By Magnus Onyibe

With President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State on Tuesday, March 18, the Renaissance consortium—a group of local investors that recently acquired Shell’s onshore oil and gas assets in Nigeria for a staggering $2.4 billion—now finds itself in turbulent waters.

In hindsight, Shell, Mobil, TotalEnergies, Agip, and other major oil companies that divested from onshore assets in Nigeria and moved their operations offshore were remarkably foresighted. Like the mythical Nostradamus, they seemed to have foreseen the future and exited just in time to avoid the very risks that Renaissance now faces—risks of escalation into another wave of militancy and insecurity in the Niger Delta if not properly managed.

If chaos takes hold in the Nigerdelta, the Renaissance consortium, which invested heavily in Shell’s assets, along with Seplat Energy, which also recently acquired ExxonMobil’s onshore oil assets for $1.28 billion, will be among the hardest hit. That is underscored by the fact that the broader oil and gas sector now faces heightened uncertainty, as what was once a relatively stable business environment risks returning to a militarized zone that it once used to be before president Musa Yar’adua of blessed memory quelled the fire through innovative policies and programmes for the restive youths during his tenure 2007-2010.

As we know, businesses thrive on stability, and insecurity breeds uncertainty. The fallout from this development could reverse Nigeria’s recent economic gains—causing inflation, which had been trending downward, to spike again. The naira, which had been stabilizing against foreign currencies, may once more come under pressure due to the turmoil in Rivers State.

Other recent entrants into Nigeria’s oil and gas sector, such as Tony Elumelu’s Heirs Energy—which purchased Shell’s OML 17 for approximately $1.1 billion a few years ago—may also find themselves in a precarious situation. Similarly, Aliko Dangote, whose $20 billion, 650,000 barrels-per-day capacity refinery may not be located in the Niger Delta, could still face significant challenges in securing crude oil feedstock if the crisis disrupts production in the oil/gas rich Niger delta region.

This development is particularly concerning given the extensive efforts President Tinubu’s administration has put into restoring security in the Niger Delta. His policies, especially the Nigeria Upstream Perroleum Regulatory Commission, (NUPRC) led by Gbenga Komolafe’s initiative to ramp up production by one (1) million barrels within 24 months which had successfully increased oil production from approximately 1.3 million barrels per day before Tinubu took office to nearly 1.8 million barrels per day in february. The declaration of a state of emergency in the region now threatens to undermine this significant achievement.

The Niger Delta Crisis: A Threat to Economic Stability

It is worth recalling that Nigeria’s previously disappointing oil output was not just due to low investment—exacerbated by the prolonged delay in passing the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), which took about two decades to become law—but also due to the activities of sophisticated international oil theft syndicates operating in the Niger Delta.

To the Tinubu administration’s credit, a coordinated effort by Nigeria’s security agencies, led by the Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) in collaboration with the military and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd), successfully dismantled these criminal networks. This crackdown played a crucial role in ramping up production, enabling Nigeria to meet its OPEC production quota and boost foreign exchange earnings.

The reality is simple: the more crude oil Nigeria produces, the stronger the country’s foreign exchange reserves become, which in turn stabilizes the economy, reduces inflation, and strengthens the naira against foreign currencies.

Given these hard-earned economic gains, the declaration of a state of emergency in the Niger Delta is a major setback. It threatens to undo much of the progress made, which is deeply unfortunate.

A Political Clash Turned Socioeconomic Disaster

What is particularly baffling is how a mere political dispute—essentially a struggle for supremacy between a godfather and his godson—was allowed to escalate into a crisis with such grave socioeconomic consequences for the entire country.

One is worried that despite his well-known political acumen, President Tinubu has permitted what should have been a minor local political squabble—an ego-driven contest between politicians—to snowball into a situation that could destabilize Nigeria’s economic and security landscape.

The challenge of godfatherism is not new to Nigerian politics. Since the return to democracy in 1999, such conflicts have repeatedly surfaced.

For instance, in Oyo State, former Governor Rasheed Ladoja was allegedly impeached in 2006 at the behest of his godfather, Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu, who reportedly orchestrated his removal after Ladoja refused to grant him unfettered access to a significant portion of the state’s security vote. Even after the Court of Appeal reinstated him in 2007, Adedibu ensured Ladoja never won reelection.

Similarly, in Anambra State in 2003, then-Governor Chris Ngige faced a brutal political battle with his godfather, Chief Chris Uba, who allegedly had him kidnapped and forced to sign a resignation letter under duress for refusing to repay the billions of naira Uba claimed to have spent securing his election.

