The Sokoto airstrikes are not just about security.

A decisive moment and its immediate reactions

In the last week of December 2025, news broke that the United States, working in coordination with the Nigerian government, had carried out airstrikes on Islamic State hideouts in Sokoto State. The operation was decisive and highly symbolic, and for that reason alone, it was impossible to ignore.

Across the country, reactions were mixed, but they were not confused.

For many Nigerians, particularly those who have lived for years under the shadow of terrorism, banditry, and persistent insecurity, the strikes were received with relief. In a context where state response has often felt slow or ineffective, the intervention appeared decisive in a way that had been long absent. There was gratitude, not necessarily because a foreign power was involved, but because something tangible had finally happened. Beyond the immediate military outcome, the message mattered. Terrorist groups were not untouchable, and violence did not go unanswered.

At the same time, other Nigerians responded with caution rather than celebration. Their reaction was not driven by opposition to the outcome itself, but by unease about what the event represented. Questions surfaced quietly, often beneath the louder expressions of relief. What interests were at play. What precedents were being set. What it means, in structural terms, when a foreign power conducts military operations on Nigerian soil, even with the consent of the Nigerian state.

These responses are often presented as competing positions, but that framing misses something important. It is entirely possible to hold both reactions at once.

One can acknowledge the significance of a strong counterterrorism signal while also recognising that events like this do not exist in isolation. They sit within a much longer history of foreign involvement in developing countries, a history that is rarely straightforward and almost never purely charitable.

This is where geopolitics complicates the picture.

Geopolitics, Interests, and the nature of Soft Power

In international relations, states do not act on goodwill alone. They act in pursuit of interests, even when those interests overlap with those of others. Soft power is often the preferred instrument because it is subtle, legitimate, and difficult to contest. It operates through security cooperation, development assistance, financial support, technical expertise, and institutional reform. Because it does not arrive through force, it is frequently interpreted as neutral or benevolent.

However, influence does not need to be hostile to be consequential.

Foreign involvement can be simultaneously beneficial and constraining. It can address immediate crises while reshaping long-term power dynamics. It can strengthen capacity in one area while narrowing autonomy in another. These tensions are not contradictions. They are features of how influence actually works.

What Nigeria’s economic history reveals about external support

Nigeria has encountered this dynamic before, most visibly in the economic sphere. In the 1980s, under severe fiscal pressure, the country entered into Structural Adjustment Programmes promoted by international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund. These programmes were framed as stabilisation measures and, in some respects, they responded to real economic challenges. At the same time, they redefined the role of the state, compressed public spending, weakened domestic industry, and constrained policy choice well beyond the period of immediate crisis. The long-term social and institutional consequences remain part of Nigeria’s lived reality.