Nigeria’s President Bola Tinubu described the attacks as “the final desperate” acts of militants seeking to spread fear, but security analysts said the scale and coordination of the bombings suggest strength rather than decline.

The assault on Maiduguri, the capital of Borno State and the birthplace of the insurgency, involved multiple suicide bombers targeting an urban center long fortified by security forces.

Experts said the incident indicated failures in intelligence and surveillance, allowing militants to penetrate one of the country’s most secured cities.

It remains unclear which group carried out the attack, underscoring the fragmented nature of the insurgency involving Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), an Islamic State-affiliated faction.

Analysts said recent attacks attributed to both Boko Haram and ISWAP raise the possibility of coordination between the rival groups, which have historically operated separately but share overlapping objectives.

“We have to see this as the groups oozing confidence in their ability to wreak terror in that part of the country,” said Ikemesit Effiong, a partner at SBM Intelligence, a Lagos-based risk advisory firm.

“We think this is the start of a spate of bombings, not just in Maiduguri but also less protected urban areas in the northeast,” he said.

The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), a crisis monitoring group, said the attack was the deadliest suicide bombing in Nigeria in seven years.

President Tinubu said he had approved additional equipment and support for the military, reiterating pledges by successive administrations to defeat the insurgents.

Nigeria has fought Islamist militants since 2009, when Boko Haram launched an uprising aimed at establishing an Islamic state. The group was driven from major urban areas after a military crackdown, but it later splintered into factions.

One faction aligned with Islamic State has emerged as the most powerful, controlling parts of northeastern Nigeria and maintaining operational capabilities.

As violence has expanded to other regions, including the northwest, the United States has conducted air strikes and deployed military advisers in support roles, though it remains unclear whether U.S. forces will be involved in responding to the latest attacks.

Despite sustained military operations, analysts said militant groups have entrenched themselves in rural areas, enabling them to regroup and launch attacks intermittently.

Vincent Foucher, a senior research fellow at France’s National Centre for Scientific Research, said insurgent groups have maintained a presence over time, adapting their tactics and exploiting gaps in governance and security.

The latest bombings illustrate the enduring challenge posed by the insurgency, which has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced millions across the region.

For millions of children around the world, education is no longer just about learning it is about survival.

From extremist attacks on schools to the politicization of curricula, education systems are increasingly becoming battlegrounds in regions affected by conflict and instability.

Armed groups have repeatedly targeted schools as symbols of state authority and modern values.

In Nigeria, the Islamist militant group Boko Haram has carried out mass kidnappings and attacks on educational institutions, leaving communities traumatized and disrupting learning for years.

Similarly, in Afghanistan, restrictions on girls’ education have drawn international condemnation, with millions of girls denied access to secondary schooling.“These attacks are not random,” said a Geneva-based education analyst. “They are strategic — aimed at controlling narratives and limiting opportunities.”

According to the UNICEF, more than 200 million children worldwide are affected by conflict-related disruptions to education.

In war-torn regions such as Syria and Yemen, schools have been destroyed, repurposed as shelters, or abandoned altogether.

Even in relatively stable regions, the threat of violence has led to increased militarization of schools, with security forces stationed on campuses and strict surveillance measures in place.

The shift toward online learning accelerated by global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic has further deepened educational inequalities.In many conflict-affected areas, access to reliable internet and digital devices remains limited, leaving millions of students behind.

“Technology has the potential to bridge gaps, but in these contexts, it often widens them,” said an education policy expert.

Despite the challenges, communities are finding ways to keep education alive.

In refugee camps across the Middle East, volunteer teachers are running informal classes using donated materials. In parts of Africa, radio-based learning programs are reaching students in remote and insecure areas.

International organizations, including UNESCO, are working with governments to rebuild schools and train teachers in crisis response.“Education cannot wait,” said a UNESCO official. “It is a critical tool for stability and long-term peace”.

Experts warn that prolonged disruptions in education can create fertile ground for radicalization.

Without access to schooling and economic opportunities, young people may become more vulnerable to recruitment by extremist groups.

