Op-ed
Biafra: Stop your Social Media Vituperations, Cursing, Grand standing and Join Me to Educate Others
I, like many other Igbos have stood on the side lines for far too long, wishing this Biafran breeze fizzles away, but it’s now dangerously turning into a major storm that constitutes an existential threat to Igbo civilization as we know it. Those of you IPOBians, Sympathizers, Rumour Mongers, Facebook Warriors, Facebook megastars, Opinion Leaders and Propagandists escalating the already tense situation must understand that in the end, you’ll all be losers, victims and at the same time in more bondage than you ever were. Not my wish anyway, but the perceptible reality. No war ever got won by emotions. Preparation and strategy does, ask any battle-tested soldier. Even the best of them get eaten. Little by little you guys are doing everything possible to attract avoidable conflict to our region hoping that the international community will intervene. You’ll be in for a shocker when this meal you’ve cooked for so long is served up.
Understand this, I have monitored many revolutionary conflicts around the world and know this for a fact, the international community foot-drags at less than a snail pace, if at all, before attempting any interventions in internal conflicts in a sovereign nation and that includes America and Israel you’re hoping on. War is a huge liability and no Country wants to meddle. The best they give these days are reliefs not military aids and that is after many must have died including those who started the fire. I watched it happen to Libyans, Yemenis, Syrians and till now they still don’t have peace. Besides, you’d be stupid to believe that those countries, if ever there is any, promising to support Nnamdi Kanu are really in for it. Some of them want to use him to initiate conflict and sell their weapons to both sides and make blood dollars. War is an all-comers affair and all kinds of demonically vicious players come to the slimy field to play the hellish game of blood and death.
I watched it happen to Libyans, Yemenis, Syrians and till now they still don’t have peace.
In this case, Boko Haram that has largely been caged by the army will break free to roam with ambitions to finally establish their Caliphate across Nigeria, all because the Army now fighting on two fronts can no longer concentrate on them having become too stretched. Guess what, they’ll come with ISIS on their back. Nigerian Army will be fighting to keep Nigeria together on one front, Boko Haram (ISIS Nigerian Branch) with Caliphatist ambition on the other and Biafra with secessionist ambition on yet another front.
That was how Syria got so complex till date and any war in Nigeria today will have a similar picture. Whoever gets overwhelmed will face the other. It will be a long and difficult journey and unlike the first civil war without Boko Haram in the equation, no one can predict the tortuous end. Other Jihadists from across Africa and Middle-East will join in as they always do wherever there’s instability to advance their different brands of Islam. In the end you’ll leave Nigeria and discover you’re fighting other strangers you don’t even know how they came into the picture.
Libyans thought they were fighting Ghaddafi but after Ghaddafi, they discovered other strangers fighting them to establish their different brands of Islam.
The big boys (international players) like Iran will be there to get there pound of flesh from Nigeria in revenge for the Shiites, Saudi will be there to defend Nigeria, and all will play. Weapons merchants will the start smiling to the banks. Guess where the theatre of war would be, Igboland. We must not allow this! Libyans thought they were fighting Ghaddafi but after Ghaddafi, they discovered other strangers fighting them to establish their different brands of Islam. Same thing in Syria. The words of Saif Al Islam Ghaddafi (Ghaddafi’s first son) keeps ringing in my ears as he forewarned Libyans of these grim possibilities, but okuko nti ike nánu ife n’ite ofe. I never took him seriously at the time but in retrospect, I now see he knew better because it panned out just as he predicted and Libya still isn’t out of the woods.
That’s the way it is these days of jihad consciousness across the world. If you ever experience war, you’ll never take peace for granted. War is not a movie as some of you think. You could be the first victim. Can you stomach watching your loved ones maimed, killed, raped, tortured, starve to death under slow and painful circumstances? Those are the grim realities of war and in Africa, it is executed with luciferous savagery and psychopathic sadism. The worst of peace is still better than the best of wars.
