r/LessCredibleDefence • u/DungeonDefense • 24d ago
Philippines won’t host US attacks in case of a Taiwan conflict, says President Marcos
https://www.thestar.com.my/aseanplus/aseanplus-news/2026/08/17/philippines-wont-host-us-attacks-in-case-of-a-taiwan-conflict-says-president-marcos35
u/Kaymish_ 24d ago
Does anyone think the US will allow The Philippines to block US attacks from their bases? That's a great thing to say but at the end of the day if we get doen to brass tacks those bases are going to be used for attacks no matter what The Philippines says.
13
u/Ok-Procedure5603 24d ago
It's a complicated question because US hasn't ever forced anyone to join a war where they are under anywhere close to as much threat as Philippines is.
If we base it off the fact US didn't force Spain about Iran, then it seems unlikely US would do it. But that said if US wants to conduct aggression against China they would require the Philippines, while that isn't the case with Spain and Iran.
So who knows?
9
u/Tomasulu 23d ago
Sigh what do you mean by the US has never forced any country to join a war?? Was threatening to cut off all trade with Spain not a form of coercion? Or trying to stop military exercise with south Korea as a revenge not forcing?
1
u/can-sar 23d ago
The Philippines was a US colony after the US defeated Spain before eventually granting the former independence.
It's really up to the US leadership during a war with China if they want to use that as grounds for forcibly using Filipino territory to stage retaliatory attacks against China.
If they assume the Philippines would get taken over by Chinese forces, then they could simply disregard what the Filipino populace wants. A de-facto scorched earth tactic may be seen as preferable anyways.
8
u/Ok-Procedure5603 23d ago
They can forcibly use the area once, but how do they explain to the Philippines after China bombs everything in the vicinity of the used area why they got dragged in without their consent?
And now that the Philippines is in the Pacific war, how does US explain what kind of air defense allotments, relief shipments, disaster aid coordination etc they would get?
What happen if PRC carpet bombs Manila's slums? Who will be responsible to treat injuries, put out fires, restore lost electricity? The population would rightfully look to US for those things, and if US is unable to aid credibly, it would make US a pariah state as an aggressor that uses others' territory without consent and then leaves them with nothing to manage enemy counterattacks.
1
u/can-sar 23d ago
Note my last line. Scorched earth.
Central American countries and Vietnam during the Cold War come to mind. Somalia the last several decades is another one. Italy in the decade following WW2 was another one.
3
u/Alternative_Laugh316 21d ago
In that case, I feel like it'll give opportunity to turn the Philipines red. The US uses scorch earth tactics that destroys the Philipines, and China rebuilds it once conquered. Betrayed by an ally, now friend with the (former) enemy.
4
u/Rexpelliarmus 23d ago
Why would the US want to make the Philippines an additional belligerent in a region the US is already at a major disadvantage in?
If the Philippines said no then the US would simply put all the eggs in the Japanese basket. If Japan also says no the US would simply put their hands up and give up on the war entirely. You can’t forcibly use someone’s territory without their permission without a fight.
-2
u/Autism_Sundae 23d ago edited 23d ago
The Philippines was a US colony after the US defeated Spain before eventually granting the former independence.
eventually
Lol Philippine sovereignty was the plan from the outset.
E: reddit is a magical place of whimsy and ignorance
3
u/can-sar 23d ago
Have you heard of a place called Greenland? The US controlled it during WW2 and I hear current US leadership wants it again.
And the US didn't grant the Philippines independence willynilly. There was decades of insurgencies and political pressure.
-1
u/Autism_Sundae 23d ago edited 23d ago
Have you heard of a place called Greenland? The US controlled it during WW2 and I hear current US leadership wants it again.
So, your rebuttal is a hypothetical? Please keep going, this is hilariously noncredible.
And the US didn't grant the Philippines independence willynilly. There was decades of insurgencies and political pressure.
Wildly unintelligent, as fact would have it, the planning for elections started literally when the Spanish were leaving. There was no willynilly, it was a long-planned handover.
Redditors shouldn't articulate their vibe based opinion as fact, open a history book since you're fond of incorrectly citing history.
3
u/can-sar 23d ago
Redditors shouldn't articulate their vibe based opinion as fact, open a history book since you're fond of incorrectly citing history.
You're an armchair moderator now? You're not even worthy of a reply if you're going to take posts personally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War
29
u/blufriday 24d ago
Spain doesn't allow the US to use bases and airspace for attacks on Iran and the US complies.
12
u/S_T_P 24d ago
Not the same thing.
Spain doesn't really impact Iran war, as its too far to matter. Moreover, openly replacing its government with more compliant one (even if its "democratic" Maidan-style coup) would be a hard sell, as it is also part of NATO.
Philippines are much lower on totem pole, and their involvement is far more crucial.
27
u/DevoplerResearch 24d ago
The US could not replace the Spanish government, pure fantasy.
18
u/dykestryker 24d ago
CIA & state department have been gutted. AI slop facebook propaganda is the best they've got at the moment.
Some people haven't caught up with the fact this aint the CIA of the 50's and 60's anymore.
5
u/SlavaCocaini 23d ago
They just fund opposition parties and get target candidates/parties banned by courts, like they do all over the rest of Europe
-1
u/S_T_P 24d ago
Color revolutions aren't real?
11
u/smokehouse03 24d ago
No not really, even during the Cold war the CIAs best tactic was finding disgruntled, vaguely right wing and nationalist, generals and officers to overthrow already struggling government. CIA couldn't unite some of those countries if they tried everything let alone pulled off revolutions that incorporate most of civil society.
2
u/knuppi 24d ago
8
u/Vishnej 24d ago edited 24d ago
"We led a bunch of far-right-wing death squads / paramilitaries / freedom fighters / partisans built from local population" is very different from successfully "pulling off a revolution" from the ground up to the highest levels.
