In 2025, the United States had the largest number of active military personnel out of all North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, with almost *** million troops. The country with the second-largest number of military personnel was Türkiye, at around ******* active personnel. Additionally, the U.S. has by far the most armored vehicles in NATO, as well as the largest Navy and Air Force. NATO in brief NATO, which was formed in 1949, is the most powerful military alliance in the world. At its formation, NATO began with 12 member countries, which by 2024 had increased to 32. NATO was originally formed to deter Soviet expansion into Europe, with member countries expected to come to each other’s defense in case of an attack. Member countries are also obliged to commit to spending two percent of their respective GDPs on defense, although many states have recently fallen far short of this target. NATO in the contemporary world Some questioned the purpose of NATO after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union a few years later. In 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron even called the organization 'brain-dead' amid dissatisfaction with the leadership of the U.S. President at the time, Donald Trump. NATO has, however, seen a revival after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Following the invasion, Sweden and Finland both abandoned decades of military neutrality and applied to join the alliance, with Finland joining in 2023 and Sweden in 2024.

As of 2025,the combined forces of NATO had approximately 3.44 million active military personnel, compared with 1.32 million active military personnel in the Russian military. The collective military capabilities of the 32 countries that make up NATO outnumber Russia in terms of aircraft, at 22,377 to 4,957, and in naval power, with 1,143 military ships, to 419. In terms of ground combat vehicles, NATO had an estimated 11,495 main battle tanks, to Russia's 5,750. The combined nuclear arsenal of the United States, United Kingdom, and France amounted to 5,559 nuclear warheads, compared with Russia's 5,580. NATO military spending In 2024, the combined military expenditure of NATO states amounted to approximately 1.47 trillion U.S. dollars, with the United States responsible for the majority of this spending, as the U.S. military budget amounted to 967.7 billion dollars that year. The current U.S. President, Donald Trump has frequently taken aim at other NATO allies for not spending as much on defense as America. NATO member states are expected to spend at least two percent of their GDP on defense, although the U.S. has recently pushed for an even higher target. As of 2024, the U.S. spent around 3.38 percent of its GDP on defense, the third-highest in the alliance, with Estonia just ahead on 3.43 percent, and Poland spending the highest share at 4.12 percent. US aid to Ukraine The pause in aid to Ukraine from the United States at the start of March 2025 marks a significant policy change from Ukraine's most powerful ally. Throughout the War in Ukraine, military aid from America has been crucial to the Ukrainian cause. In Trump's first term in office, America sent a high number of anti-tank Javelins, with this aid scaling up to more advanced equipment after Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022. The donation of around 40 HIMARs rocket-artillery system, for example, has proven to be one of Ukraine's most effective offensive weapons against Russia. Defensive systems such as advanced Patriot air defense units have also helped protect Ukraine from aerial assaults. Although European countries have also provided significant aid, it is unclear if they will be able to fill the hole left by America should the pause in aid goes on indefinitely.

In 2023, it is estimated that the BRICS countries have a combined population of 3.25 billion people, which is over 40 percent of the world population. The majority of these people live in either China or India, which have a population of more than 1.4 billion people each, while the other three countries have a combined population of just under 420 million. Comparisons Although the BRICS countries are considered the five foremost emerging economies, they are all at various stages of the demographic transition and have different levels of population development. For all of modern history, China has had the world's largest population, but rapidly dropping fertility and birth rates in recent decades mean that its population growth has slowed. In contrast, India's population growth remains much higher, and it is expected to overtake China in the next few years to become the world's most populous country. The fastest growing population in the BRICS bloc, however, is that of South Africa, which is at the earliest stage of demographic development. Russia, is the only BRICS country whose population is currently in decline, and it has been experiencing a consistent natural decline for most of the past three decades. Growing populations = growing opportunities Between 2000 and 2026, the populations of the BRICS countries is expected to grow by 625 million people, and the majority of this will be in India and China. As the economies of these two countries grow, so too do living standards and disposable income; this has resulted in the world's two most populous countries emerging as two of the most profitable markets in the world. China, sometimes called the "world's factory" has seen a rapid growth in its middle class, increased potential of its low-tier market, and its manufacturing sector is now transitioning to the production of more technologically advanced and high-end goods to meet its domestic demand.

Judgement on American and Soviet foreign policy. Attitude to selected countries and NATO.