Funny enough, most of our chest-beating IPOBians will likely die off within the first month or two of the conflict leaving those who knew nothing or are on the sidelines to defend themselves. There will be nowhere to run to as no country in West Africa will agree to accept the ocean-sized volume of refugees. When the Rwandan genocide was looming, everyone was running his mouth until the death hurricane they courted so hard swept across their country, they wailed and shouted for international community to intervene but none came. That’s the way it is. Paul Kagame, their current President it was who ended it. And they vowed to “never again”. They learnt from history and have completely removed tribalism from every facet of national life and are admirably making astounding progress as one of Africa’s best.
On one occasion Kanu bragged that it would take him only two weeks to reach Sokoto in the event of war. I don’t know what weapons and extra-terrestrial strategies he has to execute that.
My advice, agreed, Buhari hasn’t treated us as well as we wanted, but wait till 2023 and make amends. I have listened to Nnamdi Kanu on several videos and my conclusion is that he is plain naive on how things roll in a conflict situation. On one occasion he bragged that it would take him only two weeks to reach Sokoto in the event of war. I don’t know what weapons and extra-terrestrial strategies he has to execute that. War is an unpredictable undertaking that you’ll be ignorant to estimate which direction it goes. As it is, he has no weapons just yet and is bragging. Many of you believe him and even ascribe infallibility to his words. I have lived a couple of years abroad and what some of you don’t know is that many of our people there egging you on don’t have immigration papers and are praying for an outbreak of hostilities in Nigeria so they can claim asylum on the back of it.
We must advise ourselves on this current path of self-annihilation. Some of you think Biafra will be the end of all your problems, so South Sudan thought, as did Eritrea, but sorry it will be the beginning of new ones. Now take this to the Bank, it will even be far more difficult for any country to touch any conflict here with a long spoon than it was in the sixties. Reason? Then there was the prospect of oil but today oil is out of fashion and even as it is, Nigeria is begging for buyers and nobody’s buying. Osinbajo said that much a few days back. Now, tell me, if they spend their money intervening in your conflict to save your asses, what will they get in return? The best they can do for you is to condemn what is going on, then more out-pouring of condemnations and then more unleashing of floodgates of condemnations, but NO ACTION while you die in numbers.
You often argue that a call for referendum is not a call for war. I agree completely! Very true! Referendum is a right not a privilege. Even Buhari asserted that much in favour of Palestine when he addressed the UN. However, it is plain naivety to assume that all that is enshrined in international law is enforceable. UN has no mechanism of enforcement. Countries and Dictators constantly flout it and nothing happens. Even if something were to happen you’ll all have decomposed in your graves by then. A show of bravado will not lead you anywhere Umunnem. Call me a coward if you like, but Chinua Achebe told us that we often stand in the house of a coward to point at where a brave man ONCE lived. In any case, isn’t it foolishness to challenge an army that has been stockpiling arms since 1960 when you on the other hand haven’t bought a bullet just yet?
“Only a foolish man can go after a leopard with his bare hands”
Papa Achebe puts it this way, “Only a foolish man can go after a leopard with his bare hands”. As impulsive and as tempting as it may get, tone down your rhetorics, invectives, acerbics, and cursing on social media. Cherish the peace you now have at least Igbos are not worse-off than other regions despite never being in power. While there is grinding poverty in other regions, the highest income per capita in the country is posted by Anambra and other Igbo states ain’t doing badly. Our people live well, build better houses compared to other regions and it’s all a miracle given the scratch we started from after the war. Why do we want to throw all that away because of ego and start all over again? Is it a curse? The Hausas though having been in power do not even live a better quality of life than Igbos. Let’s be wise and not give opportunity to destroy all we’ve achieved as a people.
I condemn in the strongest of terms the killing of unarmed people by Nigerian soldiers, killer herdsmen, and do not by any means say Nigeria is what we want it to be but understand Biafra wasn’t Ojukwu’s first choice. At Aburi his choice was a return to true federalism which he knew was a better deal for us than secession. Nigeria failed to honour that agreement and continued the killings forcing him to declare a Biafran Republic to save his people from slaughter and it’s understandable. Nigeria owes us tons of apologies, I agree. But brothers, let’s think again! A Biafra today will even be far less economically viable than it would have been then. Reason is because then we would have used oil money to jump-start the new country but today oil is so unsellable to the extent that Venezuela with arguably the largest reserves is grappling with severe economic problems. Kick-starting a new country from the basics would be painfully slow and may outlive our generation to even get the basic things in place. Arewa youths know that, the reason they have asked Nigerian Government to let Igbos go, only for Nnamdi Kanu to start asking for Benue and Rivers because he knows that Igboland alone isn’t viable.