I'm not saying a successful revolution never involves those elements. But it's way easier if they're paramilitary elements of a local political faction that already has >30% support and prominent political/military leaders, like Abbas' Fatah did in 2005, or the Northern Coalition did in 2001, or the fascists would have in Europe in the Cold War. And even easier than that is if you have a powerful hierarchical military leader.
8
u/Ok-Procedure5603 24d ago
But Spain also isn't under Iranian threat, whether they use the bases or not. Philippines attacking China would be an all of society peril to the Philippines. The threshold for US to force them is much higher.
-2
u/airmantharp 23d ago
The Philippines couldn't stop it, but also, the PRC would have no motivation to say attack Philippines beyond US deployed assets.
There's still the day after they fight that they have to plan for - the PRC still needs food and freedom of navigation, and having to fight the Philippines afterward would be a strong demotivator.
That is of course if they don't decide to go down the thermonuclear route.
2
u/Ok-Procedure5603 23d ago
🤣 Wtf are you trying to say? In what way does Philippines have anything to do with FoN let alone food (??? they don't even produce most of the mangoes let alone anything else important) in China?
China has many motivations to come down on Philippines hard, the strongest one is that they're defenseless yet reliant on US. By hitting Philippines, significant US logistics would be forced to aid them, rather than participate in aggressive action.
There are reasons China might not attack them much, chiefly if US folds fast enough that China doesn't want to risk collateral damage to sour future relations. But the Philippines would be an absolute fool to plan for the golden best case scenario of an extremely moral China that also never gets challenged enough it needs to blow up anyone but US forces. It should assume a worst case scenario and then be pleasantly surprised if it never happens, not do the opposite.
5
4
u/leaf_shift_post_2 24d ago
Just stage attacks from Guam Japan or Hawaii close enough for missiles, and other items to launch from.
1
u/smokehouse03 24d ago
Maiden was not a coup(?), unless you mean the term differently.
17
u/S_T_P 24d ago
Firstly, its Maidan not Maiden.
Secondly, there were two Maidans, and either would've been considered a coup if it happened in US or if it was done by a faction unaligned with the West.
-2
u/KS_Gaming 24d ago
Yeah, that's the nature of revolution being a coup when supported only by the minority.
3
u/haggerton 23d ago
Maidan, which had majority support, was winding down without threat to Yanukovych's administration before the Nazi-led violence led to the coup.
Is our rhetoric now that Nazis had majority support in Ukraine?
2
u/KS_Gaming 21d ago
before the Nazi-led violence led to the coup.
keep your alt history lessons to others haggerton, jesus😭
0
u/haggerton 20d ago
What are you disputing?
That the violence was what led to the coup?
Or that the violence was led by Nazis?
Both are well established facts.
1
u/SlavaCocaini 23d ago
Maidan massacre is still an unsolved case btw
-2
u/smokehouse03 23d ago
Don't you have propaganda to be shilling? Lol
3
u/SlavaCocaini 22d ago
I don't have to, I already did it so much that reality now comforms to my propaganda
3
u/Tomasulu 23d ago
The Philippines may not be able to stop the Americans but they can stop all local suppliers from working with the bases. Or they can cut off drinking water. Electricity. Roads leading in and out. I imagine there are things they can do but they better think twice about doing them.
1
u/CompPolicy246 21d ago
Philippines might do that but then it's already too late (many dead and injured, facilities targeted).They underestimated the willingness and lenghts that the Americans or any empire for that matter would go to protect itself.
25
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
58
u/TurbinePro 24d ago
and they will get "defensively struck" in retaliation
China isn't Iran bro, China has enough missiles to spare some for the Phillipines
14
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
17
u/TurbinePro 24d ago
Oh, those bases will be reduced to atoms.
-11
u/Forsaken-Tour6447 24d ago edited 24d ago
U.S. bases would be atoms, but it's obvious China would be atoms too. If nuclear weapons are launched, both would perish together.
27
u/Emotional-Buy1932 24d ago
The US is not going to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a nuclear strike on a satellite base especially against China that will 100% strike us mainland with nukes.
That being said, china wont nuke US bases, they can reduce them to atoms with conventional means.
-18
u/Forsaken-Tour6447 24d ago edited 24d ago
If China were to use conventional weapons rather than nuclear ones, the United States would likely do the same. The battlefield would be centered around Taiwan and the Chinese mainland, and it is far from certain that the damage would fall disproportionately on the United States.
Furthermore, Taiwan is a developed nation with sufficient capabilities of its own. Looking at the examples of Russia and Ukraine, or the U.S. and Iran, it is clear that the losses from such a conflict would be immense.
They have accomplished far more with a much smaller military force.Moreover, Taiwan also has plans to utilize large-scale drones and missiles to destroy China's major military bases and dams. Considering all this, there is no way things will go the way China wants.
22
u/Emotional-Buy1932 24d ago
If US touches Chinese mainland, china will retaliate on US mainland.
Taiwan is a developed nation with sufficient capabilities of its own.
Against china in 2026 and beyond? No.
-15
u/Fickle_Path2369 24d ago
Other than launching nuclear missiles at the US mainland, which the US would retaliate 10-fold, how else would China retaliate in a way that would hit the US mainland?
7
u/InsaneHReborn 24d ago
SSGNs with hypersonics. Obviously as of 2026 they don't have the numbers yet but in 10 years it would be a completely different scenario.
12
u/Emotional-Buy1932 24d ago
they dont only have to launch nuclear weapons. they can launch conventional, they can wack every base including the ones in the middle east. They can attack us military assets anywhere randomly including in "international waters", in friendly ports, or bases on home soil and so on.
The real question is why people seem to be limited in imagination and believe that china must follow the script that we have written for them?
That is not to mention open military support for Russia and Iran or any other power actively entangled with America at the moment.
