Ode to dread: Europe after Trump

0:28The Economist has maintained a foothold and often a military presence in many of them. Now its troops are finally withdrawing, our correspondent considers the implications. And the Maha Kummela, a Hindu festival where pilgrims take a dip in a holy river to cleanse their sins, takes place once every 12 years. These days, says our correspondent, its popularity isn't just about the alignment of the planet, it also serves a political purpose.

1:01But first…

1:09This week, European leaders lined up in Washington for a charm offensive. I felt we had a very productive discussion. Obviously, as the president says, the deal has to come first. But yes, our teams are going to be... Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer was in the capital yesterday, touting the special relationship, and a letter from King Charles inviting Donald Trump for a second state visit. President Macron was a very special man in my book. We were together. We did it together. A few days earlier, it was France's President Emmanuel Macron who was palling it up. I have no idea what you're saying, but that is no problem.

1:49Elegant, beautiful language. Go ahead. And today, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky is in town, hoping to sign a deal on minerals, tying his country to America's interests. But the long handshakes and shoulder bumps belie a real concern that, as Germany's presumptive next leader Friedrich Merz put it, the American president doesn't care much about the fate of Europe. If, as Merz says, this really is five to midnight, What does that mean for the continent's future security? There's a growing fear in Europe that America is turning its back on the security umbrella that it's extended over the continent for 80 years.

2:33Shashank Joshi is our defense editor. European allies increasingly agree that they've got to be able to defend themselves without relying on others. But I think they're also realising it could be many years before that's actually possible. So just how much trouble is Europe in from a defence perspective? So I think the best illustration of this is to look at Ukraine. European leaders are currently discussing a potential modest military deployment to Ukraine as a kind of assurance force. And that debate is, I think, revealing some really significant issues. First of all, it would stretch European forces incredibly thin.

3:22Most European armies can't even generate one combat-capable brigade. To give you a sense of what that is, that's about, you know, 3 ,000 to 5 ,000 men. In Ukraine, on both sides, on all sides, there are perhaps 250 brigades in the country, not all of them full strength, but nonetheless. The second problem is that if you move those forces to Ukraine, we're very thin. It would expose very big gaps in NATO's own defenses and we would struggle to regenerate the forces necessary for the backfill the gap. And I think third, and this is really the most important thing, this is the crux of the issue, any European deployments in Ukraine would frankly need very significant American support, not with boots on the ground, but with all of the things, we call them enablers usually in military talk that make those boots possible.

4:20And that level of dependency, it's becoming really clear, is exceptionally high. And I assume those problems come down to years of underinvestment. It absolutely does. You know, in the Cold War, Europe had big flourishing armies with decent stocks of ammunition, good levels of training, preparation, and that all changed in the 1990s. and they cut their defense spending massively, hollowed out their forces, and the result is what we have today. So if you look at the NATO war plans as they exist, the consensus is if you want to have the forces to fight with them credibly, you would need Europe to spend above 3 % of GDP on defense.

5:05The figure that the NATO Secretary General is sometimes using is 3.7%, I think, these days. That probably accounts for losing a little bit of American capabilities if they move something to Asia. Now, that's well, well above existing levels. For example, the UK just announced it was going to spend 2.5 % by 2027. And that's a huge deal. That's the biggest sustained growth in spending since the Cold War. We haven't done that for 20 years. If America's gone. If America leaves Europe completely, and I'm not saying that's likely, but if it does, you would be talking about a figure that is well above four, maybe five and a half, six percent of GDP on defence.

5:48So there's the money problem, obviously paying for an extra one, two, three percentage points of GDP is a big deal, but actually also translating cash into raw military capability. That's also really difficult. And why is that so difficult? Loads of reasons. So just take manpower, for example, filling out the ranks of your armies. They're all under strength. Recruitment's a problem today, let alone with an army that's twice the size. The Dutch armed forces, to take one example, I think there are about 49 ,000 people or so. That is less than a fifth of the size during the Cold War. About one in 10 positions is empty.