Topics: Most important problems of the country; attitude to France, Germany, Great Britain, the USSR and the USA as well as perceived changes in the last few years; assumed reputation of one´s own country abroad; trust in the USA and the USSR to solve world problems; judgement on the agreement of words and deeds in foreign policy as well as the seriousness of the peace efforts of the two great powers; the USSR or the USA as current and as future world power in the military and scientific area as well as in space research; benefit of space travel; attitude to a strengthening of space flight efforts; knowledge about the landing on the moon; necessity of NATO; trust in NATO; judgement on the contribution of one´s own country to NATO; preference for acceptance of political functions by NATO; attitude to a reduction in US soldiers stationed in Western Europe; expected reductions of American obligations in Europe; probability of European unification; desired activities of government in the direction of European unification; preference for a European nuclear force; judgement on the disarmament negotiations between the USA and the USSR; expected benefit of such negotiations for one´s own country and expected consideration of European interests; increased danger of war from the new missile defense systems; prospects of the so-called Budapest recommendation; attitude to the American Vietnam policy; negotiating party that can be held responsible for the failure of the Paris talks; sympathy for Arabs or Israelis in the Middle East Conflict; preference for withdrawal of the Israelis from the occupied territories; attitude to an increase in the total population in one´s country and in the whole world; attitude to birth control in one´s country; attitude to economic aid for lesser developed countries; judgement on the influence and advantageousness of American investments as well as American way of life for one´s own country; autostereotype and description of the American character by means of the same list of characteristics (stereotype); general attitude to American culture; perceived increase in American prosperity; trust in the ability of American politics to solve their own economic and social problems; judgement on the treatment of blacks in the USA and determined changes; proportion of poor in the USA; comparison of proportion of violence or crime in the USA with one´s own country; general judgement on the youth in one´s country in comparison to the USA; assessment of the persuasiveness of the American or Soviet view; religiousness; city size.

Also encoded was: length of interview; number of contact attempts; presence of other persons during the interview; willingness of respondent to cooperate; understanding difficulties of respondent.

In 2025, Norway spent an estimated ***** U.S. dollars per capita on defense, compared with the NATO average of ******* per capita.

This data collection, which focuses on military spending and arms transfers, supplies information on 145 developed and developing countries of the world. The first file contains background data for each country, including items such as region, sub-region, alliances (OPEC, NATO, and Warsaw Pact), and OECD and World Bank membership. The second file tabulates annual military expenditures, GNP, central government expenditures, arms imports and exports, and total imports and exports in current and constant dollars for each country from 1973 to 1983. Additional variables detail total population, number of armed forces personnel, number of armed forces personnel per 1000 people, GNP in constant dollars per capita, and military expenditures in constant dollars per capita.

This study sought opinions from respondents across Europe and the United States on various topics pertaining to foreign policy and international relations. The primary topics included: (1) the state of relations between the European Union (EU) and the United States, (2) the George W. Bush Administration's handling of global affairs, (3) the functioning of the European Union (EU), (4) the relevance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), (5) general opinions on various countries, institutions, and population groups, (6) perception of potential international threats, (7) China as an emerging power, (8) Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, (9) civil liberties and national security, (10) the compatibility of Islam and democracy, and (11) the role of the EU and the United States in establishing democracy. Respondents were asked about relations between the United States and Europe including whether it was desirable for the EU to exert strong leadership in the world, whether they were in favor of the United States exerting strong leadership in the world, whether relations between the United States and Europe had improved or gotten worse, and how relations between the United States and Europe regarding security and diplomatic affairs should evolve in the future. Respondents also were asked whether they approved or disapproved of the way George W. Bush was handling international policies. There were several questions that related to the functioning of the EU, such as (1) whether the EU should have its own foreign minister, (2) whether military or economic power is more important when dealing with international problems, (3) whether the EU should seek to strengthen its military power, (4) what effect Turkey's membership would have on the EU, and (5) how further enlargement would change the EU's role in world affairs and its ability to promote peace and democracy. Respondents were questioned about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and whether they believed NATO was still essential to their country's national security. Respondents were asked to give their opinions on the following countries, institutions, and population groups using a scale of 0 (very cold, unfavorable feeling) to 100 (very warm, favorable feeling): the United States, Russia, Israel, the European Union, Palestinians, Italy, Turkey, China, Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain. Respondents were also asked about potential threats facing Europe and the United States such as international terrorism, the inflow of immigrants and refugees, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, the spread of diseases like avian flu, a major economic downturn, global warming, the growing economic and military power of China, instability in Iraq, and Islamic fundamentalism. Respondents were then asked if they perceived these threats to be important in the next ten years. With respect to Iran, respondents were asked whether action should be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, what would be the best and worst options for preventing Iran from obtaining them, whether military action should be taken if diplomacy could not prevent Iran from obtaining them, and which country or organization was best suited for handling the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons. The survey contained a series of questions relating to national security and civil liberties. Opinions were sought on whether respondents would support the government taking actions such as monitoring phone calls, Internet communication, and banking transactions made by citizens, all in the name of preventing terrorism. Questions were also asked about Islam and democracy including whether the values of the two institutions were compatible or not, and if there were problems, whether they existed in Islam as a whole or just in certain Islamic groups. In addition, respondents were asked if the EU and the United States should help establish democracy in other countries, whether this help should be dependent on whether or not the countries would be more likely to oppose the EU and/or the United States, and whether the EU and United States should monitor elections in new democracies, support independent groups and political dissidents, impose political and/or economic sanctions, or intervene militarily in order to establish democracy. Finally, respondents were asked about their voting intentions for

