RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Zelensky has ‘no chance’ of winning a fair election – Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that Vladimir Zelensky has “absolutely no chance” of winning a fair election due to his low approval ratings and the internal political situation in Ukraine.

Zelensky’s five-year presidential term expired in May 2024, but he has refused to hold new elections, citing martial law. The question of his popularity was raised last week by US President Donald Trump, who branded Zelensky a “dictator without elections” who is “down at a 4% approval rating.”

Speaking on Monday, Putin noted that Zelensky’s popularity is significantly lower than that of potential rival General Valery Zaluzhny, the former commander of Ukraine’s armed forces. In an interview with journalist Pavel Zarubin, Putin suggested that if other political figures backed Zaluzhny, Zelensky’s chances of reelection would be “absolutely zero.”

“They are equal to zero. Unless, of course, something is grossly rigged, but this is also bad for him – it will be very noticeable,” Putin stated.

“The fact is that the current head of the Kiev regime is becoming a toxic figure for the Ukrainian armed forces because he gives absurd orders dictated not by military considerations, but by political ones, and it is unclear what they are based on,” Putin said. He added that Zelensky’s leadership had resulted in “unjustifiably large or catastrophic losses,”making him “toxic for society as a whole.”

“Therefore, [Zelensky] is a factor in the disintegration of the army, society, and the state. And President Trump certainly understands this and is pushing him toward elections,” Putin said, adding that Trump apparently “wants to improve the political situation in Ukraine, consolidate society, and create conditions for the survival of the Ukrainian state.”

Putin has repeatedly said that he no longer considers Zelensky the legitimate head of state. Trump has also recently questioned Zelensky's leadership, accusing him of mismanaging the conflict with Russia and misusing American financial aid.

Zelensky accused Trump of falling for “Russian disinformation,” citing a January poll that allegedly indicated 57% of Ukrainians trusted him. However, data cited by The Economist last week suggested that Zelensky would lose to Zaluzhny by a wide margin if elections were held today, as many Ukrainians are “clearly frustrated with their war leader.”

According to Putin, Zelensky – who has banned himself from talks with Moscow – is actively sabotaging any peace process, as it would require lifting martial law, which allows him to remain in power. Without martial law, the country would be compelled to hold elections, a scenario Putin believes Zelensky is determined to avoid.

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

UN Security Council adopts neutral US stance on war in Ukraine as Trump pursues end to conflict

The United Nations Security Council on Monday adopted a U.S.-drafted resolution on the third anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine that takes a neutral position on the conflict as U.S. President Donald Trump seeks to broker an end to the war.

The short resolution reflects Trump's upending of U.S. policy on Ukraineafter taking office last month and his more conciliatory stance towards Russia. In contrast, former president Joe Biden's administration led efforts at the United Nations to support Ukraine throughout the war.

Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia acknowledged "constructive changes" in the U.S. position on the conflict. He told the council the resolution was "not an ideal one," but "a starting point for future efforts towards peaceful settlement."

The 15-member U.N. Security Council had been deadlocked throughout the war and unable to take any action because Russia holds a veto.

But the 193-member General Assembly has repeatedly supported Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and called for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in line with the U.N. Charter.

The U.S. failed earlier on Monday to convince the General Assembly to pass the same three-paragraph resolution adopted by the Security Council.

The resolution mourns the loss of life in the "Russia-Ukraine conflict", reiterates the U.N.'s purpose is to maintain international peace and security and peacefully settle disputes, and urges a swift end to the conflict and a lasting peace.

Security Council resolutions are considered binding, while General Assembly resolutions are not. However, General Assembly resolutions carry political weight, reflecting a global view on the war.

The Security Council adopted the U.S. resolution with 10 votes in favor, while France, Britain, Denmark, Greece and Slovenia abstained. Russia voted in favor after failing to amend it and vetoing European bids to add language supporting Ukraine.

"This resolution puts us on the path to peace. It is a first step, but a crucial one – one of which we should all be proud," acting U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Dorothy Shea told the council. "Now we must use it to build a peaceful future for Ukraine, Russia and the international community."

'NO EQUIVALENCE'

However, Trump's approach to mediation has left Ukraine and European allies wary of his focus on Russia and worried they could be cut out of talks to end the war.

Britain's U.N. Ambassador Barbara Woodward told the council that the terms of peace in Ukraine matter and must "send a message that aggression does not pay."

"This is why there can be no equivalence between Russia and Ukraine in how this council refers to this war. If we are to find a path to sustainable peace, the council must be clear on the war's origins," she said.

French U.N. Ambassador Nicolas de Riviere - whose President Emmanuel Macron met with Trump in Washington on Monday - said that while France was "fully committed to peace in Ukraine, we call for comprehensive, just and lasting peace, and certainly not for capitulation of the victim."

The General Assembly earlier adopted two resolutions, one drafted by Ukraine and Europeans and one drafted by the U.S. that was amended by the assembly to include its long-held language supporting Ukraine. Those votes gave Ukraine and European states a diplomatic victory over Washington.

