Small Countries, Big Budgets: Why Tiny Nations Spend Billions on Defense

# Small Countries, Big Budgets: Why Tiny Nations Spend Billions on Defense

When people think of military superpowers, they picture the United States, China, or Russia — nations with vast territories, massive populations, and trillion-dollar economies. But some of the most striking defense spending stories belong to countries you could fit inside a single U.S. state. Israel. Singapore. Estonia. Taiwan. These small nations don't just punch above their weight — they spend at levels that embarrass many of their larger peers. Understanding why reveals something fundamental about the economics of existential threat.

## The Per-Capita Lens Changes Everything

Raw budget numbers favor big countries. The smarter metric is defense spending per capita — how much each citizen effectively pays for national security. On that measure, small nations dominate.

Israel leads the world at roughly $4,800 per person annually. Singapore spends over $2,500 per capita. Norway, a country of five million, spends around $1,880. These figures dwarf what most large democracies spend per citizen, and they reflect the core logic behind small-nation militarism: when you have fewer people to defend a fixed territory against a larger threat, the per-person cost of adequate defense rises sharply.

For a deeper breakdown of how population size distorts the raw spending rankings, see our [per-capita analysis](/research/military-spending-per-capita).

### Why Does Israel Spend So Much on Defense?

Israel's 2026 defense budget has been set at 112 billion shekels — approximately $34.6 billion at the official baseline — but total military-related expenditures for 2026 are estimated to reach $49.8 billion, or roughly 8% of GDP. That makes Israel one of the highest military spenders as a share of economic output on Earth, a position it has held for decades.

The reasons are structural, not temporary. Israel is surrounded by hostile or potentially hostile states and non-state actors. It fought a war in 2024 that cost $31 billion on its own. It now faces persistent threats from Hezbollah remnants, Iranian proxies in Syria and Iraq, and an Iranian nuclear program that Israeli planners treat as an existential risk. Following the Gaza conflict, the cabinet approved a further NIS 30 billion ($10 billion) supplemental increase to the defense ministry, pushing the total beyond the headline figure.

The 2024 war produced the steepest single-year increase in Israeli military spending since 1967. The government's 2026 budget, approved in March 2026 despite political tensions, locks in this elevated baseline rather than treating war spending as a temporary spike — a signal that Israeli strategists expect the threat environment to remain elevated indefinitely.

## Singapore: Spending 3% of GDP With No Enemies

Singapore presents a different puzzle. The city-state of 5.9 million has no meaningful territorial disputes and no obvious adversary. Yet it has consistently spent close to 3% of GDP on defense — roughly S$23.4 billion ($17.4 billion) in FY2025 — and its defence minister has committed to keeping spending within but near that 3% cap going forward.

The rationale is deterrence by design. Singapore's founding strategic thinkers, shaped by the trauma of British withdrawal in 1971, decided that a small, wealthy island with no strategic depth could only survive through military credibility that made attack unattractive. The Singapore Armed Forces operate advanced F-15SG and F-35 aircraft, a submarine fleet, and increasingly sophisticated cyber and space capabilities. The goal is not to win a prolonged war — it is to make starting one irrational for any regional power.

This "porcupine strategy" — making yourself too painful to swallow — has become a model studied by Taiwan, the Baltic states, and other small nations facing asymmetric threats.

## Gulf States: Wealth, Insecurity, and the Iran Factor

The Gulf Cooperation Council states represent a third archetype: small populations with enormous hydrocarbon wealth and a pervasive sense of vulnerability.

The UAE, with a population of under 10 million UAE nationals, maintains a defense budget of approximately $22 billion. Qatar — population roughly 300,000 citizens — spends around $14–15 billion annually on defense. Kuwait allocates $6.6 billion. These are extraordinary figures relative to citizen population.

