NATO has published its latest annual report on Allied defence expenditure, showing sharp increases in spending across Europe alongside sustained US dominance.
The figures, current to June 2025, draw on data provided by Allied defence ministries as well as economic inputs from the European Commission, IMF and OECD.
NATO noted that the figures may differ from national budget statements due to its own standardised definition of defence expenditure.
Top spenders by absolute expenditure (2025)
- United States – $980.0 billion
- Germany – $93.7 billion
- United Kingdom – $90.5 billion
- France – $66.5 billion
- Italy – $48.8 billion
- Poland – $44.3 billion
- Canada – $43.9 billion
- Spain – $35.7 billion
- Türkiye – $32.6 billion
- Netherlands – $28.1 billion
The UK ranks third in NATO by overall defence spending, behind the US and Germany, with estimated expenditure of $90.5 billion in 2025.
Spending as a share of GDP (2025)
- Poland – 4.48%
- Lithuania – 4.00%
- Latvia – 3.73%
- Estonia – 3.38%
- Norway – 3.35%
- Denmark – 3.22%
- United States – 3.22%
- Greece – 2.85%
- United Kingdom – 2.40%
- France – 2.05%
Eastern flank countries dominate when measured by defence expenditure as a share of GDP. Poland leads NATO with 4.48 percent, while Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia also exceed 3 percent. The UK ranks ninth at 2.4 percent.
Percentage increases since 2014 (real terms)
- Lithuania – +534.9%
- Latvia – +383.2%
- Luxembourg – +367.0%
- Denmark – +263.6%
- Poland – +254.8%
- Sweden – +185.6%
- Slovenia – +179.0%
- Netherlands – +174.4%
- Czechia – +169.8%
- Norway – +155.7%
The data show dramatic growth in defence spending among NATO’s eastern and northern members since 2014, with Lithuania’s budget rising more than fivefold.
UK defence spending
Between 2014 and 2025, UK defence spending in real terms has shown steady growth, according to NATO figures. In 2014 expenditure stood at 62.7 billion (2021 US dollars) before dipping slightly to 60.8 billion in 2015. From there, spending rose incrementally year on year, reaching 63.7 billion in 2016, 65.1 billion in 2017, and 66.7 billion in 2018. In 2019 expenditure increased further to 67.2 billion and to 68.1 billion in 2020. By 2021 spending had grown to 71.9 billion and continued to rise to 74.7 billion in 2022. A small dip followed in 2023 with 74.4 billion recorded, before estimates showed a renewed climb to 77.9 billion in 2024 and 81.3 billion in 2025.
Overall, the data reflects a 29.6 percent real increase in UK defence spending over the period.
The Alliance stressed that the expenditure figures not only reflect budgets for national armed forces but also contributions to collective NATO operations and commitments, providing a standardised measure across all Allies.
Poland spending a lot less than us has done a lot more, all we seem to do is buy support contracts and study groups and window shop. Past couple of years they rebuilt there Army massively. Where we gave most of our kit and ammo away and never replaced it, Yes we four old rusty Nuc subs but come on they costing us that much we can not buy any thing, We spend twice much as Poland really do not have much to show for it land forces wise.
The Polish Navy consists of 2 old OHP class Frigates, and one Soviet era SSK. No CASD, no Carriers, no AAW Destroyers, no SSN’s, no amphib, and the entire naval rotary force consists of 4 Merlins. So no, they don’t do more with less.
I said about land forces not the navy, why do we spend twice as much as them but have crap small land forces. Not interested in their navy.
Cause it’s one defence budget, and stuff like carriers, nuclear submarines and advanced destroyers and frigates just costs a lot more than an armoured vehicle or a tank.
