WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

After Trump comments, Kremlin reaffirms opposition to European peacekeepers in Ukraine

The Kremlin, asked about an assertion by U.S. President Donald Trump that Russia was open to European peacekeepers being deployed in Ukraine, referred reporters to an earlier statement that such a move would be unacceptable to Moscow.

Russia has repeatedly said it opposes having NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine, with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov saying last week that Moscow would view that as a "direct threat" to Russia's sovereignty, even if the troops operated there under a different flag.

Asked about Trump's comment, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov refrained from publicly contradicting the U.S. president, but effectively reaffirmed Russia's opposition to the idea.

"There is a position on this matter that was expressed by the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov. I have nothing to add to this and nothing to comment on. I leave this without comment," said Peskov.

Trump said on Monday that both he and Putin accepted the idea of European peacekeepers in Ukraine if a settlement was reached to end the war.

"Yeah, he will accept that," Trump said. "I specifically asked him that question. He has no problem with it."

Brian Hughes, spokesman for the White House National Security Council, did not respond directly to the Kremlin's latest comment, saying the Trump administration would continue to work with Moscow and Kyiv to end the war.

"President Trump’s commitment to achieving an end to this brutal, bloody war and then establishing the framework for a lasting peace will not be negotiated through the media," Hughes said.

"The Trump administration knows that sustaining peace requires Europe to do more, and we have heard leaders like (French) President (Emmanuel) Macron and British Prime Minister (Keir) Starmer - as well as others - offer to do just that. We continue to work with Russia and Ukraine for peace because you can’t end a war without talking to both sides."

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Militarizing Europe has no right to take part in talks on Ukraine — foreign ministry

Having embarked on a path of militarization, Europe has lost the right to claim any participation in talks in Ukraine and is drifting toward isolation, the Russian foreign ministry said in a commentary following the adoption of UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions on the Ukrainian crisis.

"In general, the discussions and voting at the UN clearly demonstrate that the world community wants peace. European countries, having firmly committed to militarization, have justifiably lost their claim to a role in negotiating a resolution to the Ukraine crisis and are becoming more isolated. Significant shifts in the positions of the global majority nations are evident, reflecting a growing sense of realism and a desire to expedite the end of the conflict," it said.

According to the ministry, the US-drafted resolution on Ukraine is a step in the right direction, reasserting the new US administration’s intention to make a contribution to the settlement process.

US-drafted resolution on Ukraine

On Monday, the UN Security Council voted in favor of the US resolution concerning the conflict in Ukraine, adopting the document in its original version. The Security Council rejected both the anti-Russian amendments proposed by European countries and the changes put forth by Russia aimed at clarifying the assessment of the Ukrainian crisis. The US abstained from voting on all amendments.

The adopted resolution is written in a neutral tone. It expresses sorrow for those killed in the Ukrainian conflict and emphasizes the United Nations’ role in maintaining international peace and security. It also calls for ending the conflict and establishing lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia.

Prior to this, the UN General Assembly voted on two resolutions on the Ukrainian crisis. One of them was drafted by the Kiev authorities jointly with a number of European countries and was openly anti-Russian. The second one, proposed by the United States, was neutral. Both resolutions were adopted by the General Assembly but European countries introduced anti-Russian amendments to the US draft and the United States abstained from voting on the amended document.

Russia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya said that Europe’s anti-Russian amendments to the UNGA resolution on Ukraine distorted the United States’ once neutral draft. At the same time, he said that Moscow hails Washington’s initiative and that the very voting proved that the path to peaceful settlement is not going to be easy.

Reuters/Tass

At a time that well-meaning Nigerians, including some Muslims, are calling for the secularisation of the Nigerian state and the dismantling of religious laws in the Hausa speaking Muslim North of Nigeria, as a means of effectively separating the state and religion, some wannabe Mullahs in the Yoruba speaking South-West part of the country are struggling to extend Sharia rule to their region. For many decades, the Muslim North has been the hotbed of Islamism, Islamist separatism and political Islam in Nigeria; a situation that has reduced the region to a Siberia of religious intolerance, violent extremism and Jihadi terrorism. The ultimate objective of Islamism is to obliterate secularism, multiculturalism and Western style representative democracy and erect in its place a Sharia ruled Islamic state. The Boko Haram insurgency that the Nigerian state has been battling to defeat for over a decade is nothing but a violent manifestation of Islamism.