"This war has never been about Ukraine only. It is about a fundamental right of any country to exist, to choose its own path and to live free from aggression," Ukraine's Deputy Foreign Minister Mariana Betsa told the assembly before the vote.

The amended U.S.-drafted resolution won 93 votes in favor in the assembly, while 73 states abstained and eight voted no. Russia failed in a bid to amend the U.S. text to include a reference to the "root causes" of the conflict.

The resolution drafted by Ukraine and European countries passed with 93 votes in favor, 65 abstentions and 18 no votes. Along with the United States, some other countries that voted no were Russia, North Korea and Israel.

RT/Reuters

I have always been intrinsically and instinctively opposed to oppression, seeing and perceiving that the world could attend to the welfare demands of many, if not most, of the inhabitants of the world without much sweat. My idea of a life worth living is to always identify with the underdogs and keep a tab on their sufferings and how those could be ameliorated. This naturally puts me in the progressive camp of politics in terms of the organization of society, even if I do not play partisan politics, with the idea that society could be better organized to attend to the welfare needs of the (mass) of the people. And the philosophical starting point and standpoint has to be liberalism - the idea that humans are so diverse as to want to have the opportunity of listening to each and every one as part of that diversity. It was such an interesting and insightful perspective to humans’ reality for me as I soaked in the basic respect for human dignity intrinsic to these platforms, affording me the chance of wanting to listen to others and be concerned about them and their interests.

To be sure, humanity has benefited immensely and tremendously and indeed remarkably from the development outreaches of these platforms over the years as to become for many the representation of that non-limitation of human, evidence of what height and depth the human mind could bring about in terms of development and organization ad infinitum, making almost the argument for the limitlessness of humans and humans’ minds. And here is where I part ways as this was way an overreach on the fundamentals of both liberalism and progressive politics. How could we be talking of the limitlessness of humans when the reality is that humans are limited in every possible way in the long run due to imperfection and fallibility? How could humans with limited knowledge and limited capacity even for knowledge be limitless?

Here liberalism rather than following its starting point of deriving from God whose creation provides the diversity making for the need to have a thousand flowers bloom, becomes anti-God, preferring to invest humans with sovereignty and making it possible to contemplate existence outside of God.

With human beings invested with sovereignty and the absence of the need to look for direction from or even recognize the existence of a higher power, the implication has been a progressive and steady decline into everything anti-God and opposed to God. Now we know that humans pretend that there are many gender(s) and sex(es) in the world beyond male and female even as nobody has been able to show a human that is truly neither a male nor female. The uselessness of the transgender argument is plainly out there as there is nothing concrete to the experimentation with human body development under the unceasing application and influence of drugs and surgeries.

The argument here is that there is no philosophical justification for anti-God sentiments and actions under liberalism, properly so called, as it even immerses itself in and originates and luxuriates from the divine provision of diversity in the world. How could respect for diversity through a philosophical acknowledgement of such diversity translate into a fight with and against God, the originator and owner and creator of diversity? For many of us, being liberal is even an act in the service of the diversity provided by God and we do not see any contradiction in being a liberal and believer in God at the same time. Those who are overreaching themselves are the ones setting up anti-God sentiments for themselves as if that would further advance liberalism.

Real liberalism rests on the idea and belief in God and there is enough reason not to get involved in the overreach madness if only one is truly interested in and wants to find satisfaction in real liberalism!

** Olaitan, Professor of Political Science, was Vice-Chancellor, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State.

For feedback, kindly send SMS/Whatsapp messages to:

+234 807 083 7212

Caroline Kee

The seed oil versus animal fat debate has gone from a niche topic among wellness influencers on social media to an entire movement.

Perhaps you've already heard of the "Hateful Eight" — not the movie, but the list of oils to supposedly avoid, including canola and corn. Seed oil naysayers claim these plant-based cooking oils are "toxic" or lead to chronic diseases, neither of which are backed by scientific evidence.

Many critics promote swapping seed oils for animal fats like butter, beef tallow and lard. Just two decades after the fat-free era of the early 2000s, people are now fighting about which fat is best.

While it's true that not all fats or oils are equal, the recent discourse has left many confused. So, which is better for you — seed oils, or animal fats?

What are seed oils?

Seed oils are a type of vegetable oil extracted from the seeds of plants, Dr. Nate Wood, director of culinary medicine at the Yale School of Medicine, tells TODAY.com.

All seed oils are vegetable oils, but not all vegetable oils are seed oils. Other vegetable oils may be extracted from the fruit or pulp of the plant, such as olive, avocado and coconut oils.

“Seeds are a high-fat food ... so we take the seeds and extract all the fat out of them and leave behind the fiber and the protein,” Wood says.

These seeds go through multiple processes to become cooking oil.

First, the seeds are usually pressed, which extracts the oil by crushing the seeds, Lena Beal, cardiovascular dietitian and spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, tells TODAY.com.

