Understanding the Current Threats, De-escalations, and National Interests In-Between
By: COL Dencio S Acop (Ret), PhD, CPP | Published: November 27, 2025
Reading Time: 8 minutes
It is reassuring to be reading about de-escalations in Gaza and perhaps even in Ukraine that could lead to peace finally after four years of war with Russia. While it may sound strange, the planned deployment of U.S. marines in the Philippines is also de-escalating in my view in the sense that it will bring a sort of détente between the Philippines and China.
Without the United States balancing off China, the latter has been having its way bullying the Philippines in its own front yard behaving like the much smaller country was its province. The U.S. is very visible now not only in the Indo-Pacific but in every other part of the world where China is actively advancing its global agenda. Unwilling to cede its global status to China, the U.S. is deploying everything it’s got to halt China’s advances at their tracks using all means possible. If it takes deploying the world’s strongest battle group just for a law enforcement mission in the Caribbean, the U.S. has done just that.
While observers may see the action as an “overkill”, the real objective is China more than it is Venezuela or the cartels. The U.S. is finally concerned that its complacency towards China over the years has allowed it to grow and now threaten U.S. interests worldwide. If the U.S. was hell-bent on re-taking back effective control of the Panama Canal, it is not because of sentimental reasons that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had built it.
Truth is that China has been eyeing global minerals and natural resources from whichever parts of the globe these can be sourced and reached. These resources are needed both for developing economic and military infrastructures. Venezuela is an oil-producer. Whoever controls the Panama Canal has strategic advantage over tons of cargo traversing between the two largest oceans of the world: the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Observers argue that the U.S. has somewhat neglected its neighbors to the south which it has largely associated with drug cartels victimizing Americans through the illicit drug trades. However, this gap in the global south has also allowed China to quietly creep in.
If the U.S. cannot even be dominant in its own backyard relative to China’s encroachments, how can it off-balance China in its front-yard: the South China Sea?
Subscribe to the API Newsletter
Bite-sized updates sent straight to your inbox.
Success!
First Name
Last Name
By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copper-rich South – Central Africa is another region eyed by both China and the U.S. Beijing has been at it for a while and so it proved challenging when U.S. companies suddenly tried to compete. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio frequents Panama, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Jamaica, Guyana, Surinam, and the Dominican Republic. His constant presence in these countries already underscores the very high importance that America now gives the Global South. Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, we see Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth frequently visiting allies in the Asia-Pacific region.
In a recent assembly of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Kuala Lumpur, Hegseth announced that the U.S. and the Philippines have formed “Task Force Philippines” to “increase operational cooperation, improve combined planning, and enhance interoperability.”
Repeating what he has said publicly in the past, Hegseth raised concern about China’s actions toward US regional allies and partners. This statement hinted at not only China’s actions against the Philippines in the West Philippine Sea but also China’s surveillance flights over Australia, among others. Finally, he reassured allies that the U.S. “shared their determination to re-establish deterrence in the region.”
For the Philippines, Hegseth said they will speed up progress on major priorities within the next two years. For instance, the Philippines and the U.S. have scheduled 500 joint engagements for 2026 including large-scale exercises and exchanges of subject matter experts. Hegseth said the U.S. will maintain a robust rotational force presence in the Philippines. The US Congress has just approved the planned deployment of US Marine Littoral Regiments to the Philippines under “Force Design.” (Also read: The Philippines: a new laboratory for US cutting-edge missiles and drones )
These units are organized, trained, and equipped to accomplish missions within contested maritime spaces. By my estimate, Batanes and Palawan are at least two of the areas these units are expected to cover. Taiwan may be the ultimate target of China, but the Philippines is surely in the crossfire zone. The U.S. has a 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines and a 1979 Taiwan Relations Act with the Republic of China (ROC).
While the former commits the US to get involved militarily (as in World War II), the latter merely ensures that ROC has the resources it needs to defend itself and prevent any unilateral change of status by PRC. Of course, China counters the latter very strongly stating that Taiwan is an internal matter and only for the Chinese people to resolve.
In his recent visit to another ally, South Korea, Hegseth told his counterpart that due to the “changing security environment and threats”, the U.S. could see a re-deployment of troops not seen in a while. The 28,500 US soldiers in South Korea will now be on a more flexible deployment schedule. South Korea, for its part, is increasing its defense budget due to the “complex and unstable” regional security environment. Meanwhile, the North Korean leader “has ignored overtures” from US President Donald Trump and South Korean leader Lee Jae Myung. But this is nothing new.