On the contrary, the Yoruba speaking South-West region of Nigeria, with a significant population of Muslims who are nearly equal its Christian population has been a shining example of religious harmony and peaceful coexistence between people of different faiths, with zero incident of Jihadi terrorism, as this part of Nigeria has been free of Islamism. Among Yoruba Muslims are found some of the most knowledgeable, pious and forthright vanguards of the religion of Islam in the entire Muslim population. As a matter of fact, Islam reached Yorubaland in places like Iwo from the ancient empire of Mali as early as the 16th century, making the region one of the earliest sites of Islam in sub-Saharan Africa. The practice of Islam that is devoid of Islamism in Yorubaland has set the region ahead as the most peaceful, secure and civilised region in the global Muslim community. In fact, the Islamic conduct of Yoruba Muslims is commonly used to justify Islam as a religion of peace.

But all these are about to change as Islamism spreads south from the Muslim North into Yorubaland. For many years, Yoruba Muslims have been regarded as inferiors by Islamists in the Muslim North, who are unable or unwilling to separate Islam, a divine religion that is practiced through personal conviction, and Islamism, a man made version of Islam that is practiced by compulsion or imposition on the generality as a religious duty. To Islamists, the level of inter-religious harmony, accommodation and peaceful coexistence that is Yorubaland is an indication of weakness of the Islamic faith of Yoruba Muslims. And in an apparent bid to shore up their Islamic bonafide, some prominent Yoruba Muslims are beginning to clamour for Sharia law in Yorubaland. As far as these set of Yoruba Muslims are concerned, their Islam is no longer complete without a dose of Islamism and they want to now live in an imaginary bubble of a Utopian Islamic state.

First, as a Muslim, I am worried about the spread of Islamism into Yorubaland, as accentuated by the clamour of some prominent Muslim figures for the adoption of Sharia law in the region, because the biggest casualty of Islamism is Islam and its biggest victims are usually Muslims. Second, as a Nigerian I am also concerned that the last frontier of societal sanity in multi-religious Nigeria that has long served as a buffer of peace and harmony is about to be flipped. Whereas Islamism and its social (Almajirici) and violent (Boko Haram) manifestations in the North are often attributed to the educational backwardness and economic underdevelopment of the Muslim North, how are we to explain the rising tide of Islamism in Nigeria’s most educationally advanced and economically developed region? Probably motivated by the politics of religious identity and the need to be accepted as “authentic,” in order to benefit from the majoritarian democratic advantage of the Muslim North in national elections, some Yoruba Muslims now desperately seek to “belong” to the “Rightly Guided Caliphate.” 

Not surprisingly, Islamist individuals, organisations and institutions in the Muslim North have come out to back the demand for the establishment of Sharia law in Yorubaland, cheering and urging Yoruba wannabe Mullahs on. But as the educationally backward Arewaland exports Islamism to the educationally advanced Yorubaland, there are salient points to ponder upon. Of what benefit has Islamism been to the Muslim North that it should be extended to Yorubaland? Is it the status of the region as one of the most illiterate, diseased, underdeveloped, terrorised, impoverished and traumatised in the world?

Nigeria is a secular state by constitutional definition, with inexhaustible guarantees of religious freedom, and Islam is consistent with secularism. Under the constitution, Nigerian Muslims enjoy unrestrained rights to practice their “Sharia” faith without hindrance. What the constitution does not allow is to impose your Muslim values on others, including fellow Muslims. For Instance, as a Muslim, my Sharia faith prohibits me from consuming alcohol, committing adultery, stealing, murder, lying, etc., and if I decide to comply with the dictates of my faith, the constitution does not compel me to commit any of the aforementioned vices as a matter of citizenship obligation. However, what I cannot do is to compel others to abstain if it does not go against their religious beliefs, much the same way an Indian Muslim should be allowed to sacrifice cow for the feast of Eid-al Adha without attracting the wrath of Hindu extremists who considers such an act a sacrilege of eating their “god” under the secular constitution of the Indian state.

While the argument for the creation of Sharia law courts to handle personal matters such as marriage and inheritance for Yoruba Muslims may come across as persuasive, it is important to point out that as a practicing Muslim of many decades, I have never had direct or indirect dealings with a Sharia court, despite having married and divorced, just as I have lost my father and my inheritance was not a subject of adjudication by a Sharia court or panel. Marriages that are contracted under Islamic injunctions are recognised as legal by Nigeria, just as divorces that are similarly negotiated. As a Muslim, I know my due as a male child and out of conviction will not accept an ounce more than what is clearly prescribed in the Quran. And, the constitution of Nigeria does not prohibit inheritance by religious injunction.