Really thanks for pointing that out so that costs us an Extra £54 Billion for all that? no its the fact we want shinny toys while robbing Peter to pay Paul. We have a very unbalanced armed forces where the Army is neglected then people come with excuses why. Never any on at MODs fault, never the Top brasses fault, we can not get any thing to work in budget or but enough of it. .Some just look for reason why when its simple we do not get value for money and most who deal with equipment buys are no very good at it,
We can not field one full manned, Armoured Div, we can field a mixed bag of lots things not a full equipped Armours Div, 14 Archer SPG’s does not cut it ,
Given that our Navy includes Submarine Launched ICBM’s, Nuclear propulsion, top of the line SSN’s (in fact Submarines in general as Poland doesn’t have any real SSK capability), Billion £ Anti-Air Warfare Destroyers, Aircraft Carriers, the Fleet Air Arm (both F-35’s and the Rotary Helicopter Force), the Royal Marines, and one of the best Anti-Submarine Frigate forces in the world, and, as I pointed out, that Poland enjoys significant PPP advantages over us, yes.
You want to froth and rage, go ahead, but don’t expect people not to point out the holes in your argument.
not worth replying to that, thank you for effort, we have crap army we all know it and excuses like yours see why no one ever get pulled up to why its gone so shit,
Ah so you actually are stupid got it
Yes of course I am, did you not know that?. We pay more have less of an army. Or Army is small, its kit older, and we may have 148 Tanks in 5 years. Sorry you can not grasp that. Yes we have a bigger navy and Airforce. Are Army suffers because of that.
Can i borrow your rose tined glasses? how can 14 wheeled SPG’s and well less than 200 working tanks with ammo that is even made any more be some thing to happy about?
Small things excite small minds.
Yawn. Dumb little man, didn’t bother to read, now angrily raging about stuff that people have already explained to his little mind.
(Also the budget difference between Poland and the UK’s expenditure is 34bn£ not 54.
The defence budget, as Leh says, covers all three armed services. You can’t say “Why do we spend twice as much as them and have a smaller army” and ignore the fact that THE SAME budget pays for a much MUCH larger navy.
We spend twice as much as them, point made, look what the Army get for it? . And you proud of that?
Well if you’re too dumb to read that’s not my problem.
The cost of a new tank is about £10 million. So 250 cost the same as a Type 31 frigate. Poland doesn’t have much of a navy; land forces cost less than naval forces. Simple fact is we have a lot of the expensive stuff you new for a naval power, Poland has a lot of the cheaper things needed for a continental power.
So our run down little under equipped army is the cost of having a bigger navy even though we spend £54 Billion more than them, my point was about land forces, they have sorted theirs in 3 to 5 years our is a mess with no light at the end of the tunnel. We do not get value for money, we do not spend wisely and we neglect the Army. With what we spend have better. Sadly we do not, and just saying we have bigger Navy does hide the fact our Army is worn out, run down, under equipped and too small.
FYI Poland has gone on a spending spree, but recent artciles said they didn’t earmark money for the maintenance. great having a thousand tanks, but useless if they are not properly maintained. not to mention manpower to crew them
Well we have 200ish 30 years old tanks short of spares and they stopped making ammo for the main gun a few years ago, since then we gave Ukraine 14 tanks, spares we could not really spare and ammo we could not replace. I get your point but thing in a land battle Poland brings more to fight than we do, well more 200 modern tanks. And we are replacing 200 with 148. They have more working modern tacked SPG’s than we have old light guns.
It’s almost like you are being deliberately obtuse and ignoring things like Challenger 3, or RCH155, being acquired….
oh they are not here are they, 148 C3, may be 96/116 RCH 155, What does Poland HAVE here now and on order, a vast mount more than us and our empty wish lists. RCH 155 is NOT on order for us. Its for only user is Ukraine. ,unless you can show me facts to back that order up. It on a wish list, pen in to be ordered but not yet.
Wow more stupid.
So you’ll count the stuff that Poland has ordered and hasn’t actually gotten yet, but you won’t count ours. RCH 155 btw is on order for us and Germany.
But clearly you don’t care about reality, you just want to be an angry little man.
Show me the order, not the intention to get it ie the frame work? how many were ordered? Strange you can include what we have not ordered in you argument but i can not use what Poland ordered in mine,
Nope. You can’t be fucked to reply to a well thought out reply why the fuck should I give you the time of day angry little troll?
(This was also a direct comment on your shitty ammo post since CR3 uses a different gun and widely avaliable ammo, but of course you don’t have the brain cells to pick that tidbit up).
i was on about C2 if bothered to read it, are you that ignorant?
I did bother to read. Unlike you I offered a rebuttal. Sorry you don’t understand. Not my problem.
