Marcos says Philippines would be dragged 'kicking and screaming' into Taiwan war
China considers self-ruled Taiwan, Manila's closest neighbour to the north, to be part of its territory and has threatened to seize it by force.
"If there's a war over this it is near us. What are we supposed to do?" Marcos told a news conference, adding: "We can't ignore it."
"So inevitably, despite our fervent wish to avoid any confrontation with anybody, anywhere, a war over Taiwan will drag the Philippines, kicking and screaming into the conflict," he said.
"I hope it doesn't happen... But if it does we have to plan for it already," he said, citing the large numbers of Filipinos working in Taiwan.
In an interview with Indian news agency Firstpost during a state visit to New Delhi last week, Marcos said that in the event of a confrontation between China and the United States over Taiwan, "there is no way that the Philippines can stay out of it simply because of our physical geographic location".
"If there is an all-out war, then we will be drawn into it," Marcos said in the interview, which was uploaded on YouTube.
The reported comments angered Beijing, with the the Chinese foreign ministry lodging a diplomatic protest and accusing Marcos of "playing with fire" over the issue.
China and the Philippines have engaged in a series of confrontations in the South China Sea, which Beijing claims almost entirely despite an international ruling that the assertion has no legal basis.
Since his election in 2022, Marcos has boosted cooperation between the former US colony and the United States, with which Manila has a mutual defence treaty.
cgm/fox
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
To Survive A China Fight, U.S. Navy Must Boost West Coast Shipbuilding
The Navy's dream of using small, autonomous ships to deter China's massive conventional naval force is inspiring. The only problem is these Navy strategies depend upon the operational status of the Panama Canal. Without the canal—a shortcut between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans—the Navy's high-tech dreams quickly become a logistical nightmare. If Navy battle plans depend on fielding lots and lots of expendable craft throughout the Pacific, then the Navy had better get serious about building small craft on the west coast, at scale. After years of drumming small craft from the fleet, it is good to see the Navy begin to change course. Dispatching lots of small, expendable ships into the Pacific is not a new concept. Take the tiny World War II-era Patrol Torpedo (PT) Boat. Between 77 and 80 feet long, fleets of these small, lightweight PT Boats fought all over the world. In the Pacific, by the end of World War II, at least 212 PT boats had gotten into the fight. To forward-deploy these vessels, the little ships had to wind their way from shipyards on the eastern side of America, transit the Panama Canal, and fan out into the Pacific. For small craft, America's game plan for the Pacific is the same today as it was 85 years ago. Virtually every surface combatant and Coast Guard Cutter counts on the Panama Canal to pivot between the Atlantic and the Pacific. As an always-reliable asset, few Navy operators alive today waste time mulling canal contingencies. As an unquestioned component of American battle plans since 1914, far too many of America's high-tech warfighters take this global choke point for granted. That is a mistake. Logistics and infrastructure defense specialists know that Panama's strategic short-cut between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean is under threat. The Navy must address the ugly fact that, despite all the security America can provide, a diverse array of enemies, rivals and criminals can shut the Panama Canal down at virtually any time. In modern 'hybrid' conflict, no complex piece of infrastructure is totally secure. The only way to fully mitigate the risk of a strategically significant Panama Canal closure is for the Navy to quickly mobilize America's few remaining shipbuilding-ready sites on the West Coast. If America's national security strategy is based upon a safe and secure Pacific, then America had better prepare to build lots of ships—particularly expendable ones—on the West Coast. U.S. Navy Must Boost West Coast Shipbuilding Real warfighters know that any fight in the Pacific is about managing distance. Without the Panama Canal, the 4,500 nautical mile transit from the Gulf Coast to the Navy's West Coast headquarters in San Diego gets a whole lot longer. Aside from adding 10,000 nautical miles to the trip, the detour south forces ships to travel around Cape Horn and through some of the roughest waters in the world. America's Navy is unready for this kind of grinding logistical endeavor. U.S. Southern Command logisticians know that supporting destroyers and Littoral Combat Ships in the southern hemisphere is hard enough. Managing fleets of America's next-generation autonomous ships, and getting them fuel and maintenance support during a forced months-long detour around South America is a far harder task. Given America's withered afloat support capabilities, shepherding fleets of small craft around Cape Horn is an almost insurmountable logistical challenge. To limit logistical burdens and reduce wear and