The Inquiry

Earlier this month President Trump announced radical new taxes on foreign imports amounting to what he described as ‘Liberation Day' for the United States. It was a promise he made to American voters during last year’s election campaign but the scale of the tariffs caught many countries by surprise. Global financial markets plunged as investors braced themselves for a shock to the flow of international trade. Faced with prolonged market turmoil, within days the US President paused most of his plans. A to-and-fro between Washington and Beijing has left many world leaders confused who to side with, as many look towards the White House wondering if there is a detailed plan at the heart of these unprecedented few weeks. Contributors: ● Carla Sands, Vice Chair for the Center for Energy and Environment at America First Policy Institute and former US Ambassador to Denmark ● Emily Kilcrease, Senior Fellow and Director of the Energy, Economics and Security Program at the Center for a New American Security ● Victor Gao, Chair professor at Suzhou University and Vice President at the Center for China and Globalization ● Gillian Tett, Provost of King’s College at Cambridge University and Financial Times columnist Presented by Tanya Beckett Produced by Daniel Rosney Researched by Katie Morgan and Ben Hughes Technical producer Nicky Edwards Production Co-ordinator Liam Morrey Editor Tara McDermott

For Russia’s President Putin, the return of President Donald Trump to the White House ushered in a new world order. This has created new diplomatic space for Russia, as Trump’s world view seems more closely aligned with Moscow’s ambitions. Support for Ukraine has diminished, peace talks have been floated, and speculation has grown about a lasting ceasefire. While the relationship between Washington and Moscow appears to be warming, recent tensions show how unpredictable diplomacy between the two leaders can be. Putin’s ambition for Russia as an influential superpower remains but with shifting global alliances how much potential leverage does Putin have to reshape the international order? Contributors: • Kadri Liik, Senior Policy Fellow, European Council on Foreign Relations • Maria Snegovaya, Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies • Ivan Klyszcz, Research Fellow, International Centre for Defence and Security • Mark Galeotti, Director, Mayak Intelligence; Honorary Professor, University College London Presented by Victoria Uwonkunda Produced by Louise Clarke Researched by Katie Morgan Technical producer James Bradshaw Production Co-ordinator Liam Morrey Editor Tara McDermott

On the first day of his second term in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that paused funding for USAID, the US government’s main foreign aid agency, for a 90-day review. While the long-term effects remain unclear, the order has already frozen vital programs relied on by millions of people globally, forced the closure of USAID’s overseas offices, and jeopardised thousands of jobs. As one of the world’s largest foreign aid providers, the US plays an essential role with no other country or organisation fully able to fill the gap. But some recipient countries see this move as an opportunity to seek solutions closer to home. This week on The Inquiry, Charmaine Cozier explores the consequences of this shift in US foreign policy, asking “What is filling the USAID funding gap?” Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Matt Toulson Researcher: Katie Morgan Editor: Tara McDermott Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical Producer: Richard Hannaford Contributors to this programme: Fatema Sumar, Executive Director of the Harvard Center for International Development (CID) and an Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School, US Michael Jennings, Professor of Global Development as SOAS University London, UK Francisca Mutapi, Professor of Global Health Infection and Immunity and Deputy Director TIBA Partnership at the University of Edinburgh, UK. George Ingram, Senior fellow in the Center for Sustainable Development at Brookings Institution, US.

