Editorial
Averting Third World War
President Vladimir Putin’s annexation of parts of Russian-occupied Ukraine, after sham referendums there,
is at least as dangerous a moment in the war as the marathon televised spectacle that prefaced Russia’s invasion in February this year. Russia annexed four regions of Ukraine, namely; Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. Together with Crimea, which it annexed in 2014, Russia now claims 20 per cent of Ukrainian territory.
With the invasion in February, Russia planned to quickly behead Kyiv’s political leaders, seize large swathes of territory, and exert influence over Ukraine, perhaps, leaving some troops there. Ukraine’s dogged resistance culminating in the lightning recapture of territories in the Kharkiv region has put the Kremlin on the back foot, compelling it to surge forward willy-nilly with what has ensued as its plan B.
Days earlier, Putin had warned Ukraine and the international community: “When the territorial integrity of our country is threatened … we will certainly use all the means at our disposal,” adding, “it’s not a bluff.” The World should not squeeze at the implied nuclear weapons blackmail, but continue to push back at Putin’s megalomania. His strategy is no surprise, given his history of occupying and claiming for Russia territories that do not belong to it.
Many world leaders and security experts see the annexation and the threats to use nuclear weapons as acts of desperation. The myth of the unstoppable Russian army vanished on the battlefield. Putin and his generals, and even Western security experts, had expected Russian forces to defeat Ukraine within a month, but the conflict has stretched into eight months and the invaders have suffered humiliating reversals.
Putin is disadvantaged. His carefully cultivated image of masculinity as a winner and strategist has been tarnished both domestically and internationally. Desperate, armed with the world’s second-largest military, and the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, and without effective institutional rail guards in the country, Putin is a dangerous cannon.
His latest tactic is to create a pretext for a full-scale mobilisation of the Russian people, rallying them to defend an imaginary invasion of Russia when Ukraine attacks invaders and pro-Russian rebels in the “annexed” areas. Using the same “defend the motherland” logic, he says the use of nuclear weapons is legal.
The vacuousness of annexation is evident on the ground. With Moscow formalising incorporation, Zaporizhzhia’s provincial capital and more than 40 per cent of Donetsk are under the control of Ukraine’s intrepid army, which has been reclaiming occupied territories. Unable to subdue Ukraine by conventional force, he is wielding the nuclear option.
But the United States National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, has warned of “catastrophic consequences for Russia” if it crosses that red line, emphasising that the United States “will respond decisively.” “World peace is in jeopardy,” stated the European Union’s Head of Foreign Policy, Josep Borrel. “Threatening with nuclear weapons is unacceptable and a real danger to all.” This unassailable fact is underlined by the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Use of Nuclear Weapons, a legally binding instrument of the world body.
Ironically, Russia chairs the Security Council, the United Nations-mandated body for peace, just as many see it as the biggest threat to peace. Ukrainian Ambassador, Sergiy Kyslytsya even suggested removing Russia from the Security Council. But will this happen? That would require a vote of the United Nations General Assembly based on the recommendation of the Security Council. This has never been done. And given that Russia has a veto on the Security Council, the Council cannot recommend Russia’s removal without its approval.
The dictator clarified that his military was in Ukraine, but his war was against the post-Soviet global order as a whole, and he could not accept a world dominated by the United States and European allies, describing his crusades as one of “anti-colonialism”. It is ludicrous to imagine a figure like Putin building a better world. This language, as well as the madman’s recent dark warning that threats of nuclear retaliation were “not a bluff,” should worry us all.
Putin knows the power of spectacle, but he also knows it is not enough. Not a week after his annexation choreography, Ukrainian forces further routed his troops in the very areas Russian forces were supposed to now fully control. The attempt to draft men to replenish his dwindling forces is going terribly, with hundreds of thousands having fled already. Putin is running out of options, except for the most drastic one – the lever he can pull when all else fails.
Unfortunately, the unprecedented combination of economic and diplomatic sanctions, and exclusion from major international sporting events, has yet to produce the expected deterrent effect but has exacerbated economic problems for Russians and the rest of the world. Under the current circumstances, the international community has few options besides the potentially lethal path signalled by the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and European Union (EU) allies.
China can help intervene in Putin’s war against Ukraine. As the only country that still has leverage over Russia, it can do so by engaging constructively with belligerents and by avoiding overt support for Moscow’s military adventurism. President Xi Jinping and the ruling Communist Party need to look beyond their ongoing rivalry with the United States and NATO and their preoccupation with China’s geostrategic calculations, especially unification with Taiwan and control of the South China Sea.
