The Editor’s Note
Welcome back to Week 2 of Outside OX1! After the suspiciously warm sunshine of Week 1, the grey skies have already returned, although fortunately so too have college balls, garden parties, punting trips, and the general sense that Oxford is finally beginning to wake up again after the long winter months. Between deadlines, exams, and the temptation to spend every free afternoon outside with an Aperol Spritz in hand before the rain inevitably returns once more, it can be difficult to keep up with everything happening beyond the quads of central Oxford. We are once again here to help you catch up on the past week’s global headlines.
Nancy Gittus explores the rapidly escalating crisis in Mali after coordinated attacks by jihadist and separatist groups stunned the country. She examines the humanitarian consequences of the conflict as well as the broader geopolitical implications for the Sahel region as Mali’s relationships with Russia, ECOWAS, and its regional neighbours continue to shift under mounting pressure.
Next, we turn to the tensions growing within NATO. Cormac Edwards examines the possible withdrawal of thousands of American troops from Germany following increasing strains between Donald Trump and several European allies. The article considers what the move may reveal about the future of transatlantic relations and Europe’s concerns over the reliability of US security commitments.
Finally, I examine the recent Andes hantavirus outbreak aboard the cruise ship MV Hondius, which has now triggered an international public health response involving authorities across Europe, Africa, and South America. The outbreak has highlighted both the logistical challenges of containing and tracing the disease in a highly mobile international setting, such as on a cruise ship, and the global public health anxieties that remain in the years following COVID-19.
As always, thank you very much for reading Outside OX1. It is easy, in the middle of Oxford’s deadlines, routines, and little academic bubble, to lose sight of how quickly events are shifting elsewhere around the world. Noah and I, alongside the entire team at the Global Affairs section, look forward to continuing to bring you stories from beyond Oxford throughout what already promises to be another busy and turbulent Trinity term.
Co-ordinated Terrorist Attacks Constitute Biggest Crisis Mali’s Seen in Years
Nancy Gittus
On Saturday 25 and Sunday 26 April 2026 Mali was stunned by the co-ordinated attacks of a coalition of armed terrorist groups targeting sites across the country. The initial attacks saw fighting in Kati, Gao, Sevare, Mopti, and the capital Bamako, as well as the assasination of Mali’s defense minister, Sadio Camara. Mali’s president Assimi Goita has now taken on the role.
As the fighting continues, 44 towns have now fallen to the insurgents, including the city of Kidal in the North, as well as four major military bases. On 25 April 2026, al-Qaeda-linked group Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) claimed responsibility for the attacks. Unusually, the jihadist group appears to be co-ordinating its operations with a Touareg rebel group the Azawad Liberation Front (FLA). The FLA has concentrated its attacks in the North, whilst JNIM has hit key targets across the country, in what is believed to be the biggest security crisis Mali has faced since at least 2012.
A spokesperson for the FLA, Mohamed Elmaouloud Ramadane, told the BBC, “We had been working on this operation for a long time, in a well-planned manner, and in fact, in alliance with [JNIM].”
At least 23 people have been killed so far in the fighting between the rebel groups and Mali’s armed forces, which are supported by Russian mercenaries. UNICEF has reported that civilians, including children, are among the dead and injured. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) revealed that there have also been, “gravely concerning reports of extrajudicial killing and abductions, allegedly carried out by members of the security forces following the 25 and 26 April attacks.”
Indeed, the military junta, which has ruled Mali since 2020, has become even more repressive since the attacks. The success of the rebels has fundamentally undermined the narrative of control, order, and security projected by President Goita and Mali’s military leaders.
Some have labelled the government’s reaction a “witch-hunt”, as ministers, officers, policemen and lawyers are being brought in, accused of colluding with the enemy. The prominent lawyer and outspoken critic of Mali’s military government, Mountaga Tall, was abducted from his home in Bamako on the night of 2 May. Authorities have justified this clampdown, stating last month’s attacks were only made possible by “traitors within”.
Both JNIM and the FLA have been a thorn in Mali’s side for several years. The JNIM jihadists were established in 2017, with the aim of overthrowing the Malian government and instituting an Islamic state operated under Sharia law. The FLA is a more recent separatist group founded in November 2024. It is an organisation composed mostly of people who are ethnically Tuareg. The FLA therefore aims to create an independent state in the North of Mali called ‘Azawad’. The varying aims of these terrorist groups have caused them to clash in the past, and it remains a possibility that their current co-operation may be short-lived.
Nevertheless, the rebels certainly seem to have the upper hand for the moment. Mali’s Russian mercenaries have proved mostly ineffective. The seizure of Kidal led to the Russian Africa Corps having to negotiate a humiliating withdrawal, leaving around 130 Malian soldiers to be taken captive. This has perhaps demonstrated Mali’s folly in breaking with Europe and the UN, choosing instead to invest in a relationship with Russia. At the moment, Russia has around 1 000 troops on the ground in Mali. In contrast to this France used to maintain a force of around 5 000 soldiers in the region to preserve peace. Mali’s break with the West in 2021 has now left it without many options. The attacks have revealed weaknesses in the Alliance des États du Sahel (AES), an alliance between Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, forged after they broke away from ECOWAS in January 2025. Burkina Faso and Niger are both yet to come to the aid of their ally. Furthermore, although Mali has bought Turkish drones, Turkey has generally maintained a policy of non-involvement.