SpaceX has revolutionised space travel, making reusable rockets a reality and dramatically reducing the cost of reaching orbit. But two high-profile Starship explosions have raised concerns about the company’s approach to innovation and risk. Commercial spaceflight has rapidly expanded, with private companies looking to harness space resources and build new economies beyond Earth. Reusability has been a game-changer, significantly lowering launch costs and enabling more ambitious missions. SpaceX operates with a philosophy of rapid iteration, treating test failures as learning opportunities rather than setbacks. While this approach has led to major breakthroughs, repeated failures raise questions about long-term reliability and safety. Meanwhile, growing competition from other private space firms suggests the industry is no longer dominated by a single player. With rivals gaining ground and technological hurdles ahead, does SpaceX still have the edge in the new space economy? Contributors: Professor Michelle Hanlon, Executive Director of the Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law in the USA Jack Burns, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences and Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics in the USA Dr Ella Atkins is Fred D. Durham Professor and Head of the Kevin T. Crofton Aerospace and Ocean Engineering Department at Virginia Tech in the USA David Thomas is Director of the Thunderbird School of Global Management's Initiative for Space Leadership, Policy and Business at Arizona State University. Presenter Charmaine Cozier Producers Vicky Carter and Louise Clarke Researcher: Katie Morgan Editor Tara McDermott Production co-ordinator Liam Morrey Technical producer Matthew Dempsey Image credit: Brandon Bell via Getty Images

In November, a far right, pro-Russia figure came from almost nowhere to become favourite for the presidency. Calin Georgescu, with no affiliated political party and whose campaign had been largely on social media, won the first round of Presidential elections in Romania. The result sent shockwaves across the continent. But serious allegations surfaced over the legitimacy of Georgescu’s campaign, resulting in Romania’s Constitutional Court annulling the vote and barring Georgescu from standing. After mass demonstrations across the country, it’s clear Romania’s political landscape has been upended. Ahead of the rerun of the vote for president on 4 and 18 May, what will happen now with Romania’s elections? Will the country lean towards a more nationalist future or back the mainstream parties that were previously in power? Contributors: Veronica Anghel, assistant professor at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at The European University Institute, Italy Oana Popescu-Zamfir, director of the GlobalFocus Center, associated expert at Carnegie Europe and associate researcher for the European Council on Foreign Relations, Romania Dr Radu Cinpoes, associate professor of politics and international relations at the University of Greenwich, United Kingdom Costin Ciobanu, political scientist with Aarhus University, Denmark Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Vicky Carter Researcher: Katie Morgan Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: Nicky Edwards Editor: Tara McDermott

European leaders have had cause to rethink their roles within Nato recently, in light of statements coming from the US Government. The Trump administration’s dealings with Russia to try and broker a peace deal in Ukraine, have called into question America’s support for the alliance. But whilst the Trump administration say they are not pulling out of Nato and remain committed to the defence partnership with Europe, they have warned that they will ‘no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship with encourages dependency’. Nato currently asks member states to spend at least 2% on defence, but US President Donald Trump has consistently told European allies to spend much more than that target. The alliance’s famous Article 5 holds that Nato members will come to the defence of an ally which comes under attack and the assumption has always been that the US would continue to be the anchoring power. But now Europe’s leaders are having to consider whether they could potentially go it alone without American military aid. So, on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking ‘Do we need a new NATO?’ Contributors: John Deni, Author and Research Professor, US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, USA Rachel Ellehuus, Director-General, The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), London, UK Toomas Hendricks Ilves, Former President of Estonia, Professor at Tartu University, Estonia Irina Borogan, Deputy Editor Agentura.ru, Non-resident Senior Fellow, The Centre for European Policy Analysis, London, UK Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Katie Morgan Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Craig Boardman Production Co-ordinator: Janet Staples & Liam Morrey Image Credit: Leah Mills/Reuters via BBC Images