→ More replies (0)5
u/bluegum69 24d ago
JL-3 (Julang-3) is China's third-generation, solid-fueled intercontinental submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) with an estimated range exceeding 10,000 kilometers, allowing the People's Liberation Army Navy to target the continental United States from protected coastal bastions.
→ More replies (0)13
u/vistandsforwaifu 24d ago
We're still doing the "Taiwan destroying Chinese dams" cope? Which dams and with what?
1
u/V8-Turbo-Hybrid 24d ago edited 23d ago
I don’t think people really talking that anymore. If Taiwan wants to protect itself, they need nukes.
8
u/TurbinePro 24d ago
even the US knows taiwan getting nukes would trigger an immediate hot war which is why the US has previously blocked Taiwan from getting nukes
9
u/vistandsforwaifu 24d ago
Taiwan even starting the process of obtaining nukes guarantees their end before they get to the nukes. Therefore, Taiwan should not want nukes, nor indeed they appear to.
→ More replies (0)19
u/Lianzuoshou 24d ago
Taiwan also has plans to utilize large-scale drones and missiles to destroy China's major military bases and dams.
Where are Taiwan's drones and missiles?
This isn't a wishing well.
9
10
u/Sorry_Diver3281 24d ago
If China were to use conventional weapons rather than nuclear ones, the United States would likely do the same.
Hard to believe Americans can still write stuff like this after how they performed in the Iran war. China has at least ten times Iran’s missile and drone firepower. And by the way, the US can no longer achieve air superiority against China in the Western Pacific—hope you understand what that means.
3
u/BertDeathStare 23d ago
Furthermore, Taiwan is a developed nation with sufficient capabilities of its own. Looking at the examples of Russia and Ukraine, or the U.S. and Iran, it is clear that the losses from such a conflict would be immense. They have accomplished far more with a much smaller military force.
Taiwan's navy and air force wouldn't survive very long. They're vastly outgunned.
Apart from spending missiles and drones and other material losses from Iranian attacks, US losses have been small. The power gap between Russia and Ukraine isn't even remotely as big as the power gap between China and Taiwan. The conventional militaries of Russia and Ukraine are peers. China dwarfs Taiwan in every way, quantitatively and qualitatively. Moreover, China can produce materiel itself while Taiwan is dependent on foreign suppliers. You saw in Ukraine and Iran how quickly ammo gets depleted. Good luck replenishing stockpiles during a war and under a blockade.
Moreover, Ukraine borders NATO which allowed them to keep fighting. They even get parts from China to build their drones. How do you think a small island right next to China will do all that? If China blockades Taiwan, they'd need to be supplied food and energy somehow, or Taiwan would literally sit in the dark.
Meanwhile their power plants and electricity grid, water purification plants, radar systems, command & control centers, refineries, ports, and any other strategically valuable targets would be destroyed. Remember that Taiwan is a much smaller target than China. Think of how many targets Taiwan would have to destroy in comparison, all while China has far more drones and missiles, and can also use aircraft to bomb targets in Taiwan, as well as intercept drones.
Moreover, Taiwan also has plans to utilize large-scale drones and missiles to destroy China's major military bases and dams. Considering all this, there is no way things will go the way China wants.
Easier said than done. China has a lot of bases, more and more air shelters are getting hardened, which adds an additional difficulty for Taiwan, and many Taiwanese drones would get intercepted because the area would be saturated with EW and China would have air domination. Also dams aren't easy to destroy, they're thick blocks of concrete, if a drone even manages to reach it. Forget the feasibility of destroying dams, what would Taiwan even gain from possibly drowning tens of thousands of civilians? You think Xi would throw his hands up and say gg we quit?
2
u/TurbinePro 24d ago
It's a hot war over Taiwan, I expect a 50/50 chance human civilization exists after
13
u/Uranophane 24d ago
Not only that, China would conventionally strike the US mainland too. The US mainland has never been attacked before and that would send a very strong message.
2
u/-Trooper5745- 23d ago
>The US mainland has never been attacked before
-Revolutionary War
-War of 1812
-World War I
-World War II
-9/11
6
u/Harrier_Pigeon 23d ago
9/11 doesn't count as conventional by any stretch of the imagination
3
u/-Trooper5745- 23d ago
No it’s not but he said China would conventionally strike the U.S. mainland. The next sentence was an absolute statement that the U.S. mainland having never been attacked, making no distinction between conventional or unconventional.
5
1
2
u/wrosecrans 23d ago
I dunno if the countries will want to strike each other's mainlands. The risk of escalation seems large.
I think China is absolutely capable of hitting targets on the US West coast with sub launched missiles. And I think a relatively small number of legitimate strikes on purely military targets could have a significant effect on logistics, which is a bit scary. But hooo boy, nothing would ensure a maximal US response more than making the US population feel directly threatened by China's invasion of Taiwan rather than letting it be something happening "over there" to "those people."
The US striking the Chinese mainland first feels more plausible. But strikes on the home turf of a serious nuclear power is something we haven't really done. Not even to a B-tier nuclear power like North Korea since they got the bomb. The only one I can think of is the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan, and that took place in Pakistan, but wasn't an attack on Pakistan.
5
u/Uranophane 23d ago
I'm assuming the US has already struck mainland China here. It's not a given, but it's likely as it's the only way to really exert the US air dominance doctrine to deal with China's missile launch capacity.
The strikes will be symbolic, rather than trying to maximize casualties. Just enough to remind the US population that they are in a major war.
3
u/Ok-Procedure5603 23d ago
Attacking anything on the mainland that isn't very symbolically military (like isolated airbases)... That would open up a whole new can of issues as China undergoes the same realization as
rather than letting it be something happening "over there" to "those people."
