Whenever the possibility of conflict or war arises between states, the Global Firepower Index (GFP) rankings of the countries concerned are widely circulated in the media and used to compare their military strength. Generally, greater weight is given to the assumption that the country ranked higher is more likely to prevail, and analyses are often based on this assumption.

But does the GFP Index really provide accurate and sufficient information, as is commonly assumed? Do the realities on the battlefield necessarily correspond to the military capabilities reflected on paper?

This article examines the extent to which the GFP Index reflects actual military power, using Israel as a case study.

GFP: Ranking the Military Strength of 145 Countries

The Global Firepower Index (GFP), which ranks the military strength of 145 countries, has operated as a website since 2006 and annually ranks the military capabilities of the 145 countries included in its list. According to GFP, the ranking is not based solely on the number of military personnel or the defense budget; rather, it is calculated using a special formula that incorporates more than 60 individual factors and produces a “PowerIndex” (PwrIndx) score.

In this calculation, the closer the score is to zero, the greater the military strength is considered to be.

The ranking primarily draws on data provided by the CIA World Factbook, Wikipedia, and other open sources. These data are sometimes found to be outdated or inaccurate.

According to the 2026 Global Firepower ranking, the top 10 countries are as follows:[i]

The main criteria and categories determining the ranking are as follows:

Personnel: Total population, military-age population, active, reserve, and paramilitary forces

Military Inventory and Diversity of Weaponry: Air, land, and naval capabilities; tanks, aircraft, ships, artillery, etc.

Defense Budget and Financial Resources: Defense spending, external debt, foreign exchange and gold reserves, PPP

Logistics and Infrastructure: Airports, ports, merchant fleet, railways and roads

Geographical Location

Natural Resources: Oil production, consumption, and reserves

Special Modifiers: Bonuses and penalties

The system applies special coefficients (bonuses and penalties) to prevent large but technologically backward armies from gaining an undue advantage in the ranking, while also reflecting the capabilities of smaller but technologically advanced forces.

Limitations of the Index

The greatest limitation of the Global Firepower Index is that it measures only the conventional (land, sea, and air) war potential of countries. The model is based on traditional parameters inherited from the Cold War era and focuses entirely on countries’ conventional warfighting capabilities. Non-conventional information related to defense is not included in this assessment.

AI-powered UAVs, swarming drones, or asymmetric cyber and electronic warfare capabilities, which have fundamentally changed the concept of warfare, are not reflected in the ranking. The Index also provides no information on the “technological quality” of the systems available to armed forces.

Countries’ nuclear weapons stockpiles, superiority in cyberspace, and space-based satellite and intelligence networks are not included in the scoring.

The Index, which compiles and ranks open-source data, also does not examine projects and capabilities that states possess and keep classified as national security secrets, even though these may affect the outcome of a war.

GFP provides an indication of a country’s overall industrial potential and a rough inventory of its major military assets.

Apart from these, other factors that directly affect states’ warfighting capabilities but are not included in the Index can be listed as follows:

The Force-Multiplier Effect of Military Alliances Is Not Taken into Account

The Global Firepower Index treats each country as an individual actor; rather than geopolitical balances or international relations, it focuses entirely on national geographic, demographic, economic, and conventional military capabilities. The impact of countries’ alliances, such as NATO, their rivalries, or changes in their alliances is not taken into account in the “PowerIndex” score.

Yet military alliances provide an allied state with additional deterrence on the one hand and the ability to benefit from the alliance’s forces and inventory on the other, thereby creating a force-multiplier effect for countries with lower scores. This important factor is overlooked.

It Provides No Information on Military Doctrine

GFP provides no information or analysis on the strategic doctrines according to which countries structure their air, land, or naval forces. For example, while it provides the inventory of a country’s naval forces, it does not indicate whether the navy has been built with the aim of becoming a global power capable of operating on the high seas or merely for coastal defense. Whether a country’s defense strategy is based on deterrence, offensive operations, or asymmetric defense is not taken into account.

Budgetary Information Is Not Categorized

GFP does not provide information on how defense budgets are allocated. There is no classification showing whether expenditure is directed toward R&D, personnel salaries, or heavy weaponry. Therefore, it is difficult to form an assessment of the military objectives toward which a country’s budget is being used.

The Source of the Weapons in a Military Inventory Is Not Specified

GFP also provides no information on the source of the weapons in a military’s inventory. Yet self-sufficiency is vital to a military’s warfighting and war-sustaining capabilities, particularly in terms of its dependence on other countries for weapons, ammunition, and spare parts.

Many of the 145........

© Stratejik Düşünce Enstitüsü