Benue were never part of Biafra and have made it clear to all, as did different Rivers groups that they don’t want Biafra.
Asking for Benue is laughable because they were never part of Biafra and have made it clear to all, as did different Rivers groups that they don’t want Biafra. A handful of his collaborators from those regions pledging allegiance to him does not equate to an entire people. Majority of their people hate this Biafran idea and have made that much clear. Some funny IPOBians are also hoping on Asari Dokubo and FFK. What a funny bunch being used to fight other people’s fight. Why won’t they take up the gauntlet or is it only us that is suffering injustice? Don’t even think corruption will suddenly disappear in a new Biafra as some naive IPOBians hope. If they give you Biafra today, your eyes will open up to new unpleasant realities many of you haven’t even factored-in in your agitation but then it would have been late.
We can together liberate Nigeria from Fulani if only we can unite.
I know voices like mine are often loathed and cursed by IPOBians but some of us who know the truth can no longer keep quiet while you drag us all into avoidable chaos. I owe our people the truth as I see it. Curse me all you want, it’s OK. Umunnem, ka ako’n’uche na udo chianu biko! Patience solves all things, with time. Let our people think again and know what is looming. Stop your facebook and social media vituperations, cursing, grand standing and join me to educate others. De-escalate this situation and speak words of kindness to others. Even mighty America de-escalates after tensions with Russia. It’s called wisdom. North Korea provokes South Korea most times but the South always de-escalates tensions knowing that the North hasn’t got anything to lose in the event of war but beautiful South Korea will lose quite a lot. In our case, all the beautiful houses and streets in Igboland will be razed to the ground. Why should we be starting afresh all the time? It will even be more painful if we lose again as was the case in 1970. As it is, it’s not looking good! One more thing. We can join other ethnic groups to demand restructuring. Let us not face our common enemy alone. Britain is our enemy using minority Fulani to enslave Nigerians. We can together liberate Nigeria from Fulani if only we can unite. Let’s stop all these provocative language and join forces with the West and the Middle belt. See all over where Igbos are killed on daily bases. The worst is our behaviour in other people’s land.
♦ Udechukwu Nnoruka, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, (SAN), Emeritus Attorney General of Anambra State, and a past member council legal education is now in private legal practice.
- From Threats to Partnership: How Diplomacy Repositioned Nigeria in Washington - January 13, 2026
- Burbank Marriage Unravels After Woman Allegedly Used Tracking Devices to Monitor Husband - December 27, 2025
- U.S. Signals More Strikes in Nigeria as Abuja Confirms Joint Military Campaign - December 27, 2025
“Nigeria reframed terrorism, corrected Washington’s lens, and secured cooperation —a pure anatomy of diplomatic turnaround“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo
Nigeria’s recent engagement of a United States–based lobbying firm under a reported $9 million contract was widely scrutinized, predictably misunderstood by some, and quietly effective. The objective was clear: to shape Washington’s understanding of Nigeria’s complex security challenges—particularly violence affecting Christian communities—within an accurate geopolitical, intelligence, and regional framework. Such engagements are not unusual. In fact, they are a routine and essential feature of modern international diplomacy, allowing governments to clarify policy positions, counter distorted narratives, and ensure that domestic security crises are not flattened into simplistic talking points for foreign consumption.
In an era where global perception can influence aid, sanctions, military cooperation, and diplomatic goodwill, strategic communication has become inseparable from national security. Nigeria’s decision to professionally engage Washington signaled an understanding that security today is fought not only on the battlefield but also in briefing rooms, policy memos, and diplomatic corridors.