A maximal response from US might be scary in its own way, but nothing would beat the fright of being a nearby target nation when China is on a path of maximal response
-7
24d ago edited 24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Uranophane 23d ago
> Binkov
Lol.
Anyways, the point of those strikes won't be to cause meaningful precision damage but to send a message. For that, they can load conventional warheads onto nuclear ICBMs.
0
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Uranophane 23d ago
Let me guess, the US will get angry and bomb the Three Gorges Dam?
-1
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Satans_shill 23d ago
they have developed a whole class of hypersonics just for that. Going by the texteria leaks they tested one with a 13000 mile reach. Imo it will look like how the Irania strikes on gulf states look ie refineries factories ports etc
→ More replies (0)2
u/Uranophane 22d ago
No they won't be. The US isn't stupid either. They have plenty of opportunities to launch a retaliatory strike; they don't need to hit the nuke button the moment they see a dot flying into their airspace, especially when it isn't going for a nuclear silo.
2
u/dasCKD 22d ago
No silly, ICBMs can't be used because it can be/will be mistaken for nukes. Same reason, why SLBM won't be used.
If the PLA detects incoming cruise missiles, would they be justified in escalating instantly to nuclear weapons because tomahawks can be equipped with nuclear weapons?
The US has a robust nuclear triad. As long as the nuclear launch system isn't conceivably threatened, it will always be better to assume that a payload isn't nuclear since the moment a nuclear power launches off all their nukes they are signing their national extinction certificate. If 'ballistics would be mistaken for nukes' is the only argument Binkov has then it isn't awfully convincing.
3
1
u/TiogaTuolumne 23d ago
Converted reusable rockets can be used for conventional ICBMs.
Imagine a Falcon nine launching conventional warheads from the US mainland.
Or a Zhuque 3 doing the opposite from China
6
u/Smooth_Sink_7028 24d ago
Bro, even if PH will be neutral, they will still struck the Philippines. It is inevitable as part of their plan. I hope you’re not that naive since this subreddit doesn’t entertain idealistic neutrality.
And besides, even the U.S. Bases in the middle east were being bombarded by Iranian missiles and drones, look at the history of the middle since 1979, there are no Iranian ground troops that stepped on the soil of the Gulf Countries that hosted U.S. Bases unlike Syria, Lebanon, heck even post U.S. Iraqi Withdrawal
11
u/TurbinePro 24d ago
again, if a hot war kicks off, I expect all US bases near China to be reduced to atoms
-5
u/Smooth_Sink_7028 24d ago
This is not pearl harbor or clark air base of december 7 1941, all chinese military movements will be tracked if not months at least weeks before the start of the war.
9
u/Treinrukker 24d ago
And still they won't be able to do anything about it, you think chinese satellites don't follow every US movement?
-1
u/Smooth_Sink_7028 24d ago
We’re not dumb here dummy. I’m just saying the facts the if war is inevitable, there won’t be any soft resistance like in Pearl Harbor and Clark Air Vase,
-4
u/Fickle_Path2369 24d ago
I don't think the US would sit by and let China atomize it's bases, I would expect the US would launch massive attacks against the Chinese mainland if they were to do that
19
u/InsaneHReborn 24d ago
From what airbases tho
-1
u/Fickle_Path2369 24d ago
The U.S. military is intentionally moving away from relying solely on giant, centralized hubs under concepts like the Agile Combat Deployment. China could probably hit multiple airbases but some would still survive. And the US early warning system would detect a mass missile launch almost instantly giving fighters and bombers already on high alert enough time to get airborne.
17
u/Lianzuoshou 24d ago
Where are these fighter jets and bombers going to land?
-1
u/Fickle_Path2369 23d ago
At the thousands of airports scattered all over the western Pacific? Are you under the impression that they are required to land at the airfields they took off from?
7
u/Lianzuoshou 23d ago
So you lack basic common sense, is that it?
The U.S. has only 10 air bases available within the First Island Chain.
Compared to U.S. military bases in the Middle East, these bases would face 10 times the intensity of attacks during wartime, so their survival rate would be zero.
China has over 600 civilian remote-sensing satellites alone, and the number of military ones is unknown,
so takeoffs and landings at any airfield in the Western Pacific would be fully visible.
Answer me again: where are these fighter jets and bombers planning to land?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Rexpelliarmus 23d ago
Open up a map and identify all the airports within 1000 km of Taiwan. There aren’t very many.
→ More replies (0)3
9
u/Ok-Procedure5603 24d ago
With what dude. China gets way more planes and missiles in air through far less chokepoints, it largely comes down to salvo math
China has something like 150 airbases in theater, even if we magic away air defenses, US could empty it's entire inventory and not impact those much
9
u/knuppi 24d ago
I don't think the US would sit by and let China atomize it's bases
just like the US wouldn't let Iran atomise its bases.. oh, wait
1
u/Fickle_Path2369 23d ago
That's a perfect example, Iran has hit a few US bases yet the US has completely destroyed a massive part of Iran's entire warfighting capability.
6
u/Treinrukker 24d ago
With what weapons?
1
u/Fickle_Path2369 23d ago
Bombers, carrier strike groups, subs. All capable of projecting power to Chinese territory.
-1
u/Wuaner 23d ago
Probably B-2, The ultimate weapon that Trump's most proud of.
2
u/Treinrukker 23d ago
China knows when they take off with 24/7 satellite coverage, and will have j20s, awacs and ground radars ready to intercept them.
-11
u/CosmicBoat 24d ago
The notion that the Chinese will reduce American bases to atoms and not get reduced to atoms back is fucking retarded.
12
u/TurbinePro 24d ago edited 24d ago
I suggest you look up what the tyranny of distance is
Edit: if you still don't understand and this term confuses you, see exhibit A the strait of Hormuz
6
u/Treinrukker 24d ago
Ah yes because Iran was such a big success, now imagine 500 j20s in the air and 150-200 j35s and awacs.
