Is the Philippines being used in the US-China Cold War?

[@e.s.5872]

It's understandable that other countries may not understand Donald Trump, but we, as citizens of the United States, do. In order to help the world, we must first help ourselves. Donald Trump said this when asked about helping other countries, hebsaid "we need to fix what's going on here at home, then we can start helping others." My advice to other countries like the Philippines is to wait and see what he does. It is not the same administration he had the first time. This time, we have real leadership. I have to say Richard, if you were a citizen of the United States, you would be considered a leftist and anti-America. Just from your opinions of the United States. As a fil-am, I can safely say that this new administration is far better for the Philippines than the outgoing one. The majority of the Filipinos voted for Trump, and trust me, all the while, our homeland was in our minds when we made the decision to vote for him. Give Trump a chance and let's see where we are at in 4 years.

[@JOENIFSARALDE]

Great discussion and takeaways based on the analysis!

[@RichardHeydarian]

❤

[@vincentdoronila2805]

Great and thought provoking conversation!

[@RichardHeydarian]

❤

[@vincentdoronila2805]

Hope you could also discuss the Japanese and Korean perspectives seeing that they are in the same side as we are re MDT with the US. Thanks.

[@NMMedia17]

As long as china doesn't exceed its claim on Philippine EEZ on WPS there is no problem at all between PH and china relationship. Though the Philippine is weak country but it doesn't mean that it will let other countries bullied and take what they want to take. Philippines is only defending its rights and no one dictates Philippines action on WPS. The reason why Philippine sided to USA is to increase its power and to have a power to fight back against if there are intruders on the said country.

[@julioduan7130]

How are you Filipinos so sure that it’s China which is invading Philippine EEZ, not that Philippines is occupying Chinese territories?

[@goldenstag78]

@@julioduan7130 clearly you’re not very well educated about this issue. Go thru an honest, true, legitimate research. Don’t take sides, find out a legit facts to rightfully educate yourself before your mouth !!!!

[@rr-ricky]

@@julioduan7130 1. look at the world map. see how close these areas are to the Philippines. 2. there are no chinese cities or people in these areas, only chinese vessels and mavy. 3. Filipino fishermen for centuries have fish in these areas with their wooden boats. 4. chinese navy blocks the Filipinos fishermen. 5. chinese navy is stronger than Philippines defense. 6. chinese aggression is the root cause of all trouble in the ASEAN waters.

[@julioduan7130]

@@rr-ricky Territory is not determined by distance.

[@rr-ricky]

@@julioduan7130 there are no chinese in these waters. chinese expansion is a threat for World Peace.

[@davisurdaneta1426]

This is the Richard Heydarian that I used to love. Commanding but ofjective on geopolitical issues. Not the "Vlogger" who is just trying to appease his viewers, corny, pa-cute, and whatnot.

[@RichardHeydarian]

😮😮😮

[@timmackee3912]

Do not underestimate the Philippines.

[@RichardHeydarian]

❤

[@criticalthinker575]

This guy is delusional he talk too much! But never been employed in govt as diplomat just assumed being a geopolitics expert he keep talking not a good listener.....

[@Techguy-zt3mz]

As if we had a choice. Even if, we align ourselves with China. We would still lose our western EEZ. Both China and the U.S. could fight for supremacy here but the fact still remains that the Philippines is more concerned with our own national interest rather than the US-China power struggle. Our EEZ comes first. We would lose more if we aligned ourselves with China. That's why I like the approach of Pres. Marcos with regards to the WPS. To keep American presence there to a bare minimum. So far, I haven't seen the Americans offer the Philippines with a more potent defence package. I'm not asking for freebies but it would greatly help if they could provide us with a much friendlier financing schemes for Multirole fighters, Ships and Missile launchers. American support is pretty lukewarm IMHO.

[@hoco27]

excellent interview, mr. long laid out a convincing structure on how ASEAN could look like moving forward. We should definitely negotiate and create rules on how multinationals and superpowers operate in our region. "strategic autonomy/ collective action"

[@bret0974]

we can make all the rules we want with the asean, but will china follow them?

[@iwashere9670]

It is more dangerous to be in both sides cause they will spit you out of their mouth. You either hot or cold.

[@RichardHeydarian]

😮😮😮

[@kzm-cb5mr]

Magandang usapan, bihasa talaga yung panauhin

[@RichardHeydarian]

😮

[@GeorgeSchumpf]

Your guest sounds very knowledgeable and capable, but he does not seem to be capable of distinguishing between isolationism and non-interventionism. That is a very common problem with geopolitical commentators, at their own loss to live oblivious to their own ignorance in that matter. But it is our loss too. Why is it so hard for these neo-Globalists to understand such simple distinctions. If only Trump was a non-interventionist purist, but he is not consistent.

