Tanks, a lot: arming Ukraine

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. You know, one of the perks about having four kids that you know about is actually getting a direct line to the big man up north. And this year he wants you to know the best gift that you can give someone is the gift of Mint Mobile's unlimited wireless for $15 a month. Now you don't even need to wrap it. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.

Of $45 for a three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes if network's busy, taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing.

You a very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift of 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half price, not half the service. Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price. So that means half day.

Yeah.

Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.

Of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow. 135 gigabytes of network busy taxes and fees extra. Cmintmobile.com.

Hello and welcome to the Intelligence from the Economist. In London, I'm Jason Palmer and in.

New York, I'm John Fassman. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world.

It's been just over a year since Sudan experienced its second coup in just three years. Now the people have again been promised a civilian government. We ask how likely that is and how the country can at last get back on track.

Ann Heston Blumenthal is a British chef whose most celebrated dishes include snail porridge and a composition of edible sand and kelp eaten to a soundtrack of cooing seagulls. His most lasting culinary contribution, though, is a good deal humbler. But first, This morning, Germany announced it will send tanks to Ukraine. The United States is expected to make a similar pledge later today. The armored war machines have been central to months of debate in the west, watched by a desperate Ukrainian president. But discussions must be concluded with decisions, said Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Yesterday, It's not about five or 10 or 15 tanks. The need is larger. Well, today President Zelensky may get his wish.

In the last 24 hours, there's been a really quite breathtaking sequence of events.

Christopher Lockwood is our Europe editor.

We've seen word out of Germany that they are finally going to send leopard tanks to Ukraine and perhaps more importantly, they are going to allow other European countries that have Leopard tanks to re export them. That's something that they're not allowed to do without German permission. And at the same time we're getting very strong signals from America that as part of this coordinated deal, the Abrams M1 tank may be sent to Ukraine as well. Now there's a lot of doubt about time frames and numbers and all the rest of it, but this is something that only a few weeks ago was being ruled out. And the fact that it is now happening is pretty much game changing.

Chris, let's start with the hardware. Do we know what's being promised?

Germany will as a first step at any rate send enough for a mechanized battle company of Leopard tanks. And interestingly, there are reports that they'll send the most modern version of the Leopard 2 tanks. The Americans we don't know so much about, but the indication is they'll send us a similar number of Abrams. And Britain has earlier, of course, a couple of weeks ago said that it would send a similar number again, around 14 or so of Challenger 2 tanks. So the numbers are very small. But remember that that will trigger offers from lots of other European countries. And if they all send a similar sort of amount, a company sized amount that does start to add up quite quick are about 2 to 3,000 leopards knocking around Europe and of course nobody's going to send all of their holdings because they've got to be able to defend themselves. But the fact is that the fighting is in Ukraine so they can afford to send quite a few of them. So I would think those numbers could rise quite a bit. The Ukrainians say they need 300 modern Western Main battle tanks and it's possible to imagine them creeping up towards that number.

And Chris, how long do you think it'll take these tanks to reach the battlefront and what sort of impact could they have on Ukraine's chances?

Well, these are very difficult questions. For a start, it will take time for them to get there, not just physically to be in place. So that takes time. But also you need to train up the Ukrainians in using these tanks because they're not used to them and it will take a bit of time for them to be ready. But once they get there, they could have quite an impact on the battlefield in two ways. Everyone is worrying about a Russian spring offensive. They're clearly rebuilding their army. There's been a process of mobilizing mobilization going on. A first call up of 300,000 men and we expect another call up imminently. And those called up people have been starting to arrive close to the battlefield. So we do expect to see, and the Ukrainians certainly expect to see a push. And the other side of it is we expect a big counter offensive from the Ukrainians themselves. They've already done a couple down in the south in Kherson, up in the north in and around Kharkiv. But the one they haven't tackled yet, but I expect them to do at some point in the next few, is to attack in the center and punch a hole through the Russian lines where they connect Russia to Crimea. That's the real gold standard for what Ukraine wants to do. And having a decent tank holding makes it easier.

And so given the utility of these tanks and given how long Ukraine has asked for them, why did the deal only come through now? Why the delay in approving them?

