Posted on July 7, 2025

A quiet, yet profound, shift is underway across the global landscape. Military budgets are escalating at unprecedented rates, civilian populations are incrementally being reacquainted with the concept of national service, and geopolitical discourse has adopted a distinctly martial cadence. These intertwined developments coalesce into a sobering realisation: the notion of large-scale war, once relegated to the unthinkable, is steadily re-entering the realm of strategic possibility. This analysis is not a prophecy of imminent conflict, nor is it a call to arms. Instead, it offers a reasoned, evidence-based examination of the compelling political, economic, and military trends that collectively signal a future where major conflict is being subtly normalised as a legitimate policy tool, rather than a catastrophic last resort.

Military Spending Reaches Historic Highs

The sheer scale of the global military build-up is stark. In 2023, worldwide defence expenditure surged to an astonishing US$2.44 trillion, a significant 6.8% increase year-on-year. This upward trajectory continued aggressively into 2024, with spending reaching US$2.72 trillion—a 9.4% leap, marking the swiftest peacetime growth observed in over a decade. Alarmingly, military spending now commands approximately 2.5% of the world's total economic output.

A closer look at the primary drivers reveals:

• United States: US$997 billion (3.4% GDP)
• China: US$314 billion (1.7% GDP)
• Russia: US$149 billion (7.1% GDP)
• UK: US$81.8 billion (2.3% GDP)
• Germany: US$88.5 billion (1.9% GDP)
• Ukraine: US$64.6 billion (34% GDP) – A crucial anomaly demonstrating the cost of active conflict.

Compounding this trend, NATO members collectively represent over 55% of global military expenditure. Notably, 18 alliance nations now meet or exceed the 2% of GDP target, reflecting the highest compliance rate since the alliance's inception – a clear signal of heightened collective security concerns.

UK Defence Posture: A Quiet Revolution

Britain, too, is undergoing a significant, if often understated, transformation in its defence strategy. The June 2025 Strategic Defence Review, spearheaded by Prime Minister Starmer's government, unveiled a commitment to elevate defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. More significantly, the review detailed a rapid and substantial expansion of the nation's military-industrial complex, encompassing:

• The procurement of 12 F-35A nuclear-capable jets, bolstering strike capabilities.
• The establishment of six new munition factories, enhancing domestic production.
• Substantial investment in long-range missile capability and advanced drone warfare, reshaping future conflict.

In a powerful articulation of this new posture, Defence Secretary John Healey declared the ambition to make Britain's armed forces "ten times more lethal" – a statement that underscores the shift from deterrence to potential offensive capacity.

Political Rhetoric Turns Martial

Echoing the material preparations, the very language of global leadership is undergoing a profound shift, increasingly adopting a martial tone. The UK Prime Minister's recent declaration that Britain must be "battle-ready" for a more perilous world is not an isolated sentiment but mirrors a growing trend among European allies.

Consider these striking examples:

• French President Macron has forcefully urged Europe to prepare for "high-intensity conflict," advocating a decisive reduction in dependency on the US for security.
• NATO's Secretary-General has gone further, proposing an ambitious increase in member spending targets to 3–5% of GDP – a significant leap from the established 2%.

This is a critical observation: language once confined to times of declared emergency or dire warning is now seamlessly integrated into routine official policy announcements, subtly normalising the prospect of widespread conflict.

Civilian Mobilisation and Conditioning

Beyond the halls of power, a quieter, yet pervasive, form of preparation is taking root: the conditioning and potential mobilisation of civilian populations. Across Europe, the reintroduction of national service is emerging as a distinct trend:

• Sweden, Lithuania, and Latvia have already reinstated compulsory conscription, re-engaging their youth with military duty.
• Major European powers like Germany, France, and Norway are actively debating similar policies, signalling a broader consideration of citizen involvement in defence.

Concurrently, the UK's civil contingency planning has notably expanded. Public messaging now formally embeds strategies for resilience, including highly visible power outage drills and extensive cyber-defence campaigns. These initiatives, while framed as preparedness, also serve to incrementally accustom the populace to an environment of heightened risk and potential disruption.