However, hope may still lie in ECOWAS. Several of Mali’s West African neighbours have declared their willingness to help combat the jihadist threat. Last week they proposed a united regional fight against terrorism. Indeed, both Ghana and Senegal have begun negotiations with Mali and Burkina Faso on topics of mutual interest, such as border security. If a co-ordinated effort could be achieved from the countries of this region, either militarily or diplomatically, it could help to resolve these ongoing conflicts as easily and peaceably as possible.
The U.S. has also stated that it has been in talks with Mali, discussing a deal, which, they say, “will allow Washington to resume flying aircraft and drones over the West African country’s airspace to gather intelligence on jihadist groups.” Information on the location of Jihadist groups could be invaluable to Malian military efforts to repel the rebel forces, whose primary residence in the vast Sahel region makes them highly mobile.
Nevertheless, it remains undoubtedly true that the main losers of this conflict will be the people of Mali. A hunger crisis is brewing, “on 3 May, the mayor of Diafarabe village, in the Mopti region, called on the authorities to act within 48 hours or people would start drying of hunger, as the village had run out of food.” The OHCHR has stated. Its report continues, “Diafarabe and the capital Bamako are currently under a JNIM blockade. Such blockades have unacceptable consequences for civilians and must end immediately.”
US troop Reduction in Germany May Be a Sign of How Trump Is Reshaping America’s Approach to European Security
Cormac Edwards
President Trump has recently called for the withdrawal of 5,000 American troops from Germany, following comments made by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz regarding Washington’s handling of negotiations with Tehran. Talking to a group of students, Merz said that the US was being “humiliated” in Iran. The Pentagon has announced that the move is likely to occur over the next six to 12 months and that the decision was made with attention to the “theatre requirements and conditions on the ground”. The decision has come as a surprise to many, including the chairs of the US Senate and House Armed Services Committee, who expressed that they were “very concerned by the decision to withdraw a U.S. brigade from Germany”. A spokesperson for the German Ministry of Defence has stated that the move was “anticipated” and highlighted the importance for Germany and its allies to “strengthen the European pillar within NATO.”
The change comes as part of a larger transatlantic rift between Trump and his NATO partners over their refusal to join his attacks on Iran. In late April, a leaked Pentagon email highlighted ways in which the US could punish NATO allies that had failed to contribute to the war and put checks on the European “sense of entitlement”. These included suspending Spain from NATO, as well as reassessing US support for the UK’s claim to the Falkland Islands. President Trump has made clear that he is considering taking further action, stating, “We’re going to cut way down. And we’re cutting a lot further than 5,000”. Further to this, when speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, President Trump indicated he would “probably“ remove American troops from Spain and Italy as well.
In some ways, perhaps, it is not surprising.Trump has always been critical of NATO, claiming during his first election campaign that it was “obsolete” and “costing us a fortune”. During his first term, he said he wanted to reduce the number of troops in Germany by 9 500, but failed to implement the measure before he left office. Now, in his second term, Trump has significantly ramped up his rhetoric regarding NATO, with the Pentagon announcing late last year that it wants a Europe-led NATO by 2027, with the US potentially not taking part in some of the defence coordination mechanisms if the deadline is not met.
Easier said than done?
About half of all American troops stationed in Europe are in Germany. The figure is estimated at around 36 000, in addition to an extra 13 000 air force personnel. After years of building up its presence in Germany during the Cold War, America has established both the US European Central Command (EUCOM) and the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) in Stuttgart. Although troop numbers are now significantly lower than during the Cold War, Germany still remains central to US operations in Europe.
If the US were to completely withdraw from Germany, it would only make it more difficult for it to carry out its attacks on Iran due to the significance of bases like Ramstein in coordinating drone attacks. Additionally, the move would cost “hundreds of billions” and take “four years at a minimum” to complete, according to retired Gen. Mark Hertling. There are also potential legal challenges to withdrawing troops. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was signed by Trump into law in December 2025. The law prevents cutting troop numbers below 76 000 without consulting NATO allies. This would not prevent Trump from pulling 5 000 troops out in the first instance, but it could impede him if he were to do the same at some point in the future.
America spread thin
It is not just troops that are being pulled from Europe. The US also announced the cancellation of a deployment of a long-range fire battalion equipped with Tomahawk and hypersonic missiles. The deployment, scheduled for this year, was intended as a deterrent in response to Russia’s deployment of nuclear-capable Iskander missiles and Khinzal-carrying fighter jets in the exclave of Kaliningrad. The failure to deliver the missiles has widened Europe’s gap with Russia in long-range precision-strike capabilities and has potentially removed a key deterrent against Russian aggression in Europe.
