The hostage saga appears to have drawn to a close. The detained soldiers have been released. Diplomacy, it seems, has prevailed.
Ranked the third strongest military in Africa and 31st globally by the Global Firepower Index 2025, Nigeria stands far above Burkina Faso—and indeed more than forty other nations—in conventional military capability. Nigeria’s strength is often underestimated or derided, largely because of the challenges it has faced in prosecuting unconventional wars complicated by internal sabotage. Yet none of these diminishes the reality that Nigeria remains overwhelmingly superior—and effectively unbeatable—in regular, conventional warfare.
Despite this unmatched military advantage in Sub-Saharan Africa, Nigeria has consistently chosen the path of peace: dialogue, restraint, and the pacific resolution of disputes with fellow African states. Historically, Nigeria has played the role of the “Big Brother,” often absorbing provocations from near and distant neighbours alike. In the 1980s, border incursions by Benin and Cameroon resulted in the displacement and killing of villagers and the seizure of farmlands and homes. Around the same period, Chad undertook similar actions—until a Nigerian army division from Jos, under then-Colonel Muhammadu Buhari (later Head of State and President), advanced into Borno and decisively neutralised the Chadian elements.
Diplomacy, however, is ideologically driven. Different diplomatic strategies reflect different worldviews and theoretical lenses through which practitioners interpret international relations.
Moral-idealism–driven diplomacy emphasises patience, caution, perseverance, and moral restraint—even in the face of insult or aggression. This approach was famously embodied by Woodrow Wilson, whose vision after the First World War culminated in the creation of the League of Nations in 1920.
Realism-driven diplomacy, by contrast, is pragmatic and reciprocal. It prioritises national interest, does not shy away from calibrated force, and rejects tolerance of direct threats. While negotiations may proceed discreetly, an element of fear is often projected as strategic deterrence. Otto von Bismarck exemplified this approach in late 19th-century Prussia.
Liberalism-driven diplomacy foregrounds economic welfare and human development, often encouraging patience so long as these goals remain attainable. Other approaches exist, each rooted in distinct ideological traditions.
Thus, one diplomat’s strategy may differ from another’s, yet both may still be consummate professionals.
Nigeria’s diplomatic style has traditionally leaned toward moral idealism—an approach widely admired for its civility and restraint. While commendable, its outcomes can vary: from enhanced respect to being taken for granted or even exploited.
In contemporary global politics, however, the Bismarckian neo-realist approach is increasingly favoured. Eclectic and pragmatic, it selectively blends elements of other doctrines to suit prevailing realities. It deploys moral language to advance state-centric interests, pairing dialogue with a measured display of power as subtle deterrence. Pacifism proceeds, but military swagger remains in reserve. This school of thought recognizes that persuasion is most effective when backed by credible capability.
Ultimately, Nigeria has once again lived up to its foreign policy creed of good neighborliness. Did Burkina Faso “win”? Perhaps it may appear so at first glance. But in truth, everyone won. Nigerian personnel are returning home. The aircraft will be back in Lagos. West Africa will not burn.
Soon, attention will shift to the Africa Cup of Nations, as the continent gathers in Morocco under one roof. Peace has been preserved. In this case, the end has justified the means.
Prof. Folarin is a member of the editorial board of the Nigerian Tribune, a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa, and teaches politics at Texas State University, United States.