Seed oil may also go through chemical extraction, which uses solvents to separate the oil from the seeds.

After extraction, most seed oils are refined to remove particles, improve the taste and shelf-life, and make the oil more heat-stable.

Are seed oils healthy?

Seed oils are healthy when consumed in moderation as part of a healthy, balanced diet, the experts note.

"Seed oils are largely unsaturated fats, which we know are really healthy," says Wood. These include polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, which are "good" fats.

The goal is to consume more good fats and fewer “bad” or unhealthy fats (saturated and trans fats), per the American Heart Association.

Unsaturated fats can lower LDL, or "bad" cholesterol, and boost HDL, or "good" cholesterol. “They’re really good at protecting against heart disease,” says Wood. Unsaturated fats in these oils can also lower the risk of stroke, support brain function and improve blood sugar levels, TODAY.com previously reported.

Seed oils are generally higher in polyunsaturated fats, which provide essential omega fatty acids that our body can't produce on its own. "Most seed oils have a good amount of omega-6, and smaller amounts of omega-3," says Beal.

Unrefined seed oils contain more nutrients than highly refined seed oils, but both can be part of a healthy diet, the experts note.

Why are seed oils controversial?

Seed oils get a bad rap for a few reasons, says Wood. Many critics believe seed oils are harmful because they have a high omega-6 content and they’re found in ultraprocessed foods. Some people also say the refining process makes seed oils "toxic."

Nutritional science can be confusing, but any claims that seed oil is poisonous are “scientifically wrong,” Gardner says.

Omega-6s in seed oils

Seed oils contain high levels of omega-6 unsaturated fatty acids, which are controversial because some are linked to inflammation, particularly when a person doesn't get enough anti-inflammatory omega-3 fatty acids, TODAY.com previously reported.

While it's true that our body uses some omega-6s as precursors to create inflammatory molecules, this can be a good thing, says Wood.

"Part of what (omega-6s) do is they help the immune system work on an inflammatory response," Christopher Gardner, Ph.D., professor of Medicine at Stanford University, tells TODAY.com. This is how the body attacks germs, fights infections and heals injuries, Wood adds.

Omega-6s play a smaller role than omega-3s in protecting heart health, but they can still lower LDL — which is why the AHA supports including seed oils as part of a healthy diet.

“We have decades of evidence on how those omega-6 fatty acids are heart-healthy when you replace the saturated fats in your diet,” says Gardner.

However, it's important to get a balanced ratio of omega-6s to omega-3s, which are found mostly in fish and nuts, says Wood. The American diet is very high in omega-6s. “The reason isn’t because we’re cooking with canola oil. It’s because we’re eating lots of ultra-processed foods,” says Wood.

Seed oils in processed foods

We know ultraprocessed foods, aka junk foods, are bad for us, says Wood. Research shows they're linked to poor health outcomes and mortality. “Ultraprocessed foods also have lots of seed oils in them," says Wood. People conflate these two ideas and blame seed oils, says Gardner.

“They’re attributing the adverse health consequences to the seed oils, when, in fact, it’s the junk food as a whole. It’s the sugar, the salt, the added ingredients," says Gardner. Ultraprocessed foods often contain refined carbohydrates and little to no nutrients.

Replacing the seed oils in ultraprocessed foods with lard and beef tallow would make them even worse, Gardner adds.

The refining process of seed oils

Another claim is that “industrial seed oils,” as many critics call them, are “toxic” because they are highly processed. "It’s the idea that we take a seed, a natural thing, then we hyper-process it into (oil) and through that process, it becomes something that’s not good for our health,” says Wood.

However, there is no scientific evidence to support these claims, the experts say. “They’re not poison,” Wood adds.

The refining process can remove some nutrients, but it also makes the oil more heat-stable and less prone to oxidization, which can release harmful free radicals, or unstable molecules that may increase the risk of cancer, says Beal. Other vegetable oils also go through refining, as do some animal fats.

If you’re concerned about processing, the experts recommend first cutting out ultraprocessed foods.

What are animal fats?

Animal fats are lipids derived from animals, including beef, pork and poultry. Common animal fats include:

These fats are often rendered, which involves cooking the fat until it liquifies and can be separated from the meat. Animal fats may be refined to remove impurities and improve the smell or color, per the American Oil Chemists' Society.

Butter is made by agitating milk cream to separate the liquid. Ghee, a staple in Indian cuisine, is butter that's been clarified by cooking it to remove all the milk solids.

Animal fats are largely saturated fat, the experts note. “These are typically solid at room temperature,” says Beal. Some animal fats contain a small amount of monounsaturated fats, Beal adds.

Are animal fats healthy?

Animal fats, such as butter or tallow, aren't exactly superfoods, but they may be healthy when eaten in moderation occasionally, as part of a healthy diet, the experts note.