tear on transiting small craft, the Navy could take a page from World War II-era tactics, and put their small autonomous ships aboard larger shuttle vessels. In World War II, freighters and tankers often ferried PT boats into action, but still, even with a functional Panama Canal, the Navy needed to allocate a month and a half for larger ships to shuttle PT boats from Panama to the contested waters off Guadalcanal. And, even then, the transit wasn't entirely risk free. Cranes would drop boats, or the sea would damage vessels sitting topside. The ferrying cargo ships became high-value targets themselves. In 1943, a submarine sank the SS Stanvac Manila as it was ferrying six PT boats to Noumea, at the South Pacific island of New Caledonia. Modern Naval planners forget that, for small ships, the transit to the World War II battle line was usually an awkward and often grinding mix of travel. Aleutian-bound PT boats, sailing on their own bottoms, needed about twenty days to get from New Orleans to the Panama Canal. After that, they'd be loaded aboard ships for a month-long transit to Seattle, and then, traveling on their own again, they took another month to travel to Adak, Alaska, where they were needed for battle. The strain of the journey took a toll, and, of the first PT Boats in the region, only 75% arrived on time, ready for battle. America's Navy is not ready for this. Put bluntly, the Navy has no plan to manage a long-term closure of the Panama Canal, nor does it have a plan to manage the logistics of getting small ships into the fight. All the tankers, maintainers and escorts needed to support a large-scale autonomous small-ship transit around Cape Horn, are absent. Few heavy lift ships are available to ferry autonomous craft into battle. And nobody in the Navy is anticipating the need to build upwards of 125% of the minimum small ship 'requirement' just to mitigate transit-related losses. The only real solution is to build the smaller craft we will need for a Pacific fight on the West Coast—and prepare to build them at scale. The math works. In the months it would take to get small autonomous ships from East and Gulf Coast shipyards and into a Pacific fight, a modern West Coast shipyard could simply build several of them. Rather than wonder how to manage a three month transit, the Navy must follow Henry Kaiser's example and focus on managing all the new ships a modern West Coast shipyard could build in three months. The Navy may forget, but, in the toughest days of World War II, west coast shipyards could produce a Liberty Ship in ten days. The logistics of pushing autonomous vessels out into the deep Pacific is tough. Helping deter China from preying on Taiwan, the Philippines and beyond is even harder. If the Navy fails to move quickly and boost ship production capabilities along the West Coast, Pacific security will be tied to the operational status of the Panama Canal--and that is simply no longer an acceptable Navy strategy.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Trump keeps changing timeline for Russia to end Ukraine war
Politics Trump keeps changing timeline for Russia to end Ukraine war August 14, 2025 | 10:47 PM GMT President Donald Trump has changed his timeline and demands for Russia to end the war in Ukraine nearly half a dozen times over the past year.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Putin ready to make Ukraine deal, Trump says before Alaska summit
Donald Trump has said he believes Vladimir Putin is ready to make a deal on the war in Ukraine as the two leaders prepare for their summit in Alaska on Friday, but his suggestion the Russian leader and Volodymyr Zelenskyy could 'divvy things up' may alarm some in Kyiv. The US president implied there was a 75% chance of the Alaska meeting succeeding, and that the threat of economic sanctions may have made Putin more willing to seek an end to the war. Trump insisted that he would not let Putin get the better of him in Friday's meeting, telling reporters: 'I am president, and he's not going to mess around with me. 'I'll know within the first two minutes, three minutes, four minutes or five minutes … whether or not we're going to have a good meeting or a bad meeting. 'And if it's a bad meeting, it'll end very quickly, and if it's a good meeting, we're going to end up getting peace in the pretty near future,' said Trump. He also said a second meeting – not yet confirmed – between him, Putin and Zelenskyy would be the more decisive. 'The second meeting is going to be very, very important, because that's going to be a meeting where they make a deal. And I don't want to use the word 'divvy' things up, but you know, to a certain extent, it's not a bad term, OK?' Trump told Fox News Radio. He was referring to the possibility that Zelenskyy will have to accept 'land swaps' – in practice the handing over of Ukrainian territory to Russia, potentially including some not captured by Moscow. Later on Thursday, Trump suggested that any second, trilateral meeting could happen quickly – and possibly take place in Alaska. 'Tomorrow, all I want to do is set the table for the next meeting, which should happen shortly,' he said. 