The reason, I think, is that the west, all countries, Germany particularly, has been extremely cautious about what it sends to Ukraine. Ukraine, the feeling has always been we give Ukraine what they need to defend themselves, but we're very worried about handing over offensive weapons that could be used to attack Russia itself. Now, I would argue this is a foolish distinction because what Ukraine's doing is liberating its own territory from an invader. You could call it offensive if you like. I would call it defensive. But the point is it's something that is perfectly reasonable for Ukraine to do. Could those tanks and long range missiles, that's another part of the argument, be used to hit Russia or. Well, yes, they could. But the point is Ukrainians have been told very firmly that they're not to do that and they're far too sensible to do that in any meaningful way because they know it would imperil their supply lines if they break the conditions. Another part of the fear is that this would lead Russia to escalate and maybe use tactical nuclear weapons. Well, I again feel about that, that we can't allow the Russians to put us in such sort of grave fear with their threats, that we are paralyzed and can't properly. A very key, critical western facing country. And we've seen these threats from Russia right from the very start of the war. I think they are empty threats. Russia is in such a difficult position, the last thing it wants to do is go head to head in a conflict with NATO.

That makes sense to me, but I'm sure things look very different from the Kremlin. We talked about Russian red lines last week. How has Russia responded to this latest offer so far?

Well, fascinatingly, by no means with the sort of fearsome rhetoric that one might have expected. All they've said was this will be quite damaging to relations between Germany and Russia, which frankly, they were already pretty bad. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline was cut off. Germany is absolutely a crucial part of the sanctions regime against Russia. So the idea that these relations could sink any lower seems quite odd to me. I thought it was a surprisingly muted response from Russia. It doesn't mean there won't be a further response later on today or tomorrow. But my guess is that Russia really is in quite a hole here and the idea that it's going to do anything other than protest a bit is fanciful to me.

Chris, Germany dragged its feet for quite a while on sending tanks. Does the reversal today suggest anything about changing attitudes there?

I think it probably does. It's very difficult to unpick the multiple reasons why Germany's Chancellor, Olaf Scholz has been so hesitant here. But undoubtedly part of it will be public opinion in Germany, which still has has, for very obvious reasons, a thick pacifist streak. Though I would argue defending an ally against fascistic invasion is not a violation of pacifism at all. But Mr. Scholz plainly has felt that he needs to step a little bit carefully. There are factions within his own party, the Social Democrats, as well as within the Greens, that will be very opposed even to Germany sending what it's sent up till now, let alone moving that up a level to include. So I think that's part of the reason. But what you do see looking at opinion polls, is that steadily the German public has come ever closer to wanting to show a clear support for sending tanks and other high powered equipment to Ukraine. So public opinion in Germany has shifted a bit. I think also there's just been a battle going on in Germany within the coalition, with the Greens being much more willing to be forceful than the spd, which traditionally has had very close links to Russia and towards this policy of engagement with Russia as a way of ensuring peace, they think, and mutual prosperity, which I would argue has been extremely unsuccessful if you see Russia's repeated invasions of its neighbors.

All right, Chris, thanks so much for joining us this morning.

Thank you.

It's been just over a year since Sudan experienced its second second coup in just three years. The first came in 2019 when the army toppled Omar Al Bashir, a brutal Islamist dictator. Amid huge popular uprisings. Civilian and military leaders entered an uneasy power sharing agreement. But that too ended in a Coup late in 2021.

Boxing will be lahila.

To quell the unrest, the Military installed General Abdel Fattah Al Burhan as president and promised elections. But demonstrations have continued almost every week since he took power. Last month, protesters marched toward the presidential palace in the capital, Khartoum, waving banners and calling for civilian rule. All this unrest has spelled disaster for Sudan's economy. The country is in a tailspin and the path back to stability unclear.

Sudan has found it pretty difficult to recover from the latest coup a little over a year ago.

Tom Gardner is our Horn of Africa correspondent.

The democratic transition, which was once cause for optimism in the region, has stalled. The country's less stable than it was even before the coup. So more violence, lawlessness, more crime, and the economy as well has tipped into recession. However, there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon. A new agreement struck between generals and a group of civilian opposition leaders in December may potentially pave the way for a fully civilian government and elections in two years time. However, these promises have been made before, so there's reasons to be doubtful.

So you say that the country is less stable, more lawless and in economic trouble. Let's start with that. What does the economy look like?

