Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Image: CeltStudio via shutterstock.com
google cta
Reporting | Europe
US military generals admirals
Top photo credit: Senior military leaders look on as U.S. President Donald Trump (not pictured) speaks at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Quantico, Virginia September 30, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Pool via REUTERS

Slash military commands & four-stars, but don't do it halfway

Military Industrial Complex

The White House published its 2025 National Security Strategy on December 4. Today there are reports that the Pentagon is determined to develop new combatant commands to replace the bloated unified command plan outlined in current law.

The plan hasn't been made public yet, but according to the Washington Post:

keep readingShow less
The military's dependence on our citizen soldiers is killing them
Top image credit: U.S. Soldiers assigned to Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry Division, Iowa National Guard and Alpha Company, 96th Civil Affairs Battalion, conduct a civil engagement within the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility Oct. 12, 2025 (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Zachary Ta)

The military's dependence on our citizen soldiers is killing them

Middle East

Two U.S. National Guard soldiers died in an ambush in Syria this past weekend.

Combined with overuse of our military for non-essential missions, ones unnecessary to our core interests, the overreliance of part-time servicemembers continues to have disastrous effects. President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, and Congress have an opportunity to put a stop to the preventable deaths of our citizen soldiers.

In 2004, in Iraq, in a matter of weeks, I lost three close comrades I served with back in the New York National Guard. In the following months more New York soldiers, men I served with, would die.

keep readingShow less
Israel's all-seeing eye is the stealthiest cruelty of all in Gaza

Israel's all-seeing eye is the stealthiest cruelty of all in Gaza

Middle East

Discussions of the war in Gaza tend to focus on what’s visible. The instinct is understandable: Over two years of brutal conflict, the Israel Defense Forces have all but destroyed the diminutive strip on the Mediterranean coast, with the scale of the carnage illustrated by images of emaciated children, shrapnel-ridden bodies, and flattened buildings.

But underlying all of this destruction is a hidden force — a carefully constructed infrastructure of Israeli surveillance that powers the war effort and keeps tabs on the smallest facets of Palestinians’ lives.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.