“Education is one of the strongest defenses against extremism,” said a counter-terrorism researcher. “When it collapses, the consequences can last for generations.”

Addressing the crisis will require sustained international cooperation and investment.

Humanitarian funding for education remains significantly under-resourced compared to other sectors such as food and health, despite its long-term importance.

Advocates argue that protecting education in conflict zones should be treated as a global priority, not an afterthought.

Back in northern Nigeria, the classroom lesson continues despite the risks. For the students, each day of schooling represents a small victory against forces that seek to disrupt their future.

“I want to become a doctor,” said one student, smiling shyly. “So I can help my community.

”In a world marked by conflict and division, such aspirations offer a reminder of what is at stake and what can still be saved.

The Taliban said at least 400 people were killed and 250 injured in the strike, which it said hit a drug rehabilitation hospital, while Pakistan rejected the claim, saying it targeted military installations and “terrorist support infrastructure.

Pakistan had long been a key backer of the Taliban, supporting its emergence in the 1990s as part of a broader strategy to secure “strategic depth” in its rivalry with India.

Relations initially appeared strong after the Taliban returned to power in 2021, with then-prime minister Imran Khan welcoming the development. However, ties deteriorated as Islamabad accused Kabul of failing to curb militant groups operating from Afghan territory.

Pakistan says leaders and fighters of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan are based in Afghanistan and have intensified attacks inside Pakistan. It also accuses Afghan territory of being used by Baloch insurgents.

Violence linked to these groups has risen steadily since 2022, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, contributing to mounting pressure on Islamabad to act.

The Taliban deny providing safe haven to militants targeting Pakistan and counter that Islamabad harbours fighters linked to Islamic State, Pakistan rejects.

The latest strike follows weeks of intensifying clashes, including Pakistani air and ground operations targeting Taliban positions and infrastructure along the border. Officials said those actions came after attacks by Afghan forces on Pakistani border posts.

Pakistan’s defence minister has described the situation as amounting to an “open war,” reflecting the scale of the confrontation.Earlier attempts to stabilise the situation, including a ceasefire mediated by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have failed to hold.

Repeated border clashes, closures and disruptions to trade have further strained ties between the neighbours, signalling a breakdown in what was once a closely aligned relationship.

The Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was approved by Paraguay’s Chamber of Deputies with 53 votes in favor, eight against and four abstentions out of 80 lawmakers, while 15 were absent. The agreement now awaits the signature of President Santiago Peña before taking effect.

The deal, signed in Washington in December, establishes the legal framework governing the presence of U.S. personnel in Paraguay for training exercises, joint operations and humanitarian assistance missions.

The agreement allows U.S. security forces to operate temporarily within Paraguay for military training, multinational exercises and disaster response efforts. It also grants the United States criminal jurisdiction over its personnel while they are stationed in the country.

Paraguayan Foreign Minister Rubén Ramírez Lezcano described the agreement in December as a measure aimed at strengthening bilateral cooperation in combating transnational organized crime and terrorism. He also said the agreement does not allow the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases in Paraguay.

The treaty had already been approved by Paraguay’s Senate last week following a more polarized debate that included concerns from some lawmakers about sovereignty and legal protections granted to foreign personnel.

Several legislators opposed the agreement, arguing that provisions granting immunity from local prosecution could undermine national sovereignty. Independent congressman Raúl Benítez said during the debate that while Paraguay supports international cooperation, it must also preserve “strong states, respected institutions and real democratic sovereignty.

”Civil society groups also criticized the pact ahead of the vote. The regional organization Peace and Justice Service said in a statement that security should not depend on the presence of foreign troops or legal protections equivalent to diplomatic immunity.

Washington welcomed the deal as part of broader security cooperation in the region. Marco Rubio, the U.S. secretary of state, described the agreement as “historic,” saying it would facilitate bilateral and multinational training, humanitarian assistance and disaster response.

The approval comes as the Trump administration seeks to expand U.S. engagement in Latin America as part of its national security strategy, including deeper defense cooperation with regional partners.