No one will be free from nuclear war; once hostilities escalate beyond Ukraine, its course and outcome will be unpredictable. It is therefore crucial now to cut off Putin’s power. That means supporting Russians’ rejection of his corrupt leadership. He can always fight the outside powers he feels besieged by, but he cannot survive a collapse in his domestic authority. The Russian dictator should be persuaded not to use Russia’s nuclear stockpile of nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads.
This war must end. The West should intensify sanctions. China, recognising its role in the global economy, its slowing growth and long-term interests, should get rid of Putin to complete his isolation and impel him to withdraw. The United States, NATO, and the European Union should continue to support Ukraine, resist and work with the United Nations to seek a quick solution through enhanced tact.
The prolonged suffering of Rivers State pensioners who have remained unpaid since retiring in July 2025 demands urgent executive and legislative intervention. The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) has rightly put its finger on the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS) as the root cause of this crisis. The state government must now bite the bullet, dismantle this failed experiment, and bring the pensioners’ protracted ordeal to an end.
Since July 2025, the affected retirees have been left high and dry, their monthly pensions unpaid, and their dignity worn away. The NLC, under the leadership of Comrade Alex Agwuanwon, has also linked this deplorable situation to the political storm that engulfed the state, while expressing cautious optimism that the prevailing calm will pave the way for the payment of outstanding arrears. The Tide shares that optimism. However, optimism alone will not put food on the table for men and women who gave the best years of their lives to the service of the state.
The genesis of this crisis is not shrouded in mystery. The CPS was introduced in Rivers State in 2012 under the administration of former Governor Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi, pursuant to the Rivers State Pension Reform Law of that year. The scheme was ostensibly designed to bring the state into line with the federal Pension Reform Act of 2004, which had established a contributory framework for retirement benefits across the country. What was sold as a progressive reform has, in truth, become a millstone round the neck of the very workers it was meant to protect.
The CPS has failed in the state, and it has failed spectacularly. Its fundamental flaw lies in the government’s chronic inability, or unwillingness, to honour its counterpart funding obligations. The arrangement was meant to be a joint endeavour: employees contribute a portion of their salaries, and the employer matches it. But the state has consistently failed to keep its side of the bargain, leaving the pension fund anaemic and unable to meet its obligations. The result is as predictable as it is unconscionable. Retirees are left with only their own contributions to fall back on, a mere pittance that cannot see them through their twilight years.
The human cost of this institutional failure is staggering. Men and women who devoted decades to the civil service now find themselves cast adrift, their legitimate expectation of a secure retirement shattered. The psychological toll of such betrayal is beyond measure. A pension is not an act of charity. It is a contractual obligation, a deferred wage for services already rendered. To withhold it is to break a sacred trust. The authorities must understand that every delay in resolving this crisis costs lives, both in the literal sense as elderly retirees struggle to pay for healthcare and sustenance, and in the figurative sense as the social contract between the state and its workforce wears thinner with each passing month.
This development does not show the government in a favourable light. For a state to allow people who served it with dedication and integrity to languish in penury after retirement is morally indefensible. It sends a chilling message to serving civil servants that loyalty will be repaid with abandonment. This is precisely why organised labour must not rest on its oars. The NLC’s call for the termination of the CPS is not mere grandstanding. It is a necessary corrective. The scheme, as presently administered, is irredeemably broken and must be done away with.
The most damning indictment of the CPS since its inception is its one-sidedness. The government has failed to pay its counterpart funding, reducing the scheme to a hollow shell. Of what use is a contributory arrangement when only one party contributes? Retirees cannot be expected to live on the meagre sums they themselves set aside, sums which have been steadily eroded by inflation and administrative charges. Workers have been short-changed, left to carry the can while the government looked the other way. It is a quiet expropriation of their future.
The time to put this right is now in the interest of justice, equity, and fairness. The NLC should push harder for the swift implementation of its committee’s report to Governor Siminalayi Fubara. That report contains a sensible and pragmatic recommendation: that the CPS should apply only to those employed in the year it was enacted, thereby allowing existing civil servants to remain under the Defined Benefit Scheme (DBS) to which they were originally entitled. This is not a radical proposal. It is a reasonable compromise that recognises the legitimate expectations of long-serving workers and rights the wrongs of the past.
The authorities must act with dispatch. Governor Fubara should, without further ado, send a draft amendment of the Pension Law to the House of Assembly for passage into law. With such legislative intervention, those who retired from July 2025 to date would be returned to the DBS, receiving pensions calculated on their terminal salaries and years of service rather than the paltry sums available under the failed contributory arrangement. The NLC, for its part, should keep its foot on the pedal through dialogue, advocacy, and, if necessary, peaceful protest. Pensioners deserve not just fine words but concrete action.
