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.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

73 COMMENTS

  1. 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,

                  • 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.

        • 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.

        • In case you hadn’t notice Poland has a large land border with Russia, whereas the U.K. is an island. So Poland’s focus is on land forces to defend that border, and ours is on naval and air power to ensure we never fight a battle on the British mainland. It’s pretty easy to work out 🤷🏻‍♂️

    • 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.

        • Evidence instead of opinion please… For example, why (give reasons) do we need a better army? Not saying you are are wrong, I agree, but the Russian army is more of a threat to Poland, Germany and France than it is to us. On the other hand, the Russian navy is more of a threat to us… what are your reasoned arguments in favour of spending more on both? Personally, I think we have to prioritise. Value for money? If we insist on buying made to measure instead of things available off the shelf, of course it will cost more. What are your reasoned arguments as to why we should go for off the shelf equipment produced by or licenced by foreign manufacturers? In what ways don’t we spend wisely? Please give comparisons with other countries to justify that statement.

          • Ok a fair request. Firstly I do agree we do not need a massive Army it would never fight on UK soil but in defence of another country. We do need a better equipped Army, the Army as it stands lacks heavy Artillery, 14 wheeled Archers just does not cut it. As will 148 C3 tanks as it leaves nothing for BCR. It has no defence against Drones/loitering munitions/glide bombs or hyper sonic missiles. Sky Sabre is unable hit aircraft releasing glide bombs as they are out of range, we need a longer range air defence and Sky Sabre can not intercept hyper sonic missiles.
            The UK has no fixed air defence any where less the Falklands, air defence out side of RAF bases is the job of the Royal Artillery. No where in the UK is there any long rang or anti missile defence.
            The Army has deployed twice as a Div out side of the UK in the past 30 or so years, we do not have a fully Armoured Div part of it would have to be made up from light forces and we as of today lack the SP Artillery to back it up and air defence needed.

          • And I agree the main threat to the UK is Air/missile attack, attacks on our sea lanes and under sea cables, not a land attack. Alone we do not have enough ships to protect all this and two carrier strike groups. With Nato we do. We have 9 ASW aircraft yet we are an Island with over sea bases there are not enough to go around to hunt the subs that will carry out missile attacks, lay mines or attack shipping. Though we are the best in NATO as ASW via the Navy.
            Air defence of the UK, umm we do lack AWAC’s at the moment to control air space with only 3 on order. Air QRA is two may be 3 air bases each with 2/4 aircraft on stand by that is it. So defence of the nation is very weak from any air threat.
            Some would say use the TYPE 45 for air defence they if all 6 ever put together would be in high demand to protect navy ships let alone the UK main land.
            As for bespoke equipment yes Ajax is better than any thing out there as will C3 be, its time it takes get them in service and the case C3 is small numbers with no reserve.
            Buying off the shelf, ok we did this with Archer, we will do it with RCH 155, Boxer, MLRS A2. Yes mod the comms fit etc and minor other things. We make great bespoke kit but the problem come when are offered top spec as was done with Warrior and say no and buy the bargin basement model. AS90 great kit ahead of the game when it first entered service, but we fail to up grade it. After a while spares are hard to get as they UK only, so we reduce the fleet numbers and strip the rest out for spares as we did for C2/AS90.
            We use 120mm rifled guns, we stopped making ammo for them, no one else holds ammo for them, we gave ammo and tanks to Ukraine. So we have limited stock left. No army is perfect but ours is deeply floored on many counts. In 5 or so years it will be in a much better place but as of today its really a hollowed out shambles.

    • 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?

                • Only HMG can provide the contract for the RCH155 order. But if you spent a fraction of the time you currently spend on obtuse or ridiculous comments on say, using Google, you would know the U.K. plans to buy around 240 RCH155.

                • Also when u look at for example polands airforce it has like 30/40 f16 and a handful of old Soviet era aircraft Poland is not in anyway comparable to the uk

            • (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).

                • You do know Poland doesn’t have any of this equipment yet don’t you ? Plus some of what they have ordered they have never used before like AH64 and will take years to bring them into service unlike the uk who already operates them and has the capabilities now

    • Martin, Poland doesn’t have to fund a nuclear weapons programme, many overseas bases, global deployments, aircraft carriers, many defence diplomacy posts. They are not a global power. They can just concentrate on their corner of Europe.