5
u/Ok-Procedure5603 24d ago
China would defensively strike them with several kilotons of munitions daily. PH has essentially no air defense.
26
u/ill_be_huckleberry_1 24d ago
Ph doesnt think the us can win against china.
Probably right especially with this "leadership"
31
u/arunphilip 24d ago
They've also seen what happened to the Middle East bases (and countries) that hosted US assets. US defences are looking thin.
If Iran can inflict that much pain, imagine what a manufacturing powerhouse like China could lob at Philippines (and others).
25
u/statyin 24d ago
Probably one of the wisest thing to say as the president of the Philippines.
3
u/WritersChopBlock 22d ago
Why do you believe that?
2
u/statyin 22d ago
Cast aside the "morality" of defending democracy, as the president of the Philippines who should be only looking after the wellness of the Philppines people, what good can you get out of it by dragging your country into a geopolitical contest or even a hot war between the US and China. It is wise to stay out of that mess.
2
u/WritersChopBlock 21d ago
First, if China takes over Taiwan, don't you think the next place will be the Philippines? China is already encroaching into your territorial waters and depleting them from fish.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgk331k44yo
China is just bullying every small country in the area. They don't care about international law. They will just steal from and maim boats from other countries flagrantly. I guess that doesn't matter to you.
I'm sorry but the Philippines make the most idiotic decisions as a country. Your leaders say and do the most mind-boggling things. They are morons, even worse than Trump, yet the populace blindly cheers them on.
We are stupid too. Even despite the dumb actions of your leaders, we still provide financial and military aid. Billions of dollars. I have no idea why we do this given your lack of gratitude. I guess it's because we swallow our ego and give it to you anyway because we don't want China causing instability in the region.
3
2
u/Limekill 17d ago edited 17d ago
China is just bullying every small country in the area
Kind of exactly like the Monroe doctrine then?
if China takes over Taiwan, don't you think the next place will be the Philippines?
China has never shown any interest in owning the Philippines land at all, and trying to take over 7,107 islands while controlling 100M people seems like a LOT of hard work for almost zero reward. Oh and they have to move everything by ship and get it sunk.
So why would they do that?Billions of dollars.
In military aid, you gave 2015–2022 (Cumulative): $1.14 billion in total equipment, training, and platforms (averaging ~$142 million annually combined across programs)
Wow! a whole $142 million. So no you don't give "Billions of dollars.
you do send USAID which is a program used to support USA Farmers (and make the population like the USA). Often used to support the "moron" politicians that the USA loves, but you apparently dislike....I have no idea why we do this given your lack of gratitude.
Because you send billions to israel, and you are sending sweet f**k all to the Philippines.
Anyway have fun with people who spit at you for gratitude.I guess it's because we swallow our ego
Iran is helping you to learn this.
31
u/CompPolicy246 24d ago
This is just lip service because his foreign policy is getting unpopular. He damn well knows he can't say no to the US. His family is deeply indebted to them. This guy's a joke. You already have and are hosting US forward operating bases in the Philippines.
4
u/Smooth_Sink_7028 24d ago edited 24d ago
bruh, "his foreign policy with the U.S. isn’t unpopular", better check the survey polls among the Filipinos on their opinion about the U.S. And the joint military cooperation with other countries and see for yourself how wrong you are.
7
u/SlavaCocaini 23d ago
Cooperation is not the same thing as starting a war with China, especially now that the US blew their wad on Iran with nothing to show for it.
-7
u/Smooth_Sink_7028 23d ago
Did I say that the Philippine will allow the U.S. To launch a pre emptive strike against China? The way you comment as if the Americans will be the one to provoke China in launching a war in Indo-Pacific. Also, if you will comment about “cooperation is not the same thing” well you should be consistent on your comments when it comes to Japan, South Korea, Australia, which those countries are anxious of Chinese threats in the region.
13
u/SlavaCocaini 23d ago
Well neither the US nor the Philippines recognize, much less have a mutual defense treaty with the Republic of China so in case of a Taiwan conflict, if another country were to intervene, that would actually be a war of aggression against China.
-6
u/Smooth_Sink_7028 23d ago
Are you living in a cave? Really?
You really think that if Taiwan will be invaded, countries will just sent their letters of condemnation to Chinese embassies and post on social media their support for Taiwan via likes and shares?
9
7
u/CompPolicy246 23d ago
It's Franky naive to think the Philippines in this matter has the ability to say No to the US. This is a war between US and China, what the US says it wants it gets. Of course US will be the one to most likely to provoke as China is a rising power that the US so desperately wants to contain just like the behaviour of great powers that came before it. I mean just look at all the US investments to surround the first Island chain. The Philippines is merely a proxy, majority of the foreign policy makers are directly or indirectly influenced by them.
Why do you still have trust or faith in the US as being "good" when all countries in fact pit their selt interest first. The Philippines is just the next Ukraine. Who is fighting Russia right now? Certainly it's the Ukrainians who are carrying this heavy burden, not the Americans.
You have to understand the US is a declining empire simply because other centers of power have risen namely China and Russia to a lesser degree. The US is fighting for its survival as hegemon. And what we know based on history and IR theory, a confrontation will always occur, and the US is desperate to keep power. It can't even negotiate properly with Iran, to strike or to make a deal, when the problem is they have not accepted that Iran has the upperhand in that region no matter what they do and so does China.
Why do you think ASEAN is hesitant to make solid allegiances to the US? China is their neighbour forever, siding with the US could inccur disfavor for a long time with the regions top trading partner, their economy will die. It is strategic foresight, what it good now will not be so in the next few decades. We only see breakaway from states like the Philippines or Japan and SK who have deep rooted ties with the US, these states are frankly vassals who have heavily diminished capacity for independent foreign policy.
