Op-Ed

[INTERPRETER] Understanding the Trap: International Relations Interwoven With Domestic Conflicts

ByOnline Editor

PublishedMay 18, 2026

When China’s leader warned this week of the “Thucydides Trap” during talks with the President of the United States, he was speaking about far more than a conventional rivalry between great powers. The same fear of displacement and loss of dominance that fuels tensions among global powers may also explain the deepening political instability and security anxieties confronting Nigeria today.

The concept of the Trap is not confined to international relations at a time of precarious global uncertainty marked by kinetic warfare, trade disputes and strategic competition. It also speaks to the internal disintegration within nation-states, a condition that often triggers wider regional instability and cross-border conflicts. Across several regions surrounding Nigeria, the signs are already evident, and the consequences are increasingly spilling across Nigeria’s borders and into its domestic reality.

This week alone witnessed the commendable elimination of a notorious terrorist commander, reportedly the deputy leader of ISIS in West Africa, during a joint operation involving the United States and gallant officers of the Nigerian military. The operation deserves praise, particularly given the growing sophistication of terror networks operating within the Sahel and across West Africa.

Yet the operation also raises important questions regarding the precise role of the United States in Nigeria’s counterterrorism efforts. Are the Americans acting merely as advisers, intelligence partners and logistical supporters, or are they now directly involved as combatants in Nigeria’s domestic war against terror? Clarity is required. Nevertheless, the episode underlines the extent to which modern conflicts have become deeply interconnected, thereby reinforcing the relevance of the Thucydides Trap in the contemporary world.

The boundaries between domestic insecurity and international strategic rivalry have become increasingly blurred. Terrorism, arms trafficking, ideological extremism and organised crime now operate through transnational networks that no nation can confront in isolation. This is precisely why local instability in one country can rapidly evolve into a regional crisis.

To demonstrate how deeply rooted and interconnected the security crisis has become, there remains widespread confusion surrounding the reported attack on a school in Oyo State by armed bandits. Oyo State has never traditionally been viewed as part of Nigeria’s frontline in the war against terrorism and insurgency. Yet the disturbing reality is that no part of the country can now be regarded as entirely insulated from violence.

Reports indicate that over forty students remain missing following the attack, alongside the disappearance of the school principal. One vice-principal was reportedly killed, while another was abducted. Whether every aspect of the incident has been accurately reported or not, the broader implication remains deeply troubling: insecurity is gradually expanding into territories once considered relatively safe.

This creeping normalisation of fear reflects a larger national dilemma. As insecurity spreads, the state becomes increasingly consumed by the struggle for control, while political actors simultaneously intensify their own battles for dominance and survival. It is within this context that the Thucydides Trap acquires profound significance.

But how exactly does the Thucydides Trap relate to Nigeria’s present circumstances?

Let us begin with the widely accepted definition of the concept. According to Wikipedia:

“The Thucydides Trap is a concept originated by Herman Wouk, the novelist and World War II veteran, who used it in his Admiral Raymond A. Spruance lecture delivered on April 16, 1980, at the U.S. Naval War College. Wouk compared the U.S.-Soviet Cold War to the ‘cold war’ that developed between Athens and Sparta once they had defeated Persia, their common enemy. Decades later, the term was popularised by American political scientist Graham Allison to describe an apparent tendency toward war when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as a regional or international hegemon.”

The definition, while useful, only scratches the surface. To obtain greater intellectual clarity, we sought the interpretation of the cerebral Dr. James Ashipa, a longstanding friend of this column. Dr. Ashipa observed succinctly that:

“The Thucydides Trap repeats itself at every point in the history of mankind.”

We further requested that he relate the concept to Nigeria’s current political reality. Once again, his reflections were illuminating.

According to Dr. Ashipa: “The Thucydides Trap repeats itself at every point in the history of mankind, and we hope that Trump will heed the advice given by Xi and halt his current destructive and self-righteous trajectory.

While the above scenario exists at the international level, the Thucydides Trap can also be used to analyse political behaviour within nation-states. In Nigeria, many who wield power have repeatedly fallen into this psychological weakness and consequently triggered avoidable self-destruction.

The moment a leader becomes afraid of losing dominance and grip on power, he becomes enslaved by ego and begins a journey towards political oblivion.”

His historical references are particularly instructive.

Dr. Ashipa recalled how General Yakubu Gowon accelerated his political downfall after announcing in 1974 that the promised return to civil rule in 1976 was no longer realistic. Likewise, General Ibrahim Babangida became trapped by his prolonged manipulation of Nigeria’s transition programme, eventually being forced to “step aside” in 1993 after repeatedly shifting the handover date.

General Sani Abacha similarly succumbed to the temptation of perpetuating himself in office by seeking transformation from military ruler to civilian president. At the time, all five registered political parties notoriously adopted him as their sole presidential candidate, prompting the late Bola Ige to famously describe them as “the five fingers of a leprous hand”.

Even under civilian rule, the temptation has remained persistent. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo narrowly escaped becoming consumed by the Trap during the failed third-term agenda that dominated national discourse before the eventual transfer of power to Umaru Musa Yar’Adua.

Today, similar tendencies continue to manifest themselves across Nigeria’s political landscape. Governors nearing the completion of their constitutionally permitted tenure routinely position themselves for Senate seats or other strategic offices, not necessarily out of ideological conviction or public service, but often from fear of political irrelevance once executive power slips away.

The political climate has consequently become one dominated less by governance and more by survival.

Dr. Ashipa also pointed to growing accusations that the ruling APC seeks to weaken opposition parties in pursuit of an effective one-party state. Although the party strongly denies such allegations, the perception persists within large sections of the political class and civil society.

Yet one reality remains immutable: power is transient.

No administration, no political coalition and no individual can permanently monopolise authority. History repeatedly demonstrates that attempts to cling excessively to power often end in instability, backlash and decline.

Nigeria’s tragedy, however, lies in the fact that these elite struggles for political dominance are unfolding at a time when the nation faces grave existential threats. Terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, economic hardship and social fragmentation continue to deepen, while governance increasingly appears secondary to political calculations ahead of future elections.

The country urgently requires a recalibration of priorities.

Security operations must become more technologically driven, intelligence-led and transparent. Defence procurement processes require greater scrutiny and accountability. Border security must be strengthened, while collaboration with neighbouring countries should become more strategic and institutionalised.

Above all, political leadership must rediscover the purpose of power itself.

Power ought to be an instrument for governance, national cohesion and development, not merely an object to be grabbed, retained and defended at all costs. Unfortunately, contemporary politics increasingly suggests that the struggle for power has become detached from any serious commitment to public purpose.

As Dr. Ashipa rightly implied, many political actors appear less concerned with what they intend to achieve with power than with possessing it in the first place.

That, perhaps, is Nigeria’s most dangerous Trap of all.