While these incidents are among the most well-known, many other states—including Lagos, Kano, lmo,Bauchi, and Sokoto—have had their fair share of godfatherism and the conflicts it breeds.

However, none of these previous disputes was allowed to spiral into a full-blown crisis of the magnitude currently unfolding in Rivers State.

A Call for Strategic Intervention

At a time when Nigeria is striving to stabilize its economy, strengthen its currency, and attract investment, the last thing the country needs is an escalation of political conflicts that could disrupt oil production and erode economic gains.

Moving forward, it is imperative that this crisis is swiftly de-escalated through strategic intervention, ensuring that political disagreements do not morph into national security and economic threats. The lessons from past conflicts should serve as a guide for resolving the current situation before it causes irreparable damage.

Managing the Rivers State Crisis: A Path to Stability

President Bola Tinubu’s efforts to mediate between the warring factions in Rivers State—Nyesom Wike, the godfather, and Siminalayi Fubara, the godson—have been evident. His most recent attempt came on March 14, when he publicly urged Fubara to adopt a conciliatory approach while hosting Rivers State elders and leaders at Aso Rock. It is likely that he also privately counseled Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, to de-escalate tensions and avoid plunging the volatile Niger Delta into chaos—a warning that appears to have gone unheeded, given the recent attacks on oil pipelines following Fubara’s looming impeachment.

The failure of both parties to heed the president’s advice ultimately led to the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State. Tinubu justified his intervention by stating that the state—and the Niger Delta as a whole—was on the brink of widespread unrest, particularly with critical oil infrastructure coming under attack. While regrettable, this drastic step may still be remedied through a well-coordinated response from all three branches of government—the executive, legislature, and judiciary—in the broader interest of Rivers State, the Niger Delta, and Nigeria as a whole.

Balancing Crisis Management and Democracy

Given Nigeria’s democratic trajectory, now approaching 25 consecutive years of practice since 1999, strict legal interpretations should not override pragmatic solutions that serve the national interest. Instead of an extended emergency rule, a more balanced approach could involve reducing the suspension of democratic governance in Rivers State from six months to just one month. During this period, all parties should be brought to the negotiating table for a binding resolution, facilitated by representatives from the three arms of government and crisis management experts.

The reality of the situation is that neither the executive nor the legislature benefits from the state of emergency. Both the governor and state lawmakers have been stripped of their mandates, effectively sidelining the democratic institutions in Rivers State. More concerning is that the people of Rivers State have been deprived of their civic rights, effectively rendering them disenfranchised. This situation is further complicated by a Supreme Court ruling halting funding to the state, which, in legal terms, suggests that Rivers State currently lacks a legitimate government.

Without the emergency rule declared by President Tinubu, the Supreme Court’s decision would have resulted in a financial paralysis for Rivers state, with no funds available to pay civil servants, legislators, and public officials. In a state with a population exceeding five million, such a scenario would have been catastrophic. However, with a sole administrator now in place—enabled by the state of emergency—Rivers State will still receive its allocation from the Federation Account at the end of the month, ensuring that salaries and government operations continue uninterrupted.

A Strategic Political Move?

President Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule, though unexpected, may have been a strategic move aimed at shocking both factions in the conflict into a resolution. A shock therapy of sorts. The abrupt suspension of democratic governance sends a strong message that continued political infighting comes at a high cost. This drastic step could force the feuding parties to prioritize peace and stability over personal rivalries. In light of this, it is imperative for Tinubu to further leverage his political acumen as an adept strategist to swiftly end this power struggle and prevent further destabilization of the Niger Delta, which remains Nigeria’s economic lifeline.

The Military Factor in Emergency Rule

One striking pattern in Nigeria’s political history is the recurring appointment of retired military officers as administrators during periods of emergency rule. Since the first state of emergency was declared under Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, successive leaders—including Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo, Goodluck Jonathan, and now Tinubu—have continued this trend. The appointment of retired Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as the emergency administrator in Rivers State follows this precedent.

This raises an important question: Why do Nigerian leaders instinctively turn to ex-military officers in times of political crises? Does this suggest a lack of trust in politicians or accomplished leaders from other sectors? Notably, when military rulers have had to step aside, they have sometimes chosen private sector leaders instead of fellow military officers. For instance, when General Ibrahim Babangida relinquished power in 1993, he appointed Chief Ernest Shonekan—a corporate executive—as head of the Interim National Government.

