The deep contradiction of the global order: Poverty deepens as armament rises

The period we are going through reveals one of the harshest contradictions of the global economy in all its clarity: on one side, a rapidly growing war economy and trillions of dollars in defense spending; on the other, deepening poverty, hunger, and inequality. At this threshold, where long-accumulating geopolitical tensions have turned into open conflicts, the escalating crisis on the US–Israel–Iran axis is not merely a regional security issue; it is a multi-layered fracture zone that determines the direction, depth, and justice of the global economy.

The issue is no longer just about "security"; it is a question of what priorities resources are allocated to, that is, what humanity is investing in. Precisely for this reason, the relationship between the war economy and poverty constitutes the most critical fault line of today's global system.

THE GLOBAL ARMAMENT SPIRAL: Trillions for Weapons, Crumbs for Humanity

To think that war is now only taking place on the front lines is to read today's reality incompletely. War takes place in budgets, in the direction of public spending, and in the economic choices where societies are forced to prioritize security over welfare. In this respect, war is a systemic phenomenon that spreads over a much wider area than what is visible.

Indeed, recent data strikingly reveals the scale that global defense spending has reached. Military spending worldwide has exceeded 2.7 trillion dollars, reaching a historical peak. This magnitude corresponds to approximately 2.5% of global GDP and more than 7% of total public spending.

When viewed on a country-by-country basis, the picture becomes even clearer: while the US alone accounts for about one-third of the global total with a defense budget exceeding 850 billion dollars; China maintains a defense economy of over 300 billion dollars, Russia over 100 billion dollars, Israel 25–30 billion dollars, and Iran approximately 20 billion dollars. Ukraine's rapidly increasing expenditures under war conditions and its budget, which is expanding with external support, also make this picture heavier. Turkey, with its defense spending approaching approximately 40 billion dollars, is one of the notable actors in this global equation.

The dynamic behind this increase is clear: the Russia–Ukraine war, tensions in the Middle East, and great power competition are pushing countries into a rapidly accelerating armament spiral. However, the question that makes this picture truly meaningful is: what could the same resources have changed for humanity?

THE FINANCIAL COST OF WAR: Erosion of Global Wealth and Risks-Opportunities Reflected in the Turkish Economy

The impact of wars is no longer limited to the front lines; it produces a multi-dimensional destruction that permeates the entire global economy through financial markets. Indeed, with the US–Iran–Israel tension, the total value of global stock markets fell from 157.5 trillion dollars to 143.5 trillion dollars in a short period, signaling a loss of approximately 14 trillion dollars. This magnitude means that a massive amount of wealth, exceeding the annual national income of many developed countries, has evaporated in a very short period of time.

This fluctuation is not just a numerical shrinkage; it is also an erosion of economic confidence. While losses in the 7–8% band were experienced in major indices in the US, sharp declines and interest rate hikes were also noted in Asian and European markets. This picture shows that wars now directly destroy not only geographies but also global wealth.

This melting in financial markets inevitably reflects on the real economy and social welfare. While stock market losses weaken savings and pension funds, the decline in corporate values suppresses investments and employment. Increasing uncertainty, meanwhile, narrows the global trade volume, creating a vulnerability felt more deeply, especially in developing economies.

From Turkey's perspective, this process simultaneously harbors both risks and opportunities. Global financial fluctuations can accelerate capital outflows, increase volatility in exchange rates, and drive up external borrowing costs. In particular, the rise in energy prices creates additional pressure on the current account balance.

However, the new windows of opportunity emerging in areas such as Turkey's geopolitical position, changing supply chains, and defense industry exports should not be ignored. Yet, for these opportunities to turn into permanent gains, it depends on strengthening economic stability and establishing an environment of trust.

TWO REALITIES IN THE SAME WORLD: Armament and the Hunger Crisis

The scale reached by the war economy only finds its true meaning when evaluated together with poverty indicators. Because in the same world, while trillions of dollars in military spending are rapidly increasing on one side; on the other, billions of people who cannot access the most basic life necessities continue to exist.

United Nations data strikingly reveals this contradiction: while approximately 673 million people are struggling with hunger in the world today, 2.6 billion people cannot access healthy and sufficient food. At least 200 million people are in direct need of humanitarian aid. This picture shows not only that global wealth is not distributed fairly, but also that there is a serious problem in the prioritization of resources.