While Trump intensifies strategic moves to sustain America’s global dominance, it appears that he also has his eyes focused on winning the Nobel Peace Prize which he almost got in the past but has escaped him twice. The American leader’s 20-Point Gaza Peace Plan appears to still be holding up. So far, the peace plan has been promising. The United Nations has recently passed a Resolution endorsing the U.S. “Comprehensive Plan” to end the Gaza conflict.
The vote was 13 in favor, with China and Russia abstaining due to reported concerns over lack of clarity on some details such as the two-state solution and the role of the Palestinian Authority. The resolution authorizes the formation of an International Stabilization Force for post-war Gaza to secure the area, oversee demilitarization of militant groups, protect civilians, and escort humanitarian aid. The U.S. is in talks with countries like Egypt, Qatar, the UAE, Indonesia, and Azerbaijan to contribute troops, but some nations remain wary of engaging in potential clashes with militants.
While the plan aims to secure a permanent ceasefire and transition Gaza for a new governance structure, its implementation still faces challenges and ongoing tensions. For instance, the ceasefire remains fragile. Both Israeli forces and Palestinian militants have been accused of violations. Major points of contention include the status of Hamas fighters trapped in tunnels as well as the bodies of Israeli hostages still to be returned.
While the future of Palestinian statehood could be a possibility down the road, the language in the UN resolution lacks explicit, guaranteed commitment to a two-state solution which is preferred by many UN members and some Arab nations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on the other hand, has reiterated his opposition to a Palestinian state.
This hardline stance of the Jewish nation is not expected to soften anytime in the future. The Jews put a strong attachment between their Judaic faith and the land they believe Yahweh destined them to settle in. But, ultimately, the current ceasefire can only last with the promise of an eventual two-state solution looming through the horizon.
Anything less, including autonomy, may not be enough. However, only a mutually agreeable win-win scenario will lead to long-lasting peace. While the Middle East looks more promising, at least for now, the situation in Ukraine seems precarious. Following their latest meeting, Trump has given Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy only a week (ending 28 November 2025) to either accept or refuse his 28-Point Peace Plan to end Ukraine’s war with Russia. Otherwise, Trump has threatened to withdraw US arms and intelligence support to Ukraine.
Thereafter, Zelenskiy has reported to the Ukrainian people that they now face the most difficult choice of either losing their dignity and freedom or losing a strategic ally in their 4-year conflict with Russia. To most observers, acceptance would basically be a sell-out to Vladimir Putin because the plan endorses key Russian demands while ignoring Ukraine’s. The plan calls for Ukraine ceding territory to Russia, accepting limits to its military capabilities (Ex., a 600,000 cap on troop strength), and renouncing ambitions to join NATO. On the other hand, Russia is merely required to withdraw from areas it has already captured.
Zelenskiy and European leaders, who have not been consulted on the peace deal by Trump, are now working on a counter proposal. But there are reports that Ukraine may have suffered some insurmountable challenges prompting Zelenskiy to consider cutting Ukrainian losses and work for a lasting peace with dignity and freedom. The once feisty Ukrainian leader let off words like the deal could be the “basis of a final resolution” to the conflict.
Whatever the outcome, these developments from the late stages of the war have long-lasting implications for the international rule of law and world peace. For one, it sends the message that it is alright for a country like Russia to invade another country and re-write national boundaries violating the international rule of law. For another, there is also no guarantee that the deal will result in lasting peace. This is usually where the UN Security Council steps in to arbitrate just conflict resolution within the bounds of international law.
Even some fellow Republicans of Trump have aired this concern. Yet another far-reaching implication is the fact that the leader of the free world now appears to be adopting the unilateral deployment of actions impacting other nations that challenge the prevailing order. This alternative type of behavior is the same one being adopted by Russia, China, North Korea, and their allies which challenge the US-led world order.
A practical illustration of this ambiguity is for instance the routine passage of a battle group testing freedom of navigation through international sea lanes in the South China Sea. Ignoring taunting warnings from the People’s Liberation Army which claims the sea is China’s, the battle group routinely passes through in radio silence.
The formation is finally able to get through the international waters without incident. Even PLA jets or drones fly intimidation flights near US aircraft but from a “safe” distance. What has kept the Chinese from asserting themselves forcefully? The international order and rule of law did. Now, why would the US surrender this edge in Ukraine?
The post Understanding the Current Threats, De-escalations, and National Interests In-Between appeared first on asiapacificinsights.com.