For this survey, opinions were sought from respondents across Europe and the United States on several topics of national and international interest. These topics included: (1) the European Union (EU) and the United States as superpowers, threats facing the global community, (2) the United Nations (UN), (3) the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), (4) general opinions of various countries, institutions, and people, (5) actions taken by the George W. Bush Administration, (6) intervention policy, (7) Turkey's (potential) membership in the EU, (8) Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, (9) China's human rights record, and (10) political preferences and voter intentions. Regarding the EU and the United States as superpowers, respondents were asked whether it was desirable for the EU or the United States to exert strong leadership in the world, whether the EU or the United States or neither should be superpowers, if the motive for opposing the EU becoming a superpower was increased military expenditure, whether increased military expenditure was necessary for the EU to become a superpower, whether the EU should concentrate on becoming an economic power, and if a more powerful EU should cooperate with the United States. Respondents were asked about threats facing the world such as Islamic fundamentalism, immigration, international terrorism, global warming, the spread of diseases such as AIDS, a major economic downturn, and the spread of nuclear weapons, and whether they expected to be affected by any of them in the next ten years. With respect to the United Nations, respondents were asked their overall opinion of the UN, whether they believed UN involvement legitimized the use of military force, whether the UN could help manage the world's problems better than a single country could, and whether the UN helps to distribute the costs of international actions. Regarding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), respondents were asked whether NATO could help share the United States military burden, whether NATO was an essential part of national security, if NATO involvement legitimized the use of military force, if NATO was dominated by the United States, and whether Europe should maintain a defensive alliance independent of the United States. Respondents were asked to give their opinions on the following countries, institutions, and population groups: the United States, Russia, Israel, the European Union, Palestinians, Italy, Turkey, China, Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain. In regard to the Bush Administration, respondents were asked whether relations between the United States and Europe were better or worse, whether Bush's efforts to improve relations between the United States and Europe were successful, what the future of relations between the United States and Europe would be because of Bush's efforts, and whether or not Europe should be more independent from the United States with respect to issues of security and diplomacy. Respondents were also asked whether they approved of Bush's handling of international policies. With respect to intervention policy, the following questions were asked: should the EU help establish democracies, should the EU be involved in monitoring elections, would the respondent be in favor of the EU supporting trade unions, human rights associations, and religious groups in an effort to promote freedom, and should the EU support political dissidents and impose political and economic sanctions in opposition to an authoritarian regime. Respondents were asked several questions regarding Turkey's membership in the EU, including whether Turkey's membership in the EU could help promote peace and stability in the Middle East, if Turkey's membership in the EU would be good for the EU in economic terms, whether a predominately Muslim country belonged in the EU, if Turkey was too populous to become a member of the EU, and whether Turkey was too poor to be admitted into the EU. Respondents were also asked what they felt was the best way to put pressure on Iran in light of its attempts to acquire nuclear weapons and whether or not the EU should limit its relations with China due to China's human rights violations. Respondents were also asked about their voting intentions for the next elections and what factors they took into consideration when deciding for which party to vote. The dat

Opinions across Europe and the United States on various topics pertaining to foreign policy and international relations. The primary topics included: the state of relations between the European Union (EU) and the United States, the George W. Bush Administration´s handling of global affairs,) the functioning of the European Union (EU), the relevance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), general opinions on various countries, institutions, and population groups, perception of potential international threats, China as an emerging power, Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, civil liberties and national security, the compatibility of Islam and democracy, and the role of the EU and the United States in establishing democracy.

Topics: Respondents were asked about relations between the United States and Europe including whether it was desirable for the EU to exert strong leadership in the world, whether they were in favor of the United States exerting strong leadership in the world, whether relations between the United States and Europe had improved or gotten worse, and how relations between the United States and Europe regarding security and diplomatic affairs should evolve in the future. Respondents also were asked whether they approved or disapproved of the way George W. Bush was handling international policies. There were several questions that related to the functioning of the EU, such as whether the EU should have its own foreign minister, whether military or economic power is more important when dealing with international problems, whether the EU should seek to strengthen its military power, what effect Turkey´s membership would have on the EU, and how further enlargement would change the EU´s role in world affairs and its ability to promote peace and democracy. Respondents were questioned about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and whether they believed NATO was still essential to their country´s national security. Respondents were asked to give their opinions on the following countries, institutions, and population groups using a scale of 0 (very cold, unfavorable feeling) to 100 (very warm, favorable feeling): the United States, Russia, Israel, the European Union, Palestinians, Italy, Turkey, China, Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain. Respondents were also asked about potential threats facing Europe and the United States such as international terrorism, the inflow of immigrants and refugees, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, the spread of diseases like avian flu, a major economic downturn, global warming, the growing economic and military power of China, instability in Iraq, and Islamic fundamentalism. Respondents were then asked if they perceived these threats to be important in the next ten years. With respect to Iran, respondents were asked whether action should be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, what would be the best and worst options for preventing Iran from obtaining them, whether military action should be taken if diplomacy could not prevent Iran from obtaining them, and which country or organization was best suited for handling the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons. The survey contained a series of questions relating to national security and civil liberties. Opinions were sought on whether respondents would support the government taking actions such as monitoring phone calls, Internet communication, and banking transactions made by citizens, all in the name of preventing terrorism. Questions were also asked about Islam and democracy including whether the values of the two institutions were compatible or not, and if there were problems, whether they existed in Islam as a whole or just in certain Islamic groups. In addition, respondents were asked if the EU and the United States should help establish democracy in other countries, whether this help should be dependent on whether or not the countries would be more likely to oppose the EU and/or the United States, and whether the EU and United States should monitor elections in new democracies, support independent groups and political dissidents, impose political and/or economic sanctions, or intervene militarily in order to establish democracy. Finally, respondents were asked about their voting intentions for the next elections and what factors they took into consideration when deciding for which party to vote.