Evidence suggests that this recalibration has begun to yield results. Just days ago, former U.S. President Donald Trump publicly acknowledged—belatedly—that Muslims are equally among the primary victims of ISIS terrorism. It was a striking rhetorical shift for a political figure who had long leaned on broad, inflammatory framing that blurred the distinction between extremist violence and religious identity. That admission did not emerge in a vacuum. It followed sustained pressure from global security analysts, regional experts, and Muslim leaders who have repeatedly challenged the false narrative that terrorism is rooted in faith rather than criminal ideology, geopolitical instability, and organized violence.
More importantly, the acknowledgment coincided with tangible policy movement. Trump-aligned U.S. security networks have quietly expanded counterterrorism cooperation with Nigeria under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration. This development underscores a pragmatic recognition that effective counterterrorism is not achieved through threats, isolation, or performative rhetoric, but through partnership, intelligence sharing, and regional capacity building.
This week, the United States delivered fresh military supplies to Nigeria to support ongoing security operations. The delivery followed recent U.S. air strikes against Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) targets, carried out at Nigeria’s formal request. While air strikes often attract public attention, the more consequential story lies beneath the surface: a shift toward coordinated intelligence operations, logistical support, and sustained military collaboration. This is not symbolic diplomacy. It is functional, operational alignment.
Contrast this moment with an earlier chapter in Nigeria–U.S. relations. During the Jonathan administration, Nigeria experienced significant difficulties in its diplomatic engagement with Washington. Rather than relying on seasoned foreign policy professionals, security strategists, and international communications experts, the government leaned heavily on local intermediaries and political loyalists to interpret and convey Nigeria’s position abroad. The result was a weakened diplomatic posture, fragmented messaging, and persistent misinterpretation of Nigeria’s internal security realities. Critical issues—ranging from Boko Haram’s evolution to regional insurgency dynamics—were often viewed through incomplete or distorted lenses.
That experience offered a lasting lesson: goodwill alone does not translate into influence. In global politics, perception must be managed as deliberately as policy. Strategic silence, amateur diplomacy, or reactive communication leaves a vacuum—one that is quickly filled by external narratives, advocacy groups, or political opportunists with their own agendas.
What has changed now is not merely tone, but method. Nigeria’s current approach reflects an understanding that diplomacy is not capitulation, and lobbying is not a sign of weakness. It is leverage. It is preparation. It is the disciplined articulation of national interest in a language that global power centers understand. By engaging professionally, Nigeria reframed its security narrative—not as a sectarian failure, but as a shared counterterrorism challenge that requires international coordination.
Even Donald Trump’s posture illustrates this transformation. A leader who once relied on threats, ultimatums, and rhetorical spectacle has now, through institutional channels, become part of a support framework working with regional actors to strengthen security and civilian protection. The shift is not ideological; it is a strategic move. And it reflects the enduring truth that diplomacy often succeeds where bluster fails.
In international politics, power is not only measured by firepower or economic weight, but by the ability to persuade, align, and sustain cooperation. Nigeria’s recent experience is a reminder that nations are not judged solely by their crises, but by how effectively they explain, manage, and confront them on the global stage. Diplomacy, when practiced with clarity and professionalism, does not dilute sovereignty—it reinforces it.
♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
- From Threats to Partnership: How Diplomacy Repositioned Nigeria in Washington - January 13, 2026
- Burbank Marriage Unravels After Woman Allegedly Used Tracking Devices to Monitor Husband - December 27, 2025
- U.S. Signals More Strikes in Nigeria as Abuja Confirms Joint Military Campaign - December 27, 2025
Anthony Obi Ogbo
When Air Power Becomes a Christmas Performance: The Illusion of Success in Trump’s Nigerian Strike
“Bombs alone do not defeat ideology. Precision without intelligence is noise.“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo
When President Trump announced his authorized United States air strike against ISIL (ISIS) fighters in northwest Nigeria on Christmas Day, there was an immediate burst of celebration on Nigerian social media. For a country exhausted by years of kidnappings, massacres, and territorial insecurity, the announcement sounded like long-awaited international support. Memes circulated, praise poured in, and some Nigerians hailed Trump as a decisive global sheriff finally willing to act where others hesitated.
But after the initial euphoria settled, a sobering assessment emerged: the strike appeared less like a strategic military intervention and more like a made-for-television spectacle designed to burnish Trump’s international strongman image.