6:25And last, in 2023, their enlistment yielded about 3 ,600 soldiers, and they needed about 5 ,000. So that's just one relatively small army in Europe. I think the bigger issue though, the numbers, is those enablers I mentioned, right? Let's take the example of if Europe wants an air shield over Ukraine. We've got loads of jets, really good jets, as Donald Trump would say, big beautiful jets. But the problem is we haven't got the munitions, for example, that can take out Russian air defences. We haven't invested in the headquarters, the command and control that would need to orchestrate, oversee, organize really complex air operations of hundreds of planes over Ukraine.

7:11Realistically, only the Americans can do that. And again and again, you see these examples of things like intelligence assets, airlift, sea lift, logistics, where fundamentally we are dependent on the Americans. And these are not things you can just whiz up the capability in six months or buy it off the shelf from home base. Shashank, you're painting a very gloomy picture. And doesn't the security umbrella also include nuclear security? It does. I mean, America has a lot of nuclear weapons that it commits to the defense of NATO. NATO has a nuclear planning group where allies meet and discuss nuclear policy and doctrine and consult.

7:50America has also tactical nuclear weapons, smaller nuclear weapons called B61 gravity bombs dropped from aircraft, which it deploys around Europe. and European air forces like the German air force, the Belgian air force, they practice carrying those nuclear weapons. And obviously, if you're dealing with a nuclear armed country like Russia, it gives you a certain protection to have nuclear weapons. If that shield isn't assured in the future, then I think you have a problem. We saw this raised publicly by Friedrich Merz, the incoming presumptive German chancellor, who said, actually, this means now that Germany has to start talking to Britain and France, who are the two European nuclear armed powers, about how to perhaps compensate for any loss of the American nuclear shield.

8:40But this raises a number of problems, one being that British and French arsenals are very small. Another problem is that Britain's deterrent is somewhat dependent on America for support. We lease the missiles from a common pool. The French have a more autonomous arsenal, but they don't at present devote it formally to NATO. So you might have to see that change in some fashion. The nuclear question, I think, is one that's really going to confront Europe this year. And Shashank, what can be done about this? I think starting by spending more. And that is happening. There was an emergency summit in Paris a couple of weeks ago.

9:17There's one in London on Sunday. There'll be another one a few days after that. And a lot of this is about discussing more defence spending. How do you make it happen? How do you change the European Union's fiscal rules to allow countries to spend more? Could you seize some portion of the Russian sovereign assets that were frozen and use them for funneling to Ukraine so you free up more money for your own armies? But I think a lot of it is also a structural question over where are the areas you invest? It's about thinking, where are the areas that we are most dependent on America and how do we specifically target those gaps so that when in a future conflict or a future war America says, sorry, I'm out, that you don't have to call Washington for these things.

10:05And so we're beginning to see a real sense of urgency in Europe about these problems at long last. Shashank, great to talk to you as ever. Thank you. Thank you so much.

10:42about that, it's about what makes this a modern city, including riots, a coup, and a lot of camaraderie. Get ready for a sunlit tour.

10:59For nearly a decade, France ran a counterterrorism operation spanning five African countries from its embassy in Mali. That involved a sprawling military footprint.

11:14Now France's project has come to an end, its troops are withdrawing. By the end of 2025, its only permanent base in Africa will be in Djibouti. In a recent speech, France's President Emmanuel Macron expressed disappointment at ingratitude in the Sahel region for France's efforts to fight jihadists there. I think we've forgotten to say thank you. It's not serious, it will come with time. I'm grateful, I'm well placed to know. Remarks for which Macron was roundly criticised. France's relationship with its former colonies is finally changing. The question is how that will change the region. When France quit Mali in 2022 and shut down its counter-terror operation, known as Operation Burkhan, a regional domino effect began.

