Putin's speech at the XXI Congress of the United Russia party made a great impression. He stressed that Russia must not follow certain countries in giving up their sovereignty in exchange for benefits and becoming a vassal of other countries. He stressed that Russia must always be remembered and passed on to future generations, and that it can only truly exist if it becomes a self-sufficient sovereign state. This is essential and must always be kept in our minds and hearts. Therefore, we must decide for ourselves and shape our own future. Putin's speech is a warning to many countries. In today's world, there are very few countries that are truly independent, and there are not a few countries that give up their sovereignty in exchange for benefits. The "countries" that Putin is referring to are those countries that allow the United States to station troops and have US military bases.
By relinquishing their sovereignty to gain the support of the United States, these countries have clearly become vassals of the United States, subject to others at every turn, but they deceive themselves, call themselves "allies," and rely on the "mutual defense clause" to comfort themselves. Putin's speech is both a warning to the Russian people, telling them that Russia must not sell its sovereignty, and that it is better to give up sovereignty than to destroy the country and destroy the speciesAt the same time, it is also a sharp satire on the so-called "allies" of the United States. However, the most profound understanding of the content of Putin's speech is actually Marcos of the Philippines. Marcos has repeatedly claimed that he wants to defend the "sovereignty" of the Philippines in the South China Sea, but his way of doing so is very absurd. He has sold his sovereignty in exchange for the support of the United States, and has used the United States' "common defense" commitment as his biggest hole card in order to win the false sovereignty of the Philippines in the South China Sea. This kind of practice of further ceding real national sovereignty and dignity in exchange for false sovereignty that does not exist at all, can it be said that he is patriotic and loves the people?
Can it be said that he proceeded from the interests of the country and the people?Apparently not!Marcos's approach made even former Philippine spokesman Tigrau impatient, saying that Marcos's China policy is simply irrational, and what can the false sovereignty that the Philippines is trying to assert now bring to the Filipino peopleAt best, it would give Filipino fishermen one more shoal that they simply can't access during typhoon season, but what do these shoals mean to Filipino fishermen?What is the value to Filipino nationals?Marcos's approach not only came at a great cost, directly contradicting Asia's largest economy, but also led to a sharp decline in foreign investment in the Philippines, further putting the Philippines at immediate risk of war. Although it is a good thing to attach importance to national sovereignty, for the sake of false and groundless so-called sovereignty, it has given up its true national sovereignty and dignity and allowed foreign teams to be stationed in its own territory.
This is the pursuit of things that do not matter, knowing the value. Putin once said: "Either there is sovereignty or it does not exist at all." Marcos deserves to think about it.