Connect with us

Diplomacy

Global military spending hits record $2.89 trillion as NATO and China accelerate modernization

Published

on

Global defense spending reached a new record of $2.887 trillion in 2025, marking a 2.9% increase over the previous year, according to the “Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2025” report released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

The organization’s annual review noted that defense spending has now risen for 11 consecutive years, climbing by 41% over the past decade. Based on current data, military outlays accounted for 2.5% of global gross domestic product (GDP). Average defense spending worldwide represented 6.9% of total public expenditure, with per capita spending calculated at $352.

Fifteen countries accounted for $2.304 trillion of the total, representing 80% of global expenditure. The top five spenders remained unchanged from 2024: the US, China, Russia, Germany, and India. These five nations collectively spent $1.686 trillion on defense in 2025, representing 58% of the global total.

The US, which has long maintained its position as the world leader in military spending, allocated $954 billion to defense in 2025. While this figure represents 33% of global expenditure, US spending saw a 7.5% decrease compared to 2024. SIPRI analysts attribute this decline to a sharp reduction in foreign aid provided to other countries through supplemental appropriations above the Pentagon’s baseline budget.

Between 2022 and 2025, a total of $127 billion was allocated to the US Department of Defense to support Ukraine; by the end of 2025, $65.1 billion of that amount had been expended. Additionally, a $13 billion supplemental allocation was provided to the Pentagon in 2024 for support to Israel. Although no new supplemental resources were earmarked for either Ukraine or Israel in 2025, it was noted that Israel continued to receive $3.8 billion in aid under a specific mechanism financed through the State Department budget covering the 2019–2028 period.

Washington’s priorities in 2025 included the modernization of nuclear weapons and the development of advanced weaponry. The primary objective of these investments is reportedly to maintain US military superiority in the Western Hemisphere and to counterbalance China in the Asia-Pacific region.

China, ranked second, allocated $336 billion to defense in 2025, accounting for 12% of global spending. Beijing has increased its military expenditure for 31 consecutive years, with spending rising by 7.4% over 2024 and by 62% over the last decade (2016–2025). These investments are directed toward the comprehensive modernization of the People’s Liberation Army by 2035.

As part of this effort, China conducted tests of J-36 and J-50 sixth-generation fighter aircraft in 2025, while the H-20 strategic bomber reached “initial operational capability” (IOC). The SIPRI report clarifies that the term IOC signifies that a system is deemed sufficient to perform missions under actual combat conditions, has reached a minimum authorized number of platforms, and has trained personnel ready for operational deployment. This stage should not be confused with “full operational capability” (FOC), where systems are fully deployed across all scenarios and scales.

Russia maintained its third-place ranking in 2025, spending $190 billion on defense, a 6.6% global share. While Moscow’s military spending increased by 5.9% compared to 2024, this was the slowest growth rate recorded since the start of large-scale hostilities in 2022. Nevertheless, the burden of military spending on the Russian economy remained high, equivalent to 7.5% of GDP and 20% of total government expenditure.

Analysts also highlighted a shift in Russia’s military procurement processes. As the conflict in Ukraine evolved into a “war of attrition,” Russia aimed to limit operational costs by turning toward lower-cost weapon systems, specifically increasing the utilization of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

SIPRI utilizes approximate estimates for data concerning countries such as Russia, China, Ukraine, and Saudi Arabia. Sergey Chemezov, head of Rostec, criticized SIPRI’s calculation methods regarding defense sector companies, stating that countries like Russia and China do not share such data publicly. Chemezov emphasized that the data in question is classified and asserted that the institute’s figures are produced through unrealistic means.

Germany increased its military spending by 24% in 2025 compared to 2024, reaching $114 billion (a 3.9% global share). SIPRI pointed out that Berlin has recorded double-digit growth in defense spending for three consecutive years. For the first time since 1990, Germany surpassed the threshold of 2% of GDP, reaching 2.3% in 2025. The Berlin administration reportedly plans to increase this ratio to 3.5% by 2029.

India raised its defense spending by 8.9% annually to $92.1 billion in 2025 (a 3.2% global share). Skirmishes with Pakistan in May 2025 involving fighter jets, missiles, and UAVs were cited as a decisive factor in this increase, with New Delhi raising its aviation budget by 18% during this period.