As I said, it's tipped into recession. Last year, that may have brought inflation down a tad, but it still remains in triple digits. So that's among the highest rates in the world. On top of that, one third of Sudanese, that's about 15 million people, according to the UN, need emergency aid such as clean water, shelter or food. And almost 12 million people are going hungry. Almost every week there's a strike. When I was in Sudan in December, for instance, the civil servants, including teachers, are striking because of low wages. Everyone that I met complained about the economic crisis shock. And restaurants were closing early. Public services were grinding to a halt. No trash collection was a story doing around that. People were even digging up graves in cartoon cemeteries just to sell the space to make some money.

So why has the disorder led to such economic malaise?

A big reason is that the second coup effectively put an end to foreign aid and investment. Western donors and multilateral banks had held back tens of billions of dollars that they pledged to rescue Sudan's economy and to support its transition to democracy. This extended even to support for a crucial system of household allowances, which essentially were supposed to be cash transfers to families to soften the blow from the removal in 2021 of fuel and bread subsidies. That was axed after the coup. And the government instead has responded by increasing taxes and slashing public spending at the same time. So there's a lot of pain to.

Go around now amidst what you're describing as a very unstable situation.

Yes, indeed. So crime has spread. And between January and October last year, more than 265,000 people were forced from their homes by violence. I mean, mostly intercommunal violence fanned by political factions and leaders. The worst affected with this is the Darfur region where government forces and the Janjaweed, a militia rebranded as the Rapid Support Forces, committed genocide in 2003. However, the east as well has seen a spike in violence similarly over land and political representation. Many analysts and even ordinary Sudanese suspect that this is being fueled as well by politicians in general, some in Khartoum, some in the peripheries, who are orchestrating some of the trouble in the context of a chaotic transition in order to gain some power or perhaps in order to justify a crackdown and return of the old order. So, for example, a tribal chief in Gudarav, that's out in the east of Sudan told me that two of the four tribal administrations there had backed the coup in the hope of reinstating the old regime. So that gives you an example of some of the manoeuvring that appears to be ongoing.

But in terms of who's in control and who the Sudanese people want to be in control, you mentioned there is something of a glimmer of hope.

Yes. In December, leaders of the civilian bloc and the junta signed this new agreement, what's called the Framework Agreement, which promises that for the first time, Sudan's military will withdraw from politics and the economy. If implemented, that could bring respite for Sudan's economy by paving the way for the resumption of foreign aid, investment and also debt relief.

The initial framework is the first step for us to go on that one. And really we are depending on that one so as to finish these problems of political problems.

That's why we go for one top Sudanese general, General Ibrahim Jabir told me about the need for harmony now, to end the turmoil in Sudan by getting behind this agreement. And he said the government is, for its part, working hard to make the new pact work.

That's why we call for the parties. Please come sit together and let us finalize the things. And it will bring also support for the Sudan. And this is the thing that we need. And it will be only 24 months also. Then the country can go to election and will be also fair election. But it is a very.

That was the message I was given really by the military leadership, that they are confident that this will prove a success.

Do you share that optimism, though, I mean, as you point out, the Sudanese people have been promised this kind of thing before.

I wouldn't say I'm as confident, certainly. I think there are many, particularly Western diplomats who are cautiously optimistic at this point. They're very keen to see it a success and they want to normalize relations with Sudan. But the agreement has opened up dangerous fault lines as well. For example, pro democracy activists who've been on the street for years now, they view it as a lifeline for the junta. They vow to demonstrate until the generals leave power for good. Yet they find themselves in the awkward company of several leaders from Sudan's peripheral regions who in fact backed the coup. These include former rebels such as Jibril Ibrahim, who's now the finance minister, Mini Manawi, the new governor of Darfur state, as well as tribal leaders from the east, one of whom, Saeed Tariq, has threatened armed opposition if his demand, which include separate negotiations for the east, are not met. These might seem hollow, these sort of threats, but the east did have a long running insurgency until the mid 2000s, so they can't be ignored entirely.

But after all, this is a country that's experienced two coups because the military couldn't relinquish power or felt it deserved power more. Do you really think that something could happen here such that they'd walk away?

That's a good question, Jason. And in fact, towards the end of our conversation, General Jabir commented on the need for order. He referenced what he termed the geopolitical situation in the region.

So many problems in Libya. There is so many rebel groups also. They got arms. There is also the ISIS and there's Ribuko Haram, you know, also Central Africa now is completely invaded with Russians. Now this is very big problem also.