The main issue is their high saturated fat content, which can raise "bad" LDL cholesterol. "Saturated fats are not beneficial in any way," says Wood.

However, animal fats do have some positive qualities. They're a good source of energy and rich in nutrients, such as fat-soluble vitamins, says Beal. These include vitamins A, D and E. "They also have stearic acid, which is beneficial," Beal adds.

Animal fats tend to be more stable and add more flavor when cooking. “There’s a cultural element ... and it's a way to reduce food waste,” says Wood.

However, many nutrition experts say the risks of regularly eating animal fats outweigh the benefits. “The more saturated fat you eat, the more bad cholesterol you have in your blood, and that’s what leads to plaque, heart disease and strokes,” says Wood.

A 2024 study that followed over 407,000 people for 24 years found that a diet high in animal fat was associated with a higher risk of dying from any cause.

“We can eat some saturated fat, but when I say some, I mean a small amount," says Beal. The AHA recommends limiting saturated fat to less than 6% of your total calories.

Is seed oil or animal fat healthier?

Seed oils are generally considered healthier than animal fats due to their high unsaturated fat content, which is linked to a number of benefits backed by research, according to the experts.

“There is a lot of evidence for the benefits of getting rid of saturated replacing it with polyunsaturated fats,” says Gardner.

Population studies show people who replace animal-based fats, such as butter or tallow, with seed oils tend to have a lower LDL cholesterol and lower rates of heart disease, Gardner says. "Your overall risk of mortality also goes down," Wood adds.

However, it's important to consider how you use the oil. The smoke point, or the temperature at which oil burns, is a big factor, says Beal.

The omega-6 fatty acids in seed oils can degrade and oxidize when heated to high temperatures, says Beal. “Oxidized fat is not good for you,” Wood adds. Burned oil should be tossed, and oils should never be re-used, the experts say.

Animal fat does not oxidize as rapidly at its smoke point as vegetable oils, but it can still burn and become rancid.

Moderation is also key, says Beal. The serving size of oil is small, just one tablespoon. “Cook with it, don’t drink it," Gardner adds.

Although there's no clear evidence to support using animal fat instead of seed oil, you don't have to avoid animal fat entirely. "If you have a healthy diet full of nutritious foods and eat a little butter, you'll be fine," says Wood.

“Animal fat tastes really good, but I’m not trying to convince myself that it’s good for me,” Wood adds.

What is the healthiest oil to cook with?

Extra virgin olive oil or avocado oil are the healthiest cooking oils, the experts say. These are rich in heart-healthy monounsaturated fats, which help boost good cholesterol, and other nutrients.

Unrefined oil is better, says Beal, but has a lower smoke point. The experts suggest using different cooking oils for different purposes.

“If you’re frying or grilling, I’d say avocado or refined olive oil. For sautéing or baking, extra virgin olive oil. Then for salads or drizzling, I’d also use EVOO or another unrefined oil, like sunflower," says Beal.

What is the healthiest animal fat?

If you're going to cook with animal fat, Beal recommends opting for minimally processed fats from grass-fed, pasture-raised animals.

Grass-fed butter, for example, comes from cows that only eat grass, which leads to higher levels of heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid, TODAY.com previously reported.

Whether you use seed oils, animal fats or a combination, it’s important to have a balanced diet full of nutrient-dense, whole foods. “What you’re cooking with the oil is just as important,” says Gardner.

Today.com

The federal government has deployed a massive N12 trillion (approximately $8 billion) in market interventions to artificially prop up the naira, according to Bismarck Rewane, Chief Executive Officer of Financial Derivatives Company.

The temporary strengthening of the naira to N1,500 against the dollar masks significant underlying economic pressures and unsustainable market manipulation, Rewane revealed in a Channels Television interview on Friday.

"We've actually spent almost $8 billion trying to support the naira at current levels," Rewane explained, highlighting how this short-term stabilization relies heavily on borrowed funds, including $4 billion in new bond issues, rather than organic economic growth.

Rewane, who serves on the Nigerian Economic Summit Group's Board, warned against celebration of the current exchange rates, pointing out that the naira's purchasing power parity (PPP) remains significantly weaker at N1,102 to the dollar. This gap between market rate and fundamental value suggests the current appreciation is unlikely to hold.

The intervention-driven stability comes amid concerning economic indicators: money supply growth remains elevated at 17%, interest rates are high, and foreign reserves have declined from $42 billion to approximately $38 billion – even as the country takes on more external debt to finance currency support operations.

Market analysts note that without addressing fundamental economic challenges, the current exchange rate levels cannot be maintained indefinitely, especially given the substantial cost to the nation's reserves and rising debt burden.

Rewane also challenged the credibility of recent inflation figures, suggesting they don't reflect economic realities faced by average Nigerians. "There's no way that inflation can reduce by 10% in a short period. The man on the street does not believe that inflation has come down as sharply as that," he stated.