At the beginning of this year, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa signed a bill into law which allows for private land to be seized by the government. Known as the Expropriation Act, it’s a power that many democratic governments around the world can exercise – the seizure of private property for public use in return for compensation. But in South Africa’s case, the plan is not to offer compensation, in certain circumstances, such as if land was needed for public use and all other avenues to acquire the land exhausted. And it is this caveat that has provoked strong reactions both domestically and on the international front. Even within the President’s own party, the ANC, there are those who would prefer more consultation before the law can be implemented. Whilst the Democratic Alliance, the second largest party in South Africa’s coalition government, says that it supports legislation addressing land restitution, it does takes issue with the process followed by the country’s parliament to enact the law. It is testing the Act’s constitutionality with legal action. And now President Trump has signed an executive order cutting US financial aid to South Africa, the order claims that this Act would enable the government to seize the agricultural property of ethnic minority Afrikaners without compensation. For his part, President Cyril Ramaphosa has announced that he’ll be sending envoys to various countries to explain South Africa’s positioning on the Expropriation Act, amongst other recent policy changes. So, on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking, ‘Can South Africa solve land inequality’? Contributors: Thula Simpson, Author and Associate Professor, Department of Historical and Heritage Studies, University of Pretoria, South Africa Tanveer Jeewa, Junior Lecturer, Constitutional Law, Stellenbosch University, South Africa Dr Ralph Mathekga, Author and Political Analyst, Pretoria, South Africa Christopher Vandome, Senior Research Fellow, Africa Programme, Chatham House, UK and Ph.D. Student in International Relations, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Co-Producers: Jill Collins and Bara’atu Ibrahim Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Craig Boardman Broadcast Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Image Credit: Shadrack Maseko, whose family has been residing on Meyerskop farm for three generations, looks over a piece of land, in Free State province, South Africa, February 9, 2025. REUTERS/Thando Hlophe

In just three months, Romania has gone from a stable and loyal member of the European Union and Nato, to a country where a far-right, pro-Russia figure has come from almost nowhere to become favourite for the presidency. A result which has sent shockwaves across the continent. In November Calin Georgescu, with no affiliated political party and whose campaign has been largely on social media, won the first round of Presidential elections in Romania. But then serious allegations surfaced over the legitimacy of Georgescu’s campaign, resulting in the Constitutional Court annulling the vote and Georgescu facing charges, which he strongly denies. Presidential hopefuls have until the 15 March to register their candidacy for the new elections, which are being rerun on 4 and 18 May. As protesters take to the streets of Bucharest, will the Romanian Constitutional Court rule that Georgescu can or cannot stand? If he is allowed to stand, can he become President? And how might the Romanian elections affect the future direction of the EU and Nato? Contributors: Veronica Anghel, assistant professor at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at The European University Institute, Italy Oana Popescu-Zamfir, director of the GlobalFocus Center, associated expert at Carnegie Europe and associate researcher for the European Council on Foreign Relations, Romania Anca Agachi, defence policy analyst at RAND Corporation and a nonresident fellow at The Atlantic Council, USA Costin Ciobanu, political scientist with Aarhus University, Denmark Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Vicky Carter Researcher: Katie Morgan Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: Nicky Edwards Editor: Tara McDermott Image credit: Andrei Pungovschi via Getty Images

Undersea cables form the backbone of global communication, with over 95% of global internet traffic relying on hundreds of fibre-optic cables criss-crossing the globe. But recent incidents such as disruption to cables in the Baltic Sea have highlighted concerns over their security and raised the possibility of ‘grey zone warfare’. The Inquiry examines who owns and runs this vast global network, what happens when things go wrong, and what the future holds for underseas cables. Are they powerful enough to sustain future communications, and what role could quantum technology play in their future? Presenter: Gary O'Donoghue Producer: Dan Hardoon and Vicky Carter Researcher: Katie Morgan Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: James Bradshaw Editor: Tara McDermott Contributors: Lane Burdette, Research Analyst, TeleGeography Jovan Kurbali, Director of the Diplo Foundation and Head of Geneva Internet Platform Erin L Murphy, Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington D.C. Kristine Berzina, Managing Director at the German Marshall Fund, Washington D.C. Image credit: Boris Horvat via Getty Images