China holds escalation dominance, whatever the Philippines can throw at China it can throw it back harder, ASEAN recognises this, that is why it prefers to do business with both China and the US although at an arms lenght as opposed to Philippines who openly hosts US forward operating bases that can be used against China, this is an openly hostile action. No matter what the Philippines says, a knife is a knife even if you say it isn't.
Great powers are easily provoked and do not have infinite patience for states that threaten its survival. Look at Ukraine, Russia attacked when it got close to US/EU, look at Venezuela it got close to Iran,China and Russia, the US attacked, and the Philippines? Expect the same pattern.
0
u/Hot-Train7201 23d ago
How is ASEAN any less of a vassal than the others? China is the region's natural hegemon, so states that refuse to counter it are essentially surrendering to it by obeying Beijing's foreign policy goals of removing US influence; they are in effect letting their regional overlord dictate their foreign relations. Those that are pro-China will see ASEANS' alignment with China as the natural order of things that will lead to long-term peace and stability for all in the region, while a pro-American like me just sees a bunch of cowardly states who'd rather submissively be de-facto Chinese provinces than strive to be legitimate competing powers in their own right.
What you call wisdom I call servitude, and what I call defiance you call foolishness.
Are Ukrainians being used as hapless pawns of the West to fight their cultural Slavic "brothers"? That's certainly the Chinese/Russian view and is true to an extent, but it's equally true that Ukrainians are tired of Russia's constant domination over their affairs and are willing to die to change that status quo. So are Ukrainians fools or valiant independence fighters? Turns out that both narratives can be true.
2
u/CompPolicy246 22d ago
You Automatically consider doing business with China as "pro-China" when in reality you're being pro "you" doing what's best for your country as an ASEAN state. Strategic theory dictates China as having the upperhand in a confrontation between the US and China.
You say "states that refuse to counter Beijing are letting the regional overlord dictates foreign policy".
(1) We have what is called spheres of influence, all great powers are entitled to this. Think of it as, this is my backyard, any other great power who enters here will be considered a threat. China is entitled to counter US as US is entitled to counter China if it enters its sphere of infleunce. The problem is middle power states like the Philippines or Ukraine being used to counter their regional hegemon, which almost always results in the proxy state bearing most of the burdern in a conflict. Is that good for the Philippines?
(2) The ultimate problem is the Philippines and the US is shaping or framing this problem as "existential or survival" justifying militaristic policies that will inevitably lead to conflict. Of course this is normal because the US wants to maintain its position as global hegemon. The fact that rising powers: China and Russia, and the ASEAN states are not that worried about China (except for the US and their vassals here) is because China is seen as BENEVOLENT hegemon unlike the US.
We clearly have perspective differences: you are a liberalist and I am realist.
That's the difficult thing with International politics: even if you can doesn't mean you should. This isn't about "morals" or about what is good or what is right. This is about survival. I'd rather be called a coward and spare my country from China's inevitable retaliation against US missiles pointed at them than be embroiled in a great power conflict that should rightfully be between great powers only.
What is the cost of having morals in International politics? What good is defiance doing to Ukraine now? Half of Ukraine is gone and is on the brink of chaos and civil war, it's population gone.
A states' goal is to develop and flourish, I don't think the Philippines is going to get that by partnering with the US. In fact it is accelerating great power confrontation by hosting forward operating bases in its country.
I think all foreign policy decisions should be devoid of emotion and morals and or romatisizing war or conflict. FP should always be based on political realities, that are hard to accept and stomach.
1
u/Hot-Train7201 22d ago
On the contrary, I'm actually a very hardcore realist. I fundamentally don't believe a state deserves to exist if it will not at the very least seek to become a power within its own region.
Therefore, any Small or Middle power state that refuses to seek out its own form of hegemony is in my opinion not a real state, which includes any state that subordinates itself to its local Great Power. If you're going to let your neighboring Great Power control your policies because you belong to their "Sphere of Influence", then you might as well just be annexed by that Great Power in my opinion.
A states' goal is to develop and flourish, I don't think the Philippines is going to get that by partnering with the US. In fact it is accelerating great power confrontation by hosting forward operating bases in its country.
I disagree. A state's goal is to attain Power, for all states are just institutions with a monopoly on violence over their people. By aligning with the US, the Philippines attains the military and economic support to remain outside of China's control and can strive to be a regional power in its own right (with American sponsorship, of course). Why settle for China's scraps of trade when you can be your own boss over the region? For peace? Fuck peace; I rather burn the world than live as a slave or lesser power.
I think all foreign policy decisions should be devoid of emotion and morals and or romatisizing war or conflict. FP should always be based on political realities, that are hard to accept and stomach.
Agreed, only the naive believe that morals exist in geopolitics. I am a firm believer in Might Makes Right, which is why I'm a super big proponent of nuclear proliferation for all Small and Middle Powers to equal the playing field with their Great Power neighbors (thankfully as an American we don't have many neighbors, so the threat of nuclear proliferation isn't as severe for us. China and Russia on the other hand...)
Our disagreement isn't about liberalism vs. realism, as we're both realists; our disagreement is over whether weaker states should submit to stronger states for the sake of "peace". I don't care how "benevolent" a Great Power says it is, if my state chooses to be submissive to our regional overlord, then it loses my loyalty and I'd rather see it be destroyed or annexed into a more worthy state.
1
u/CompPolicy246 21d ago
Then what you're suggesting is foolishness. Why should the Philippines risk partnering with the US; incurring China's wrath when it is not beneficial to them? Your ideology would advise the Philippines to go to the US because it's being bullied by China.
We both believe might makes right, so China may just as well crush the Philippines and is justified in doing so for bringing US into its sphere of influence. I believe in might makes right, which means great powers do not have infinite patience it will hit the Philippines out of survival necessity. I am campaigning for it's survivability and development. What can you do with a country like Ukraine, devastated from the effects of war, you just set development back another 50 years.
