Who profits from conflict? Global arms sales hit record $679bn in 2024, SIPRI finds — and why Europe’s hardline stance is part of the story
A record year for global arms sales has revived an uncomfortable question: why do peace processes struggle to gain momentum while Europe pushes for tougher military responses rather than negotiated settlements?
The latest data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) provides the factual backbone — $679 billion in global arms revenues in 2024, a decade-high surge driven by open conflicts, perceived threats, and unprecedented rearmament. But the broader strategic environment, especially within Europe, helps explain why diplomacy often moves slower than militarisation.
Below, the verified SIPRI numbers remain intact. But the story they tell becomes clearer when placed against the continent’s security logic.
Why does the EU seem to resist peace or push for harder action?
The outward impression that Europe prefers escalation over negotiation stems from three structural dynamics — each deeply connected to the defence spending boom highlighted in the SIPRI report:
(1.) Europe’s security doctrine has shifted from negotiation-first to deterrence-first
After Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, European strategic thinking underwent a long-term transformation. For many EU and NATO members — especially the Baltics, Poland, Germany and the Nordics — peace is no longer seen as the starting point; deterrence is.
A ceasefire viewed as premature is politically framed as rewarding aggression.
(2.) Rising rearmament creates political momentum against rapid de-escalation
European defence markets grew 36 percent in 2024 — the fastest regional growth globally. This is not simply economics; it shapes policy:
Governments face pressure to justify new defence budgets.
Defence industries create jobs and lobby for sustained production cycles.
Military planners argue that once stockpiles are rebuilt, “conditions for negotiation” will improve — later.
Thus, the very act of rearming delays the appetite for peace talks.
(3.) EU positioning reflects NATO and US strategic alignment
Europe’s security decisions are closely tied to NATO doctrine, where Washington’s preferences carry weight. NATO’s stance in 2024–25 has been clear:
“No negotiations from a position of weakness.”
This pushes Europe toward military solutions first, political dialogue later — even if conflicts prolong.
The paradox
While Europe publicly advocates peace, it simultaneously invests in long-term defence infrastructure, signalling that it does not expect diplomacy to deliver quick results.
This paradox forms the backdrop against which the SIPRI figures make sense.
Record Revenues Driven by Endless Conflicts (SIPRI findings)
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reports that the combined arms revenues of the world’s 100 largest defence producers rose by 5.9% in 2024 to reach $679 billion — the highest level SIPRI has recorded since it began compiling the Top 100. Over the decade 2015–2024, Top 100 revenues climbed 26 per cent.
Global arms sales: quick facts
Total 2024 (Top 100): $679 billion (up 5.9% YoY)
Decade rise (2015–24): +26%
Main drivers: Ukraine and Gaza conflicts, rising geopolitical tensions, defence modernisation, and stockpile replenishment
SIPRI notes that supply-chain strains and production bottlenecks delayed deliveries but did not reduce revenues. Massive backlogs ensured sustained financial performance even when output lagged.
US Giants Lead the Charge
US-based companies accounted for nearly 49% of total Top 100 revenue in 2024.
American firms generated $334 billion, driven by major contractors such as Lockheed Martin, RTX and Northrop Grumman. Thirty of the 39 US firms in the Top 100 posted revenue gains.
US State Department data reinforce the picture:
$318.7 billion in authorised foreign military sales (FY2024)
$200.8bn in direct commercial sales
$117.9bn in government-facilitated foreign military sales
Major deals included F-16s for Türkiye and F-15s for Israel.
Russia’s Wartime Boom and Europe’s Surge
Russia’s defence firms saw sharp revenue gains in 2024 due to wartime mobilisation and prioritising domestic supply despite sanctions and export declines.
Europe, however, recorded the fastest regional growth in the world. Germany and several NATO members posted double-digit expansion in defence output as they accelerated procurement to replenish stockpiles and meet newly pledged NATO spending targets.
Japan and other advanced economies also increased procurement due to shifting threat perceptions, particularly in East Asia.
Broader Military Spending Context
SIPRI observes that the arms revenue boom aligns with a wider rise in global military expenditure.
High spending levels form a reinforcing procurement cycle: more spending drives more orders, which create more production capacity — which in turn justifies more spending.
Asia and Oceania were an exception, recording a small aggregate decline, mainly due to disruptions among Chinese defence firms linked to an anti-corruption crackdown that delayed programmes and contracts.
Implications: Profit Over Peace?
The SIPRI data has revived old debates:
Does constant rearmament delay incentives for negotiation?
Does deterrence strengthen peace or obstruct it?
Do economic interests in defence production subtly lower the political appetite for de-escalation?
Critics argue that consistent increases in defence revenues show how conflict creates commercial opportunity while peace dividends remain unrealised.
Over 100 civil society groups have urged governments to balance military preparedness with diplomacy.
Governments also face structural challenges:
depleted stockpiles due to prolonged conflict support;
production bottlenecks that inflate backlogs and revenue even as readiness suffers.
What to Watch
SIPRI’s 2024 Top 100 data indicates a global defence sector operating at a new peak level. Analysts will be watching:
whether supply chains adapt to the surge in long-term demand;
whether replenishment orders turn into permanent procurement programmes;
how the deterrence-first posture of Europe and NATO affects future peace negotiations;
whether rising military budgets entrench a self-reinforcing arms cycle.
The central question remains:
Will higher defence spending stabilise deterrence — or deepen a system where conflicts last longer because militarisation outpaces diplomacy?
READ More on Ukraine War:
From Defence to Dysfunction: Corruption, Western Interests and the Real Cost of the Ukraine War
