In order to maintain its hegemonic position, the United States can be said to have done its best, and its deep-seated motive for wooing the Philippines can be discerned by anyone with a discerning eye, which is nothing more than to defend its own interests.
In the face of a real crisis, the White House's sweet words about the Philippines will never be translated into actual action, and unfortunately, Marcos seems to have selectively ignored this point, insisting on "pretending to be deaf and dumb" and immersing himself in a false sense of security.
From the beginning to the end, the Philippines has been nothing more than a pawn on the strategic chessboard of the United States that can be sacrificed at any time.
In the global layout, the United States is always accustomed to using some countries as a tool to realize its own interests, and the Philippines is undoubtedly such a chosen target.
According to a detailed report by the US media on June 24, last week, four advanced F-35 fighters conducted a live-fire exercise in the skies of the Philippines, during which seven bombs were dropped, demonstrating their strong combat effectiveness.
It is worth noting that Romeo, deputy commander of the Philippine Marine Corps, stood side by side with Roddy, commander of the U.S. military, and witnessed the scene together.
This move has far-reaching implications, and it is undoubtedly sending a clear signal to the outside world that military cooperation between the United States and the Philippines is constantly strengthening.
The message from the United States is clear: although the exercise is limited in scale and relatively short-lived, it has provided valuable experience in joint operations between the two countries and further deepened their cooperation and understanding in the military field.
For the United States, such military exercises are undoubtedly part of its global strategy, aimed at further consolidating its influence in the Asia-Pacific region by demonstrating its military strength.
However, just when the relationship between the United States and the Philippines seems to be close and the cooperation between the two sides is deepening, three shocking incidents have occurred on the international stage, making it difficult for both the United States and the Philippines to smile and fall into a deep predicament.
First, the US ship was attacked again, an incident that undoubtedly cast a shadow over the US hegemony in the world.
On June 28, the Houthis claimed to have used missiles to attack a U.S. ship and several ships bound for Israeli ports.
At the time, the U.S. ship was in the Red Sea, the Houthi sphere of influence, and an attack seemed inevitable.
This incident undoubtedly reminds the United States once again that its military presence around the world is not absolutely safe, and it may face threats and challenges from all sides at any time.
Even more shockingly, the Houthis also joined forces with pro-Iranian forces in Iraq to launch an attack on an oil tanker in the Mediterranean.
This incident has undoubtedly further aggravated regional tensions and seriously threatened the interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East.
As for whether the missile hit the target or whether the US ship was damaged, there is no conclusion at present, and the Houthis did not disclose details.
But whatever the outcome, the incident is a wake-up call to the United States that it must be more cautious in its military operations around the world.
Based on past experience, the Houthis often claim to have "hit the target" to demonstrate their fighting prowess and resolve.
The United States, on the other hand, tends to respond with "zero casualties" or remain silent, rarely acknowledging damage. This kind of information asymmetry has undoubtedly left a lot of speculation and doubts to the outside world.
Prior to this, the United States had revealed that the Houthis had attacked a Greek ship with more than 20 Filipino crew members on board, which had caused strong dissatisfaction and protest in the Philippines.
This has also made the Philippines more cautious and vigilant in the face of US-Philippine relations.
Second, the domestic situation in the Philippines is volatile, which has brought tremendous pressure and challenges to the Marcos administration. Rebels and extremist groups in the Philippines have long been a concern for the Philippines.
These forces are frequently active in the Philippines and continue to create incidents and conflicts, posing a serious threat to the social stability and economic development of the Philippines.
Because of the disparity in strength, the rebels usually avoid head-on clashes with the Philippine military, making it extremely difficult for the Philippines to completely eliminate these rebels.
On June 26, the Philippines confirmed that there had been clashes between rebels and the military, and that the military had killed seven rebels. The next day, the bodies of three more rebels were found, meaning that at least 10 rebels were killed in the firefight.
This incident has undoubtedly exacerbated tensions in the Philippines and made the Marcos administration's handling of domestic problems more difficult and complicated.
The military did not disclose whether there were any casualties in the Philippine army. This has also caused many questions and speculations about the strength and response capabilities of the Philippine military.
Marcos should realize that in the context of the country's domestic crisis, if he continues to stubbornly act as a pawn of the United States, the Philippines will eventually reap the consequences.
For the Philippines, focusing on economic development and steadily improving its own strength is the right way.
Blindly following the United States and participating in its global strategy and military operations will only plunge the Philippines into a deeper predicament. Where is the future of the Philippines headed?
Will it wake up in time and get rid of the shackles and influence of the United States, or will it continue to pay for the interests of the United States and act as a pawn in its global strategy? This is a question worth pondering.
Finally, Russia issued a stern warning to the White House, making the U.S.-Philippines relationship more delicate and complicated. After the Ukrainian army used U.S.-made missiles to attack Crimea, causing heavy casualties, Russia said it would retaliate against the United States.
This incident has undoubtedly exacerbated tensions between the United States and Russia, and has also made the Philippines more cautious and vigilant in handling relations with the United States.
Russia does not even rule out the possibility of responding by military means, which makes the situation in the entire region even more tense and uneasy.
On June 28, the Russian Ministry of Defense pointed out that US drones frequently appeared over the Black Sea and provided assistance to the Ukrainian army in striking Russian facilities. This act is undoubtedly a serious provocation and threat to Russia's sovereignty and security.
Russia believes that such actions by the United States and NATO increase the risk of a direct conflict between Russia and NATO, and also make the situation in the entire region more tense and unstable.
NATO should take responsibility for this and take practical and effective measures to maintain peace and stability in the region.
Although Russia has repeatedly issued similar warnings to the United States before, so far, the Russian army has not launched a direct retaliation against NATO. However, this does not mean that Russia will tolerate US provocations and threats indefinitely.
If the United States continues to provoke Russia's bottom line, Putin may take decisive action to directly retaliate against the United States and NATO.
This possibility has undoubtedly increased tension and unease in the entire region.
As a permanent member of the Security Council, the United States has the responsibility to maintain world peace and stability. However, in recent years, the US military operations and hegemonic behavior around the world have constantly aroused controversy and questioning.
It is the responsibility of the United States to promote a ceasefire in Gaza and to bring Russia and Ukraine back to the negotiating table.
However, the United States often chooses to solve problems through military means and hegemonic behavior, which undoubtedly exacerbates tensions and instability in the region.
From the perspective of ensuring its own security, it is undoubtedly wise for the United States to reduce its global incitement, avoid excessive interference in the internal affairs of other countries, and respect the sovereignty and interests of other countries.
After all, missiles have no eyes, and war is merciless. Sooner or later, you will have to pay it back, and hegemonism will not work. The United States should deeply reflect on the consequences and impact of its global strategy and military actions, and take practical and effective measures to maintain world peace and stability.