The International Criminal Court was founded to prosecute the world’s worst crimes—genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It has secured historic convictions, but its effectiveness is under scrutiny. US opposition has been a long-standing challenge. Donald Trump previously rejected the ICC’s legitimacy, and now, early in his second presidential term, he has imposed sanctions on its top prosecutor. The move echoes past tensions but raises new concerns about the court’s ability to function under external pressure. The ICC also relies on member states to arrest and transfer suspects. A recent case in Italy has highlighted the court’s enforcement difficulties, as Italian authorities deported a Libyan suspect instead of extraditing him to The Hague. Such incidents fuel questions about the ICC’s global authority. Despite its high-profile cases, the court has only secured 11 convictions in 23 years. Its slow trials and high costs have drawn criticism, leading some to question whether reform—or even an alternative—is needed. But with 125 member states still backing its mission, is the ICC an institution the world can afford to lose? Contributors: Dr Vivian Dietrich, Deputy Director of the International Nuremberg Principals Academy in Germany Gerry Simpson, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics in the UK Rachel Kerr, Professor of War and Society at King's College London in the UK Mark Kirsten, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, Canada Presented by Charmaine Cozier Produced by Louise Clarke and Bara’atu Ibrahim Editor Tara McDermott Technical Producer Toby James Production co-ordinator Liam Morrey

Women have been using the female contraceptive pill for over 60 years, and many other options have followed. Yet, after decades of research, there is still no male version of a birth control pill. Male options for contraception are limited to the condom, vasectomy or withdrawal. However, clinical trials are underway around the world testing new innovations in male contraception. New options may be less than a decade away but, when they arrive, will people want to take them? In this edition of the Inquiry Sandra Kanthal asks: Are we are ready for the new male contraceptives? Contributors: Allan Pacey, Professor of Andrology, University of Manchester Dr Diana Blithe, Chief of the Contraceptive Development Programme, National Institutes of Health Dhananjay Vaidyanathan Rohini, Founder and Partner, Alstonia Impact Logan Nickels, Chief Research Office, Male Contraceptive Initiative Presenter/Producer: Sandra Kanthal Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical Producer: James Beard Editor: Tara McDermott

The Panama Canal, a crucial artery for global trade, is at the centre of growing tensions between the United States and China. Donald Trump has claimed that Chinese companies exert undue influence over the waterway, accusing Panama of overcharging US businesses. But does the US still have a legitimate stake in the canal? With Trump demanding action, Panama faces a difficult choice. Could a renegotiation of tolls or a review of Chinese port contracts ease US concerns? Contributors: Will Freeman, Fellow for Latin American studies at the Council on Foreign Relations Andrew Thomas, Academic and Author of The Canal of Panama and Globalisation Dr Yu Jie, Senior Research Fellow on China in the Asia-Pacific Programme at Chatham House David Young, President of the Committee for Economic Development Presented by Gary O’Donoghue Produced by Louise Clarke Researched by Katie Morgan Technical producer Matthew Dempsey Production Coordinator Liam Morrey Editor Tara McDermott Image credit: Getty Images via MARTIN BERNETTI

In the decade that followed the Great Financial Crisis, inflation rates remained low and steady, and in some cases even threatened to turn negative, as economies around the world struggled to recover. This era came to an abrupt end in recent years following the double economic shocks of the COVID pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Many central banks and senior policymakers were caught on the back foot as inflation rates soared to levels not seen for nearly half a century in some countries. Although rates have since come down from those highs, they’re still proving tricky to completely get under control, causing concern among some observers. This week on The Inquiry, we explore what inflation is and where it comes from, what’s been happening in recent years, and what the outlook might be. Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Ben Cooper Researcher: Katie Morgan Technical producer: Richard Hannaford Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Editor: Tara McDermott Contributors: Stephen D. King, author and Senior Economic Advisor at HSBC Vicky Pryce, Chief Economic Advisor at the Centre for Economics and Business Research Marieke Blom, Chief Economist and Global Head of Research at ING Manoj Pradham, author and Chief Economist at Talking Heads Macroeconomics

