclear weapons by an attacking country against a defending country capable of a second strike, would in fact result in the annihilation of both. Neither side can ‘win’ because whoever strikes first is destroyed by retaliation. There are already around 12,000 nuclear warheads in the world today, 90% of which are held by Russia (5,459, of which 1,718 are ready for deployment) and the United States (5,177, of which around 1,700 are ready for deployment). Existing nuclear weapons possess enough power to annihilate our civilization hundreds of times over, whilst just fifty would be enough to cause catastrophic global damage. As for conventional warfare, we must recognize that, especially today, the technology available leads to wars with enormous destructive potential, which drag on for a long time, with the risk of never ending or of fuelling the spread of terrorism and instability. This is why the only true solution, which we find in the Magisterium of the Popes, is to reject the inhumanity of conflicts that see an ever-increasing power of death entrusted to artificial intelligence, and to return to the humanity of diplomacy, dialogue and negotiation. And of disarmament, which for Christians finds its foundation in Jesus’ words to Peter in Gethsemane: “Lay down your sword”, said Leo XIV on 11 October, “is a message addressed to the powerful of this world, to those who guide the fate of peoples: have the courage to disarm! At the same time, it is an invitation to each one of us to recognize that no idea, faith or policy justifies killing. We must first disarm our hearts because unless we have peace within ourselves, we cannot give it to others”. It is an invitation “to adopt a different perspective, to look at the world from a lower position, through the eyes of those who suffer rather than the mighty”. * Sources NATO Summary: GDP 2025 – International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic Outlook 2025. Military spending 2025 – International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), The Military Balance 2026; Military Balance+ 2026. ** Sources Russia and China: GDP 2025 – International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic Outlook 2025. Military spending 2025 – SIPRI Military Expenditure Database.