[@CliveAdamPunzalan]

Mr. Schumpf, I’ve got to hand it to you-you've managed to shine a spotlight on one of the most common blind spots in geopolitical commentary today. It’s almost like a rite of passage for so many analysts to confuse isolationism with non-interventionism. It’s as if they’re treating these two concepts like they're interchangeable, which, as you rightly point out, is a massive oversight. It’s not rocket science! Isolationism is hunkering down in your own fortress, refusing to interact with the world, while non-interventionism is a "Hey, we’ll just keep our distance and mind our own business, thanks." Yet, somehow, these commentators keep tripping over this distinction like they’re walking into a glass door. It’s both perplexing and somewhat entertaining. And you’re spot on in calling out the neo-globalists who are too busy patting themselves on the back to see how badly they’re bungling this simple distinction. It’s almost as if there’s a secret club where they’re all issued a membership card with "Overcomplicate Everything" written on it. These folks-oh, they love to talk big about their understanding of the world, but the reality is they couldn’t find their way out of a geopolitical maze with a map and a compass. They’ve turned ignorance into an art form. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left scratching our heads, wondering why we’re still listening to these “experts” who can’t even get their basics right. Absolutely, Mr. Schumpf, let's take a step into the Pres Trump conundrum, though I do think there’s a bit of nuance we should add to the picture. You’re right in noting that President Trump didn’t exactly fit the non-interventionist purist mold. However, labeling his foreign policy as "geopolitical hopscotch" might oversimplify the true complexity of his approach. Sure, there were moments where his policy seemed like a whirlwind, veering from one extreme to the other-sometimes cozying up to world leaders with the ease of a business deal, other times making bold, unexpected moves like trade tariffs and border wall threats. But in all honesty, it wasn’t always about unpredictability for the sake of chaos; sometimes it was more about shaking up the status quo in a way that hadn’t been done in years. The consistency, you say, was “as elusive as a unicorn riding a rainbow”-and while I might agree with that imagery, I’d argue that his inconsistency wasn’t necessarily as reckless as it may appear on the surface. There was, at times, a method to the madness. When looking back at his policies, it becomes clear that there was a kind of ideological tug-of-war: between populist impulses and traditional realpolitik. So, sure, his approach wasn’t pure non-interventionism, but maybe it wasn’t as erratic as it’s often portrayed either. If only he’d been a purist... well, that might’ve been too boring, wouldn’t it? Finally, let’s talk about these neo-globalists again. Honestly, Mr. Schumpf, it’s like they’ve been brainwashed into thinking that if they just throw enough “interventionist” jargon around, everyone will fall in line. It’s as if the world has to dance to their tune, whether it’s ready or not. They’re so keen on inserting themselves into every geopolitical conversation, it’s almost like they think it’s their moral duty to save the world-even when the world didn’t ask for their help. It’s like the geopolitical equivalent of someone trying to rearrange your furniture when you didn’t even ask for their opinion. Maybe, just maybe, they could learn to step back, take a breath, and appreciate that sometimes, less truly is more.

[@GeorgeSchumpf]

​@CliveAdamPunzalan Wow. There is so much there to comment on. I'm not too sure where to begin or whether I could be comprehensive if I wrote a full-length article. "Confuse everything." I'd have to say it goes a lot deeper. It might be rather confusing for/from the end user media pundit. But I'd say their confusion is too organized and consistent. That card you said it seems their reading off of has a backside to it with the bullet points of what they mean by confusing everything. Of course that's a simplified portrayal. It is often much more subtle and systematic. Much of it begins in the Academy. A lot is mediated through peers and editors in an echo chamber. But it is definitely not as confused as you might have suggested. It is conspiratorially coherent and shepherded by a trained ideology. Oh no! I said the C-word. I guess I might as well admit my perspective, being that anyone who thinks there is not a grand conspiracy for global control is rather gullible and a bit overly optimistic about the evil heart of mankind. History is strewn with the efforts of various conspiracies for global control. To think there is not one or more effective efforts in operation today would be quite naive about the present and unscheduled about history. I used to be an unbeliever, accusing those who saw a demon behind every doorknob, and a conspiracy around every corner. Then I read, among other things, the books, None Dare Call it Treason and None Dare Call It Conspiracy. That was two and a half decades ago, and I have not doubted that conclusion since or seen any reason to doubt. That doesn't mean I believe in every conspiracy theory, or even most. There are plenty of kooky counterfeits i often suspect are intentionally added to discredit efforts to expose the real grand conspiracy. At any rate, there is plenty of method in the organized confusion of everything, none of it good. Changing the subject a bit... The trump negotiation strategy. I am a little bit troubled the way he has put negotiation over Greenland in the public square complete with threats.and a refusal to denounce military force to get his way. I have to say I had to cringe. While I think I might approve of an attempt to peacefully gain greenland has an self-goverened territory complete with full US defense, i would not want to see it treated as a colony, nor would I want to see it included as a state. In my opinion, this country is already three or four times the effective size for good governance, real representative government. As far as his methods go, even though they give me chills sometimes, I am willing to wait it out to see what works out. But I don't think he says very many Meaningless things. Most everything he says is calculated and purposeful, often confusing and sometimes unnerving.