demography: gender, age, level of education, occupation, household size, region, and ...

Summary: opinions across Europe and the United States on several topics of national and international interest. These topics included: the European Union (EU) and the United States as superpowers, threats facing the global community, the United Nations (UN), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), general opinions of various countries, institutions, and people, actions taken by the George W. Bush Administration, intervention policy, Turkey´s (potential) membership in the EU, Iran´s pursuit of nuclear weapons, China´s human rights record, and political preferences and voter intentions.

Topics: Regarding the EU and the United States as superpowers, respondents were asked whether it was desirable for the EU or the United States to exert strong leadership in the world, whether the EU or the United States or neither should be superpowers, if the motive for opposing the EU becoming a superpower was increased military expenditure, whether increased military expenditure was necessary for the EU to become a superpower, whether the EU should concentrate on becoming an economic power, and if a more powerful EU should cooperate with the United States. Respondents were asked about threats facing the world such as Islamic fundamentalism, immigration, international terrorism, global warming, the spread of diseases such as AIDS, a major economic downturn, and the spread of nuclear weapons, and whether they expected to be affected by any of them in the next ten years. With respect to the United Nations, respondents were asked their overall opinion of the UN, whether they believed UN involvement legitimized the use of military force, whether the UN could help manage the world´s problems better than a single country could, and whether the UN helps to distribute the costs of international actions. Regarding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), respondents were asked whether NATO could help share the United States military burden, whether NATO was an essential part of national security, if NATO involvement legitimized the use of military force, if NATO was dominated by the United States, and whether Europe should maintain a defensive alliance independent of the United States. Respondents were asked to give their opinions on the following countries, institutions, and population groups: the United States, Russia, Israel, the European Union, Palestinians, Italy, Turkey, China, Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain. In regard to the Bush Administration, respondents were asked whether relations between the United States and Europe were better or worse, whether Bush´s efforts to improve relations between the United States and Europe were successful, what the future of relations between the United States and Europe would be because of Bush´s efforts, and whether or not Europe should be more independent from the United States with respect to issues of security and diplomacy. Respondents were also asked whether they approved of Bush´s handling of international policies. With respect to intervention policy, the following questions were asked: should the EU help establish democracies, should the EU be involved in monitoring elections, would the respondent be in favor of the EU supporting trade unions, human rights associations, and religious groups in an effort to promote freedom, and should the EU support political dissidents and impose political and economic sanctions in opposition to an authoritarian regime. Respondents were asked several questions regarding Turkey´s membership in the EU, including whether Turkey´s membership in the EU could help promote peace and stability in the Middle East, if Turkey´s membership in the EU would be good for the EU in economic terms, whether a predominately Muslim country belonged in the EU, if Turkey was too populous to become a member of the EU, and whether Turkey was too poor to be admitted into the EU. Respondents were also asked what they felt was the best way to put pressure on Iran in light of its attempts to acquire nuclear weapons and whether or not the EU should limit its relations with China due to China´s human rights violations. Respondents were also asked about their voting intentions for the next elections and what factors they took into consideration when deciding for which party to vote.

Demography: gender, age, level of education, occupation, household size, region, and ethnicity (United States only).

