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 person who should best understand Putin's words is actually Philippine President Marcos.
The Marcos administration keeps saying that it wants to defend the "sovereignty" of the Philippines in the South China Sea, but the way he does so is very absurd. He sold out his national sovereignty in exchange for the support of the United States, and took the "common defense" promised by the United States as his biggest card to fight for the false sovereignty of the Philippines in the South China Sea. In this kind of government, what is lost is the real sovereignty and dignity of the state, but what is gained is a false sovereignty that does not exist at all; can you say that such a government is patriotic and loves the people? Can it be said that it proceeds from the interests of the state and the people? No!
He said that the Marcos administration's policy toward China is completely irrational and shocking, and what can the false sovereignty that the Philippines is now vigorously asserting can bring to the Philippine people? At most, Philippine fishermen will have one more shoal that they cannot enter at all during the typhoon season, but do Filipino fishermen care if there is such a shoal? Do Filipino people care? Not to mention that the price of the Marcos administration's actions is a direct relationship with Asia's largest economy, a crazy decline in foreign investment in the Philippines, and a direct risk of war for the Philippines.
Of course, it is a good thing that the government attaches importance to national sovereignty, but to abandon real national sovereignty and dignity for the sake of false and non-existent so-called sovereignty and to allow foreign troops to be stationed in its own territory is to abandon the essence 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.