Major-General Henry Ayoola (rtd) is a former Commander of Operation Safe Haven in Jos, Plateau State. In this interview, he speaks on the emergence of Donald Trump as the 47th President of the United States and the landscape of wars across the world, among other issues, ANAYO EZUGWU writes

The world has been contemplating what the global order will look like now that Donald Trump is the President-elect of the United States, how would the landscape of war look like with a Trump who is interested first in American interests and who has been boasting that he will end wars in 24 hours?

For me, I’d like to look at it from various perspectives and dimensions. In the first place, this idea of high expectations of what Trump could do on the global stage, I think we need to establish a very firm foundation. I mean, as an engineer, we think in terms of probabilities.

The probability of an event taking place is a function that has happened at least once before. And so it becomes easier to analyze President Trump because we have seen him before.

This is a second term and these kinds of ideas were muted then also as to what he could do. And in fairness to him, he tried. I mean, he made so much effort. You remember the deal of the century he was trying to make between the Israelis and the Arab nations, and he made some good effort.

But how well such effort will turn out, even this time around, is something that is yet to be determined. But let’s look at it from various ways. Let’s start with the U.S. and NATO. Some have argued that the reason why Putin perhaps had the confidence to go after Ukraine was because the president of America was not a strong person. I don’t agree with that.

First and foremost, Ukraine is not a member of NATO yet. There’s no such precedent as NATO going to go to war or do anything for somebody who is not a member in the first place. Article 5 of the NATO Charter has got to do with you being a member. You fight one, you fight all.

So, the idea that even if you have a strong American president, I don’t see that in any way and on the other hand, it’s not we argue that. The attitude of Trump in that first tenure towards NATO’ we all remember how he more or less harassed the European leaders to pay their bills and you know, making the point America is not going to be championing paying bills.

People must be ready to shoulder their financial responsibility, which on the one hand is good, but, you know, it could be softer. And it kind of created a situation where the other members of NATO didn’t feel very comfortable working with him.

And that itself was a bad signal. Perhaps that even encouraged Putin, knowing that NATO was not as strong as it used to be in terms of cooperation and being able to speak with one voice and all of that. That’s one argument about it. But one good thing about President Trump, which we must always give to him, he’s a very audacious person and is somebody with great vision.

And the way he articulates them and the force and the strategic direction and resolve to pursue anything, we need to give that to him and hope that he will bring that to bear this time, not only with Russia and Ukraine but in the Middle East in particular.

Maybe, he cannot resume the deal of the century he was trying to enact, I mean, with the Arabs and Israelis. Yeah, maybe he’s coming on board. We have the Arabs too to become, and, the Israelis too, to become more liable to persuasion and looking at the two-state solution afresh and all of that. We look forward and time will tell as we look at that. Time will tell.

The leadership change in Niger as a result of the coup that happened and what you have now, obviously affected the military cooperation between Nigeria and Niger

Some of the details of potential proposals from Trump’s team and incoming administration with regards to dealing with Ukraine are emerging and one of them is potentially suspending Ukraine’s application to join NATO for 20 years. Do you think this is a feasible solution that’s being put on the table?

Let’s back up a little and look at the choice of time that Putin brought up. I mean that strategic choice of time. Don’t forget it was just shortly after COVID-19, of course, when every nation was just kind of trying to recover from the economic impacts of COVID-19. And of course, nobody would be interested in fighting a war at that time.

Let’s even assume that Ukraine was already a member of NATO. I’m sure they would want to exhaust the nonviolent options as much as possible because nations are more concerned about their economy today. After all, that’s something that can either cement their power or get them out of power.

And of course, the citizens of every nation are concerned about their well-being economically. Already, the war is on. So, if Ukraine comes in now as a member of NATO, what happens? Does it mean NATO is going to join the war? Those are very delicate issues. So, you can understand why there’s a deliberate delay tactic as it were.