Politics is certainly one factor contributing to Trump’s decision to pull American defence assets from Europe, but it is not the only one. With “Operation Epic Fury” raging on for more than 9 weeks, the stockpile for American Tomahawk missiles is estimated to be in the low 3,000s. With so many theatres of conflict and so many allies in need of air defence capabilities, the US has not been able to deliver on all fronts. Many American allies in Europe and Asia are being told that there are to be serious delays that affect the deliveries of several missile systems. This is of particular concern to Ukraine, which relies heavily on US military technology in order to operate various missile systems, such as the Lockheed Martin-produced HIMARS. Vlodomyr Zelensky has said that delays have at times left Patriot launchers without missiles during Russian strikes.
The future of European defence
With the US embroiled in its war with Iran, EU and NATO partners are worried that it is not paying enough attention to European security. The war has put strain on the supply of American weapons to Europe, causing concern about its reliability as a supplier. This, coupled with threats to reduce troop numbers on the ground in Europe and the failure to deliver on vital defence technology, may suggest that the US is now placing less strategic importance on European security than it once did. As a result, European governments may attempt to pursue a policy of decoupling from American defence technologies at an accelerated pace to compensate for the US’s increasingly unreliable security posture.
Hantavirus Outbreak on Cruise Ship Sparks International Health Response
Chaehyeon Moon
As of 8 May, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has confirmed six cases of Andes hantavirus infection linked to MV Hondius, the Dutch-flagged cruise ship, alongside two probable cases and three deaths. The outbreak began during the ship’s voyage across the South Atlantic after departing from Argentina on 1 April. It has triggered public health responses from authorities across Europe, Africa, and South America.
Hantaviruses are a group of viruses that are carried by rodents. People usually become infected by these viruses by breathing in air that is contaminated from rodent urine, feces, or saliva. While hantaviruses are rarely transmitted from one human to another, the Andes virus, the strain of hantavirus that has been identified in the MV Hondius case, can be passed on to different people in prolonged close contact.
While public anxiety has arisen regarding the possibility of another global pandemic, public health experts have stressed that this possibility remains low. WHO officials stated on the 7th of May that the outbreak was “not the start of another pandemic,” emphasising that the Andes virus spreads far less easily than the infamous COVID-19. As for the outbreak on MV Hondius, Professor Michael Marks of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine explained that the close conditions aboard a cruise ship have facilitated transmission: “In the context of a cruise ship – where people are in very close proximity – there has been some onward transmission to other individuals.”
According to WHO, the likely first case was an adult male passenger who had spent more than three months travelling in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay before boarding the ship in Ushuaia. On April 6, he developed symptoms such as fever and diarrhoea, and later died on 11 April due to respiratory illness. Experts at WHO are currently hypothesizing that he most likely acquired the disease before boarding in Argentina.
A second passenger, the partner of the first victim, later developed gastrointestinal symptoms and disembarked the cruise ship at Saint Helena on 24 April, before deteriorating during a flight to Johannesburg and dying upon arrival at the hospital. The body of the third fatality, a German woman who died from symptoms of pneumonia, is still on board.
Additional cases of the virus emerged in late April. One passenger was medically evacuated from the ship from Ascension Island to South Africa after developing respiratory symptoms. Further PCR-confirmed infections were later identified in the ship’s doctor, a ship guide, and a Swiss passenger who had already returned to Switzerland after disembarking the cruise.
MV Hondius was carrying around 147 passengers and crew members, representing 23 nationalities; at least 29 of them, of 12 nationalities, disembarked the ship before isolation measures were introduced. It is due to reach Tenerife in the Canary Islands on 10 May, where protests are taking place against the Spanish government’s agreement with the WHO to let the passengers of MV Hondius disembark. Although Spanish officials have stated that even the asymptomatic passengers were to be isolated from the local population and transported directly to airports for travel home to their respective countries, political tensions have emerged as the Canary Islands president, Fernando Clavijo, publicly opposed the plan. He has argued that insufficient information has been provided about the outbreak. Meanwhile, the passengers and crew remaining onboard have been instructed to remain in their cabins and practice physical distancing measures. WHO and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control experts have boarded the ship to provide public health guidance during the voyage.
The outbreak has also raised concerns about healthcare capacity in remote British territories that were visited by the ship, including Tristan da Cunha, Saint Helena, and Ascension Island, all of which are territories with small populations and limited medical infrastructure. One British national with a suspected infection is currently receiving treatment on Tristan da Cunha, which has a population of fewer than 300 people and is often described as the world’s most remote inhabited island. Although the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) stated that the overall risk to Tristan da Cunha’s population remained “very low” considering the conditions of continued proximity needed for human-to-human transmission of the Andes hantavirus, it also acknowledged the limited healthcare facilities across the islands. A British military flight later delivered oxygen supplies, testing kits, and medical personnel to Ascension Island. WHO and UK authorities have also established pathways to prepare for cases that require more advanced treatment.
The MV Hondius case has shown the logistical complexity of managing disease outbreaks in such mobile, international settings. Close contact between the passengers and staff on board, international travel, and frequent movement between jurisdictions complicate reconstructing potential exposure chains. WHO investigations surrounding contract tracing, testing, and passenger monitoring have been ongoing, in cooperation with authorities in Argentina, Cabo Verde, Chile, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.