12:02Tom Gardner is our Africa correspondent. France's departure was welcomed by military leaders in the Sahel region, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, now Chad, as an end of a kind of neocolonial hangover. The debate, though, really is what this fairly disorderly sudden withdrawal from the region means for the security of a part of the continent facing jihadism, separatism and military rule. Tom, I suspect I'm not alone in being somewhat surprised how deeply embedded France still was in its former colonies in Africa. That's pretty unusual, isn't it? It is. It's known as France-Afrique, in fact, this kind of cosy web of personal business and military ties between France and its former colonies.

12:52And it was something of an absurd anachronism. I mean, between 1960 and 1991, France carried out more than three dozen military operations in 16 African countries, basically acting as a regional policeman, keeping permanent bases on the continent long after these countries had secured their independence in the 1960s. That prolonged presence, somewhat overbearing presence that French had in this part of the world gave rise to anti-French sentiment, quite widespread, which was then fanned in more recent years by Russian propaganda. Because of that, military regimes in the region have forced France out of Mali, Uge, Burkina Faso, and invited Russian mercenary forces, Wagner, the Wagner Group, to replace them.

13:41Most recently, French troops have also withdrawn from Ivory Coast and Chad, and they're due to follow from Senegal. So what does it mean now for African countries that French forces are finally leaving? Well, I think it's important to stick to the key Sahelian states where French troops have been in their largest numbers fighting jihadists for the best part of the last 10, 15 years. And there the response has been to establish the Alliance of Sahelian States, which is a sort of new regional bloc or security pact, the putative confederation even. That's made up of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger. They sort of trumpet it as a way of restoring their sovereignty.

14:23They argue that France was undermining rather than aiding their fight against jihadism. And now they feel and claim to be unrestrained in what they can do to fight rebels. They now can undertake kind of a full bore militaristic approach to the security crisis in the Sahel. And do you agree with that assessment that they were undermining rather than aiding attempts to restore security? I think that's probably a simplification, but it's certainly the case that over the past decade or so, since the start of what is known as Operation Barkan, the French-led counterterrorism operation, insecurity has grown exponentially.

15:06So on that score, clearly, French involvement militarily has been a failure in the Sahel. However, since the end of Operation Burkan, insecurity has continued to spread. Islamic State, for example, has entrenched itself in northern Mali. And elsewhere in the region, Burkina Faso and Niger, there has been an escalation of deadly attacks, particularly against civilians. I was in Bamako just a few weeks ago. That's the capital of Mali. And a few months back last year, there was a terrorist attack on a police academy and a military airport there. That's the first time in a decade that there has been a major terrorist incident.

15:52So I think on that score, clearly things are not going any better since the departure of French troops. And what's happened in neighbouring countries to Mali? I think the really worrying spot is Burkina Faso, where about two-thirds of the country, possibly, is now outside of the control of the national army. And I think it's important to mention at this point as well that the army in Mali, but also Burkina Faso and Niger have signed partnership contracts with Russian mercenaries, the Wagner Group, for military operations and training. And these mercenaries notoriously don't offer much protection for civilians, certainly care less for them than the French troops or the UN peacekeepers who came before them.

16:41The increase in civilians targeted has grown massively since the end of Operation Bakhan. And some really grim, horrible stories have emerged in the last couple of years of torture, corpses being booby-trapped, heads being stuck on poles as a warning against potential collaboration with jihadists. So the picture on that front is also much grimmer. So swapping French troops for the Wagner group doesn't exactly sound like a recipe for stability, but in what direction are things going within the Sahel, you know, foreign interests aside? For the moment, it seems like the governments of the region have decided to go for this full-throated, militaristic approach and jettisoning negotiations with rebels of any stripes.

17:34But I do think in the longer term, or maybe medium to longer term, we might expect to see junters realizing they cannot defeat these insurgents by brute force alone. And actually, there have been some very tentative sign to that effect. I mean, last year, Niger's junta sent envoys to jihadist leaders. The Malian authorities have reportedly done the same. I think in the longer run, that could be positive because regional negotiations without external influence and previous attempts to forge a peace accord in the region led by France have been seen as an external imposition. and were thus very unpopular, regional negotiations without that kind of influence could bring more lasting peace deals that could, in the long run, reduce violence.