This was not the first time the United States has launched air strikes in Africa or the Sahel under the banner of counterterrorism. From Libya to Somalia, from Syria to Yemen, U.S. “precision strikes” have often been announced with confidence and celebrated with press briefings—only for the targeted groups to regroup, mutate, and, in some cases, expand their reach. In Nigeria itself, years of foreign-backed security assistance have failed to decisively neutralize Boko Haram or its ISIS-affiliated offshoots. Instead, violence has fragmented, spread, and grown more complex.
No verifiable evidence has been produced to confirm high-value ISIS targets were eliminated
The Nigerian strike followed a familiar pattern. U.S. officials framed it as a blow against ISIS-West Africa Province (ISWAP), a group aligned with the global ISIS network. Trump’s language suggested a decisive intervention—an act of muscular diplomacy signaling that America still projects power where it chooses. Yet no verifiable evidence has been produced to confirm high-value ISIS targets were eliminated, leadership structures dismantled, or operational capacity degraded.
What followed was a digital smokescreen. Social media accounts, many anonymous and unverified, began circulating gruesome images of dead bodies and destroyed villages—photos long associated with banditry in Nigeria’s northwest. These images were quickly repurposed to “prove” the success of Trump’s strike. However, this is where the narrative falls apart under scrutiny.
Trump’s mission, as publicly stated, was to target ISIS. Not bandits. Not kidnappers. Not rural criminal gangs. ISIS is a transnational terrorist organization with ideological, financial, and operational links across continents. Bandits, by contrast, are primarily armed criminal groups—motivated by ransom, cattle theft, and territorial control, not global jihad. Conflating the two may be politically convenient, but it is analytically dishonest.
Killing or displacing bandits does not equate to dismantling ISIS. In fact, indiscriminate or poorly targeted air strikes often worsen the situation, pushing criminal groups to radicalize, splinter, or align with extremist factions for protection and legitimacy. This pattern has been observed repeatedly in conflict zones where military force substitutes for intelligence-driven strategy.
A truly successful counterterrorism raid is not measured by dramatic announcements or viral images. It is measured by clear, verifiable outcomes, including the confirmed elimination of high-ranking commanders, disruption of recruitment and financing networks, seizure of weapons caches, and—most importantly—sustained reductions in civilian attacks. None of these benchmarks has been credibly demonstrated in the aftermath of Trump’s Nigerian air strike.
Instead, Nigeria wakes up to the same grim reality: villages remain vulnerable, highways unsafe, and communities terrorized. The strike did not change the security equation. It did not empower Nigerian forces. It did not restore civilian confidence. And it certainly did not neutralize ISIS as a strategic threat.
This air strike offered Nigerians symbolism, not security.
In that sense, the air strike was not merely ineffective—it was a failure dressed in the language of strength, executed for optics, and amplified for political gain. It offered Nigerians symbolism, not security.
If the goal is truly to eliminate ISIS and its affiliates in West Africa, the path is neither theatrical nor unilateral. It requires robust intelligence sharing, sustained training, and real-time coordination with Nigerian and regional forces. It demands targeted arms assistance, logistical support, and investments in surveillance capabilities that allow local militaries to act decisively and lawfully. Above all, it requires a long-term commitment to strengthening state capacity—not fleeting air shows announced from afar.
Bombs alone do not defeat ideology. Precision without intelligence is noise. And celebration without results is self-deception. Trump’s Nigerian air strike may have produced headlines, but history will remember it for what it was: a failed mission masquerading as success.
♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
- From Threats to Partnership: How Diplomacy Repositioned Nigeria in Washington - January 13, 2026
- Burbank Marriage Unravels After Woman Allegedly Used Tracking Devices to Monitor Husband - December 27, 2025
- U.S. Signals More Strikes in Nigeria as Abuja Confirms Joint Military Campaign - December 27, 2025
“With Obama, Al-Qaeda was not eliminated by noise; it was suffocated by intelligence.“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo
It has now been confirmed that the United States acted in collaboration with Nigeria in the recent strike on Islamic State elements in northwest Nigeria. That cooperation deserves recognition. Intelligence-sharing between Washington and Abuja is necessary, overdue, and welcome. Terrorism is transnational; defeating it requires allies, not isolation.
