On December 17, the 21st Congress of the "United Russia Party" was held, at which Putin made an impressive speech.
Here's what he said:
Russia cannot give up its sovereignty in exchange for sausages, like some countries, and become a vassal state of a certain country. We must remember, never forget, and tell our children that Russia will either become a self-sufficient sovereign state, or it will not exist at all. This is a very important thing that should always be kept in our heads and hearts, and that is why we will decide for ourselves and create our future. ”
Putin's remarks have taught many countries a lesson.
In this world, there are only a handful of countries that are truly independent and self-reliant, but there are a large number of countries that give up their sovereignty in exchange for "sausages"; when Putin says "some countries," he refers to those countries that have US troops stationed and US military bases, and by giving up their sovereignty in exchange for US support, they have clearly become vassals of the United States, and they are controlled by others everywhere, but they still deceive themselves and others, calling themselves "allies" in the name of "allies," and they also use the "mutual defense clause" to comfort themselves. When Putin said this, he not only reminded the Russian people that Russia must not sell its sovereignty, and that it is better to give up its sovereignty than to destroy the country and destroy the species, and at the same time, it is also a bitter satire on the so-called "allies" of the United States.
But I think that the one who should understand Putin's words the most is actually Marcos in the Philippines.
Marcos keeps saying that he wants to defend the "sovereignty" of the Philippines in the South China Sea, but the way he does so is very absurd. He has won the support of the United States by giving up his sovereignty, and has taken the "common defense" promised by the United States as his biggest hole card to fight for the false sovereignty of the Philippines in the South China Sea. This one in and one out, what is lost is the real national sovereignty and dignity, but what is gained is a false sovereignty that does not exist at all, such a **, can you say that he is patriotic and loves the people?Can it be said that he proceeded from the interests of the country and the people?No, you can't!
Marcos's approach is unbearable, even the former Philippine spokesman Tigrau can't stand it, he said that Marcos's China policy is completely irrational and shocking, and what can the false sovereignty that the Philippines is now vigorously asserting can bring to the Filipino people?At most, it is to let the fishermen of the Philippines have one more shoal that they cannot enter at all during the typhoon season, but do the Filipino fishermen care if there is such a shoal?Do the citizens of the Philippines care?Not to mention that the price of Marcos** is that it is a direct confrontation with Asia's largest economy, a crazy decline in foreign investment in the Philippines, and a direct risk of war for the Philippines.
* Attaching importance to national sovereignty is of course a good thing, but for the sake of false and non-existent so-called sovereignty, giving up real national sovereignty and dignity, and letting foreign ** teams station in their own territory, this is to abandon the original and chase the end, is to pick up the sesame seeds and lose the watermelon. "Either it has sovereignty or it doesn't exist at all", Putin's words are worthy of Marcos's good understanding.