[@maninthemiddleground2316]

In most cases being a “fence-sitter” could make sense in situations where the choices are “equally” good (or bad). However, the geopolitical battle between China and US, there’s only one side who trustworthy enough. China has been underhanded with all of its dealings. Let’s not look far, Duterte has been pro-China … they could have stopped these underhanded tactics and just become benevolent. Look where it got us, erosion of control of WPS, more belligerent China. They had us with a joint exploration but what did we get corrupted seismic data for recto bank?? I am not saying this because the US did right by us, I know that America had a lot of mistakes. So the choice between certainty of losing and uncertainty of winning Lastly, Billy Graham once said, there once was a man who wore blue coat and grey trousers in the hope of surviving the US Civil war … in the end both side shot him!!! Moral of the story, fence-sitting especially in this Power play between China and US the choice is clear, we should side with the US.

[@juamu1132]

remember what happened in iraq? hahahahaha

[@ValentineDonato]

Multilateralism amongst countries only happened after devastating wars, so your climate multilateralism will probably happen the same way

[@rl8571]

Philippines is the only former Colony of the USA and it is the weakest former colony compared to how the British, French, and Dutch left their former colonies.

[@ArviPaulBarroga]

Nah … i don’t believe that. Look at the former colonies in western asia, central africa and south & central america’s … they are very poor compared to the philippines

[@GiovanniMarcos-fo7mo]

Im glad that this French sounding Equadorian clarified some definitions of terms which are usually being conflated even to some analysts. Im just a little bit lost when he desperately put most of the blame to outside forces regarding the plight of Venezuela instead of its failed marxian policies.

[@heartstereo08]

Hindi,. Yan pa ba ang iniisip nyo sinakop na talaga tayo ng china may mga tinayo na nga silang mga gusali o facilities sa mga isla sa west Philippine sea, kung ano man ang intention ng us basta mag-focus na lng ang gobyerno sa pagprotekta sa ating teritoryo🤷

[@rodelbunag9823]

Who claim the the philippine territory US or China ?

[@juamu1132]

both

[@christophersarmiento3254]

Its pretty obvious that Philippines was being used

[@fkoff7649]

WHAT BEING USED ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THIS ISSUE OF NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE PHILIPPINES SINCE THIS IS THE WEST PH SEA.. AS A FILIPINO, YOU HAVE THE DUTY TO DEFEND YOUR COUNTRY OR NATIONAL INTEREST FROM THIEVES, EXTERNAL THREATS LIKE CHINA. IF YOU DON'T WANT THE U.S.. INVOLVEMENT, THEN LEARN TO DEFEND AND FIGHT FOR YOUR COUNTRY. BE WILLING TO DIE FOR YOUR COUNTRY.

[@jimlopez5992]

hindi mo yata alam na di lang china at pilipinas ang umaankin sa mga isla sa spratly, nandyan ang malaysia, vietnam, brunei at taiwan. tayo lang ang maingay dahil utos ng ating colonial master.

[@LrD_GrM]

​@@fkoff7649coz your blind 😂

[@johnestoce1503]

@@LrD_GrM do you consider yourself enlightened then? by whom?

[@Naruto-u2k3n]

2 fishermen already been killed by chinese cargo ship

[@tonysia6474]

Philippines could end up the Ukraine of Asia

[@lamarcalewarts1155]

Already was WW2

[@juamu1132]

marcos just picked a fight with malaysia hahahaha. war on two fronts filipinos.

[@Naruto-u2k3n]

Malaysia is submissive dont dream😂

[@RodrigoJ-x4l]

What fight? Marcos and Anwar have been close for more than 25 years. They are best friends

[@lamarcalewarts1155]

No war there

[@juamu1132]

@@RodrigoJ-x4l not anymore marcos extended their claim to include sabah.

[@carmelovirgiliolim2984]

The Philippines must and can strengthen its ties - commercial, cultural, political, diplomatic, financial, military - with the Southeast Asian neighbor countries and carry forward the ASEAN Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality. Through this alliance, issues with China, US and other big nations asserting domination in the area can be resolved properly. ASEAN countries who are peace-loving work out a way to forward their prosperity and set the stage of peace in the world. Philippines must start distancing from a collapsing US.