If military rulers have shown a willingness to transition power to civilian business leaders, why do democratic governments hesitate to appoint competent individuals from outside the military during emergency situations? This long-standing pattern deserves scrutiny, especially in a maturing democracy like Nigeria’s.

Ultimately, one hopes that with wise counsel and decisive leadership, the current crisis in Rivers State will not spiral further, and Nigeria’s economic recovery—marked by declining inflation and a stabilizing naira—will not be derailed. More importantly, Nigeria should strive to ensure that no unelected military officer is ever again called upon to replace a democratically elected leader, either at the state or national level.

Magnus Onyibe is an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government.

To continue this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

By Ayo Oyoze Baje

“There are several court rulings, including that of the Court of Appeal, each of which deems it illegal to suspend an elected member of the legislature. The recent suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti – Uduaghan is therefore, the height of legislative recklessness” – Femi Falana SAN 

When and where might – is – right, as amply demonstrated by the recent outrageous and illegal suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District at the Red Chamber – without salary or allowances – it does not only question the authority on which the lawmakers stand to carry out their statutory functions but ridicules the manner of democracy we practise here in Nigeria. And if the wrong done is not righted within the shortest possible time, it goes further to de-brand our so called democratic structure that places overt power of the jungle mantra of might – is – right on the elected representatives of the people above the wishes of the led majority. That indeed, is both an aberration and a legislative anomaly, triggered by the senator’s suspension, hence the outrage it has so far evolved. But let us first take an objective analysis of the drama that led to the development.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan ‘s suspension took place after she submitted a petition alleging being sexually harassed by the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio. After dismissing her petition on procedural ground the Ethics Committee, as led by Neda Imasuen ( Labour Party, Edo South) recommended her suspension for six months claiming that she brought ”

public opprobrium” to the Upper Chamber of the National Assembly. Though some members wanted the suspension reduced to three months, 14 members of the Committee stood by their decision, insisting that Natasha did not attend the investigative hearing to defend herself. In fact, they went further to ask her to tender an apology to the same Senate President Akpabio she has accused of sexual harassment, for her outburst during the plenary session!

Expectedly, the steamy situation has sparked off some flaming questions with regards to the rule of law under such circumstances. For instance, is it not her inalienable right to reject the sitting arrangement, which was surreptitiously meant to relegate her to the legislative shadows? Good enough, the answer is not far -fetched. According to Natasha’s legal counsel, Victor Giwa the Nigerian constitution of 1999, (as amended) supersedes the Senate’s Standing Orders. Specifically, Section 6, Sub-Section (6) of that constitution grants every citizen the right to seek redress in court when their civil rights are violated. Incidentally, she has done so, with her knowledge of the law.

The next question has to do with the best of ways to handle a delicate matter such as this. Should the matter not have been made open by placing it before an independent panel, to investigate and make recommendations in the interest of justice? That is, instead of slamming Natasha for having the gut, the temerity and audacity to express her complaints at the Senate chamber? According to Giwa the suspension of his client is definitely a brazen attempt to silence her. But unfortunately, for those behind it all it has only emboldened her to seek for justice going through the right process. In Giwa’s words: “The Committee disobeyed a valid court order that was served on them, making a mockery of the chamber that is supposed to uphold the law”. That should serve as food-for-thought for the masterminds behind the illegal suspension of the senator.

That perhaps, aptly explains why the Nigeria Bar Association ( NBA) has slammed the Senate by not giving her, the complainant to present her sexual harassment claim against Akpabio. That reminds us of the odious ” off the mic ” scenario that has played out each time an issue of public interest is being denied an objective investigation. The lawmakers, especially those who are bent on attempting to paper over cracks, or give a person a bad name to hang him or her must be reminded that there is a court order restraining the Senate from taking an action on the matter, pending the determination of of s motion on notice. The mishandling of the matter at hand by the senators is what has emboldened Natasha’s lawyer, Giwa to declare her suspension as ” null and void”. Yet, he is not the only person to outrightly condemn the illegality that has evolved so far.

The world acclaimed Women Rights activist, Hadiza Ado described Natasha’s suspension as amounting to a “,sad day for Nigerian women”. On its part the Socio–Economic Rights and Accountability Project ( SERAP ) has described it as “patently unlawful”and a clear violation of her right to freedom of speech. The organization has therefore, called on the Senate President Akpabio to reinstate her without further delay or face their legal action against such oddity. Similarly, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP to which Natasha belongs has described as her suspension as am attempt by the Senate ” to cover up an issue”. That is according to the National Publicity Secretary, Debbo Ologunagba.So, what really could it be?