On a regional basis, the share of the Americas in global military spending decreased by 5.5% over the last decade to 37%, while Europe’s share rose by 11% to reach 30%. Total military spending by the 32 NATO member states in 2025 amounted to $1.581 trillion, representing 55% of the global total.

Alliance members reportedly aim to increase military spending to 5% of national GDP by 2035. Under this target, 3.5% is expected to be allocated to core military requirements, with 1.5% dedicated to other defense and security-related expenditures. The SIPRI report noted that clear criteria for core versus ancillary military spending have not yet been established within NATO. This lack of definition is said to reduce transparency and complicate public oversight, with warnings that some members might include non-military expenditures under defense headings to meet political targets. The report cited Italy’s plan to include a bridge project in Sicily within its 2025 military expenditure as an example of this trend.

Diplomacy

South Korea pulls part of embassy staff from Ukraine amid POW dispute

Published

on

The South Korean government has decided to withdraw part of its embassy staff from Ukraine.

According to the Yonhap news agency, Foreign Ministry spokesman Park Doo-sun cited the Kyiv administration’s failure to take “positive steps” in the dispute that began with the leak of information concerning the handover of North Korean prisoners of war as the justification for the move.

The spokesman also listed the ongoing threat of air strikes, which complicates the safety of diplomats, among the reasons.

Following the withdrawal of part of the personnel, essential diplomatic contacts will continue under the leadership of the charge d’affaires ad interim to Ukraine. All consular staff tasked with protecting South Korean citizens will remain in Ukraine.

Prior to this move, the Seoul administration decided on 8 October to withdraw its ambassador. The Foreign Ministry stated at the time that it was ready to continue consultations with Kyiv to resolve the emerging issues constructively.

Tensions between the two countries began with a speech delivered by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

Zelenskyy announced that two captured soldiers from the North Korean army had been handed over to South Korea.

South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, meanwhile, accused Kyiv of breaching a confidentiality agreement.

Lee said the disclosure of this information endangered the prisoners’ families and stability on the Korean Peninsula.

Seoul expects a public apology

Dmytro Lytvyn, an adviser to the Ukrainian president, denied the existence of a confidentiality agreement.

The South Korean Foreign Ministry summoned Ukrainian Charge d’Affaires Andriy Veshkin on 28 September and issued a note of protest against Lytvyn’s remarks.

President Lee Jae-myung warned in a statement on 2 October that they would take additional measures against Kyiv if Ukrainian authorities did not acknowledge the agreement and make a public apology. Lee stated that Ukraine itself had initially requested that the transfer of the prisoners be kept confidential.

Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Heorhii Tykhyi said the dispute stemmed from differing interpretations of the confidentiality regime.

Tykhyi noted that Seoul, based on its constitution which recognises the entire Korean Peninsula as its own territory, requested that the prisoners be handed over “like its own citizens”.

Describing the handover as a “gesture of goodwill”, Tykhyi stated that they were conducting closed-door negotiations to resolve differences of opinion.

Ambassador Park Ki-chang returned to Seoul on 10 October. According to a report by The Korea Times newspaper citing the ministry, recalling the ambassador served as a diplomatic protest against the leak of information regarding the prisoners.

The newspaper wrote that South Korea had last taken a similar step in 2008 by withdrawing its ambassador to Japan.

Moscow warned foreign diplomats

On 3 October, the Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated its warning to foreign nationals, including diplomatic mission staff, against remaining in Ukraine.

The ministry recalled its advice to leave Kyiv, citing ongoing strikes against military targets.

The ministry noted that those who failed to heed the warnings would bear responsibility for the potential consequences.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a statement on 24 September that they had no information regarding Kyiv handing over two North Korean prisoners of war to Seoul.

Peskov, noting that prisoner matters fall under the authority of the Defence Ministry and intelligence services, said, “Contacts through the special services are continuing.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Ex-BND head Hanning tied to former Mossad chief amid spy inquiry

Published

on

August Hanning, who led Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND) between 1998 and 2005, was arrested on 6 October on allegations that he obtained roughly 2,000 classified agency documents and used them during contacts with intelligence officers from a foreign state.

Accused of high treason and espionage on behalf of a foreign intelligence agency, the former spy chief is alleged to have procured the documents from former BND employee Manfred D.

Prosecutors stated that the leaked records included internal briefing notes presented to senior German officials, though the Berlin government has not yet publicly disclosed which country received the classified data.

According to an exclusive report by Jake Green for The Cradle, seized email exchanges revealed extensive ties between the arrested Hanning and former Mossad director Danny Yatom.