Bewertung globaler Bedrohungen. Einstellung zur Führungsrolle der USAbzw. der EU. Einstellung zum Nuklearstreit mit dem Iran, zu staatlichenBefugnissen zur Terrorabwehr und zur Demokratieförderung. Einschätzungdes wachsenden Machtpotentials Chinas. Themen: Häufigkeit politischer Gespräche im Freundeskreis; politischeMeinungsführerschaft; Einstellung zur globalen Führungsrolle der USAsowie der Europäischen Union; Einschätzung der Beziehung zwischen denUSA und Europa; Einstellung zur Partnerschaft zwischen den USA und derEU in der Sicherheits- und Außenpolitik; Beurteilung derinternationalen Politik der amerikanischen Regierung unter George W.Bush; Einstellung zur Stärkung der internationalen Rolle der EU (Skala:eigener Außenminister, Militäreinsätze, wirtschaftliche Stärke,Stärkung der Streitkräfte); Einstellung zur EU-Mitgliedschaft derTürkei; Einstellung zur Ausweitung der EU als Mittel zur Stärkung derinternationalen Bedeutung, zur Förderung von Frieden und Demokratie,als Hinderungsgrund für eine gemeinsame europäische Identität;Bedeutung der NATO für die nationale Sicherheit; Einstellung zu denVereinten Nationen; Sympathie-Skalometer (100-Punkte-Skala) für dieUSA, Russland, Israel, die Europäische Union, die Palästinenser,Italien, die Türkei, China, den Iran, das Vereinigte Königreich,Frankreich, Deutschland und Spanien; Einstufung der potentiellenBedrohung Europas und der USA durch den internationalen Terrorismus,die hohe Zahl von Einwanderern und Flüchtlingen nach Europa, den Erwerbvon Atomwaffen durch den Iran, die weltweite Ausbreitung von Seuchenwie der Vogelgrippe, eine Konjunkturdämpfung, die globale Erderwärmung,die wachsende Macht Chinas, Gewalt und Instabilität im Irak sowie denislamischen Fundamentalismus (Split: Vorgabe unterschiedlicherAntwortkategorien); Einschätzung des Bedrohungspotentials durch diewachsende Wirtschaft bzw. Militärmacht Chinas; präferierteVorgehensweise der Europäischen Union und der USA im Nuklearstreit mitdem Iran: Duldung des Erwerbs von Atomwaffen durch den Iran oderweitere Bemühungen, den Iran davon abzuhalten; präferierte sowiebesonders abgelehnte Vorgehensweise, um den Iran vom Atomwaffenerwerbabzuhalten; Einstellung zu einem Militäreinsatz gegen den Iran;kompetenteste Verhandlungspartner zur Lösung des Irankonflikts(Vereinte Nationen, NATO, die USA oder die Europäische Gemeinschaft);Einstellung zu staatlichen Befugnissen zur Terrorabwehr: Überwachungvon Telefongesprächen, der Kommunikation im Internet und desGeldtransfers bei Banken sowie die Installation von Überwachungskamerasauf öffentlichen Plätzen; Einstellung zur Vereinbarkeit der Werte desIslam mit der Demokratie des eigenen Landes; Islam allgemein oderbestimmte islamische Gruppierungen als Grund für dieNichtvereinbarkeit; Einstellung zur Rolle der Europäischen Union bzw.der USA beim Demokratisierungsprozess in anderen Ländern; Festhalten ander Demokratisierungsabsicht auch bei Protesten dieser Länder gegendiese europäische bzw. amerikanische Politik und bei der Wahl islamischfundamentalistischer Führer; befürwortete Maßnahmen zurDemokratieförderung in autoritären Regimes durch: die Beobachtung vonWahlen, die Unterstützung von unabhängigen Gruppen wie Gewerkschaften,humanitäre Hilfsorganisationen und religiöse Gruppen sowie vonRegimekritikern oder Verhängen politischer und wirtschaftlicherSanktionen sowie militärische Intervention; wirtschaftliche odermilitärische Macht als präferierte Grundlage zur Beeinflussung desWeltgeschehens; Einstellung zur Notwendigkeit von Krieg; Einstellungzur Orientierung an den Alliierten in Sicherheitsfragen;Selbsteinschätzung der politischen Orientierung. Demographie: Parteipräferenz; Parteipräferenz bei der nächstenPräsidentschaftswahl; Selbsteinstufung auf einemLinks-Rechts-Kontinuum; Konfession; Geschlecht; Alter; höchsterSchulabschluss; Beruf; Migrationshintergrund; Haushaltsgröße; Land;Urbanisierungsgrad. Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: Gewichtung. Opinions across Europe and the United States on various topicspertaining to foreign policy and international relations. The primarytopics included: the state of relations between the European Union (EU)and the United States, the George W. Bush Administration´s handling ofglobal affairs,) the functioning of the European Union (EU), therelevance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), generalopinions on various countries, institutions, and population groups,perception of potential international threats, China as an emergingpower, Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, civil liberties andnational security, the compatibility of Islam and democracy, and therole of the EU and the United States in establishing democracy. Topics: Respondents were asked about relations between the UnitedStates and Europe including whether it was desirable for the EU toexert strong leadership in the world, whether they were in favor of theUnited States exerting strong leadership in the world, whetherrelations between the United States and Europe had improved or gottenworse, and how relations between the United States and Europe regardingsecurity and diplomatic affairs should evolve in the future.Respondents also were asked whether they approved or disapproved of theway George W. Bush was handling international policies. There wereseveral questions that related to the functioning of the EU, such aswhether the EU should have its own foreign minister, whether militaryor economic power is more important when dealing with internationalproblems, whether the EU should seek to strengthen its military power,what effect Turkey´s membership would have on the EU, and how furtherenlargement would change the EU´s role in world affairs and its abilityto promote peace and democracy. Respondents were questioned about theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and whether they believedNATO was still essential to their country´s national security.Respondents were asked to give their opinions on the followingcountries, institutions, and population groups using a scale of 0 (verycold, unfavorable feeling) to 100 (very warm, favorable feeling): theUnited States, Russia, Israel, the European Union, Palestinians, Italy,Turkey, China, Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain.Respondents were also asked about potential threats facing Europe andthe United States such as international terrorism, the inflow ofimmigrants and refugees, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, the spread ofdiseases like avian flu, a major economic downturn, global warming, thegrowing economic and military power of China, instability in Iraq, andIslamic fundamentalism. Respondents were then asked if they perceivedthese threats to be important in the next ten years. With respect toIran, respondents were asked whether action should be taken to preventit from obtaining nuclear weapons, what would be the best and worstoptions for preventing Iran from obtaining them, whether militaryaction should be taken if diplomacy could not prevent Iran fromobtaining them, and which country or organization was best suited forhandling the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons. The survey contained aseries of questions relating to national security and civil liberties.Opinions were sought on whether respondents would support thegovernment taking actions such as monitoring phone calls, Internetcommunication, and banking transactions made by citizens, all in thename of preventing terrorism. Questions were also asked about Islam anddemocracy including whether the values of the two institutions werecompatible or not, and if there were problems, whether they existed inIslam as a whole or just in certain Islamic groups. In addition,respondents were asked if the EU and the United States should helpestablish democracy in other countries, whether this help should bedependent on whether or not the countries would be more likely tooppose the EU and/or the United States, and whether the EU and UnitedStates should monitor elections in new democracies, support independentgroups and political dissidents, impose political and/or economicsanctions, or intervene militarily in order to establish democracy.Finally, respondents were asked about their voting intentions for thenext elections and what factors they took into consideration whendeciding for which party to vote. demography: gender, age, level of education, occupation, householdsize, region, and ethnicity.