And his argument really is that when the whole region is in turmoil, when Libya next door is lawless, Ethiopia as well is at war. Sudan needs stability and order. The military definitely sees itself as the guarantor of that order. And that's why many Sudanese would probably reply that this shows just how little has actually changed since the fall of Omar Al Bashir and the very first coup in 2019.

Tom, thanks very much for joining us.

Thank you, Jason.

The chip's a fairly simple thing. It's a long, narrow piece of potato fried in oil.

Josie Delap is one of the authors of World in a Dish, the Economist food column.

When we're talking about chips here, we're not talking about frites or French fries, the thin, long ones that you tend to see In France or America, we're talking about the fat cut fish and chips, British old fashioned chip. It's something that's been popular in Britain for a long time. If you read George Orwell's Road to Wigan Pier, he talks about chips being one of the cheaply pleasant foods with which the underfed, harassed, bored and miserable can console themselves. And I think he was really onto something. They're part of Britain's national identity, certainly when it comes to food.

Once upon a time it was roast beef and Yorkshire pudding. Now it's fish and chips, Britain's new national dish.

It's actually very striking when you look at the Second World War. Fish and chips were thought to be so essential to British well being and keeping spirits up that they were one of the very few foodstuffs that were not subject to rationing, so people could carry on eating them throughout. Growing up in the 80s, I think I was the lucky recipient of a lot of chips, both good and bad. You know, there were the oven chips, the crinkle cut ones, I think were a new form of chip that I experienced in my youth. But nothing's really as good as chips that are fresh out of the fryer from a fish and chip shop, ideally next to the sea, Doused in a lot of vinegar, very liberally sprinkled with salt and eaten straight away, not wrapped up in the paper as a package, which leads to the steam being trapped and making them all soggy, but open to the air and eaten so hot that you have to blow them around in your mouth to cool them down enough to be able to swallow them.

Chips, glorious chips. What makes them so tasty? Just let me explain.

But as this famous McCain oven chip commercial tells us, while chips are amazing, getting them perfect is no mean feat. So what does make chips so tasty? Chips have undergone something of an apotheosis in recent times, and I think that if we're going to look at one person to thank for that, it is Heston Blumenthal. Now, you would tend to think of him in terms of molecular gastronomy. That is what he's famous for, for the very complicated, very experimental dishes that bring together unusual flavors and textures in ways that surprise you, whether it's baked and eggs, ice cream or the meat fruit. His dish, which is chicken liver parfait, that's disguised as a mandarin orange. With the thinking about perhaps his most influential dish, the one that has spread farthest throughout the country, it probably is the triple cooked chip.

So now it's our chips.

This is the Third and final stage for our chips.

After the second drying in the fridge, they need to be fried one more time. Now, these have been in here for three minutes at 190 degrees centigrade.

Mr. Blumenthal became obsessed with chips around 1992, before he'd actually even opened a restaurant. He's a very technical chef. He's also a British chef. So I think this was part of his surprising and cheeky play on Britain's food culture. He figured out that the traditional double frying of chips can lead to chips that are undercooked, or it can lead to ones that are soggy as the steam escapes from the middle, which leads to the crust getting soft. And he wanted a really crispy crust. He describes it as being glass, like so it shatters when you bite into it with a fluffy centre. And so that involved a multi stage process of boiling the chips, perhaps more than you might think, so that they almost begin to disintegrate, which leads to a lot of craggy crevices and ends that can get very, very crispy, and then freezing them and then frying them and then freezing them again and then frying them again. So it's obviously very convoluted, but leads to what he would say I think is the perfect chip. I think Blumenthal's interesting because as a molecular gastronomist, he's obviously as interested in the science of cooking as he is in wider idea of flavors and dishes and running restaurants. He's actually expressed some frustration with the phrase molecular gastronomy, because I think he would argue that all cooking is a kind of science. You're always thinking about how you are transforming ingredients, what works, what doesn't work. But I think what's striking about his approach and cooking more generally is, is that it is both an art and a science. And what he did was take something very humble, the chip, something that everybody is familiar with, and turned it into a real masterpiece.

That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. Let us know what you think of the show. You can get in touch@podcastseconomist.com and you.

Can subscribe to the economist@economist.com intelligenceoffer. The link is in the show Notes. We'll see you back here tomorrow.