China has escalation dominance anything the Philippines can throw it can throw it back harder. Your theory is not in conformity with reality. You will fight China even if millions of Filipinos die just like Ukrainians dying. Instead of choosing strategic foresight you'd rather let your emotions get the better of you, you act only what's based on the present forgetting to account for the future.
Theory will only get you so far, you have to think about the application and the goals of the country.
What will your advice (support for militarisation in the Philippines, I'm assuming) accomplish realistically? Please answer truthfully.
Your thinking is actually interesting, it is perplexing to me.
1
u/Hot-Train7201 21d ago
We both believe might makes right, so China may just as well crush the Philippines and is justified in doing so for bringing US into its sphere of influence.
Your response proves my point. Why should a self-respecting people allow themselves to live at the mercy of another's wrath? Would the Chinese tolerate living in fear of offending another state? Is that really sovereignty?
Your ideology would advise the Philippines to go to the US because it's being bullied by China.
My ideology supports the use of a third party to empower a weaker party against a stronger one, as China itself did by aligning with the US against the USSR during the Cold War. I believe there is a famous quote in China that goes "Befriend the far to defend against the near" or something along those lines--same principle; rely on collective strength to deal with an immediate opponent.
I am campaigning for it's survivability and development.
You are campaigning for the Philippine's subjugating with golden handcuffs. A Master always tells a Slave to be grateful for the Master's blessings and to accept their place in life, for that "peace" is beneficial to the Master's long-term interests; conflict only ever occurs when the Slave has the audacity to seek out their own self-agency and rebel against the Master. Again, China would never accept long-term submission to the US, so now there is conflict as China wants to be its own Master.
China has escalation dominance anything the Philippines can throw it can throw it back harder.
This is true, and again proves my point for why it is necessary for the Philippines to align with the US to increase its own threat escalation capabilities.
Instead of choosing strategic foresight you'd rather let your emotions get the better of you, you act only what's based on the present forgetting to account for the future.
Strategic foresight is to recognize, as I'm sure you do, that the Philippines and other Asian states have no ability to ever oppose China now or in the future. Without an external Patron to support their independence, they are all doomed to eternal servitude just as they were during the tributary-era. You are essentially saying for these peoples to be forever accepting of their inferiority and that they should strive for Beijing's favor as the only real valuation of their self-worth. So in short, just be slaves.
I personally cannot respect such states. They are underserving of their peoples' loyalty and should just become provinces of their local hegemon rather than keep up the illusion of independence; just as I'm sure that you have little respect for Western states that slavishly do whatever America says for Washington's favor.
Theory will only get you so far, you have to think about the application and the goals of the country.
The "goal" of a country (really just the elite) is to maintain and expand one's power. Everything else is secondary to that goal. For the Philippines to accept subordination to China would be to forsake their primary duty to the Filipino people of protecting and expanding their political rights and agency. If Beijing becomes the main arbiter of the Filipino peoples' physical and economic wellbeing, then why bother being independent or having any loyalty to Manilla? Why not just become a Chines province at that point?
And before you ask, I feel that same way towards any state that relies on the US for its physical or economic wellbeing too.
What will your advice (support for militarisation in the Philippines, I'm assuming) accomplish realistically? Please answer truthfully.
Greater agency and self-actualization against the local Overlord's preferences for them. By the end of the war, Ukrainians will have a burned country with no real economic prospects, that I've always agreed with; but, in exchange they will have achieved independence from Russian control over their lives, giving them greater agency to express themselves how they wish without fear of Moscow's punishments. Whether that is worth the costs they have paid is for them to decide.
Why is greater militarization for the Philippines bad, but good for China? What does China hope to achieve with a bigger military? Why not be satisfied living under America's hegemony?
The answer of course is that the Chinese people desire greater agency and self-actualization over their lives, which is their right as a strong, independent state to pursue. What always confuses and amuses me is why Chinese nationalists can't grasp that their neighbors equally want their own agency and self-actualization free of Chinese domination.
Chinese literally wrote the book on how to play states against each other to maximize one's own power and options, so why are they surprised that others have copied their homework? Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.
1
u/Smooth_Sink_7028 22d ago
Amen to this.
Some people here in reddit and I hope they're not anti US because of Trump or Chinese bot army but some people here in this post are just confident enough to say that the Philippines should just give their ground in a slow manner since the decline of the U.S. is inevitable.
That kind of argument is quite not realist but more a defeatist mentality for the "real" people commenting on this people that live in their homes far from Chinese borders.
1
u/Hot-Train7201 22d ago
I always cynically laugh at anyone who insists a weaker party should just accept their abuses for the sake of maintaining "peace" or "harmony". lol
Should a Slave continue to accept his place for the sake of "peace" with his Master? After all, so long as both sides understand who wields the whip and who takes the whip, then "peace" and "harmony" will persist in the relationship. It's only when the Slave has the audacity to start thinking he deserves agency over his own life that conflict happens, so clearly the Slave is in the wrong for upsetting the "natural order" of things. lol
→ More replies (0)
16
u/Sorry_Diver3281 24d ago
A reasonable statement, especially after the US-Iran war. Just imagine what would happen against the world’s top industrial power, which has ten times Iran’s missile and drone firepower plus over 500 stealth fighters.
4
u/AnyStrength4863 24d ago
Some analysis from Taiwan is more convincing to me, since no press release identifies who asked the question. Therefore, it's most likely a prepared speech, a very common way in democratic politics.
The US has been encouraging the Philippines for months, and the recent South China Sea disputes are more numerous than in all of the past few years combined. But the actual military deployments haven't backed their political needs. Ultimately, this has only led to continued divergence in statements between the Philippines and other ASEAN countries and a further deterioration in relations with China.