While the naira has shown a nominal appreciation of 9% in 2025, experts caution that this improvement, achieved through massive government intervention rather than economic fundamentals, is likely temporary and unsustainable at current levels.

The combination of depleting reserves, increased external borrowing, and persistent structural economic challenges suggests the current exchange rate stability may be short-lived, with a market correction expected once intervention capacity diminishes.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Nigeria's currency in circulation has reached an unprecedented N5.24 trillion in January 2025, with an alarming 90.4% of this cash – N4.74 trillion – being held outside the banking system, according to latest Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) data.

This represents a dramatic 43.5% surge from January 2024's N3.65 trillion, highlighting growing concerns about the effectiveness of Nigeria's cashless policy and financial inclusion efforts. The amount held outside banks has similarly jumped by 44.5% from N3.28 trillion in January 2024.

The year-long trend shows persistent growth in both metrics:

Q1 2024 saw steady increases, with circulation rising from N3.65 trillion in January to N3.87 trillion in March. The proportion of cash outside banks remained consistently above 89%.

Q2 maintained the upward trajectory, reaching N4.05 trillion by June, with over 93% of currency circulating outside the formal banking sector.

Q3 began with a brief dip in July, when cash outside banks temporarily decreased to N3.67 trillion. However, the trend quickly reversed, with circulation expanding to N4.31 trillion by September.

Q4 marked accelerated growth, as total currency in circulation surged from N4.55 trillion in October to N4.88 trillion in November, before hitting January 2025's record high.

The persistent high percentage of currency outside the banking system suggests significant challenges in Nigeria's push toward a more formalized financial system, despite various digital banking initiatives and financial inclusion programs.

This trend raises questions about the effectiveness of monetary policy transmission and the central bank's ability to monitor and control money supply effectively when such a large proportion of currency operates outside formal banking channels.

The continued preference for cash transactions also indicates potential challenges in tax collection and anti-money laundering efforts, as transactions outside the banking system are harder to track and regulate.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

A recent report by S&P Global has revealed that the Dangote Petrochemical Refinery is currently meeting up to 60% of Nigeria’s domestic gasoline (petrol) demand. This significant milestone underscores the refinery’s pivotal role in stabilizing the nation’s fuel supply and reducing reliance on imported petroleum products, marking a transformative shift in Nigeria’s energy landscape.

The report contrasts with earlier claims by the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, which stated that the country’s three operational refineries contributed less than 50% of daily petrol consumption. Since its commissioning in January 2024, the Dangote Refinery, with a capacity of 650,000 barrels per day (b/d), has been a focal point of attention, promising to drastically reduce Nigeria’s fuel import deficit by catering to the bulk of the domestic market.

Exceeding analyst expectations, the refinery began operating its critical gasoline unit, the Residue Fluid Catalytic Cracker (RFCC), in September 2024. Officials have projected that the facility will reach full production capacity by mid-March 2025. A Dangote Group executive disclosed in late January that the refinery was producing over 30 million liters of gasoline daily, achieving an 85% utilization rate. This output, equivalent to approximately 200,000 b/d, covers a significant portion of Nigeria’s estimated daily gasoline demand of 350,000 b/d, as per S&P Global Commodity Insights.

Despite initial skepticism from market observers regarding production volumes, the refinery’s growing output has significantly reduced Nigeria’s gasoline imports. In January 2025, import volumes plummeted to a historic low of 62,000 b/d, down from an average of 200,000 b/d in 2024. Traders noted that the decline in imports was largely offset by supplies from the Dangote Refinery, with some residual volumes sourced from the transshipment hub in Lome, Togo.

However, questions remain about the refinery’s exact production figures and distribution logistics. Some traders expressed doubts about the reported 85% utilization rate, suggesting that smaller vessels transporting gasoline from Lome might not be fully accounted for in import data. Nevertheless, industry sources agree that the Dangote Refinery is the primary driver behind the sharp decline in Nigeria’s gasoline imports.

Ikemesit Effiong, a partner at Lagos-based SBM Intelligence, attributed the reduction in imports primarily to the Dangote Refinery. “They’re supplying the market at surprisingly high volumes,” he said, noting that several major retailers had switched to sourcing products from the refinery. “Many NNPC retail outlets are currently underprovisioned and not selling, while Dangote-supplied stations are operating smoothly.”

The refinery’s impact is also being felt internationally, with European exporters experiencing reduced demand from Nigeria.

Israel moves tanks into West Bank for first time since 2002

Israel sent tanks into the West Bank on Sunday for the first time since 2002, telling its military to prepare for "an extended stay" as the Jewish stateremains determined to stamp out terrorism in the territory’s refugee camps.

Several tanks were seen moving into Jenin as a fragile ceasefire between the terrorist organization Hamas and Israel remains in place.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the military to "increase the intensity of the activity to thwart terrorism" across the West Bank.

Katz said troops will remain "for the coming year" in parts of the territory and indicated that Palestinians who have fled cannot return.