Beurteilung der amerikanischen und sowjetischen Außenpolitik.Einstellung zu ausgewählten Ländern und zur Nato. Themen: Wichtigste Probleme des Landes; Einstellung zuFrankreich, Deutschland, Großbritannien, UdSSR und USA sowiewahrgenommene Veränderungen in den letzten Jahren; vermutetesAnsehen des eigenen Landes im Ausland; Vertrauen in die USA unddie UdSSR zur Lösung der Weltprobleme; Beurteilung derÜbereinstimmung von Worten und Taten in der Außenpolitik sowieder Ernsthaftigkeit der Friedensbemühungen der beidenGroßmächte; UdSSR oder USA als derzeitige und als künftigeWeltmacht im militärischen, wissenschaftlichen Bereich sowie inder Weltraumforschung; Nutzen der Weltraumfahrt; Einstellung zueiner Verstärkung von Raumfahrtanstrengungen; Kenntnisse überdie Mondlandung; Notwendigkeit der Nato; Vertrauen in die Nato;Beurteilung des Beitrags des eigenen Landes zur Nato; Präferenzfür die Übernahme politischer Funktionen durch die Nato;Einstellung zu einer Verringerung der stationierten US-Soldatenin Westeuropa; erwartete Einschränkungen der amerikanischenVerpflichtungen in Europa; Wahrscheinlichkeit einereuropäischen Vereinigung; gewünschte Aktivitäten der Regierungin Richtung europäische Einigung; Präferenz für eineeuropäische Atomstreitmacht; Beurteilung derAbrüstungsverhandlungen zwischen den USA und der UdSSR;erwarteter Nutzen solcher Verhandlungen für das eigene Land underwartete Berücksichtigung der europäischen Interessen; erhöhteKriegsgefahr durch die neuen Raketenabwehrsysteme; Aussichtendes sogenannten Budapest-Vorschlags; Einstellung zuramerikanischen Vietnam-Politik; Verhandlungspartei, der dieMißerfolge der Pariser Gespräche zugeschrieben werden;Sympathie für die Araber oder Israelis im Nahost-Konflikt;Präferenz für einen Abzug der Israelis aus den besetztenGebieten; Einstellung zu einer Erhöhung der Bevölkerungszahl imeigenen Land und auf der ganzen Welt; Einstellung zu einerGeburtenkontrolle im eigenen Land; Einstellung zurWirtschaftshilfe an weniger entwickelte Länder; Beurteilung desEinflusses und der Vorteilhaftigkeit amerikanischerInvestitionen sowie amerikanischer Lebensart für das eigeneLand; Autostereotyp und Beschreibung des amerikanischenCharakters anhand der gleichen Eigenschaftsliste (Stereotyp);allgemeine Einstellung zur amerikanischen Kultur; wahrgenommeneSteigerung des amerikanischen Wohlstands; Vertrauen in dieKompetenz amerikanischer Politik zur Lösung ihrer eigenenwirtschaftlichen und sozialen Probleme; Beurteilung derBehandlung von Schwarzen in den USA und festgestellteVeränderungen; Armenanteil in den USA; Vergleich desGewaltanteils bzw. der Kriminalität in den USA mit dem eigenenLand; allgemeine Beurteilung der Jugend im eigenen Land imVergleich zu den USA; Einschätzung der Überzeugungskraftamerikanischer bzw. sowjetischer Anschauung; Religiosität;Ortsgröße. Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: Interviewdauer; Anzahl derKontaktversuche; Anwesenheit anderer Personen beim Interview;Kooperationsbereitschaft des Befragten;Verständnisschwierigkeiten des Befragten. Judgement on American and Soviet foreign policy. Attitude to selectedcountries and NATO. Topics: Most important problems of the country; attitude to France,Germany, Great Britain, the USSR and the USA as well as perceivedchanges in the last few years; assumed reputation of one´s own countryabroad; trust in the USA and the USSR to solve world problems;judgement on the agreement of words and deeds in foreign policy as wellas the seriousness of the peace efforts of the two great powers; theUSSR or the USA as current and as future world power in the militaryand scientific area as well as in space research; benefit of spacetravel; attitude to a strengthening of space flight efforts; knowledgeabout the landing on the moon; necessity of NATO; trust in NATO;judgement on the contribution of one´s own country to NATO; preferencefor acceptance of political functions by NATO; attitude to a reductionin US soldiers stationed in Western Europe; expected reductions ofAmerican obligations in Europe; probability of European unification;desired activities of government in the direction of Europeanunification; preference for a European nuclear force; judgement on thedisarmament negotiations between the USA and the USSR; expected benefitof such negotiations for one´s own country and expected considerationof European interests; increased danger of war from the new missiledefense systems; prospects of the so-called Budapest recommendation;attitude to the American Vietnam policy; negotiating party that can beheld responsible for the failure of the Paris talks; sympathy for Arabsor Israelis in the Middle East Conflict; preference for withdrawal ofthe Israelis from the occupied territories; attitude to an increase inthe total population in one´s country and in the whole world; attitudeto birth control in one´s country; attitude to economic aid for lesserdeveloped countries; judgement on the influence and advantageousness ofAmerican investments as well as American way of life for one´s owncountry; autostereotype and description of the American character bymeans of the same list of characteristics (stereotype); generalattitude to American culture; perceived increase in Americanprosperity; trust in the ability of American politics to solve theirown economic and social problems; judgement on the treatment of blacksin the USA and determined changes; proportion of poor in the USA;comparison of proportion of violence or crime in the USA with one´s owncountry; general judgement on the youth in one´s country in comparisonto the USA; assessment of the persuasiveness of the American or Sovietview; religiousness; city size. Also encoded was: length of interview; number of contact attempts;presence of other persons during the interview; willingness ofrespondent to cooperate; understanding difficulties of respondent.