What is even more remarkable is this: only 4% of global military spending, that is, approximately 93 billion dollars, is considered a sufficient resource to end hunger worldwide. This fact reveals that the problem is not a lack of resources, but clearly a matter of choice.

War not only consumes existing resources; it also postpones what is possible for humanity. Schools not built, hospitals not constructed, clean water sources not accessed... All these are the invisible but deepening costs of the war economy.

In this framework, poverty, beyond being an indirect result of wars, is also a reflection of the priority errors of the global economic system. Therefore, the issue is not only humanitarian but also a structural and political problem.

THE INVISIBLE COST OF THE WAR ECONOMY: Destruction, Loss, and the Mortgage of the Future

The cost of wars is often evaluated only through military spending. However, the real destruction deepens with the long-term economic, social, and environmental devastation that emerges after the conflicts. In this respect, war is a multi-layered destruction process whose effects spread over years and even generations.

Indeed, current examples clearly show the scale of this cost. The fact that the post-war reconstruction cost in Ukraine exceeds 400 billion dollars, and the total economic loss in Syria approaches 1 trillion dollars, reveals that the real bill of war is not limited to defense budgets alone. The destruction of physical infrastructure, the loss of production capacity, and the weakening of human capital make the recovery process of economies seriously difficult.

In this framework, it is possible to group the invisible costs of the war economy under three main headings:

First, the deepening of poverty is inevitable. As resources allocated to defense spending increase, social spending shrinks, income distribution deteriorates, and the most vulnerable segments are disproportionately affected by this process.

Second, development opportunities are postponed. Pushing education, health, and infrastructure investments to the background weakens long-term growth potential and drags countries into a structural impasse, often into the middle-income trap.

Third, environmental destruction and the climate crisis deepen. The fact that military activities produce high carbon emissions, and that wars destroy water resources, agricultural lands, and ecosystems in ways that are difficult to reverse, directly threatens sustainable development goals.

The war economy not only consumes today's resources; it also mortgages the development opportunities of the future. In this respect, war produces a much deeper and more permanent cost than what is visible.

SECURITY or WELFARE? Global Political Choices

The main trend becoming evident on a global scale today is an increasingly accelerating armament spiral. The deepening of competition between great powers, the spread of regional conflicts, and the increase in security concerns lead countries to constantly increase their defense spending. This trend has ceased to be an exceptional situation and has turned into a policy choice that is institutionalized on a global scale.

The decisive weight of the US in global defense spending, the fact that the share of defense spending in national income has reached extraordinary levels due to the war in Russia and Ukraine, and the targets of NATO countries to increase this ratio to the 5% level show that this spiral is becoming increasingly permanent.

However, the aspect of this process that is often ignored is this: every increasing defense expenditure also means a postponed social policy. Public budgets are limited, and every choice made is also an indicator of an alternative that is given up.

For this reason, a fighter jet often represents a school not built; a missile system, a hospital not established; and a military operation, a welfare policy that could not be implemented. This contrast clearly reveals that the issue is not only an economic but also an ethical and political choice.

Countries are facing an increasingly sharp dilemma: will short-term security concerns be prioritized, or will long-term social welfare and development goals be placed at the center? The answer given to this question will determine not only today but also the living conditions of future generations.

THE GREAT PARADOX: What is Humanity Investing In?

Today, the world actually has the capacity to solve the fundamental problems of humanity. We live in an era where we simultaneously possess the resources to end hunger, the technology to provide access to clean water, and the financial power to slow down the climate crisis. However, the areas to which this capacity is directed reveal the most fundamental contradiction of the global system.

Because while trillions of dollars in resources are allocated to armament, much more limited budgets are allocated to areas that will directly improve human life. This situation is not just an economic choice; it is also the result of a hierarchy of priorities shaped on a global scale.

Moreover, this picture is not questioned enough because it is often perceived through abstract numbers. Yet, these magnitudes correspond directly to the most basic needs of daily life. In other words, the issue is not the size of the numbers, but how and to what extent these resources reflect on human life.

At this point, the war economy should be evaluated not only in a financial framework but also as a socio-psychological reality. The security perception of societies, political preferences, and global power balances directly shape this resource distribution.

