Portuguese 
Spanish 
In a unique NATO defense industry forum held in Ankara, Turkey, allied countries signed over $10 billion in contracts for missiles, surveillance drones, and radar planes at once, while Brazil continues to invest only 1.1% of its GDP in defense, with most of that money disappearing into salaries and pensions.
The contrast is painful to see. Across the Atlantic, a military alliance closes the equivalent of billions in firepower in one day. Here, the defense system of our own skies is still in its infancy, stuck with a budget that barely covers the basics.
What NATO bought in a single day
The forum took place on July 7 and brought together the leading Western arms manufacturers. There, the alliance countries closed over $10 billion in new defense contracts, an amount many countries spend over entire years. The shopping list gives a sense of the ambition.
Among the items is the joint purchase of Triton maritime surveillance drones, manufactured by the American Northrop Grumman, devices capable of patrolling entire oceans for hours on end. Also included were the GlobeEye radar planes from the Swedish Saab, which function as flying eyes seeing threats hundreds of kilometers away.
-
Corn ethanol attracts R$ 23 billion in 21 new plants and prepares for a nearly 50% jump in Brazilian production by 2027, even with high interest rates.
-
A newly opened terminal in the middle of the Amazon has begun transporting soy and corn through Amapá, eyeing the queue of ships that is congesting the ports in the South.
-
Tesla injected an additional $250 million into the German factory, doubled the battery cell target, and opened its own production line for startups.
-
A 180-meter ship with a deck the size of a football field was christened to carry 25,000 tons of giant energy modules around the world.
Additionally, NATO’s multinational fleet received the tenth A330 tanker aircraft, a giant that refuels fighters in mid-air and multiplies the range of any air operation. These pieces, combined, transform the alliance’s military capability into a scale leap difficult to follow.
The size of the gap with Brazil
Now the comparison that matters to those reading from here. Brazil invests only 1.1% of its Gross Domestic Product in defense, one of the lowest proportions among countries of similar size. To give an idea, NATO countries have committed to spending at least twice that, and many go well beyond.
But the problem is not just the size of the pie, it’s how it’s sliced. About 76% of the Brazilian military budget is consumed by salaries and pensions, leaving very little to buy new equipment, modernize fleets, or develop technology. In practice, the country pays the payroll but hardly invests in the future of defense.
I confess this data made me think. It’s not about advocating an arms race or wanting Brazil to buy missiles in droves. It’s about recognizing that a continental country, with a vast coastline and riches like the pre-salt in the middle of the sea, maintains a defense structure that operates on the brink of improvisation.
The anti-aircraft system that is still on paper
The most concrete example of this delay is air defense. The Brazilian anti-aircraft system, budgeted at up to R$ 3.4 billion, has only just begun to be contracted, in 2026, after years of back and forth. Meanwhile, NATO allies already operate layers upon layers of missile and drone protection.
The difference in pace is striking. Where the alliance signs billions in a single forum, Brazil takes years to get a single project off the ground. Not for lack of competence from the military or the national industry, which exists and is good, but due to a budgetary priority choice that drags on from government to government.
I imagine what it would mean for national sovereignty to unlock part of this investment. Not in offensive weapons, but in radars, surveillance satellites, and systems capable of protecting borders, oil platforms, and trade routes that sustain the entire country’s economy.
What’s behind NATO’s race
This flood of contracts doesn’t come out of nowhere. The war in Ukraine awoke Europe to a reality it had forgotten: that large-scale conflicts have become possible again on the continent. Since then, alliance countries have been rushing to replenish ammunition stocks, modernize aging fleets, and close defense gaps that have been exposed.
Drones have changed everyone’s calculations. Seeing cheap devices take down expensive tanks and ships forced armies to rethink what to buy and in what quantity. Hence the race for surveillance, anti-aircraft defense, and systems capable of facing both sophisticated threats and swarms of improvised drones.
The Ankara forum is, in this sense, a snapshot of the moment: the defense industry is experiencing its largest order cycle in decades, and each country wants to secure its place in line. For Brazil, which has a competent but underfunded defense industry, staying out of this wave means losing both military capability and economic opportunity.
Why this matters even in peacetime
It may seem distant from everyday life, but defense is like insurance: you only notice the lack when the problem is already at the door. In a world where cheap drones take down planes and missiles travel at supersonic speeds, falling behind in military technology is a concrete vulnerability, not just a matter of national pride.
There is also an economic effect that often goes unnoticed. The defense industry generates highly qualified jobs, patents, and technology that spills over into the civilian sector, from weather radar to the GPS you use on your phone. Investing in defense, when done well, is also investing in national technological capability.
We follow this type of news from abroad and treat it as something from another world. But each billion-dollar contract signed by a military alliance redraws the global power balance, and countries that don’t keep up simply lose weight at the tables where important decisions are made. Brazil, whether it likes it or not, is in this dispute.
Do you think Brazil should invest more in defending its own territory, or is the money more needed in other areas?