It would be recalled that on February 28, 2025 right on ARISE television, Natasha made a bold allegation of sexual harassment against the Senate President Akpabio.While some concerned Nigerians wondered why she went as far as that point of publicity, others knowing fully well about her background as an Ihima- born lady brought up with high moral standards would not kowtow to, be cowed by anyone, or acquiesce to the weird and wild emotional inclinations of a man for whatever reasons.

So, as the AKPoti -AKPabio saga rolls out, the lesson to learn is for people to always strike the delicate balance between the Motive and the Method of our utterances and actions. And of course, the brand we want to be recognized and stand for in our chequered journeys on Planet Earth. Of great significance also is the piece of admonition by Natasha’s legal counsel, Giwa, that: ” The Senate must abide by international best practices” all because the world is watching us.

By Magnus Onyibe

During his visit to the White House on Friday, February 28, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced a tough reception from President Donald J. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. Their handling of him demonstrated their firm approach to diplomacy, signaling a shift in global power dynamics.

As the saying goes, a beggar has no choice—their hand is always beneath that of the giver, not above it. This principle was clearly reinforced when President Trump made it explicit that Ukraine had little say in negotiations regarding the resolution of the ongoing three-year war with Russia. Initial discussions had already taken place in Saudi Arabia without Ukraine or European nations at the table. Instead, the negotiations involved Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and Russia.

In response, Zelensky expressed his frustration:

“It feels like the U.S. is now discussing the ultimatum that Putin set at the start of the full-scale war. Once again, decisions about Ukraine are being made without Ukraine. I wonder why they believe Ukraine would accept all these ultimatums now if we refused them at the most difficult moment.”

Similarly, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer voiced concerns over Trump and Vance’s strategy of excluding Europe from the discussions:

“Nobody wants the bloodshed to continue, least of all the Ukrainians. But after everything that they have suffered, after everything they have fought for, there can be no discussion about Ukraine without Ukraine, and the people of Ukraine must have a long-term, secure future.”

However, the reality is that Zelensky is in no position to dictate terms. This was emphasized when Vice President Vance rebuked him during the Oval Office meeting:

“Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.”

Trump had long accused Zelensky of being a shrewd negotiator who, during Biden’s presidency, would visit Washington and leave with massive financial aid. Determined to change this dynamic, Trump made it clear that such a practice would not continue under his administration. Summarizing the meeting, he stated:

“We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelensky is not ready for peace if America is involved because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE.”

Trump went further, saying:

“He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for peace.”

By securing a deal that would grant the U.S. control over some of Ukraine’s rare earth resources as repayment for previous military aid, Trump demonstrated his negotiation skills. This approach mirrors historical precedents, such as Kuwait compensating the U.S. with oil after being liberated from Iraq in 1990 and Europe repaying America for the post-World War II Marshall Plan by allowing the formation of NATO under U.S. leadership.

The war itself stems from Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, which Russia perceived as a threat, prompting the invasion. Biden’s administration rallied U.S. allies to support Ukraine, possibly influenced by Biden’s personal connections—especially considering that Zelensky previously shielded Biden’s son, Hunter, from scrutiny over alleged financial misconduct in Ukraine. This decision may have played a role in Biden’s election victory in 2020, sparing him political damage from Trump’s opposition research.

However, Zelensky’s alignment with one side of U.S. politics carried risks. Hunter Biden’s business dealings eventually came under investigation, leading to his conviction, though his father pardoned him before leaving office. Some speculate that Biden’s support for Ukraine was a way of repaying Zelensky, providing him with financial and military backing against Russia.

This led Ukraine into a protracted war, with devastating consequences. Europe, drawn into the conflict through NATO, has suffered economic strain due to sanctions on Russian energy, with Germany experiencing economic downturns and the UK entering a recession. Africa has also been affected, as food shortages have worsened due to disruptions in wheat exports from Ukraine and Russia.

Had former President Barack Obama acted in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, this war might have been avoided. However, Obama, who prioritized ending wars rather than starting them, resisted calls for military action, despite pressure from figures like then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ironically, Biden, who was Obama’s vice president at the time, later led Ukraine into a war that his former boss had deliberately avoided.