And if for any reason anybody tries to deny me my fair share of my father’s inheritance, I will sue for my rights under regular courts, as they have jurisdiction to enforce my fundamental human right of inheriting from the estate of my father, who died as a Muslim, in accordance with Islamic injunctions. Without Sharia courts or panels, a Muslim misses nothing religious or spiritual in Nigeria, and the advocacy for Sharia is simply an accentuation of Islamism and Islamist separatism, because the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria allows Muslims the uninhibited practice of our “Sharia faith,” in the same way it allows Christians their freedom of “Canon faith.” Even the use of Hijab by Muslim women has been guaranteed by the secular Supreme Court of Nigeria as a fundamental right of religious freedom of citizens.

Many Muslims may not have realised that the codified form of Sharia law is not essentially a divinely revealed set of religious laws. Of the many sources of Sharia law, only the Quran is divinely revealed, others such as the Hadiths (compendium of prophetic traditions), Ijma (consensus of scholastic opinions), and Qiyas (deductive logic and reasoning) etc., are the works of men, no matter how rightly guided or well intentioned they maybe. This explains why there are various schools of Sharia jurisprudence with degrees of variation. And because these laws were made for Muslim ruled and dominated empires and states, its full application in a country like Nigeria will always result in a conflict between the state and religion, as we have seen in Northern Nigeria. Fundamentally, Sharia law, as codified, does not recognise the equality of non-Muslim citizens with Muslims, just as non-Muslims cannot lead Muslims in an ideal Islamist state.

Consequently, political Islam and Islamist separatism will begin to define the socio-political landscape of Yorubaland as the Yoruba Muslims increasingly get isolated from their kith and kin of other faiths while aligning their democratic choices with their religious agenda, and the region will lose its religious innocence and descend into anarchy, as the centre of social harmony and peaceful coexistence will no longer hold. And when political Islam fails in the long run, as it did in the Muslim North, Yoruba Muslim youths that would have been radicalised by Islamism may then resort to armed struggle (Jihad) to shake off secular constitutionalism and adorn the cloak of a Sharia ruled Islamic State of Western Nigeria, as we are currently witnessing in northern Nigeria through the violent activities of the Islamic State of West Africa Province.

As we focus on continuing to elevate entrepreneurs from all parts of the world and from all backgrounds, I’m reflecting a lot on how nontraditional entrepreneurs can realize their dreams. Sometimes that means unlearninglessons we were taught in school.   

On the day you graduate and enter the professional world, there is no instruction manual waiting for you. (If only!) There is so much I wish I’d known at the start of my own career, and I wish I could spare young entrepreneurs that same learningcurve. Below are a few key lessons about entrepreneurship that aren’t taught in school.

1. Your wins will not always be linear

As students, we’re told that if we study hard enough, we’ll ace the test, and that if we turn in all of our assignments, we’ll get full credit. In school, you tend to get out what you put in, often in a very predictable and measurable way. You know that xamount of preparation will probably get you y grade on the exam.

In entrepreneurship, that’s often not the case. You can work incredibly hard and still not see results, and vice versa. Some opportunities can fall in your lap and can feel like a “right place, right time” situation. Other opportunities can completely evade you no matter how hard you reach for them.

When I first started To the Market, I was working 12-14 hour days, doing everything within my control to have as many sales and eyeballs on the businessas possible. But that didn’t always get me the results I wanted. It was hard to process that I was competing in a much broader landscape with variables like competitors having more funding, or competitors being better networked. My work ethic wasn't enough.

I ultimately realized that when entrepreneurs create formulas for success, we’re not the only variable. Some of the variables that factor into our final result are within our control, but many are not. The effort put in does always lead to a commensurate result. I needed to broaden my formula and make space for a lot of other variables to go into the equation.

2. Rejection is going to be part of your regular routine

If you are a driven student and are used to getting a consistently positive outcome from your efforts in school, rejection is hard to accept at first. But the vast majority of people you try to sell to, be it consumers, buyers or investors, are going to say no. That’s the nature of entrepreneurship. Rejection is normal and consistent.

The first time my company pitched a wholesale account, it was to a big retailer that I really admired. I felt really good about our pitch. I felt that our products and prices were compelling. But after the pitch, I didn’t hear back…and didn’t hear back…and didn’t hear back. Still, I had hope. And then finally, I got a no.

At the time, I remember feeling like I’d been punched in the gut. But that’s because I hadn’t built up enough scar tissue around rejection yet. The longer you’re in business, the easier it gets. Rejection becomes a normal part of the growth process.