'I'd like to see it actually happen, maybe in Alaska.' Any such meeting would be a concession by Putin since he refuses to recognise Zelenskyy as the legitimate leader of Ukraine. Trump conceded he was unsure whether an immediate ceasefire could be achieved, but expressed interest in brokering a peace agreement. On Putin, he said: 'I believe now, he's convinced that he's going to make a deal. I think he's going to, and we're going to find out.' Zelenskyy will face a difficult choice if Putin rejects Ukraine's call for a full 30-day ceasefire and offers only a partial break in the fighting, particularly if Trump thinks a three-way meeting should still go ahead. The Ukrainian president spent much of Thursday in London discussing Wednesday's video call between European leaders and Trump with the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer. European leaders were largely relieved with the way the conversation went, but know Trump is unpredictable and prone to acting on instinct, rather than sticking to a script. The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said changes on the battlefield could make peace harder. 'To achieve a peace, I think we all recognise that there'll have to be some conversation about security guarantees,' he said. Trump has rejected offering such guarantees before, but it is possible European security guarantees could be agreed. Rubio said he believed Trump had spoken by phone to Putin four times and 'felt it was important to now speak to him in person and look him in the eye and figure out what was possible and what isn't'. Starmer and Zelenskyy met in Downing Street for breakfast on Thursday and hailed 'a visible chance for peace' as long as Putin proved he was serious about ending the war. European leaders emerged from Wednesday's meeting reassured that Trump was going into his summit focused on extracting Putin's commitment to a durable ceasefire and was not seeking to negotiate over Ukraine's head. The plan for Trump and Putin to hold a joint press conference after their talks suggests the White House is optimistic the summit will bring about a breakthrough. Moscow is determined that the summit should not just focus on Ukraine but also agree steps to restart US-Russian economic cooperation. In a brief summary of the Downing Street meeting, British officials said Zelenskyy and Starmer expressed cautious optimism about a truce 'as long as Putin takes action to prove he is serious' about peace. In a separate statement, Zelenskyy said there had been discussions about the security guarantees required to make any deal 'truly durable if the United States succeeds in pressing Russia to stop the killing'. On Wednesday Starmer co-chaired a virtual meeting of the 'coalition of the willing' – a European-led effort to send a peacekeeping force to Ukraine to enforce any deal – where he said there was a 'viable' chance of a truce. On Thursday the prime minister gave Zelenskyy a bear hug in the street outside the door to No 10 in a symbol of continuing British solidarity with the Ukrainian cause. Similar public displays of solidarity followed the disastrous February meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy, when the two leaders quarrelled in front of the cameras in the White House. Further sanctions could be imposed on Russia should the Kremlin fail to engage, and Starmer said the UK was already working on its next package of measures targeting Moscow. Trump has frequently said he will know if he can achieve peace in Ukraine only by meeting Putin personally. He sets great faith in his personal relationship with the Russian leader, but on Wednesday he played down expectations of what he could do to persuade Putin to relent. At the same time he warned there would be 'very severe consequences' for Russia if Putin did not agree to a ceasefire, a veiled threat to increase US sanctions on Russian oil exports. Related: As Ukraine battles to hold lines, Trump may find Putin difficult to persuade He has so far held off from imposing such economic pressure on Russia, but by the end of the month the US is due to impose additional tariffs on Indian imports into the US as a punishment for India continuing to buy Russian oil. The UK would like to see the US consider other, more targeted sanctions, either on the so-called shadow fleet of Russian oil tankers or on refineries that use Russian oil. But Moscow briefed that the Alaska summit, far from leading to extra economic pressure on the Russian economy, would instead include discussion and agreements on new US-Russian economic cooperation, a step that would relieve the pressure on Russian state finances. Some European leaders took heart from the detailed grasp of the issues shown on the call by the US vice-president, JD Vance, and by hints that Trump could be willing to contribute US assets to a European-led security guarantee for Ukraine in the event of a peace agreement. The Alaska summit, due to start at 11.30am local time (2030 BST), will include a one-to-one meeting between Trump and Putin, with interpreters, then a wider meeting. The Russian delegation will include the foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov; the defence minister, Andrei Belousov; the finance minister, Anton Siluanov; the head of the Russian sovereign wealth fund, Kirill Dmitriev; and Putin's foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov.