This statistic shows the total population of the Netherlands from 2020 to 2024, with projections up until 2030. In 2024, the total population of the Netherlands was around 17.94 million people. Population of the Netherlands Despite its small size, the Netherlands is the twenty-third smallest nation in the European Union, and it is one of the most important nations in Europe and the world. The Netherlands is a founding member of the European Union, a member of the Group of Ten, and NATO. The total population of the Netherlands has rapidly increased over the past decade. Between 2004 and 2014, the total population increased by around 600 thousand people, currently estimated to be around 16.9 million altogether. The biggest cities in the Netherlands include Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and The Hague, with Amsterdam alone being home to almost 800 thousand residents. Among other factors, the Netherlands' increasing population is due to high life expectancy, economic growth and job opportunities. In 2011, the population of the Netherlands grew by around 0.47 percent in comparison to 2010. That same year, life expectancy at birth in the Netherlands was a little over 81 years, the highest recorded life expectancy since 2001. In addition, the unemployment rate in the Netherlands is one of the lowest unemployment rates in all of Europe.

Three out of four Ukrainians would vote for their country's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), according to a survey from September 2024. Less than 10 percent of respondents were against Ukraine's membership in NATO. The highest level of support toward the accession was recorded in western Ukraine. The majority of Ukrainians expected their country to join NATO until 2032.

As a share of gross domestic product (GDP), Ukraine spent more on its military than any other country in 2024, reaching 35 percent of the country's GDP. The high figure is due to the country being invaded by Russia in February 2022. Israel, that is fighting Hamas in the Gaza war, and Algeria followed behind.Leading military spending countriesIn gross terms, the countries with the highest military spending are the United States, China, and Russia. However, these are countries with large populations and GDPs, and smaller countries usually cannot compete alone, regardless of how much they invest. For this reason, they form alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO countries aim to pool two percent of their GDP towards their own militaries and to aid each other in case of war. Regional differencesThe past decade has seen an increase in global military spending. This has not been distributed evenly. That period saw large positive changes in military spending from several Asian countries, including a large increase from China. While this does not reflect the number of active conflicts, it reflects growing tensions in global affairs.