Fracturing Diplomacy and Parallel Alliances

In parallel with these escalations, the very mechanisms designed to prevent conflict – multilateral diplomacy – appear increasingly fractured and ineffective.

The United Nations Security Council, once a cornerstone of global stability, finds itself largely paralysed on crucial flashpoints such as Ukraine, Gaza, and Taiwan, reflecting a deep ideological chasm among permanent members.

Simultaneously, powers like Russia and China are actively consolidating their influence through alternative blocs such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, challenging established global orders.

Adding another layer of complexity, NATO has formally reclassified significant cyber-attacks as potential acts of war under its alliance doctrine, blurring the lines of engagement and raising the stakes in the digital realm.

This erosion of traditional diplomatic avenues, coupled with the emergence of parallel power structures, dramatically amplifies the risks of unmanaged escalation.

Active Conflicts and Proxy Warfare

The theoretical threat of future conflict is underscored by the grim reality of intensifying regional proxy wars, which serve as potent flashpoints already drawing in major powers:

• Ukraine: The devastating conflict has resulted in over 500,000 estimated casualties, with Ukraine's military spending consuming a staggering 34% of its GDP – a testament to the immense cost of modern warfare.
• Middle East: The 2024 Gaza conflict saw Israel's military budget surge by an astonishing 65%, highlighting how quickly regional tensions can escalate into massive defence outlays.
• Asia-Pacific: Amidst escalating geopolitical tensions, China, Japan, and Taiwan have all significantly increased their defence budgets, openly citing strategic instability and territorial disputes as key drivers.

Crucially, these 'proxy' engagements are anything but contained. Major global powers are increasingly implicated through extensive weapon supply chains, the deployment of military advisers, and sophisticated surveillance assets, blurring the lines of direct involvement and raising the specter of wider contagion.

Strategic Logic: Why Might Leaders View War as Acceptable?

To truly understand this 'march of preparedness,' one must examine the underlying strategic rationales that might lead leaders to increasingly view war as an 'acceptable' instrument of policy. Three core motivations frequently surface in contemporary policy discourse:

• Containment: The perceived necessity to contain or pre-emptively curb the influence of adversarial powers before their geopolitical reach becomes insurmountable.
• Economic Restructuring: The controversial notion that large-scale conflict could serve as a drastic means to redirect national production, stimulate certain industries, and even manage burgeoning national debt.
• Internal Cohesion: The historical tendency for external conflict to galvanise public support, unify disparate factions, and effectively mute domestic dissent, consolidating political power.

It is vital to acknowledge that none of these rationales are novel. History bears witness to countless instances where nations, rather than explicitly intending war, have imperceptibly drifted into it through a series of incremental decisions, each justified under the guise of 'necessary preparedness' or 'strategic deterrence.'

Conclusion

This analysis, while stark, is not a declaration of war's inevitability. Instead, it serves as a critical presentation of a compelling and interconnected body of evidence, demonstrating unequivocally that many of the world's most influential governments are not merely contemplating, but actively preparing for, the profound eventuality of large-scale conflict. The confluence of unprecedented military expenditures, increasingly martial political rhetoric, the re-emergence of national service, the proliferation of active proxy wars, and the palpable decline in multilateral diplomatic effectiveness collectively indicates a dangerous and accelerating momentum.

The imperative now is for public clarity, not for the cultivation of fear. While the exact trajectory remains uncertain, it is undeniably clear that if major conflict is not yet certain, it is, at the very least, being methodically rendered plausible – a consequence of deliberate policy choices, not random chance. Understanding this shift is the first step towards shaping a different future.

Footnotes

[1] SIPRI, "Trends in World Military Expenditure 2023" – https://www.sipri.org/publications/2024/sipri-fact-sheets/trends-world-military-expenditure-2023

[2] SIPRI press release, April 2025 – https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2025/unprecedented-rise-global-military-expenditure-european-and-middle-east-spending-surges

[3] The Guardian, Macron remarks on European defence – https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/24/nato-donald-trump-volodymyr-zelenskyy-middle-east-defence-spending-latest-live-news

[4] NATO Strategic Concepts Document, 2025 – https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_196951.htm

[5] UK Government, Strategic Defence Review 2025 – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/strategic-defence-review-2025