Follow us on social

Shutterstock_2138955391-scaled-e1677211261225

Ukraine War is great for the portfolio, as defense stocks enjoy a banner year

The top five US weapons firms outperformed major Wall Street indexes in the last year, mostly on the backs of American taxpayers.

Reporting | Europe

This is part of our weeklong series marking the one-year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, February 24, 2022. See all of the stories here.

In January 2022, Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes told investors that global instability presented a profit opportunity for his weapons firm. "[W]e are seeing, I would say, opportunities for international sales," said Hayes, citing, among other global events, "tensions in Eastern Europe." He went on to add, "All of those things are putting pressure on some of the defense spending over there. So I fully expect we’re going to see some benefit from it."

Russia's catastrophic invasion of Ukraine unleashed financial and humanitarian pressures around the world driven by rising energy prices, ballooning inflation, and food supply chain disruptions.

But Hayes was right. Raytheon and fellow weapons manufacturers have profited handsomely, even while most investors suffered losses.

The big five weapons firms have achieved impressive stock growth since Russia’s invasion,  dramatically outperforming the major indexes. Shares in Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics appreciated in value 12.78 percent on average in the one-year span since the day before the Russian February 24 invasion last year until the close of financial markets on Thursday.

That growth is even more impressive when compared against the performance of the major indexes. The top weapons stocks, on average, outperformed the S&P 500 by 17.82 percent, the NASDAQ composite index by 23.88 percent, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average by 12.71 percent.

Two out of the three indexes, the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ Composite, reported losses in that one-year period.

Put another way, a $10,000 investment in the top five weapons firms on the day before the invasion would be worth $11,277 today. A $10,000 investment in the S&P 500 would be worth $9,495.

Much of the U.S. weapons industry’s revenues originate from U.S. government contracts, paid  by taxpayers. For example, Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest weapons manufacturer, may be a for-profit, publicly traded company but the firm’s 2021 annual report acknowledged that, “71% of our $67.0 billion in net sales were from the U.S. Government.”

And the returns of this largely government-funded industry aren’t just reinvested in production facilities and jobs across the country. Much of the returns are simply transferred to shareholders. Lockheed CEO James Taiclet, boasted about how the company delivered $11 billion to shareholders in 2022 via share repurchases and dividend payments, creating “significant value for our shareholders.” In other words, a partially taxpayer-funded payout for shareholders.

Most retail investors, who increasingly favor investing in index funds — a mutual fund or exchange-traded fund that matches the components of a financial market index such as the S&P 500 or the Dow Jones Industrial average — would have largely been left out of Lockheed’s stock buyback bonanza or the increased stock value of weapons firms that have all outperformed the major indexes in the one year since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Indeed, important questions remain about how the war will end, what victory might look like for Ukraine, when and how the rebuilding of Ukraine can begin and the long-term impacts of Putin’s invasion on NATO and the European security architecture. The costs for rebuilding Ukraine’s infrastructure are already estimated at over $1 trillion and rising.

The war’s outcome remains unclear, but one thing is certain: the outbreak of a major war in Europe will spur U.S. and European weapons purchases for years to come.

A ballooning defense budget and U.S. national debt, coupled with high energy costs and global food shortages, will have negative impacts on most Americans. But investors in weapons stocks are reaping gains that few other industries are achieving at a time of global economic turmoil.

“Our products and technologies have been instrumental in helping the people of Ukraine defend itself,” argued Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes in an earnings call last month. Chris Calio — Raytheon’s chief operating officer — noted later in the call that “our backlog is expected to continue to grow, given the heightened and increasingly complex threat environment.”

In other words, a humanitarian, geopolitical, and economic disaster for the world has at least one silver lining: profits for arms manufacturers.


Image: CeltStudio via shutterstock.com
Reporting | Europe
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less
Howard Lutnick
Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

keep readingShow less
Modi Trump
Top image credit: White House, February 2025

Trump's India problem could become a Global South crisis

Asia-Pacific

As President Trump’s second term kicked off, all signs pointed to a continued upswing in U.S.-India relations. At a White House press conference in February, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of his vision to “Make India Great Again” and how the United States under Trump would play a central role. “When it’s MAGA plus MIGA, it becomes a mega partnership for prosperity,” Modi said.

During Trump’s first term, the two populist leaders hosted rallies for each other in their respective countries and cultivated close personal ties. Aside from the Trump-Modi bromance, U.S.-Indian relations have been on a positive trajectory for over two decades, driven in part by mutual suspicion of China. But six months into his second term, Trump has taken several actions that have led to a dramatic downturn in U.S.-India relations, with India-China relations suddenly on the rise.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.