18:26For now, though, I think it's safe to say that this alliance of military regimes and Russian mercenaries will continue to be a cause of misery for civilians. Tom, thank you so much for talking to us. Thank you, Rosie.

18:59Over the past month or so, millions of people from across India have made the journey to Prageraj, a city in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, for the Mahakum Mela, a grand Hindu festival. Last week, I joined some of them. Vishnu Padmanabhan is an Asia correspondent. People are drawn to the Mahakum by the prospect of salvation. The festival marks a once-in-12-years auspicious alignment of the planets, during which taking a dip at the confluence of the Ganga and Yamuna rivers is believed to cleanse one's sins. The Mahakum ended this week. It has always been important for Indians, but this latest edition has captured the country's imagination in new ways.

19:41The hype around the festival has been huge, and it has attracted new types of pilgrims. The Mahakum Mela has traditionally been perceived as something only poorer Indians attend. It was deemed too crowded and dirty for the rich. The water in which pilgrims take a dip is very polluted. Last month, regulators found fecal matter in the river. But this time, the festival was embraced by the elite. Actors, cricketers, business titans all made the journey and took a dip. They would stay in luxury tents by the confluence, and some even rode a helicopter to witness the festivities from the sky. Faith has always taken center stage in India, but it's never been so fashionable.

20:22Two factors explain this trend. First is economic growth. Indians have always been religious, but now they have more money to spend on their faith. For example, many more people could travel to Praagraj this time because all of India's big airlines had laid on special daily flights to the city. Lots of people also have cars now, allowing them to drive to the festival. I spoke to one family who had driven 1 ,200 kilometers across the country just to be there. The second factor is that Hindulsom has become cooler. When I visited the river Confluence, I found it to be both like a temple and a theme park.

21:00Some people were dipping soulmanly, a few were splashing around, and almost everyone recording things on their phone. Social media definitely played a role in making Hinduism more aspirational. For example, the family I spoke to had made the journey after seeing reels and videos on social media. But Hinduism has also become more aspirational because of politics. India's ruling party, the Bharata Janata Party, has assumed the role of Hinduism's custodian. It promotes Hindu causes as a public policy priority. And now, many Indians believe piety is a symbol of both patriotism and progress. Indeed, in 2021, a survey by Pew Research found that nearly two-thirds of Hindus said that being truly Indian meant being Hindu.

21:46And so, for a Hindu nationalist party like the BJP, the Mahakum Mela was the perfect stage to demonstrate its Hindu credentials. Images of Narendra Modi, India's Prime Minister, and Yogi Adityanath, the leader of Uttar Pradesh, where the Mahakum was taking place, were everywhere. Before the festival, officials predicted that 400 million people would attend, but now they claim that close to 700 million people have made the journey. That would mean a far-fetched one in two Indians made the pilgrimage. But the hype has also come with some tragic costs. On January 29th, there was a stampede. The government claims 30 people died.

22:23but other sources suggest the figure is much higher. Such stampedes are unfortunately common at Indian religious gatherings, but some people have suggested that this one was partly caused by huge areas being cordoned off for elites to attend the festival.

22:40Still, despite the tragedy, the BJP is doubting the event as a huge triumph. And on one metric, it definitely will be. On the way back from the confluence, I spoke to the family I had accompanied for the dip. They were basking in positive vibes. And they all thanked Narendra Modi and Yogi Adityanath for putting on a fantastic event. At least for the BJP, that is what salvation looks like.

23:24That's all for this episode of The Intelligence. The show's editors are Chris Impey and Jack Gill. Our deputy editor is John-Joe Devlin, and our sound designer is Will Rowe. Our senior producers are Rory Galloway and Sarah Larniuk. Our senior creative producer is William Warren. Our producers are Maggie Kadifa, Benji Guy, and Jonathan Day. And our assistant producer is Henrietta McFarlane, with extra production help this week from Emily Elias. We'll all see you back here for The Weekend Intelligence tomorrow. Thank you.