"We will not allow the return of residents, and we will not allow terrorism to return and grow," he said.

Earlier, Katz said he instructed the military to prepare for "an extended stay" in some of the West Bank's urban areas, from which he said about 40,000 Palestinians have fled, leaving the areas "emptied of residents." That figure was confirmed by the United Nations.

Netanyahu said Israeli forces will remain "as long as needed."

The Palestinian foreign ministry called the Israeli moves "a dangerous escalation of the situation in the West Bank."

Tanks were last deployed in the territory in 2002, when Israel fought against deadly Palestinian violence.

The move on Sunday comes as the delicate ceasefire deal that was reached a month ago between Hamas and Israel remains in place.

Hamas freed six hostages on Saturday in exchange for more than 600 Palestinian prisoners as part of the agreement. Netanyahu has said 63 hostages remain, including the remains of a soldier captured in 2014.

The conflict began on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists from the Gaza Strip led an assault in southern Israel, killing more than 1,100 people and abducting about 250 more.

Fox News

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Ukraine hemmed in as US backing frays three years after Russian invasion

Ukraine enters the fourth year of all-out war with Russia on Monday, unsure it can rely any longer on its staunchest ally the United States as its exhausted troops fight to hold their ground against unrelenting enemy advances.

Donald Trump blasted Volodymyr Zelenskiy last week as an unpopular "dictator" who needed to cut a quick peace deal or lose his country, while the Ukrainian leader said the U.S. president was living in a "disinformation bubble".

Beyond the war of words, U.S. officials opened direct talks with the Russian side in Saudi Arabia last week, shutting out Kyiv and Europe in a stunning change of policy on the war.

Washington has made clear it will send no troops as a security guarantee coveted by Kyiv if a peace deal emerges, placing the burden squarely on European powers that are likely to struggle without U.S. backing.

Ukraine's embattled leader, who has told Europe to create its own army while urging Washington to be pragmatic, has held more than a dozen phone calls mainly with European leaders since Friday to shore up support and scope out a way forward.

Rattled by Trump's first month back in power, numerous European leaders are expected to visit the Ukrainian capital to commemorate the anniversary of the bloodiest conflict in Europe since World War Two alongside Zelenskiy.

Thousands of Ukrainian citizens have died and over 6 million live as refugees abroad since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion by land, sea and air.

Military losses have been catastrophic, although they remain closely guarded secrets. Public Western estimates based on intelligence reports vary widely, but most say hundreds of thousands have been killed or wounded on each side.

Tragedy has touched families in every corner of Ukraine, where military funerals are commonplace in major cities and far-flung villages. People are exhausted by sleepless nights of air raid sirens.

'THEY ARE TIRED'

On the front, Ukrainian troops face a numerically superior foe as questions swirl over the future of vital U.S. military assistance. It is unclear how much European allies could fill the gap if U.S. support slows or stops.

Evhen Kolosov, head medic at an army stabilisation point for Ukraine's Spartan brigade that is fighting in the east, said the troops were psychologically worn down.

"They're fighting on but really those (who've been here) since the first days are tired, even more psychologically than physically, in the same way as medics. It's difficult, but this is the war, who said it would be easy?"

Pavlo Klimkin, Ukraine's foreign minister from 2014 to 2019, said Zelenskiy needed to try to preserve strategic ties with Washington while enhancing relations with Europe, as well as reaching out to countries like China and India.

Klimkin said he did not think relations with Washington had reached crisis point yet, despite Trump's outbursts.

"A tornado is not sustainable, it will pass, but it is very important not to feed it in any way."

He did not anticipate a peace deal this year that would meet Ukraine's ambitions for something fair and lasting, but said he thought there could be elements of a ceasefire agreement.

Oleksandr Merezhko, a lawmaker for Zelenskiy's party who heads the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, said U.S. contacts needed to be enhanced at all levels, including with the MAGA movement backing Trump.

At the heart of the current relationship is a deal under discussion that could open up Ukraine's mineral wealth to the U.S., with Trump seeking hundreds of billions of dollars to repay Washington for its support.

Zelenskiy refused to sign an initial draft deal earlier this month, protesting that it was not in Ukrainian interests and did not contain the security guarantees he wanted.

Trump said on Friday that a deal was close, though details remain unclear.

Reuters reported that U.S. negotiators pressing for a deal had raised the possibility of cutting Ukraine's access to Elon Musk's Starlink satellite internet system, which has played a vital role in Kyiv's military operations.

"So we just need to play this game right – not to give up our interests on one hand, and on the other hand to support Trump," said Merezhko.

Trump has also pressed Ukraine to hold a wartime election, appearing to side with Russia which has long described Zelenskiy as no longer legitimate.

The Ukrainian leader's mandate was due to expire last May, but no election has been held due to martial law which was declared at the start of the invasion and prohibits holding elections.

Zelenskiy said on Sunday he was willing to give up the presidency if it meant peace, quipping that he could exchange his departure for Ukraine's entry into NATO.

