And this is a country whose people have been fed heavily pro-Israel propaganda since the day they were born. What does the rest of the world think ?

It was always going to be rejected from the moment it was announced, this is a surprise to nobody

Israel is interested in continuing the war genocde

Did Israel ever actually cease firing?

There you go. It’s not paywalled for me, maybe something to do with the huge numbers of Filipinos that live here

Was Zelenskyy fooled and used? Lessons for PH

THE recent statement by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, asserting that “Ukraine was never promised a membership in NATO,” has sparked controversy, particularly amid the Russia-Ukraine war. This comment reflects the ongoing debate about NATO’s eastward expansion, with Ukraine’s aspirations for membership being a core issue. For years, Russia has considered NATO’s expansion into its sphere of influence, particularly the inclusion of Ukraine, a “red line.”

NATO’s open-door policy has been a key source of friction in Europe, especially since the onset of the Ukraine-Russia conflict in 2022. Ukraine has consistently sought NATO membership as a safeguard against the so-called Russian aggression, with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other officials framing it as vital for their national security.

Historically, while NATO never explicitly promised Ukraine membership, it has suggested that it remained a possibility, though formal membership was never granted. In Ukraine’s view, NATO membership has become a symbol of security, with Zelenskyy’s government delusionally arguing that NATO’s refusal to offer membership effectively signaled an invitation for Russian expansionism.

POTUS stance

Under a Trump 2.0 administration, there’s likely skepticism toward NATO expansion. During his first term, Trump was openly critical of NATO’s eastward expansion. His administration was cautious about Ukraine’s NATO membership, and he frequently suggested that admitting Ukraine into the alliance could provoke a direct confrontation with Russia, which he viewed as detrimental to US interests. A Trump 2.0 administration would likely continue this skepticism, arguing that admitting Ukraine into NATO while it is in conflict with Russia could lead to increased risks of broader military escalation, something Trump has long tried to avoid.

In recent statements, Trump has expressed skepticism regarding Ukraine’s potential NATO membership. He has indicated that it is “unlikely” for Ukraine to regain all of its territory occupied by Russia and has suggested that NATO membership for Ukraine is “unrealistic.”

These remarks align with the Trump administration’s broader foreign policy stance, which emphasizes reducing US military commitments abroad and prioritizing direct negotiations with Russia to resolve the conflict. This approach has raised concerns among European allies and Ukrainian officials, who view NATO membership as a crucial security guarantee against the Western propaganda of the so-called Russian aggression.

Trump’s foreign policy is typically transactional, focusing on the tangible benefits for the US. Trump’s overarching foreign policy doctrine of “America First” places a premium on reducing the US military’s involvement in foreign conflicts, especially those that don’t directly threaten American interests. Under a second Trump presidency, his administration would likely continue efforts to limit US involvement in conflicts that don’t directly affect American national security.

Trump’s style of diplomacy, often described as “deals over institutions,” suggests he would be more inclined to pursue direct negotiations with Russia to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. Note that a key hallmark of Trump’s approach to foreign policy is the belief in strong, personal diplomacy. True enough, he is now pursuing direct talks with Russian leadership to negotiate a settlement of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, avoiding the multilateral approach typical of NATO’s stance.

Was Zelenskyy fooled and used?

The controversy surrounding Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations centers on whether Zelenskyy and Ukraine were misled into believing that NATO would eventually offer formal membership, fueled by Western narratives of “Russia’s aggression.” Critics argue that NATO and the US gave Ukraine false hope through verbal assurances and promises of future inclusion, all while hesitating to grant membership due to fears of provoking direct conflict with Russia. This ambiguity has created a sense of limbo for Ukraine, receiving Western support but lacking the full security guarantee that NATO membership would provide.

While the West united in supporting Ukraine against Russia, critics argue that Zelenskyy may have been “used” and “fooled” in the geopolitical struggle, serving as a key pawn in weakening Russia but without the full commitment of NATO. Ukraine’s sovereignty and survival have been central, but Western support has been tied to broader geopolitical goals of containing and weakening Russia. This dynamic has created the scenario that Ukraine is being treated as a pawn, a proxy in a larger geopolitical contest of the West in Europe against Russia, with NATO’s refusal to offer membership leaving Zelenskyy in a difficult, constrained position. The military, economic and diplomatic aid Ukraine has received is substantial, but the lack of a clear membership path underscores the complex, and at times exploitative, nature of this geopolitical strategic interests and calculus of the Western alliance.