I guess maybe if he comes up with a masterstroke of a strategy that can resolve that and other members of NATO can agree with him to fast-track the membership of Ukraine, maybe that will work. But as it is right now, things are better the way they are. And I think they should do more of the economic sanctions on Russia.

There’s been this idea that Trump and Putin have some special relationship. Maybe, that can be trumped up and harnessed and taken advantage of. Maybe, that will help Putin to come to a quick end as to what to get out of this war.

The challenge is that Putin will take more land in Ukraine and leave probably some areas around Kyiv, nationalize this area and integrate them, just like he did with Crimea, which a lot of people say is giving the bully the big hand. Also, what do you think Trump will do about what is happening as regards China and Taiwan?

That’s one aspect or one perspective of looking at it. Another way is that people kind of see similarities between Trump, this triad of Russia, China and North Korea. And you will remember that at the beginning of Trump’s first term, he was very hard on China. Either his bullying tactics or his deliberate defensive tactics, we can’t be too sure.

But whatever it is, there seems to be a kind of special respect that Trump can engender from these other world leaders, because he’s seen as a nononsense leader. This is a tactic of taking even normal things, which I call the Trump rhetoric I mean, when he says America first, you know, our interest, these are normal things.

But then, when Trump takes the same point, the same facts, he has a way of highlighting and drumming them with extra punch to make it look as if he’s going to do something extraordinary. That may work for him and I think it has worked for him, even in winning this election.

But most of the things he highlighted during his campaign are things we know about. The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats are normal positions of these two parties. But then, Trump has a way of hyping them to the point that people will think that he’s doing something new or something strange.

So, for me, I think he may be able to get the North Korean leader, the Chinese leader, and the Russian leader to think or to back out of whatever nuisance value they are trying to deploy, easier and better than President Joe Biden. Biden is a gentleman and all of that.

So, I think that may work for him in this area, too. Of course, the fact is that America always wants to respond to any competition where China is involved, whether it’s economic or military. As we know, America has been more or less checkmating the emergence of a near-peer competitor China. So, let’s wait and see what he’s going to bring forth as a strategy to keep a check on these territory powers.

What do you think is likely to happen to Ukraine with the Trump presidency? Trump has already said he will end the war in 24 hours. What is that likely to mean? Does it mean Ukraine will be forced to negotiate with Russia? Again, the war in the Middle East; what are we likely to see in the interplay between Israel, Hamas and Iran?

We know that America’s backing of Ukraine is very critical to their capacity to continue the war. Not only morally, of course but in terms of armament support and logistic support.

Now, Ukraine certainly will be in a position to reconsider its stance if America is pushing in a particular direction for a diplomatic solution. As I said earlier, some of the regions that Russia had taken already, all of Crimea is already settled.

In the Donbas area, the outcome of this war will be what will determine whether there is going to be some amicable settlement or maybe some portion of that region will be ceded to Russia. There’s a whole basket of options in that, whatever direction for a peaceful settlement.

But I’m sure part of Russia’s strategy is to elongate the war to wear out Ukraine to the point that they’ll be willing to take any settlement that will be eventually arrived at. Usually, any war will only end at a diplomatic table where some settlement will be agreed upon.

So, I see that as a possible way, this thing is going to end because I remember when it started and I spoke on the first month, I said it was difficult to discern the Russian end state for this war. For any war that the end state is so difficult to even discern, it’s virtually an endless war.

But with Trump coming on board, it’s certainly going to be a phase change point for both sides, because they are going to have to reconsider their stance, their current positions, and then the need to review and see what new position, what should be amicably agreeable on both sides and to bring this war to an end.

I think that is the way it’s likely to go. Let’s go to the Middle East, where we know how much Trump did in his first term for Israel. And of course, we know that Krishna, his son-in-law, is a Jewish guy, and so we saw how many times he flew to and through between Arab leaders and Israel and all of that, all those efforts. I’m sure he can resume that.

That means that there will be a kind of soft spot in his relationship with Israel that he can exploit right now, knowing that in his case, it’s overtly clear that he’s on Israel’s side. Sometimes, with the Democrats, you are not too clear.