It is unclear how Trump's election call and verbal attacks on Zelenskiy will affect his trust ratings, which remain above 50% according to several Ukrainian polls.

Some Kyiv residents indicated they were rallying around their leader.

"I think it's all wrong - Trump in America has the same rating as Zelenskiy has in Ukraine," said Oleksandr Babiuk, 55, a service sector worker.

"Although I did not vote for him, I supported him throughout martial law and will continue to support him."

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Zelensky warns Ukraine won’t pay debt to US

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has said his country will not repay the assistance it has received from the US since the start of the conflict with Russia. He also suggested that US President Donald Trump’s estimate that Kiev owes $350 billion is grossly exaggerated.

In recent weeks, the US president has ramped up his demands that Kiev reimburse Washington for all the aid provided since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Trump has argued that if the country is short on cash, it should sign over the rights to its natural resources as a form of compensation. Zelensky however, has refused, apparently deeming the terms too unfavorable.

Speaking at the ‘Ukraine. Year – 2025’ forum in Kiev on Sunday, Zelensky stated that “Ukraine received $100 billion [in aid] from the US, not $350, not $500, not $700,” stressing that he was “not ready to recognize even $100 billion”as debt. He claimed that he had reached an agreement with former US President Joe Biden that the money was being provided as a grant, and that no repayment had been expected.

Zelensky stressed that if the Trump administration is not ready to give Ukraine a blank check, Kiev is prepared to enter into a “new agreement,”and that it should be considered carefully, in order for the parties to “remain friends and partners.”

“I think I’m justified in my desire for dialogue [with the US],” the Ukrainian leader said, emphasizing that “I do not sign something which ten generations of Ukrainians would have to repay.”

According to Zelensky, the original deal on Ukraine’s rare earths drafted by the Trump administration made no mention of security guarantees to Kiev and was therefore turned down. He claimed that his negotiators were making good progress in talks with the Americans, who had supposedly dropped their initial $500 billion demand.

Meanwhile, in an article on Saturday, the New York Times, citing anonymous Ukrainian officials, claimed that Washington’s revised version of the accord appeared “even tougher” than its previous iteration.

Speaking to reporters at the White House on Friday, Trump warned that “we’re going to either sign a deal or there’s gonna be a lot of problems with [Ukraine].” He clarified that he expected Kiev to acquiesce “in the next fairly short period of time,” lamenting that “we’re spending our treasure on… a country that’s very, very far away.”

According to the 2024 World Economic Forum report, Ukraine “holds immense potential as a major global supplier of critical raw materials” that could be “essential” for defense, the technology sector, and green energy. Much of those resources are, however, located in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, which joined Russia in 2022.

Reuters/RT

I am grateful to Seyi Sowemimo (SAN) and Abdul Jinadu respectively for taking time to address matters of historical record from my column last week. This column publishes their rejoinders (modestly edited for economy) this week, without comment. – Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

Why my father refused to swear in Buhari after 1983 coup, By Seyi Sowemimo

I have in recent times come across two posts or write-ups by Chidi Odinkalu containing some misinformation, which requires correction, so that they do not become accepted for all times as the true versions of the events to which they relate.

The first has to do with the events of 31st December 1983, which heralded in the Buhari/Idiagbon administration. From his account, the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice George Sodeinde Sowemimo (GCON; who happens to be my late father) was out of the country at the material time. The military, in his absence, then proposed to swear in Justice Aniagolu in his place as Chief Justice, but the learned Justice declined the offer.

I have some personal knowledge of the events of that day and it has, therefore, become necessary to correct some aspects of your narrative. First, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Sowemimo, was certainly in the country at that time. What actually happened was that on the night of the coup, the military officers sent the then Secretary to Federal Government, Gray Longe to the CJN’s official residence to invite my father to their gathering at Bonny Camp. In panic, my late mother sent word to alert me of the development, but happily by the time I got to the house, my father had returned from Bonny Camp.

What happened at Bonny Camp was that the military officers requested that my father should swear in General Muhammadu Buhari as the new head of state and possibly thereafter accompany him to the television station, where he was to make his maiden broadcast. The Chief Justice refused and impressed on them the fact that they had by their actions suspended the Constitution and that he could not therefore as the Chief Justice legitimately swear General Buhari in as the head of state. The military officers were persuaded by this explanation and Buhari thereafter proceeded with the takeover without the formality of a swearing-in.

When my father got to Bonny Camp that night, he met some judges at the venue, but their presence has never been fully explained. I, however, believe that if such offer was ever made to Aniagolu, it would be easy for me to appreciate his disinclination towards the offer, as judges of their ilk were not consumed by ambition and he would well have recognised that there were other justices of the Supreme Court who were senior to him and that an acceptance of such an offer would have created a very awkward situation for the judiciary, especially at the level of the Supreme Court. Anyone familiar with the level of camaraderie which existed amongst the justices of that Court at the material time will readily appreciate why such an offer would have been spurned.