China has approved the construction of what will become the world’s largest hydropower dam in Tibet. Located in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo river, it could generate three times more energy than the Three Gorges Dam – also built by China - and currently the worlds’ biggest. This Inquiry examines how important hydropower is for China’s economy, whether it will meet its climate goals and whether this new dam is a “safe project that prioritises ecological protection” as China claims. We look at how it’ll be built, and why some in neighbouring countries have concerns. Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Vicky Carter Researcher: Katie Morgan Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: Craig Boardman Editor: Tara McDermott Contributors: Brian Eyler, Director of the Energy, Water and Sustainability Programme at the Stimson Center, Washington DC Neeraj Singh Manhas, special advisor for South Asia at the Parley Policy Initiative, South Korea & Subject Matter Expert at the Centre for Joint Warfare Studies, HQ IDS, Ministry of Defence, Government of India Prof Mark Zeitoun, Director General of the Geneva Water Hub and professor of Water Diplomacy at the Geneva Graduate Institute, Switzerland Prof Cecilia Tortajada, Social and Environmental Sustainability at the University of Glasgow, Adjunct senior research fellow Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Singapore Image credit: China News Service via Getty Images

In December 2024, the decades-old Assad regime in Syria fell following 13 years of brutal civil war. The Islamist rebel group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, seized power in the capital Damascus, having co-ordinated a lightning offensive along with other opposition forces across the country. This week on The Inquiry, we examine how recent events led to the current situation, who the main players are vying for control, and the many challenges facing both the new government and the Syrian people. Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Ben Cooper Researcher: Evie Yabsley Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: Toby James Editor: Tara McDermott Contributors: Tim Eaton, Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House Dr Rahaf Aldoughli, Middle East and North African Studies at Lancaster University David Schenker, Director of the Arab politics programme at the Washington Natasha Hall, Middle East programme at the Center for Strategic and International Studies

Drinks with toxic ingredients have been linked to deaths and poisonings in Turkey, Laos and India in 2024. Fake alcohol is unrecorded and unregulated alcohol that hasn’t been registered in official statistics for sales, production or trade. The range of unrecorded alcohol includes alcohol smuggled across borders, counterfeit alcohol and homemade brew. This week of The Inquiry we look at how toxic and widespread fake alcohol is. What are the health risks of drinking contaminated alcohol? Bootleg alcohol is big business for criminals, are governments doing enough to combat the illicit alcohol trade? Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Vicky Carter Researcher: Katie Morgan Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: Toby James Editor: Tara McDermott Contributors: Dr. Monica Swahn, alcohol epidemiologist and professor at the Wellstar College of Health and Human Services at Kennesaw State University in the USA, currently based in Uganda. Dr Dirk Lachenmeier, food chemist and toxicologist, director of department of plant-based foods at CVUA Karlsruhe, an official control laboratory, Germany. Piotr Stryszowski, senior economist at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and head of the Working Party on Countering Illicit Trade (WP-CIT), France. Jeff Hardy, Director General of Transnational Alliance to Combat Illicit Trade, USA.

Cancer is a disease that will affect 1 in 5 people in our lifetime, and it’s estimated that around 20 million people worldwide will be diagnosed with some form of cancer in 2025. But how might a vaccine help in the treatment of cancer? Numerous trials began testing the viability of cancer vaccines in 2024, including one for Melanoma and another for Lung Cancer. With all the promise that these new cancer vaccine trials bring for cancer patients, we explore the different ways in which vaccines could work within the body, and how the time at which future vaccines are administered may vary according to the cancers they are targeting. This week on the Inquiry we’re asking: Are we close to a cancer vaccine? Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Matt Toulson Researcher: Katie Morgan Editor: Tara McDermott Studio Director: Craig Boardman Contributors: Meredith McKean, director of Melanoma and Skin Cancer Research for Sarah Cannon Research Institute at Tennessee Oncology Samra Turajlic, Chief Investigator of translational studies into melanoma and kidney cancer at the Francis Crick Institute and Professor at the Institute of Cancer Research Eduardo Vilar-Sanchez, professor in the department of Clinical Cancer Prevention at The University of Texas Anderson Cancer Center Patrick Ott, Clinical Director at Melanoma Disease Center at the Dana-Farber Institute

