Slaves readily mimic the traits of their masters in case they ever switch places. Thus, when they become the new bosses, the bourgeois in the Marxist sense, their roles in the larger scheme of politics, governance, defense hit the fan. Left to their own devices, their tendency as hardline cum power-driven stereotypes is not far removed. Long used to the scene, vassal states in like manner play the part.

The long history of subjugation by Spain and the US reflects that only in 1946 did the latter recognize the Philippines as an independent state. But the first such declaration of independence from the former was in 1898 — representing historical milestones of freedom from the clutches of big empires.

Presently, CSAFP Gen. Brawner bragged that US-made missiles can reach mainland China, including its artificial islands, masquerading the threat as against any nation that might invade or seize our territory.

The fear cum warning of a Davao congressman that in the event war erupts, this stance would undermine the current administration as it makes a case of “gambling with people’s lives” and consequently equivocating Brawner as a “puppet of the CIA.”

Is there any worse crime than putting the lives of people in clear and present danger? While the US projects itself as the world’s policeman, nay matriarch of democracy across the globe, isn’t it an overarching fact that it’s a powerful “military-industrial complex” and a global dealer of naval gunships, fighter jets, medium-range missiles, even nuclear warheads? How not true that the US being a MIC could lead to a “cycle of conflict to benefit the industry?”

In an age of arms races or, at best, a “pattern of intense military competition,” the US can arm a frail republic like ours. But it might be of uncertain validity whether the country would be better off than worse off when we engage China by sending her Typhon missiles, once the aggression gets out of proportion.

However, when China retaliates with more missiles than we can contain, what would the lay of the land be? It would seem that the author of an emerging “global security architecture” is no less than the US itself, not China, albeit both superpowers “need each other to thrive.”

As a footnote to history, it has become a known fact that China has a missile it calls DF 61, believed to contain so-called ICBM or intercontinental ballistic missiles which was displayed during the 2025 Victory Parade in Beijing. It’s said to embed 60 nuclear warheads and one hydrogen bomb, if circulating narratives are to be believed.

By official counter-narrative, the defense chief himself passionately overemphasized “China’s desire for dominance or hegemony; 5,000 years of history and control over the area; rabid aggression denying free access over areas of the West Philippine Sea; projecting power in the space east of Japan, Taiwan Strait, the Pacific; rendering the country as target.”

Sometime in 2024, the Malaysian Prime Minister expressed this sentiment: “We are an independent nation, fiercely independent. We don’t want to be dictated on by any force. Once we remain to be an important friend to the United States, Europe, and here in Australia, they should not preclude us from being friendly to one of our important neighbors, precisely China. If you have problems with China, don’t put the pressure on us.”

When narratives clashed, raising the temperature of “China-phobia” to fever pitch, Malaysia took on a “pragmatic and open trading policy, welcoming both US and China investments.” If the frame of mind of the defense and military establishments were the gauge, the present dispensation would diverge.

These leading economies agree on the way forward, viz., “China and the US should be partners and friends because it’s what reality needs.” While frictions are deemed normal, China’s leader articulated, thus, “in the face of winds, waves, and challenges, our nations should stay the right course and insure the steady sailing forward of the giant ship of China-US relations.”