How many soldiers does Russia have? The Russian Armed Forces had 3.57 million troops as of 2025, with 37 percent of them, or 1.32 million, being active military personnel. Two million were reserve service members, and 250,000 were paramilitary forces. The number of people in the Russian military was increased twice after the invasion of Ukraine; the respective presidential decrees came into force in January and December 2023. Largest armies worldwide The Russian Army had the fourth-largest available active military manpower in 2025, having shared that rank with North Korea. The militaries of China, India, and the United States had more active soldiers. In terms of defense spending, Russia ranked third after the U.S. and China. Military personnel of Ukraine and NATO Russia’s active troops outnumbered Ukraine’s by 420,000 as of 2025. Furthermore, reserve and paramilitary forces of Russia were higher. When comparing Russia’s active military personnel to that of the countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), it was roughly 2.6 times smaller. In total, NATO members were estimated to over 3.4 million troops, including active, reserve, and paramilitary units. The U.S., Turkey, and Poland have the largest armies in NATO.

In 1800, the region of present-day Turkey had a population of approximately 9.8 million. Turkey’s population would grow steadily throughout the 1800s, growing to 14 million by the turn of the century. During this time, Turkey was the center of the Ottoman Empire, which also covered much of the Balkans, Arabia, and the African coast from Libya to Somalia. In the early 20th century, the Ottoman Empire's dissolution period began, characterized by political instability and a series of military defeats and coups. The empire was one of the defeated Central Powers of the First World War, in which it suffered approximately three million total fatalities. It is estimated that the majority of these deaths did not come directly from the war, but as a result of the government-orchestrated mass expulsion and genocide of non-Turks from within the Turkish borders, specifically Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks and Kurds; many ethnic Turks were simultaneously expelled from neighboring countries, namely Greece, which makes these events less-visible when examining annual data, although Turkey's total population did drop by one million between 1914 and 1924.

The Republic of Turkey Following the end of the Turkish War of Independence in 1923, and the establishment of the republic of Turkey, the population would begin to recover, tripling from just around 21 million in 1950 to over 63 million by the turn of the century. The new republic, led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, introduced sweeping, progressive reforms that modernized the country, particularly its healthcare and education systems. Turkey remained neutral throughout the Second World War, and became a member of NATO during the Cold War. The second half of the 1900s was marked with intermittent periods of political instability, and a number of military conflicts (namely, in Cyprus and Kurdistan). In spite of this, Turkey has generally been considered a developed country for most of this time, although its life expectancy and infant mortality rates have often been more in line with developing nations.

Modern Turkey In the past decade, Turkey's population growth has continued its rapid growth; while birth rates have declined, the mass migration of refugees to the country fleeing the Syrian Civil War has seen the population growth ramain high. This influx of refugees was seen as a stepping stone in Turkey's accession to the European Union, with whom it has been negotiating a potential membership since 2005. Accession to the EU would provide huge economic benefits to Turkey, however, political developments in recent years (particularly the 2016 coup) have seen these negotiations stall, as the EU has accused the Turkish government of committing widespread human rights violations, such as torture, political imprisonment and censorship of free speech. In 2020, Turkey's population is estimated to be over 84 million people, and is expected to exceed 100 million in the next two decades.

Bosnia and Herzegovina's total population grew at quite a steady rate from the early nineteenth century until the mid-1900s, increasing from 852,000 people in 1818 to 2.7 million in 1950. Following the Second World War, the population grew at an even faster rate, reaching 4.5 million people by the end of the 1980s. Throughout this period, Bosnia and Herzegovina was never an independent country, as it belonged to the Ottoman Empire until 1875, before it was then annexed by Austria-Hungary until the First World War, after which it became a part of Yugoslavia. During this time, ethnic Bosnians (the majority of which were Muslim) often faced oppression and persecution, and even mass genocide during the Second World War (when it was briefly annexed by Croatia, which was a puppet state of Nazi Germany). The Bosnian War From 1989 onwards, Bosnia's population decreased drastically, by approximately 750,000 people by the end of the century. This sudden change coincides with the dissolution of Yugoslavia, where the country experienced economic instability in the 1980s and then the independence of its internal states in the early 90s; Bosnia and Herzegovina itself became independent in 1992. The formation of an independent state lead to civil unrest among the different ethnic groups within Bosnia and Herzegovina, resulting in the Bosnian War that caused the deaths of approximately 100 thousand people, as well as the displacement of over 2.2 million. Modern Bosnia and Herzegovina Since this period in Bosnia and Herzegovina's history the population has never recovered, and a further decline in the past decade has seen the population fall below 3.3 million people in 2020; which is a decrease of more than one million people since the war. As the country seemingly comes to terms with its difficult past, and deals with high unemployment and ethnic tensions; there are some indicators for a brighter outlook for Bosnia and Herzegovina's future. Today, Bosnia and Herzegovina is seen as a developing country and economy, it is an applicant for both EU and NATO membership, and an emerging tourism sector may provide much-needed employment across the country.

The number of military personnel serving in member states of the European Union has declined from approximately *** million people at the end of the Cold War in 1989, to less than *** million by 2020. European Union countries cooperate closely on issues of defense and security, particularly as the vast majority of EU member states are also members of NATO. However, the current Common Security and Defense Policy of the EU does not amount to a formal military alliance, nor an EU army.