Robert F Kennedy Jr, nephew of America's 35th President, John F. Kennedy, has been nominated to be the next US health secretary by President-elect Donald Trump. The post oversees everything from medical research to food safety and public welfare programmes. Kennedy has been the face of “Make America Healthy Again”, a movement dedicated to “public health, sustainable practices and a government that truly serves the people”. This week of The Inquiry, we look at how MAHA wants to tackle chronic disease, in particular obesity. Will RFK carry these ideas into public office? How will food corporations and colleagues in the US Congress react? How feasible is it for the US Health Secretary to shift the dial on healthy eating? Contributors: Bill Dietz, Director of the Stop Obesity Alliance at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., US Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist and former Trump State Department official, US Professor Jerold Mande, CEO of Nourish Science, US Professor Colleen Heflin, Professor of public administration and international affairs at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, US Production Team: Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producers: Vicky Carter and Matt Toulson Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: Richard Hannaford Editor: Tara McDermott Photo Credit: Bloomberg via GettyImages

The Himalayan Kingdom of Bhutan, sandwiched between China and India, is perhaps best known around the globe for its unconventional measure of national development: Gross National Happiness. The concept was introduced back in 1972 by the fourth King of Bhutan, Jigme Singye Wangchuck. It assesses the country’s overall wellbeing on the basis of sustainable and equitable socio-economic development; environmental conservation; preservation and promotion of culture; and good governance. But the Bhutanese are now finding that their cautious approach to balancing economic growth with the well-being of their citizens, is proving difficult to sustain in light of mounting economic problems. The country which has a population of less than 800,000, is experiencing high levels of youth unemployment and many young people and skilled workers are leaving for countries like Australia and Canada. To try and counter this brain drain and to attract new investment into the country to help the economy grow, Bhutan has plans to create a ‘Mindfulness City’. This multi-million dollar project is being spearheaded by the current monarch. At its core will be a scaled up, less cautious version of Bhutan’s key concept, which the Bhutanese Prime Minister has called Gross National Happiness 2.0. So on this week’s Inquiry we’re asking ‘Can Bhutan retain its happiness?’ Contributors: Dr Ha Vinh Tho, Founder and President, Eurasia Learning Institute for Happiness and Well-Being, Switzerland. Dr Rishi Gupta, Assistant Director, Asia Society Policy Institute, New Delhi, India Dr Lhawang Ugyel, Senior Lecturer, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Jan Eeckhout, Professor of Economics, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: James Bradshaw Production Co-ordinator: Tim Fernley and Liam Morrey

Accusations of sabotage have been made after a Chinese merchant ship cut through two important undersea cables in the Baltic Sea. Eight of the nine states in the Baltic are members of NATO but Russia has access to the sea from St Petersburg and for its Kaliningrad exclave. With previous incidents of damage to underwater pipelines and cables, there’s concern that the security of critical underwater infrastructure is at risk from ‘grey zone’ activities - damaging but deniable incidents below the level of outright war. David Baker hears how countries’ security is threatened by incidents like these. The pipelines that were cut ran between Finland and Germany and Sweden and Lithuania. He asks who can intervene to protect these assets in the Baltic. Can NATO respond? EXPERTS: Elizabeth Braw, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council Scowcroft Centre for Strategy and Security, a thinktank based in Washington DC in the US and the author of an upcoming book called The Undersea War. Helga Kalm, director of the Lennart Meri Conference in Tallinn, Estonia, an annual meeting dedicated to international security and foreign affairs. Marion Messmer, senior research fellow in the International Security Programme at Chatham House, an international relations think tank in London, UK. Tormod Heier, a professor at the National Defence University College in Oslo, Norway and a former officer in the Norwegian Intelligence Service. CREDITS: Presenter - David Baker Producer - Philip Reevell. Researcher - Katie Morgan Editor - Tara McDermott Technical Producer - Craig Boardman Image Credit - Rex/Shutterstock via BBC Images