The second post concerns the compulsory retirement of Justice Yaya Jinadu from the High Court. An aspect of the narrative, which is incorrect, concerns the claim that Justice Adefarasin, the then Chief Judge of Lagos State, unilaterally withdrew the Garba case file from Jinadu. The version that I am familiar with is that it was Jinadu who requested that the case file be reassigned to another judge. The Advisory Judicial Council made up of the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and several other justices actually called for the case file and observed for themselves the minutes by Jinadu requesting that the case file be assigned to another judge. It is therefore not correct or fair to give the impression that the case file was unceremoniously withdrawn from him by Adefarasin, the chief judge. What infuriated members of the Supreme Military Council was the fact that the judge had made those false claims against the Chief Judge. This was the background to the compulsory retirement of Jinadu.

Finally, you described as “infamous” the judgment of Sowemimo which convicted the late sage, Obafemi Awolowo. This characterisation clearly ignores the fact that the judgment was in fact upheld and confirmed unanimously by a panel of five justices of the Supreme Court [in] Michael Omisade & Ors. v. The Queen (1964) 1 All NLR, 23.

The judgment in the Omisade case was in fact preceded by the judgment in the treasonable felony trial of Anthony Enahoro, who was convicted and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment by Justice SO Lambo on the very same set of facts, two weeks before the judgment in the Awolowo case. Enahoro’s appeal was decided by another set of five Supreme Court Justices, who affirmed his conviction but reduced the sentence from 15 to seven years.

It is unfair in the circumstances to describe the judgment of the trial Court as infamous, considering the fact that 10 reputable Justices of the highest Court upheld the conviction of the accused persons.

Seyi Sowemimo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, practices law in Lagos.

*****

My father was not compulsorily retired – A response to Seyi Sowemimo - Abdul Jinadu

It was with some sadness that I read a document which had been apparently circulating written by a Seyi Sowemimo dated 18 February 2025 entitled “Rejoinder to Recent Posts by Chidi Odinkalu” in which the writer professes to address “two posts or write-ups put up by Odinkalu….”

It is ironic that in purporting to correct alleged misinformation, Sowemimo himself traffics in misinformation and what one may charitably describe as errors of fact. He deals with two issues: the events of 31st December 1983 and the events surrounding my late father, Justice Jinadu’s resignation from the Lagos State High Court bench in 1984.

I have no particular position to take up with Sowemimo in respect of his first issue, as I profess no particular knowledge of the matters which he discusses. However, I suspect that if he approached this first issue with the same standards of veracity and objectivity with which he addresses the second of his issues, Sowemimo’s account will be found to be somewhat lacking in fidelity to the truth.

I do take a firm position with regard to Sowemimo’s comments regarding my father and the circumstances in which he resigned from the bench. It is lamentable, and perhaps indicative of the standards which currently obtain, that a member of the inner bar would display such poor skills as a legal researcher so as to assert that my father was compulsorily retired. If Sowemimo had carried out even the most basic research that one would expect of a first year Law student at an average university, he would have discovered that my father resigned, rather than bowed to what he believed, and what history has confirmed, were egregious attempts by the Advisory Judicial Committee to interfere with the independence of the judiciary, all in the service of a military dictatorship. In his resignation letter (it is not clear on what basis one would write a resignation letter if he had been compulsorily retired), my father famously said that he was retiring “to protect his integrity and preserve the independence of the judiciary.”

I would recommend that Sowemimo search out a copy of the book, A Salute to Courage, written by Richard Akinnola and published by the late Gani Fawehinmi’s Chambers, which contains a more accurate account of the relevant events with reference to primary documents and interviews with some of the key actors. I am happy to provide Sowemimo with a copy should he so desire. The documents establish that Justice Adefarasin had unilaterally withdrawn the case file from my father on the instructions of the military dictatorship who were not pleased with the manner in which my father was conducting the trial.

My father, long after he had retired, opined that he was aware that there was an attempt to use his court to wrongfully convict an innocent man, and conscious of his judicial oath and obligations as a Muslim mandated in the holy Quran that he abide no injustice, particularly when he was appointed to the hallowed position on the bench, he was not going to allow that to happen. In my father’s words, the judiciary was the last hope of the common man.

This year marks the centenary of my father’s birth. He passed away five years ago surrounded by his loving family and confident in the judgment of history, as still being the only judge in the history of Nigeria to have resigned on a point of principle.

It would have been a cause of immense sadness to him that an individual from the profession which he so revered and one who is the son of an individual who for a very long time he considered a dear friend, would be the one attempting to rewrite history in this rather clumsy fashion. Fortunately, there are individuals alive today such as Femi Okunnu (SAN), who was one of my father’s closest advisors and confidants when this issue arose, who were first hand witnesses to the events in question.

Abdul Jinadu is a barrister at Keating Chambers in London.

Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, a professor of law, teaches at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and can be reached through This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..