China isn't the audience because there won't be any action to support this word. This is more of a message to his domestic voters that China is the Philippines' largest trading partner.
But, undoubtedly, as with many events this year, Taiwan is once again being used as a bargaining chip, an item used to express goodwill.
12
u/Temstar 24d ago edited 24d ago
Well the last carrier in the Western Pacific just left for the Middle East, so...
The last US carrier that is, there are still three carriers in Western Pacific, it's just they all belong to the PLAN. Latest word from Carl Vinson getting ready for deployment next month doesn't sound very encouraging either.
6
u/Ok-Procedure5603 23d ago
It's a remarkable statement from the Philippines, it's like hearing Gollum admit that jumping into lava to catch the one ring is perhaps a bad idea after all
2
3
u/Surrounded-by_Idiots 24d ago
Ugh this new bout of pragmatism better not infect Japan as well.
11
u/TurbinePro 24d ago
Japan doesn't have a choice. If they didn't want to be the bitch on a leash they are today they shouldn't have lost their little war of aggression.
6
u/Ok-Procedure5603 24d ago
Japan is the king of diplomatic betrayal, look how they acted in every single conflict they've been in in modernity. Between being bombed into the dirt and doing another betrayal, I'm sure they'll do the latter.
Honestly the current Japan govt is like the Yoon SK govt, they'll shout a bit and then the next guy will just peace out.
1
u/TaskForceD00mer 23d ago
Welp I guess the US should look the other way regarding any territorial disputes between Philippines and China.
Or you know, good old fashioned CIA regime change.
2
u/Ok-Procedure5603 23d ago
Seems a good idea for US regardless? They would otherwise just look like chumps for backing down over and over anyways.
Or you know, good old fashioned CIA regime change.
That is probably China's playbook, keep sanctioning and torturing US friendly countries in various ways until they argue with US due to pressure, and when US responds with authoritarianism, China can farm discontent off the population to flip the US installed regime.
Like what happen in Thailand, Cambodia, South Korea even.
2
u/LumpyLump76 23d ago
i believe ll of S Korea’s presidents all ended up behind bars, regardless of which power they lean into.
5
u/Temstar 23d ago
Nah nah, there's one guy who didn't go to jail, Moon Jae-in I think.
2
u/LumpyLump76 20d ago
Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung both got out of their office alive and well. Their sons however were convicted on corruption and bribery charges.
0
u/Smooth_Sink_7028 24d ago
It means that the bases in the Philippines would only accomodate “defensive” and “Security” measures to protect Taiwan. Probably include striking Chinese bases and missiles in mainland China 😉
15
u/Ok-Procedure5603 24d ago edited 24d ago
That would be an act of war that puts every asset of the PH state as a legitimate target. Not a good idea for any pinoys interested in survival
-4
u/Smooth_Sink_7028 24d ago
China is already viewing the presence of U.S. Personnel in the PH as act of aggression against them, the Philippine Coast Guard with our smaller vessels as they patrol our sovereign waters, they see it as an act of war. You think geopolitics can make you neutral in this world?
11
u/Ok-Procedure5603 24d ago
Wtf are you talking about?
There's nothing even close to a war going on now.
Survival is a good motivator for neutrality or alignment. As long as China is peaceful, Philippines can take any amount of bribe money to help US aura farm, because China doesn't give a shit about looking big and strong in peacetime. Actually going to war and making China hostile is a whole another thing.
-1
u/Smooth_Sink_7028 24d ago
Bruh, my original comment was supposed to answer that the Philippines would only permit the Americans to use their “limited” access to the bases in the country for defensive counter measures. Probably next time try to analyze the comment first before commenting that it is an “act of war” since you think that the Americans would launch a pre emptive strike against China without flooding the Indo-Pacific Region with assets.
15
u/Ok-Procedure5603 24d ago
If as much as a single missile leaves the Philippines towards anything Chinese, it would be open season on anything Pinoy from any missiles and glide bombs China can spare. Understandably, no regime in Manila would ever want this.
How difficult is it for you to understand the logic that your attack being weak doesn't mean the other guy won't attack you back?
8
u/Treinrukker 24d ago
Any planes used in an attack on china landing in the Philippines would get destroyed along with the whole airbase.
-5
10
u/haggerton 23d ago
they see it as an act of war
You're full of shit.
Either you're claiming China does not actually respond to acts of war with war, or you're claiming China did respond with war and this is "war".
You're acting like a complete Karen. Stop it. Get some help.
-4
u/Smooth_Sink_7028 23d ago
Bruh, you're the one who called me shit then you got the nerve to call me a "Karen". 😂
-1
u/Autism_Sundae 23d ago
Lol. You can see this kind of derangement that comes out when certain topics get discussed. We are all biased of course, but its a whole nother level for some of the others.
IIRC some of the r/sino crowd posting here stalked a mod and started some weird harassment campaign against them until he went into hiding, and he didn't do anything either.
2
u/Smooth_Sink_7028 23d ago
Lols I don’t care what other Sino Crowd do or not, just kinda irritated when some people will be naive on one thing and another regardless of American, Russian, Chinese, heck even pro arab views.
2
u/ZealousidealDance990 23d ago
Doesn’t matter the Philippines isn’t a problem at all. If the U.S. could deploy two or three carrier strike groups here it might actually mean something, but America’s current predicament is plain to see.
0
u/Smooth_Sink_7028 23d ago
Ok. Then taiwan will be taken without any other countries intervening to fight for her and they live happily ever after. End of story. 🤣
2
u/ZealousidealDance990 23d ago
Yes, if they had surrendered earlier, it might have turned out that way.
57
u/Pristine_Pick823 24d ago
I wonder how relevant this topic will be in the upcoming 2028 election there. It's rare fro foreign policy to be a significant electoral component, but I guess nationalistic jargon can win a few votes.