Rivers State cannot lay claim to be progressive while its retirees are forced to go cap in hand for their rightful entitlements. The measure of any civilised society is how it treats its elderly. By that yardstick, the present situation is a blot on the state’s escutcheon. The government must clear the backlog of arrears, scrap the CPS for the category of workers it should never have applied to, and restore the DBS in full. Nothing less will suffice.
The recent public health disaster in Ondo State, which claimed 48 lives and left 182 people severely ill, is a gloomy reminder of the dangers posed by unregulated beverages. According to NAFDAC Director-General, Prof. Mojisola Adeyeye, the victims consumed contaminated local alcoholic and herbal drinks in communities in Odigbo Local Government Area. The drinks contained high levels of industrial methanol, while 11 of 15 samples also contained Cannabis indica. The substances were linked to organ failure, neurological deterioration, and permanent blindness. The tragedy should serve as a warning to the entire country.
The incident underscores the wider problem of unregulated and adulterated drinks across Nigeria. From roadside kiosks and motor parks to informal markets, unverified alcoholic and herbal products are readily available, often marketed as cheap alternatives or medicines. The World Health Organisation estimates that about 25 per cent of alcohol consumed globally is unrecorded. Such products operate outside formal regulatory control and may expose consumers to toxic substances and serious health risks.
The problem is compounded by deliberate evasion of regulatory requirements. Products under NAFDAC’s mandate must be registered and subjected to regulatory checks before manufacture, distribution, or sale. Yet some producers ignore these requirements for profit, while others falsify NAFDAC registration numbers and markings and use them on substandard products. Such practices deceive consumers and undermine public confidence in the regulatory system.
The reported arrest of 15 suspects linked to the Ondo distribution network is an important first step. Those found responsible should be prosecuted and, where convicted, appropriately punished. However, enforcement must go beyond responding to tragedies. NAFDAC should strengthen preventive measures through regular post-market surveillance, random testing at transit points, and intelligence-led inspections of informal production centres.
Consumers also have a responsibility to exercise caution. Economic hardship, high inflation, and declining purchasing power have created opportunities for unscrupulous producers to market cheaper but potentially dangerous products. Consumers should, therefore, avoid unlabelled drinks, suspiciously cheap products, and goods sold through unverified outlets. Public education and consumer vigilance can help deny unscrupulous traders the opportunity to put profit before human life.
The danger extends beyond alcoholic and herbal drinks to medicines. Counterfeit and substandard medicines have entered both formal and informal supply chains, causing treatment failure, poisoning, and avoidable deaths. The WHO estimates that at least one in 10 medicines in low and middle-income countries is substandard or falsified, although the prevalence varies. Ensuring the safety and authenticity of medicines is essential to protecting lives and maintaining confidence in the healthcare system.
Food safety is another concern. Poor practices in food handling, processing, and preservation expose consumers to serious health risks, particularly when commercial interests override safety. Concerns over the improper use of chemical agents such as calcium carbide to accelerate the ripening of fruits further demonstrate the need for stronger monitoring throughout the food-supply chain.
These challenges expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s regulatory system and reinforce the need to strengthen it. NAFDAC faces the enormous task of monitoring products across all 774 local government areas. Meeting this challenge requires greater operational capacity, reduced bureaucratic delays, and modern systems capable of tracking regulated products from production to the point of sale.
Inadequate personnel, laboratory facilities, equipment, and logistics remain major obstacles. NAFDAC field offices, especially those serving remote communities, need modern testing equipment, reliable screening tools, and adequate transportation. The Federal Government should provide sustained funding to recruit specialised personnel, upgrade laboratories, and deploy technologies capable of rapidly detecting dangerous substances such as methanol.
Preventing the spread of adulterated products also requires coordinated action by federal and state governments. The Federal Ministry of Health, NAFDAC, and other relevant agencies should intensify operations to remove unregistered alcoholic and herbal products from motor parks, transit centres, and informal markets. The National Assembly should review existing laws and strengthen penalties for deliberately producing, falsifying, or distributing toxic and unregistered food, beverages, and medicines.
NAFDAC should expand its digital verification systems to enable consumers to confirm product registration before purchase. State ministries of health, local government councils, and community institutions should intensify grassroots education on the dangers of unlabelled drinks, unsafe food practices, and counterfeit medicines. Traditional, religious, and community leaders can also help identify and report illegal production and distribution activities.
The Ondo tragedy must not become another statistic that is quickly forgotten. The loss of 48 lives and the permanent blindness suffered by some survivors are devastating and unacceptable. Nigeria must respond by strengthening regulatory institutions, providing adequate funding, enforcing the law, and educating the public. A sustained, coordinated effort is essential to protect the nation’s food, beverage, and medicine supply chains and prevent another tragedy caused by products that should never have reached the market.