Striking how much Italy gets for its modest outlay. Mainly because they don’t have the burden of nuclear deterrent or submarines, which together take more than 40% of the UK equipment budget.
But they have also made good choices in Cavour and Trieste, delivering multi role capability and a credible naval air force at far lower cost than the over ambitious QEs.
General inflation in the UK from 2014 to 2025 has been just over 39%. We all know defence inflation always runs considerably higher than general inflation, although I confess I don’t see why that’s always the case. BY YOUR FIGURES the UK defence budget has declined by about 10% over that period, not grown as you claimed.
going forward how much of this will be strategic pothole repairs and other infrastructure flannel? Massive spending on roads and 5 bullets each I imagine.
Yes exactly the nuclear detterence is the massive difference between us and the rest or Europe except for France which in naval terms I think is the best comparison with the RN as they bring very similar capabilites.
Also looking at the 2 fleets they do seem to mirror each other quite closely we will have 8 t26 to their 8 fremms their 5 fdi to our 5 t31 then just their 2 horizon against our 6 t45.
They have the 3 mistral and we look like we will only be getting 3 mrss by the looks.
The army has certainly had to play 2nd fiddle to the navy but we are an island nation the sealanes are vital.
Just a shambles we have to wait another 5 to 10 years before it all arrives!
That was my point, the Army is under funded to pay for other things. As an Island get why but we do seem to not get much for our money, I feel some have missed that point.
Yes totally agree the army has had a lower priority and budget to allow for new ships f35 etc all down to the financial mess we are in.
We can only hope the people in power priortise the right things to counter Russia.
But the Ajax debacle is large part the army commands fault changing there minds and spec constantly where the navy have learnt lessons from the past with like the type31 with it being in the contract they can’t change the spec mid build.
The autumn spending review will be interesting!
That was my point, we spend money badly. The Autumn review and defence paper will show if we have learned any thing. The Army does waste money agreed on bespoke bits of kit that seem never go any where ie BATES etc, Having worked in trial teams the contractor will only build what ask for. Change it they bill you for changes and changes always effect what they had already built.
We can not have 3 top notch armed forces there is not the money and Army leadership has let it get to this either by not saying any thing or by going along with it.
Other nations do get more for their money, why?
Ha this is the million dollar question or billion dollars in defence terms.
Poor leadership over complicate everything we seam to do wasting millions in the process!
Alot of European defence giants are state owned or heavily subsidised like Navantia etc.
We are not alone though the Amercans have wasted billions! The Aussies Hunter class frigates another example or over complicating things.
Even the Germans ha.
Um true all nations do struggle with projects. The USA wastes way more i than us its a thing about the defence industry its money maker even if the kit is never good enough to enter service. Any way the money is in spares follow up contracts not the kit buy its self.
With that expense and budget, there should be at least 400 Challenger tanks, 250 aircraft, and 24 escorts, plus 6 amphibious ships in service. I don’t know what they do with the money.
This was my point, yes we have 4 clapped out rusty nuc subs and a few big ships but where does all the money go. We do not get a lot bang for our buck. The Army has been run down to pay for other things, but no one will admit or take the blame. We buy very expensive item but not a lot of them.
“4 Clapped out rusty nuc subs”
^ this is a prefrect example of how stupid Martin is. He thinks this is the entirety of the Navy and that the Dreadnought program is someone not costing anything.
Grow up mate, ok, you had your baby rant, spat the dummy out now calm down. And yes 4 rusty old clapped out subs. They are very old and we can get just one at sea at any time. You still miss main my point the Army lost out the Airforce and Navy, Sit down, and read what I wrote.
Awww weee little troll can’t handle being called out.
Just a reminder that I was willing to have an adult conversation, and you where the one who lowered the tone dumbass.
This is going well.
Anyone keeping score ?
Ah you again, busy day on here winding some up? Enjoy the show. Its all kicking off, AGAIN.
Yes, sorry I’m late
Would you like a bigger Shovel at all ? 🤦♂️
I did miss your comments. And now the one have is working fine. I seem to up set some people a lot. I will look for another subject to comment on that always helps. Got a drink and some food could be here a while. enjoy