True enough, Ukraine has found itself in a vulnerable position, receiving military aid from NATO but never fully included in the alliance. This led to a sense of being caught in limbo. Despite receiving support from the West, it did not have the guarantee of NATO membership, leaving its security somewhat uncertain, compromised and weakened to a greater degree, and leaving the country devastated.

Conclusion: Key lessons for PH

Ukraine is a case study, and the Philippines should recognize the limitations of external military alliances. The Philippines, given its own complex relationship with China and the US, should ensure that it doesn’t become overly reliant on external powers, especially when these powers have their own long-term strategic interests. The Philippines must learn to stand on its own two feet and work on building strong, independent defense capabilities to avoid being caught in a geopolitical struggle that doesn’t guarantee its security and long-term national interests.

With rising tensions in the South China Sea (SCS) and ongoing challenges in its relations with China, the Philippines should avoid relying solely on external military alliances. Instead, it should focus on leveraging diplomatic channels to ensure that its national security interests are met and not compromised. The Philippines must be able to use its strategic position to negotiate with both Western powers and with a superpower like China, ensuring that its security and national interests are not compromised but protected.

Under Marcos Jr.'s presidency, Marcos Jr. being perceived by many and even internationally as a “US lapdog/puppet,” his government should relinquish being a pawn, or a proxy of the US in the larger geopolitical struggles of superpowers, particularly in the grand geopolitical, geostrategic and geoeconomic competition and rivalry between China and the US, especially as tensions rise in the Asia-Pacific region over the SCS dispute and the volatile Taiwan Strait area. The Philippines must ensure that it is not a tool of a superpower’s strategic interests but that its sovereignty, independence and long-term stability are prioritized. In dealings with the US, China and other regional powers, the Philippines should maintain a balanced, independent and neutral approach that safeguards its national interests and security.

Furthermore, the Philippines should maintain strategic patience in its relations with both China and the US, and realistically assess the potential outcomes of any military or diplomatic intervention. In dealing with the SCS disputes and its strategic positioning between China and the US, the Philippines must employ realpolitik. It must make pragmatic decisions that reflect not only its aspirations but also the reality of its geopolitical environment. This could mean balancing competing interests from both China and the US while ensuring its sovereignty and long-term peace, regional security, stability and peace.

America doesn’t have friends, just useful idiots.

Who are the Palestinian hostages released in exchange for Israeli hostages?

fixed it

https://swprs.org/the-propaganda-multiplier/

According to a readout of the call, the two discussed the importance of deterrence in the South China Sea and enhancing the capabilities of the Philippine military

In other words, “We give you a shit load of money now buy more weapons with it”

The only difference between Harris and Trump is that the latter can’t keep his gaping orange maw shut. Well maybe she would have put in a few more military bases instead of casinos.

Ukrainian officials fear an alignment between Washington and Moscow could shut them out of the discussion about their country’s future.

Ukrainian officials fear an election might put back the government that they usurped, with American funding and support, back in 2004/5.

China and India are very much working together to solve their border disputes and improve diplomatic ties. They are also in the process of resuming direct flights between the two countries.

Hidden under Tory mattresses

None of his supporters know how tariffs work either, all he has to do is sound belligerent and they swallow it.

Which, incidentally, gives the lie to the view that Russia is poised to take more of Europe — if we in NATO truly believed this, we would all be mobilizing at speed.

It has never been more than cheap propaganda fed to the toady media in order to spread fear and hatred

On Monday Rwanda-backed rebels claimed they had Congo’s strategic city of Goma, the hub of a region containing trillions of dollars in mineral wealth

Today’s protesters are said to be accusing the US of supporting the M23 rebels involved in yesterday’s siege

Gosh, why would the think that?

trillions of dollars in mineral wealth

Oh yeah, silly me

“If you’re in the West, you might see this as a threat to the so-called rules-based international order,” he said. “But if you’re in the rest of the world, you might say some of these changes may in fact be improvements.”

Whatever was left of a “rules-based international order” was torn to shreds by Biden and Netenyahu while the orange twat was still dancing at campaign rallies.

But while getting the US out of international institutions might sound good they will still try to bully them as they do with the ICC

Israel said

The opportunities created by these uprisings were repeatedly co-opted by narrow elite groups – oligarchs, the professional middle class, and foreign powers – leaving large portions of Ukrainian society excluded and their interests underrepresented.

Because they were orchestrated and funded by the US after the wrong party won the election. The toady western media amplified American claims that the election was rigged but Ukrainians remember how they got there

according to two congressional sources briefed on U.S. intelligence

When Putin, Xi, or any of their spokespeople say things, the western media industrial complex always ends the sentence with the words “without providing any evidence.” They never do that with anonymous US sources.

Just saying