3. Not everyone will like you — and that’s okay

No matter who you are, what you do, and how you treat people, there are going to be people who just don’t like you. That’s hard at first, because when I started out in the working world, I thought, If I’m nice to everybody, everybody will be nice to me. That’s unfortunately not always the case.

That doesn’t mean I would suggest changing your attitude toward people or turning away from kindness. But you also have to accept that regardless of how virtuous, warm or easygoing you might aspire to be, there will be people who simply do not like you. And that’s okay!

Not only is this a reality, but it's also one that’s perfectly acceptable. There is no one on this planet that everybody likes. And the more success that you might enjoy — meaning a larger organization or more exposure across the business community — the number of people who don’t like you could grow, simply because the number of people who know about you increases. 

4. Managing people is just as important as managing your work

When I first started my career, I didn’t understand what managing people meant.  In school, we’re taught to focus on our own workflows. So much of our training as young people is around becoming excellent in subject matters rather than becoming excellent at delegation, team cohesion and team management.

But as I got older, I came to learn that managing people is equally, if not more important, than your work portfolio. This doesn’t just mean your direct reports: It’s also professional interpersonal relationships and managing in a way that maximizes value creation among all parties.

This is especially true for entrepreneurs. When you build an organization, you become a leader of leaders. Your job is to enable the entire organization to flourish, and your first line of defense is the leaders who report to you.

When To the Market reached the stage of our journey where we grew to have an executive leadership team, I was so used to managing my own workflows that I had to make a shift. I started allocating far more time to empowering and enabling the other leaders in the company.

Thinking about direct reports used to be a relatively small part of my workday, and now it’s the majority of it. Most of my time goes into working directly with the leaders of the organization and ensuring they’re getting what they need to go out and empower their teams.

5. Be your biggest champion

Growing up, there was an emphasis at home on humility and thinking of others rather than yourself. In school, there was rarely a need to promote myself, as teachers are required to give you feedback. But when I got into the business world, the rules were different. I realized it was critical for me to be my own champion, not only for myself but also for my ideas.

In high school and college, I was used to getting feedback on my work from instructors. As an entrepreneur, there was suddenly zero compulsory feedback. In the professional world, there is no forced review process where your work is being considered. For people to even consider saying yes or no to my business, I had to actively tell them about what I was doing. I had to learn to reach out to people, show up at events and outwardly advance my own goals.

No matter how old you are or how much of your career is ahead of you, the important thing to remember is that it’s okay to have questions. It’s okay to not know how to do everything. The key is to never hesitate to raise your hand, let your work be seen, and be willing to unlearn ideas that are no longer serving you.

Entrepreneur

MultiChoice Nigeria has announced a price increase for its DStv and GOtv subscription packages, effective March 1. This adjustment comes approximately one year after the company's previous rate hike.

The company notified customers via email on Monday, citing "prevalent economic factors leading to increased operational costs" as the reason for the price adjustment.

"We understand the impact this change may have on our valued partners, and we have only taken this step after careful consideration and in-depth analysis," MultiChoice stated. The company affirmed its commitment to "delivering high quality content and unparalleled service" to viewers across Nigeria.

New Pricing Structure

DStv Packages:

- Premium: ₦44,500 (previously ₦37,000)

- Compact+: ₦30,000 (previously ₦25,000)

- Compact: ₦19,000 (previously ₦17,000)

- Confam: ₦11,000 (previously ₦9,300)

- Yanga: ₦6,000 (previously ₦5,100)

- Padi: ₦4,000 (previously ₦3,600)

GOtv Packages:

- Supa+: ₦16,800 (previously ₦15,700)

- Supa: ₦11,400 (previously ₦9,600)

- Max: ₦8,500 (previously ₦7,200)

- Jolli: ₦5,800 (previously ₦4,850)

- Jinja: ₦3,900 (previously ₦3,300)

- Smallie: ₦1,900 (previously ₦1,575)

The Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) has retracted its earlier announcement regarding the implementation of a 4% Free on Board (FOB) import charge. The agency has called on stakeholders to update their declarations to facilitate the smooth clearance of goods.

In a statement issued by the National Public Relations Officer, Assistant Comptroller of Customs Abdullahi Maiwada, on behalf of the Comptroller-General of Customs, the NCS explained that the decision was made to ensure operational clarity, maintain consistency, and avoid potential disruptions in the clearance process.

The statement urged all affected parties to promptly revise their entries using the designated customs processing platforms. "The NCS has implemented measures to ensure a seamless transition. Customs commands across the country have been instructed to provide necessary assistance and clarification to importers and agents who may require support during this period," the statement added.