But let us be clear: bombs alone do not defeat terror. And Donald Trump’s strike—trumpeted loudly on social media before facts, casualties, or strategy were disclosed—was less a turning point than a performance.
Trump’s announcement was a classic spectacle: “powerful,” “deadly,” “perfect strikes.” No numbers. No clarity. No accountability. Just noise. It was the same choreography America has deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia—places where U.S. airpower landed hard, headlines screamed victory, and instability deepened afterward. Violence escalated. Militancy adapted. Civilians paid the price.
History is unkind to airstrikes sold as solutions.
Nigeria knows this better than anyone. Long before Trump’s tweet, the Nigerian military had already conducted multiple operations in the same terror corridor. At least five major strikes and offensives stand out:
- First, Operation Hadarin Daji, launched to dismantle bandit and terror camps across Zamfara, Katsina, and Sokoto, involving sustained air and ground assaults.
- Second, Operation Tsaftan Daji, which targeted terrorist hideouts in the Kamuku and Sububu forests—precisely the terrain now in the headlines.
- Third, repeated Nigerian Air Force precision strikes in the Zurmi–Shinkafi axis, neutralizing commanders and destroying logistics hubs.
- Fourth, joint operations with Nigerien forces, disrupting cross-border supply routes used by ISIS-linked groups.
- Fifth, recent coordinated offensives involving intelligence-led raids, special forces insertions, and follow-up ground clearing in the northwest.
These were not symbolic gestures. They were Nigerian-led, Nigerian-funded, Nigerian-executed. And yet, there were no fireworks on social media. No flag-waving hysteria. No intoxicated praise of Nigerian commanders as saviors of civilization.
Why? Because there is a dangerous segment of Nigerians who suffer from what can only be called the American Wonder mentality—a colonial hangover that applauds anything louder simply because it comes from Washington. The same Nigerians who ignore their own soldiers dying in silence suddenly abandon Christmas meals to celebrate Trump’s tweets, typing incoherent praise, mangling grammar, and mistaking spectacle for substance.
It is embarrassing. And it is intellectually lazy.
Terrorism is not defeated by volume or virality. It is defeated by intelligence—quiet, patient, unglamorous work. The United States knows this. Barack Obama understood it. Al-Qaeda was not dismantled through social media theatrics or chest-thumping declarations. It was weakened through intelligence fusion, financial disruption, targeted operations, local partnerships, and relentless pressure on leadership networks—mostly without fanfare.
Obama did not tweet. He acted. So what actually works against groups like ISIS in Nigeria?
First, intelligence supremacy. Human intelligence from local communities, defectors, and infiltrators matters more than bombs. Terror groups survive on secrecy. Break that, and they collapse.
Second, financial and logistical strangulation. Terrorists run on money, fuel, arms, and food. Cut access to smuggling routes, illicit mining, ransom flows, and cross-border trade, and their operational capacity withers.
Third, community stabilization and governance. Terrorism thrives where the state is absent. Roads, schools, policing, and justice systems matter. People who trust the state do not shelter terrorists.
Fourth, regional coordination, not episodic strikes. Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Burkina Faso must sustain joint pressure, not reactive operations driven by headlines.
Airstrikes can support these strategies—but only as tools, never as substitutes.
Trump’s strike may have killed militants. It may have disrupted camps. That is commendable. But it is not a solution. It is a moment. And moments, without strategy, fade.
If Nigerians truly want terror defeated, they should stop worshiping foreign loudness and start demanding disciplined intelligence, consistent policy, and respect for the men and women already fighting on the ground.
Real victories are quiet. Real security is built, not tweeted.
♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
- From Threats to Partnership: How Diplomacy Repositioned Nigeria in Washington - January 13, 2026
- Burbank Marriage Unravels After Woman Allegedly Used Tracking Devices to Monitor Husband - December 27, 2025
- U.S. Signals More Strikes in Nigeria as Abuja Confirms Joint Military Campaign - December 27, 2025