However, with the increase in awareness, it is inevitable that these choices will be questioned more. Because more and more people see that the distance between what is possible for humanity and what is chosen is widening.

THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF WAR IN THE AGE OF SUSTAINABILITY

While sustainability, green transformation, and environmental responsibility are at the center of the global agenda today; the fact that wars continue without slowing down reveals one of the deepest contradictions of the international system. On one side, global commitments to reduce carbon emissions, and on the other, the environmental destruction created by military activities with high destructive power, are the most concrete indicators of this contradiction.

Yet, sustainability is not just an environmental goal; it is a holistic understanding of development that must be handled together with its economic and social dimensions. Efficient use of resources, increasing social welfare, and leaving a livable world to future generations constitute the basic elements of this approach.

Wars, on the other hand, weaken all three of these areas simultaneously. They lead to the rapid depletion of natural resources, disrupt production and supply chains, deepen social inequalities, and carry environmental destruction to levels that are difficult to reverse. In this respect, war is a process that directly contradicts the logic of sustainable development.

Therefore, in a global order where wars continue, it is not possible to fully implement sustainability goals. Because while sustainability requires stability, cooperation, and long-term planning, war produces the exact opposite: uncertainty, destruction, and waste of resources.

A sustainable future and a war economy are not two phenomena that can exist at the same time. For this reason, a true vision of sustainability is possible not only with environmental policies but also with the establishment of peace and stability.

TURKEY PERSPECTIVE: Defense Industry as a Strategic Production Power

For Turkey, the defense industry produces a two-way economic impact. While defense spending is rising in line with increasing geopolitical risks and security needs; on the other hand, investments in this area can also turn into economic opportunities when managed with the right strategies.

Indeed, investments in the defense industry can contribute to the development of high-tech production, the increase of domestic and national capacity, and the diversification of export revenues. In this respect, the defense economy can function not only as an expenditure item but also as a strategic lever in terms of production, innovation, and foreign trade. In particular, the fractures experienced in global supply chains create an important area of opportunity for Turkey in terms of new markets and collaborations.

However, for this potential to turn into a sustainable gain, a critical balance is required. It is necessary to integrate defense spending with productive sectors in a way that will spread to the economy as a whole, to ensure technology transfer to civilian areas, and to distribute public resources in a balanced manner.

Otherwise, the defense economy, although it may seem to support growth in the short term, may increase economic vulnerabilities by creating inefficiency in resource allocation in the long term. This situation may lead to a decline in the level of welfare by creating pressure, especially on social spending.

Therefore, the fundamental issue for Turkey is not to make the defense economy an end in itself; but to be able to manage it within a balanced and rational policy framework compatible with sustainable development goals. To the extent that this balance is established, the defense industry can become a tool that does not deepen crises, but on the contrary, increases economic resilience.

CONCLUSION: Arming World, Postponed Humanity

The global economy today produces a paradox trapped between military budgets grown for security reasons and deepening poverty. Defense spending reaching trillions of dollars brings with it not only deterrence but also postponed welfare, shrinking social policies, and growing inequalities. In contrast, the resources necessary for the fight against hunger and poverty are at a level that could create a transformative effect even with a very limited share within existing global budgets. This asymmetry clearly reveals that the basis of the problem is not a "lack of resources," but "incorrectly determined priorities."

For Turkey, what is also critical is to be able to position the defense economy not as an end, but as a strategic tool that supports sustainable development and economic resilience. This approach will directly shape not only today's security needs but also the welfare of future generations.

On the other hand, the tension concentrated on the US–Israel–Iran axis is part of a broader transformation that deepens the fragility of the global economic order, beyond being a regional crisis. This situation leaves humanity facing a fundamental dilemma once again: Security or welfare?

Yet, although increasing defense spending strengthens the perception of security in the short term, it does not reduce poverty, eliminate hunger, or solve the climate crisis in the long term. On the contrary, it weakens development capacity by narrowing social investments and shrinks the global welfare area.

The real issue is not the existence of resources, but how and with what priorities they are used. Because true security is possible not only with military power, but with the strengthening of social welfare, the establishment of economic justice, and the sustainable improvement of the quality of life.

The world is at a critical threshold: It will either deepen the existing resource distribution in the direction of more conflict and destruction, or it will establish a new balance that centers sustainable development, cooperation, and human development. This choice will determine not only today but the common future of humanity.