    • Isn’t a lot of polands equipment currently just orders on a sheet and not actually in service yet apart from some 2 nd hand m1 tanks and some 2nd hand L2 I don’t actually think they have much of what they ordered actually in service yet

      • To be honest they have more in service that is newer than any thing we have, As for orders very true but at least they ordered stuff we just talk about it or window shop, We have no tracked SPG’s they do, They do have some K2 tanks unsure of the numbers, They have ordered new tracked IFV;s unlike us we have wheeled ones we are still deciding what weapons fit to give them or modified Aries vehicles again no orders no word on the weapons fit.
        Yes we have much bigger better Navy and not a bad Airforce, etc but our army is neglected, run down.

      • Martin is rather obviously ignoring that we have ordered stuff and it’s being delivered, while other programs are further down the line. It’s a pretty dishonest tactic of his, but par for the course really.

    • Exactly. Poland with it’s focus on land force is modernising quickly. It has avoided that customisation trap the British government regularly falls into. Costing us years in delays. They have bought off the shelf kit, while building up their domestic industrial base. Having some of the lowest energy costs has certainly helped too. Oh and I wouldn’t worry about the troll. It’s always looking for a rise.

      • We need to do the same buy off the self all this bespoke kit is nice but time delay and cost are not worth it when likely we can not afford and for Reserve for war. only 148 C3 springs to mind. It will take another 5 to 7 years for the UK to get on track, great if there is no war before then.
        I ignore him now, any way, helpful informative comments are great it adds my understanding of things and i am clearly no expert nor do pretend to be.
        And there are on here some genuine experts who’s input is greatly welcome and valued.

        • We have bought OTS (not an actual thing though when you factor in comms fit, weapon racks, road legality for vehicles, air worthiness certs for aircraft etc. etc.) We got the mix of OTS and homegrown very very wrong when you compare to say the French (land systems difference is glaring). This all led to increase costs, fear of getting it wrong leading to gold plating, leading to cancellation, leading to waste, leading to cuts leading to watching skills and tax money leave the UK never to return.

          I’m not convinced Poland is getting the mix right either, they are going to get a lot of kit and look the part while everything is still shiny. They will rebuild some home industries but when the time comes for upgrades and maintenance they’ll have so many variations of kit from so many different suppliers and nations their MOD will end up larger than ours just to keep track of the contracts, their training streams will cost a fortune and their logistics will lead to madness. They’ll have to cut accordingly, or they’ll just start over again, we know how much time, money and effort that needs.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

    • Glenn, a couple of reasons for defence inflation is that equipment order quantities reduce and platform compexity increases. We bought 900 Chieftains which were straightforward 1960s technology and are buying 148 CR3s with far more sophisticated 2020’s technology.
      Also the choice of manufacturers has diminished reducing competitivity and thus price within the defence industrial sector.

        • Our replacement plans were also non-existent/kicked into the long grass often enough leading to increased maintenance costs. Someone can do the math but we probably could have ended up with 5 more T31 had we not been keeping the T23 going and spending billions to regenerate shipbuilding skills, maybe even managed the 13 T26 and the 5 T31. Same across most equipment programs for all services.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

    • AmAd, an MP a few weeks ago said we were spending £200bn over 20 years on the ‘Defence Nuclear Enterprise’. A lot of cash that cant be spent on conventional warfare equipment.

      • Yes eye watering figures indeed but we can’t do without the nuclear deterrence now and if we do actually get 12 nuclear attack subs out of it it would at least position the navy in a very good place.

  6. 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.

      • Nothing is kicking off. We’re all just trying to decide whether you’re a wind-up merchant or you’re really as stupid as your posts indicate.
        I know which option my money is on..

  8. 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

  9. So am I right in saying that trump wanted nato to get to 5% spent on defence ? If so and currently the USA is spending 3.2% a1.8% increase is a colossal number on defence my god could u imagine

    • Tim, I doubt Trump will get his own defence spend to 5% by the time he leaves office. I read reports earlier in the year that he wants to make some defence cuts.

      • The US, like Spain will end up exempt. Of course if something happened in Europe and we had a weeks notice to make everything we had available and ready then there’s a real possibility the US could match the whole of E-Nato plane for plane, tank for tank, soldier for soldier, ship for ship etc., while also bringing unique options to the party, providing spares for it’s own and E-Nato nations all while having leaving a sizeable reserve. Not raw numbers including unserviceable German Tornados etc., actual usable kit.

        It’s the whole capability vs spend argument, E-Nato had let both sides of that argument wither.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

By submitting this comment, you agree to the storage and handling of your data by this website in accordance with our Privacy Policy.