The driver is Iran. Gulf states share a body of water with the world's most active state sponsor of proxy militias and sit within range of Iranian ballistic missiles. The 2019 drone strikes on Saudi Aramco facilities demonstrated that wealth alone offers no protection. The Abraham Accords and subsequent quiet security cooperation between Gulf states and Israel reflect a shared calculation: the threat is real, it is persistent, and raw spending is the price of deterrence.

### Why Are the Baltic States Racing to 5% of GDP?

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have undergone the most dramatic defense buildup of any NATO members over the past decade. Lithuania's military spending increased 537% between 2014 and 2025 — the largest percentage increase in the entire alliance. Latvia is second, up 370% over the same period.

Now all three are racing past NATO's 5% GDP target — years ahead of schedule. Estonia has committed to 5.37% of GDP for 2026, representing over €10 billion in defense investment between 2026 and 2029. Latvia's parliament approved 4.91% of GDP for 2026. Lithuania is targeting 5–6%.

The trigger is obvious: Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 transformed the abstract threat of Russian aggression into a live operational fact on NATO's eastern flank. The Baltic states share land borders with Russia and Belarus and have collectively concluded that NATO's collective defense guarantee, while real, is not a substitute for national capability. Their approach — fortifying borders, stockpiling ammunition, training reserves, and buying air defense systems — reflects the view that the first hours of any conflict will be decided before allied reinforcements arrive.

## Taiwan: Crossing 3% for the First Time Since 2009

Taiwan's 2026 defense budget represents a historic inflection point. President Lai Ching-te's government pushed spending to 3.32% of GDP — the first time Taiwan has crossed the 3% threshold in seventeen years — equivalent to approximately $30.25 billion. On top of the regular budget, Lai proposed a special defense budget of $40 billion spread over eight years (2026–2033) aimed at building an air defense "dome," acquiring U.S. weapons systems, and expanding indigenous missile production.

The urgency is driven by data. Taiwan's National Security Bureau recorded 3,570 Chinese military aircraft incursions into Taiwan's surrounding airspace in 2025 alone — a record. Beijing has increased the frequency, scale, and complexity of military exercises around the island, including joint blockade rehearsals. Taiwan's military planners now operate under the assumption that deterrence must be visibly credible by 2027–2030, the window most analysts identify as China's target capability threshold.

### What Does Greece Have in Common With Estonia?

Greece and Estonia look nothing alike — one is a sun-soaked Mediterranean economy of 10 million, the other a northern EU state of 1.4 million. But both share the unusual distinction of spending serious GDP shares on defense while facing a specific, named adversary within or near the NATO alliance structure.

Greece has historically been NATO's second-highest spender as a share of GDP, perpetually hovering around 2.5–3.1%. In 2025, the defense ministry budget doubled to €6.13 billion, and in April 2025 Athens announced a 12-year, €25 billion modernization plan — its largest military investment in history. The centerpiece is "Achilles Shield," a €2.8 billion integrated air and missile defense system expected to be operational by 2027.

The driver is Turkey. Despite both nations being NATO allies, Greece and Turkey maintain active territorial disputes over Aegean islands, maritime boundaries, and the status of Cyprus. The tension illustrates a structural reality: alliance membership does not eliminate intra-alliance security dilemmas, and small countries on the wrong side of a bilateral dispute pay the price.

## The Common Thread

Strip away the geography and the geopolitics and a single logic emerges across all these cases. Small nations face a fundamental asymmetry: threats often originate from larger neighbors or more powerful regional actors who have more resources, more population, and more strategic depth. The only rational response — short of appeasement or alignment — is to make the cost of aggression exceed any conceivable benefit. That requires spending, at per-capita rates that would be politically unsustainable in larger democracies, on systems designed specifically for deterrence rather than power projection.

---

*Sources: Modern Diplomacy, Defense News, The Defense Post, Daily Signal, Focus Taiwan, Al Jazeera, Invezz, Visual Capitalist, SIPRI 2024 Expenditure Report*