West Bank Palestinians fear Gaza-style clearance as Israel squeezes Jenin camp

Israeli bulldozers have demolished large areas of the now virtually empty Jenin refugee camp and appear to be carving wide roadways through its once-crowded warren of alleyways, echoing tactics already employed in Gaza as troops prepare for a long-term stay.

At least 40,000 Palestinians have left their homes in Jenin and the nearby city of Tulkarm in the northern West Bank since Israel began its operation just a day after reaching a ceasefire agreement in Gaza after 15 months of war.

"Jenin is a repeat of what happened in Jabalia," said Basheer Matahen, spokesperson for the Jenin municipality, referring to the refugee camp in northern Gaza that was cleared out by the Israeli army after weeks of bitter fighting. "The camp has become uninhabitable."

He said at least 12 bulldozers were at work demolishing houses and infrastructure in the camp, once a crowded township that housed descendants of Palestinians who fled their homes or were driven out in the 1948 war in what Palestinians call the 'Nakba' or catastrophe at the start of the state of Israel.

He said army engineering teams could be seen making preparations for a long-term stay, bringing water tanks and generators to a special area of almost one acre in size.

No comment was immediately available from the Israeli military but on Sunday, Defence Minister Israel Katz ordered troops to prepare for "a prolonged stay", saying the camps had been cleared "for the coming year" and residents would not be allowed to return.

The month-long operation in the northern West Bank has been one of the biggest seen since the Second Intifada uprising by Palestinians more than 20 years ago, involving several brigades of Israeli troops backed by drones, helicopters, and, for the first time in decades, heavy battle tanks.

"There is a broad and ongoing evacuation of population, mainly in the two refugee camps, Nur Shams, near to Tulkarm and Jenin," said Michael Milshtein, a former military intelligence official who heads the Palestinian Studies Forum at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies.

"I don't know what the broad strategy is but there's no doubt at all that we didn't see such a step in the past."

Israel launched the operation, saying it intended to take on Iranian-backed militant groups including Hamas and Islamic Jihad that have been firmly implanted in the refugee camps for decades, despite repeated Israeli attempts to root them out.

But as the weeks have gone on, Palestinians have said the real intention appears to be a large scale, permanent displacement of the population by destroying homes and making it impossible for them to stay.

"Israel wants to erase the camps and the memory of the camps, morally and financially, they want to erase the name of refugees from the memory of the people," said 85-year-old Hassan al-Katib, who lived in the Jenin camp with 20 children and grandchildren before abandoning his house and all his possessions during the Israeli operation.

Already, Israel has campaigned to undermine UNWRA, the main Palestinian relief agency, banning it from its former headquarters in East Jerusalem and ordering it to stop operations in Jenin.

"We don't know what is the intention of the state of Israel. We know there's a lot of displacement out of the camps," said UNRWA spokesperson Juliette Touma, adding that refugees enjoyed protected status regardless of their physical location.

'MILITARY OPERATION'

The camps, permanent symbols of the unresolved status of 5.9 Palestinian refugees, have been a constant target for Israel which says the refugee issue has hindered any resolution of the decades-long conflict.

But it has always held back from clearing them permanently. On Monday, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar denied that the operation in the West Bank had any wider purpose than combating militant groups.

"It's military operations taking place there against terrorists, and no other objectives but that," he told reporters in Brussels where he met European Union officials in the EU-Israel Association Council.

But many Palestinians see an echo of U.S. President Donald Trump's call for Palestinians to be moved out of Gaza to make way for a U.S. property development project, a call that was endorsed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet.

Nabil Abu Rudeineh, spokesperson for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said the operation in the northern West Bank appeared to be repeating tactics used in the Gaza, where Israeli troops systematically displaced thousands of Palestinians as they moved through the enclave.

"We demand that the U.S. administration force the occupation state to immediately stop the aggression it is waging on the cities of the West Bank," he said.

Israeli hardliners inside and outside the government have called repeatedly for Israel to annex the West Bank, a kidney-shaped area around 100 kilometres long that Palestinians see as the core of a future independent state, along with Gaza.

But pressure has been tempered by fears that outright annexation could sink prospects of building economic and security ties with Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, and face a veto by Israel's main ally, the United States.

However, hardliners have been heartened by the large number of strongly pro-Israel figures in the new U.S. administration and by Trump himself, who said earlier this month that he would announce his position on the West Bank within weeks.

Reuters

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