By Srdjan Vucetic & Bryan Mabee
Global military spending has reached record highs, but the more consequential story is how militarism has spread beyond the battlefield into technology, finance, and everyday political life.
Military spending around the world is climbing faster than it has since the Cold War. According to SIPRI, a Stockholm-based think tank, in 2025, countries spent a record $2.88 trillion on their militaries – a number that will only climb in the coming years. In some cases, a combination of ongoing conflicts and long-standing policy priorities means that a greater share of GDP goes to the military than to either healthcare or education – think of Ukraine, Russia, Israel, or Saudi Arabia. Arms trade is booming, too.
How worried should we be? The world, after all, has “always” been militarized. Warfare and preparation for warfare predate the formation of states, let alone modern nation-states. For much of the twentieth century, military spending was routinely higher, plus none of today’s major powers are driven by the kinds of militarism that directly contributed to the two world wars.
The carnage those conflicts left behind has arguably made its repeat far less likely – nuclear weapons have reduced the likelihood of “major power war” while increasing expectations among most electorates and selectorates about the importance of protecting both lives and living standards.
Yet, modern warfare is changing. Instead of focusing only on tanks and fighter jets, countries are investing heavily in artificial intelligence, drones, cyber warfare, and advanced missile systems. Military power is becoming increasingly tied to technology, and governments are working closely with technology companies to develop new capabilities. This raises important questions about the nature and trajectory of militarism.
Varieties of Militarism
When people hear this word, they indeed think of tanks, drones and war. But militarism is much broader than that. Consider a definition by a well-known sociologist, Michael Mann: ‘a set of attitudes and social practices which regards war and the preparation for war as a normal and desirable social activity.’ Militarism is not just about having a large – or larger – military; it’s about the attitudes, institutions, and political decisions that make the use of force seem like the obvious answer to problems.
The origins of militarism as a concept are in nineteenth-century Europe, where scholars tried to explain why some states were becoming increasingly aggressive. They distinguished between countries that maintained militaries for self-defence and those where the military had grown so influential that it shaped politics, society, and foreign policy.
Initially focused on imperial Germany – and the idea of a particular ‘Prussian’ militarism – this approach was repurposed in the 1930s and 1940s to explain the bellicose behaviour of Nazi Germany and its Axis allies. Over time, however, the concept has evolved beyond simply identifying aggressive states.
Today, “militarism” is less of a label and more of a way of understanding a particular aspect of what is called civil-military relations: how military values influence everyday political and social life. We see this in a revival of interest in militarism that occurred in the early 2000s, both in scholarly fields such as International Relations and Sociology, as well as in some popular writings.
Beyond the Battlefield
One commonality in this literature was an abiding focus on the problems of militarism within Western liberal democracies – part of a critique of a “pacific liberalism” – and on the problems of expansionist US foreign policy, including in relation to the global “war on terror.” But instead of looking only at states, researchers also asked questions about the militarization of police forces, the celebration of military culture in everyday life, and the ways military institutions shape ideas about politics or social identity.
As a result, militarism is no longer seen as something that exists only on battlefields – it can also be found in schools, politics, media, and public culture. This in turn implies many different approaches to “measuring” militarism. Some researchers continue to prefer indicators like military spending or arms production. Others argue that those numbers tell only part of the story. They suggest we should also pay attention to why political leaders, movements, or entire societies glorify the military and how military values become embedded in everyday institutions and culture.
These differences index a more fundamental debate about the scope of the concept itself. One view is that categories of militarism and militarization constitute ‘liberal’ deflections from the actual militarism of ‘liberal’ societies. Other work has stressed the historical variety of practices and constitution of militarism – and how they compare to the current political and geopolitical moment. Yet another perspective begins with critical inquiry into the legitimacy of political violence, in turn foregrounding anti-militarist and pacifist perspectives that challenge conventional standpoints for theorizing and evaluating security claims.
Militarism Today
Contemporary militarism has also seen an increasing rise in the veneration of the military. This can be seen in terms of how the idealization of the military leads to greater support for the national security apparatus, but also more specifically through the broader deference of the public to military opinions over those of politicians.
The return to forms of ‘total defence’ or ‘whole of society’ approaches to security also demonstrates the ways in which contemporary militarism has manifested. ‘Whole of society’ approaches see a focus on not only territorial military defence but also a civil society component, where all sectors of society are expected to be a part of efforts to provide security.
While such approaches are especially seen in the Nordic states – Sweden returned to a total defence policy in 2015, while Finland retained ‘comprehensive security’ after the end of the Cold War – they are increasingly being considered by a number of other Western states. This can be seen, for example, in the Canadian government’s new defence industrial policy, and an increasing focus in the UK on ‘whole of society’ defence.
Such shifts reconfigure the role of society within military defence. This not only affects public attitudes towards defence, but also reconfigures state-society and market relations, with governments needing to negotiate with defence-related business in order to manage whole of society approaches.
The expansion of global defence spending has also meant the development of new forms of the political economy of militarism. Previous iterations of militarism especially focused on varieties of ‘liberal militarism’, where professional forces and high technology were used as ways to offset the lack of mass mobilisation.
However, researchers increasingly see a new form of ‘financialized militarization’, where private finance is increasingly involved in investing in defence firms to get greater returns in an era of increasing defence spending; but this returns-focused strategy is spread across various states, including the US, Europe, and even Chinese firms blacklisted by the US, with AI development as the leading focus.
They contend that the growing financialization of militarization is undermining the conditions for a stable geopolitical order. Contrary to liberal expectations that financial integration would encourage peace, cooperation, and internationalism, it is instead reinforcing nationalist rivalries and increasing the likelihood of conflict.
Conclusion
As global military spending continues to increase and governments invest heavily in war machines, understanding militarism has never been more important. It isn’t just about counting tanks or comparing defence budgets. It’s about asking a bigger question: What kind of society are we building when military power becomes an increasingly central part of politics, technology, and everyday life?
To discuss this and related topics further, please join us for Bryan Mabee’s upcoming CIPS talk, chaired by Srdjan Vucetic: “Bringing the Market Back In: The Politics of the Markets for Total Defence in Sweden and Finland,” September 18, 2026 – 2:30pm to 4:00pm, FSS 4004, 120 University Private, uOttawa.
This blog was first published in Politics and Rights Review on September 10, 2026.