With around 400,000 Ukrainians killed or wounded and much of the country’s infrastructure in ruins, the war has proven catastrophic. As Trump attempts to broker peace, it remains uncertain whether Zelensky will adapt to the new realities of U.S. foreign policy. Unlike the previous administration, Trump and Vance do not view Ukraine as a victim but as a country that must make concessions to secure peace.

Trump has already played a key role in de-escalating the Gaza conflict, and a similar approach could be applied to Ukraine. However, for this to happen, Zelensky must recognize that the geopolitical landscape has shifted and that the U.S. will no longer provide unconditional support. If Ukraine truly seeks peace, its leadership must engage with the new administration on its own terms.

The cold reception President Trump gave to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was evident when he labeled him a dictator and accused him of starting the war—though he later jokingly retracted the statement, expressing disbelief that he had said it. This exchange took place in response to reporters’ questions on the matter.

Trump’s firm stance signaled a shift from past U.S. support, and Zelensky might have adjusted his approach accordingly, handling the new White House administration with more caution. However, he chose a more assertive approach and was met with strong pushback from Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. The two leaders discarded diplomatic formalities and sternly reprimanded Zelensky for what they perceived as arrogance regarding global security and an attempt to exploit perceived U.S. vulnerabilities—something they were unwilling to tolerate.

Through their bold policies, which are reshaping international relations, Trump and Vance are clearly dismantling the old world order and crafting a new one. This is evident in Trump’s imposition of steep tariffs on U.S. trading partners, a move that is redefining alliances worldwide. Simultaneously, he is pushing for a swift resolution to conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine—wars he insists would never have started under his leadership. Despite domestic political challenges, Trump has vowed to bring these conflicts to an end.

For the sake of a more comprehensive global peace effort, it would be worthwhile for Trump to extend his focus to ending conflicts in Africa, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan. These regions hold vast reserves of critical resources—Congo with its cobalt and Sudan with its oil—both vital for sustaining global energy production and technological advancement.

Even before formally taking office, Trump’s aggressive rhetoric influenced global events. His warning that chaos would erupt if Hamas refused to negotiate a ceasefire prompted a temporary truce between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). A pattern of strategic pressure appears to be emerging. After Trump excluded Europe from negotiations on ending the Russia-Ukraine war, French President Emmanuel Macron, a longtime acquaintance of Trump, was among the first European leaders to visit him in Washington, seeking clarity on France’s position in the shifting geopolitical landscape. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer soon followed, with Zelensky arriving thereafter.

Notably, Scholz maintained Germany’s trademark direct and pragmatic approach during his White House visit. Macron, having built a rapport with Trump during his previous presidency, engaged in lighthearted banter, reflecting the French leader’s personable style. Starmer, adhering to Britain’s tradition of diplomatic finesse, presented Trump with a letter from King Charles III, inviting him for a state visit—an overture that reportedly charmed the U.S. president. This diplomatic strategy was reminiscent of how North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had won Trump over with personal letters, following initial hostilities.

Unlike these European leaders, who carefully navigated discussions with Trump, Zelensky adopted a confrontational tone, attempting to lecture Trump on why defending Ukraine was also in America’s best interest. He argued that, despite the Atlantic Ocean separating the U.S. from Europe, Russia still posed a threat. However, Trump and Vance found this stance presumptuous and swiftly dismissed his arguments, reminding him that he was in no position to dictate U.S. security policy.

Zelensky’s misstep revealed his lack of diplomatic finesse, likely stemming from his inexperience—having transitioned directly from a comedian satirizing politicians to a wartime president. His extensive international support, largely driven by Western sympathy for Ukraine as the underdog in its struggle against Russia, may have inflated his sense of importance, leading him to expect universal backing. But Trump was not swayed by this sentiment.

The flurry of European leaders visiting Washington underscores Trump’s influence as a dominant global figure. While critics often overlook it, Trump’s approach is rooted in pragmatism and his commitment to his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda. His numerous executive orders are designed to strengthen the U.S. economy and give it an edge over competitors.

A key aspect of Trump’s legacy-building efforts is tackling the U.S. budget deficit, which currently stands at approximately $36 trillion. He is also seeking to reverse trade imbalances with major partners like China, Mexico, and Canada. One of his unconventional strategies to generate revenue is the significant increase in the EB-5 visa investment threshold—from $1 million to $5 million—offering a direct pathway to U.S. residency for high-net-worth individuals willing to invest in the country.