The correspondence shows that the two former intelligence directors built an ongoing network of contacts following their public service, combining commercial ventures, efforts to secure political influence, and intelligence links.

This dynamic has triggered debate that using personal connections and official access for private gain has left Germany’s intelligence apparatus vulnerable.

Intelligence notes for 10,000 euros and campaign proposals

According to the reviewed emails, Hanning told Yatom in a 2018 message that he could prepare an “overall assessment based on information obtained from senior German officials and intelligence agencies” concerning an unidentified candidate.

The former BND head committed to completing the report by 13 July in exchange for 10,000 euros.

Contacts between the two men subsequently expanded to cover domestic political processes in Germany. Ahead of the September 2021 federal election, Yatom asked Hanning to approach leading candidates.

Describing CIY Global as a “political campaign company”, the former Mossad chief noted that he aimed to introduce its capabilities to German politicians, and he mentioned his intention in the same exchange to transfer documents concerning a cybersecurity firm.

Cybersecurity partnership and surveillance operations across Europe

The partnership between Yatom and Hanning reached beyond political lobbying initiatives into the cybersecurity sector.

Hanning reportedly served as a consultant for World Health Energy Holdings, a cybersecurity company linked to Yatom.

Firms of this type, established or managed by former intelligence personnel, provide commercial platforms on the international market for Israeli-origin surveillance, cyber intelligence, and political influence capabilities.

The operational presence of private Israeli-based surveillance technologies across Europe has recently entered judicial records through scandals in Poland, Spain, and Greece.

Polish prosecutors announced on 12 October that data collected under the previous government via Pegasus spyware against political opponents had been transferred out of the country, adding that manufacturer NSO Group maintained access to the technical infrastructure.

In Spain, the 2022 CatalanGate investigation established that at least 65 people, including politicians, lawyers, and civil society representatives, were targeted using Pegasus or Candiru software, with Citizen Lab researchers publishing strong evidence linking the operation to Spanish authorities.

In Greece, the surveillance operation targeting journalist Thanasis Koukakis and Member of the European Parliament Nikos Androulakis was determined to have used Predator software, linked to Intellexa, a company founded by former Israeli intelligence officer Tal Dilian.

In the German espionage investigation, the traffic between Hanning and Yatom involving paid reporting, contacts with electoral candidates, and commercial partnerships does not yet provide conclusive legal evidence regarding the final destination of the roughly 2,000 classified documents.

Nevertheless, the disclosed correspondence gives German investigators a concrete line of inquiry to assess whether classified state secrets reached commercial networks tied to Israeli intelligence.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Trump dismisses US envoy to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle

Published

on

US President Donald Trump has dismissed Kimberly Guilfoyle, the US ambassador in Athens, following serious press reports concerning her conduct.

White House Press Secretary Katie Zacharia told reporters during her first briefing that Guilfoyle had been asked to resign.

“She was doing a good job, but we didn’t like what we read in the press,” Trump said. “She was not a member of my family. I think she dated my son a long time ago.”

In a social media post, Guilfoyle stated: “These claims are unfounded, and I will resolutely defend my name, reputation, and integrity.” She added that she was particularly proud of the embassy’s work.

According to Kathimerini, her removal came as no surprise in Washington. Days of successive disclosures and vigorous exploitation of the matter by Democrats had been inflicting political damage on the White House ahead of the sensitive midterm elections.

The US State Department was instructed not to comment, with crisis management transferred entirely to the White House.

Reports indicate that most of the president’s team swiftly favoured Guilfoyle’s dismissal, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio was reportedly uneasy with the demonstratively warm public welcome she had staged for him.

Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee have called for an investigation.

“Her resignation does not absolve her of responsibility,” the lawmakers wrote, adding: “While American families struggled to make ends meet, she used her position as a Trump administration official to enrich herself.”

Chargé d’Affaires Josh Huck will assume ambassadorial duties until a successor is chosen.

Meanwhile, Guilfoyle’s departure is expected to cause delays in agreements between Greece and the US.

These include the so-called “Rubio package”, comprising approximately $4 billion in arms deals finalised only days before the secretary of state’s arrival.

Several procedural steps still remain before the contracts can be signed.

In Athens, opposition parties are demanding answers. Dimitris Mantzos of PASOK called for a detailed briefing on the agreements reached during Rubio’s visit.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey