Follow us on social

google cta
war profit

War drives revenue increases for world's top arms dealers

New data shows weapons companies winning in all conflicts around the world

Analysis | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

Revenues at the world’s top 100 global arms and military services producing companies totaled $632 billion in 2023, a 4.2% increase over the prior year, according to new data released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

The largest increases were tied to ongoing conflicts, including a 40% increase in revenues for Russian companies involved in supplying Moscow’s war on Ukraine and record sales for Israeli firms producing weapons used in that nation’s brutal war on Gaza. Revenues for Turkey’s top arms producing companies also rose sharply — by 24% — on the strength of increased domestic defense spending plus exports tied to the war in Ukraine.

The United States remains the world’s dominant arms producing nation, with $318 billion in revenues flowing to American firms in the world’s top 100 for 2023, more than half of the global total. And the five highest revenue earners globally were all based in the United States — Lockheed Martin, Raytheon (now RTX), Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and General Dynamics.

China ranked second to the United States in arms industry revenues, with nine firms accounting for 16% of the revenue received by companies in the global top 100. Two of the fastest growing countries in terms of revenue growth for top companies were also in Asia, South Korea (plus 39%) and Japan (plus 35%). South Korea’s increase was tied to major export deals with Poland and Australia, while Japan’s was driven by its largest military buildup since World War II.

SIPRI’s analysis takes a “just the facts” approach, tracking sales numbers and correlating them with increases in domestic and export spending tied to specific events. It does not address the dire humanitarian circumstances that underlie the growing revenues of top arms companies, most notably Israel’s unconscionable attacks on Gaza, which have killed over 40,000 people directly and many more through indirect causes, including over 62,000 who have died from starvation. The companies and countries fueling this mass slaughter — including U.S. firms that have supplied a substantial share of the bombs, missiles, and aircraft used in Gaza — should be held to account for their actions, even as they halt the supply of weapons and services that the Israeli government is using to commit ongoing war crimes.

Another major impact of the revenue surge for top arms makers is the diversion of funding and talent from addressing urgent global problems, from climate change to poverty to outbreaks of disease. And the more companies and countries become dependent on the profits of war, the harder it will be to shift funding towards other urgent priorities. The continuing militarization of the global economy has a double cost — lives lost in conflict and devastating problems left unsolved. The situation needs to be treated as far more than a grim parade of statistics about who benefits from a world at war. It should be treated as an urgent call to action for a change in global priorities.


Top image credit: Andrew Angelov via shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | QiOSK
Royal Navy
Top image credit: The Royal Navy guided missile destroyer HMS Duncan arrives in the port of Hamburg and moors at the Überseebrücke. The HMS Duncan arrives from Portsmouth and will leave the Hanseatic city on Tuesday, November 25, at 10:00 a.m. Marcus Golejewski/dpa via Reuters Connect

If Europe starts attacking Russian cargo ships, all bets are off

Europe

Inspired by the U.S. seizure on the high seas of ships carrying Venezuelan oil, Britain and other NATO countries are now considering using their navies to do the same to ships carrying Russian cargoes.

This would be a radical escalation of existing moves against Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet,” which have been restricted to the ports and territorial waters of NATO states. As such, they can be considered to fall under the sovereign jurisdiction of the states concerned. An extension of this strategy, as presently contemplated by some European countries, would be a limited but reasonable and comparatively risk-free way of increasing economic pressure on Russia.

keep readingShow less
Friedrich Merz
Top image credit: EUS-Nachrichten via shutterstock.com

Germany's grandstanding on Iran: The best Europe can muster?

Europe

In a striking display of recklessness, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared the Islamic Republic of Iran to be in its “last days and weeks,” a regime he asserted had “no legitimacy.”

While other Western leaders condemned the bloody clampdown on the protests in Iran — with, according to conservative estimates, around 2,500 a in few days — none of them went so far as to boldly prognosticate an imminent demise of the regime in Tehran.

keep readingShow less
Trump and Lindsey Graham
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump, with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One en route from Florida to Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S., January 4, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Does MAGA want Trump to ‘make regime change great again’?

Washington Politics

“We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria,” then-candidate Donald Trump said in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in 2016.

This wasn’t the first time he eschewed the foreign policies of his predecessors: “We’re not looking for regime change,” he said of Iran and North Korea during a press conference in 2019. “We’ve learned that lesson a long time ago.”

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.