Similarly, his tariff hikes are aimed at shifting trade dynamics in America’s favor. These strategies are already causing ripples globally, sending shockwaves across markets and international relations. While some argue that Trump’s ambitious goal of attracting 10 million investors through the $5 million EB-5 visa is unrealistic—citing the UK’s modest intake of 1,000 applicants for its similar program—others believe the U.S. will draw significant interest, particularly from wealthy individuals in China, Korea, the Middle East, Russia, and even Britain.

For many affluent foreigners, the opportunity to secure U.S. residency through the “Golden Green Card” is worth the steep price tag. With Trump’s administration pursuing aggressive economic and geopolitical strategies, the global landscape is rapidly evolving—whether the world is ready for it or not.

A provision in the U.S. Constitution, which the new administration attempted to nullify through an executive order, was subsequently suspended by a court ruling.

Many may be surprised to learn that people worldwide already pay amounts equivalent to or even exceeding $5 million to participate in the U.S. citizenship-by-investment program. This is similar to how, in Nigeria, bureaucratic hurdles and corruption sometimes force citizens to pay up to four times the official cost to obtain an international passport. Likewise, visa application fees for certain countries are often inflated by syndicates, as seen in recent allegations against South African High Commission officials accused of visa racketeering.

The current $5 million fee is significantly higher than the original cost when the EB-5 visa program was introduced in 1990. To put this into perspective, the U.S. Congress initially established the EB-5 Program to stimulate the economy through job creation and foreign investment. In 1992, lawmakers expanded the initiative by creating the Immigrant Investor Program, or Regional Center Program, allowing investors to fund projects tied to designated regional centers that promote economic growth. While the program initially required a $1 million investment, this amount increased to $1.8 million in 1992 and has now been raised to $5 million under President Trump in 2025.

Critics who accuse Trump of being overly transactional for increasing the cost of the EB-5 visa may be unaware—or deliberately ignoring—the fact that he is not the first president to revise its pricing.

Following his tense meeting at the White House, Zelensky has shifted his tone, seemingly acknowledging the need for a more conciliatory approach. On Saturday, he issued a statement of appreciation, saying, “America’s help has been vital in helping us survive, and I want to acknowledge that.” He also emphasized the need for open dialogue, stating, “Despite the tough discussions, we remain strategic partners. But we need to be honest and direct with each other to truly understand our shared goals.”

At its core, Zelensky’s visit aimed to secure U.S. security guarantees against future Russian aggression. His skepticism toward any agreement with Moscow is understandable, given that Russia previously invaded Ukraine in 2014, annexing Crimea during President Obama’s tenure. Zelensky does not trust Putin, especially since Russia violated the 2015 peace agreement with Ukraine.

However, his confrontational approach—marked by emotional appeals rather than pragmatic diplomacy—worked against him. As a result, he left the White House empty-handed, failing to secure his key objectives, including a potential deal to trade rare earth minerals in exchange for U.S. military protection.

Zelensky has since sought solace among European leaders, but this offers little real security. Even those comforting him recognize their own vulnerabilities, as they, too, rely on U.S. military support. Despite Europe’s show of solidarity with Ukraine during a recent meeting in London on March 2—where they agreed to form a coalition—it remains clear that Europe cannot effectively defend itself without the United States. This reality, which became evident after World War II and led to NATO’s formation under U.S. leadership, remains unchanged.

Recognizing this, European leaders—including those from France, the UK, Germany, and Italy—have prioritized maintaining strong ties with the U.S., frequently traveling across the Atlantic to engage with President Trump, despite the turbulent state of their current relationship.

Trump has made it clear that he intends to end both the Israel-Hamas and Russia-Ukraine wars, possibly through unconventional means. In a phone conversation with Putin, he reportedly expressed no opposition to Europe deploying a peacekeeping force in Ukraine—a concept that closely resembles Ukraine’s original desire to join NATO, which sparked Russia’s invasion in the first place.

Strangely, this significant development has received little attention, with European leaders instead opting to continue funding Ukraine’s war efforts. The UK, for instance, approved a $2.8 billion loan to Ukraine just last Sunday, despite the reality that Ukraine is unlikely to achieve a decisive military victory, no matter how determined it remains.

Ultimately, the U.S. remains central to resolving these major conflicts in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. This reality must be acknowledged in any serious discussion about achieving lasting peace in regions where wars have left millions dead or struggling with extreme hunger.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.
To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.