You remember the other time that Benjamin Netanyahu visited, during Obama’s time, it wasn’t clear that he was very friendly with Barack Obama, but he went and addressed Congress and all of that. Now, that kind of hazy situation is not under Trump’s leadership. Of course, you remember in that he moved the embassy of the U.S. to Jerusalem, which encouraged other nations to do likewise.

So, I think with that, and of course, the Arabs know this too that with the effort he has made in the past, which means he could be seen as a fair arbiter better than any previous leader, in the sense that he had attempted this effort before, even if he’s not arthritic, that he meant it, but at least it’s promising enough to believe him to take a second look at whatever offer he’s bringing to the table between the Jews, the Israelis, and the Arabs. That’s the way I see the balance in that region.

When we look at the fact that the Sahel countries and the political influence, one thing that we must take cognizance of about Trump is what we may call his rhetoric, America first, economic interest first

With the emergence of Trump, what is your take on the activities of the Russian Wagner group in the Sahel region, specifically in those countries that have now chosen to leave ECOWAS?

Of course, when we look at the fact that the Sahel countries, predominantly Francophone countries and the political influence of the French in those areas, one thing that we must take cognizance of about Trump is what we may call his rhetoric, American first, economic interest first, and all of that. But they will always play out because America is not going to get involved in any nation if there is no interest of theirs at stake.

Looking at it critically, I don’t see America wanting to dabble in those areas, unless there are, of course, businesses in some of these Francophone countries. That is a strategic interest but I think the more important interest would be the economic interest. That’s what rules the world. That is the paradigm that rules the world now.

And if, of course, they have some economic interest and they notice that the Russian influence there may not give them freedom of action in achieving their economic interest, then they will find a way to get involved. Wagner group is not strictly speaking a government agency.

Even though it has government backing, it is what we call merchants of war. But then, we saw the relationship between their late leader and Putin. So, they will find a way to go around that to ensure that their economic interest is not challenged and that their businesses are not rendered unusable for them. I think that’s their area of interest.

But coming back home to us and the new terrorist group that has been formed and their emergence from Mali and Niger, remember that the multinational joint task force, which Nigeria heads, started long ago in Bama, Borno State and it was President Muhammadu Buharim, who came in his first tenure and kind of rejigged that body and moved the headquarters to N’Djamena.

Now, Niger was one of the very active troop-contributing countries out of the four major ones but the leadership change in Niger as a result of the coup that happened and what you have now, obviously affected the military cooperation between Nigeria and Niger.

More so, because our president is the chairman of ECOWAS, we know his stance when those coups took place and even the attempt of a military option and all of that. So, obviously that has affected our military cooperation with Niger.

And when these non-state actors are created, more often than not, they are beyond the control of the country concerned. It’s not like us. If Boko Haram strays into any of our neighbouring countries, you cannot say it’s because they have the backing of the Nigerian government.

But then, if the governments were friendly, there would be a way of some close cooperation that would help to checkmate such spillover effect of such groups.

So, the absence of that obviously must have facilitated their getting into our territory – Sokoto and Kebbi states. Of course, the ball is now in our court to see how to add that to our list of internal security challenges and how to deal with that.Sudan has been at war for close to two years and nobody talks about that war. Even the Americans don’t because they have no interest in it. Is that war going to end at some point?

We know that Nigeria’s foreign policy has always been Afrocentric, and agreeing with you, ordinarily, we should have been concerned. But again, when you look at it, when fire is burning, you have to quench the one in your house first before you start looking at the one outside your house.

I guess that the crisis is happening at a time when most of the other big African nations are also terribly distracted by their internal crisis and even the economic challenges that every part of the world is grappling with.

That may explain why we have not seen any Nigerian specific or overt effort. Maybe, subterranean efforts are going on. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will perhaps know better about that. But we have not seen any overt, palpable and, you know, consequential effort.