Last of two parts

THE real damage in Davos last week was not Donald Trump’s public humiliation (TMT, Jan. 28, 2026). It was strategic. The world — especially Beijing — was reminded that this American era still runs on a familiar cycle: thunderous threats followed by cheap, face-saving retreats. Wall Street has given it a clinical name: “TACO” (Trump always chickens out). In the logic of Texas Hold’em poker, it is a bet on the inevitability of the fold once bluffs harden into habit and habit masquerades as doctrine.

This pattern is no longer anecdote. It is signal. And for countries whose security calculations rest on American resolve, signals matter more than speeches.

For the Philippines, the implications are profound. We have long treated Washington as the custodian of international law, the guarantor that rules would restrain appetite. Trump’s recent conduct exposes that guardianship as conditional at best, illusory at worst. The realtor’s attempt to “acquire” Greenland should be read in Manila not as farce, but as warning: An ally that treats territory as inventory may one day treat Ayungin Shoal or Bajo de Masinloc as negotiable line items in a larger bargain with Beijing.

When Arctic ice melted, Greenland revealed itself to Washington not as a people, but as a distressed asset. If the United States can threaten punitive tariffs on NATO allies over land it does not own — then abandon those threats for a vaporous framework — what, precisely, is the market value of a rusting hull like the BRP Sierra Madre?

The asterisk in the alliance

This is where the danger sharpens. Manila’s red lines now come with an asterisk. Beijing’s salami-slicing — incremental seizures via water cannons, maritime militia and administrative creep — is designed to exploit exactly this rhythm of bluff, threaten, fold without triggering war.

Each action is calibrated to remain below the threshold of automatic response, betting that ambiguity and fatigue will do the rest.

Filter a crisis at Ayungin through the TACO lens and the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) risks mutation — from deterrent into bargaining chip, tradable in a grand deal elsewhere.

Imagine a late-night Truth Social post: “Had a great talk with Chairman Xi. We’re doing a historic trade deal. On the South China Sea, we’re looking at a New Era of Cooperation. Moving the ship to save lives!”

In a transactional world, automaticity is dead. Protection becomes a subscription service — renewed only if the cost of the show does not exceed the value of the deal. The problem for Manila is not sudden abandonment, but conditionality disguised as partnership.

Europe calls the bluff

Trump’s tariff tantrums and Greenland theatrics collapsed at Davos not because of sudden wisdom or moral awakening, but because Europe found its spine. The European Union answered bluster with leverage, hinting at coordinated retaliation that would hurt where America actually listens: markets. This was value-based realism in action. Adults forcing a bully to stand down when power finally met power.

The Philippines cannot call bluffs the way Europe can. We do not move markets; we wave principles. For years, we treated international law like Vaclav Havel’s greengrocer’s sign — displaying the 2016 arbitral ruling as moral cover, a diplomatic anting-anting hung in the window to ward off coercion. But the Greenland farce reminded us of a hard truth: The strong do not obey signs. They negotiate with those who can impose pain.

From alliance monogamy to the security mesh

Surviving the TACO era requires a strategic pivot — away from alliance monogamy and toward archipelagic autonomy. If our shoals can be traded, our survival depends on weaving a security web so dense that no single thread — American included — can cause the structure to collapse.

This is not abandonment of Washington. It is insulation from Washington’s volatility.

Japan: The stealth anchor

Recent logistics agreements with Tokyo quietly complete a circuit that matters more than rhetoric: fuel, ammunition, food. Force multiplied. In a TACO scenario where Washington hesitates to resupply exposed outposts, Japanese logistics provide a secondary lifeline, reinforced by new infrastructure assistance. Tokyo is not merely helping Manila. It is defending its own southern doorstep, recognizing that Philippine vulnerability quickly becomes Japanese exposure.

Australia: Squad-ifying the shoals

As the Philippines assumes the Asean chairmanship, defense cooperation with Canberra must move from intent to permanence. Infrastructure projects across Luzon are not symbolic; they create a standing footprint. A blockade of Ayungin would no longer affront Manila alone — it would implicate Australia. This is deterrence by persistence, not performance. Middle-power solidarity that cannot be casually traded away in a late-night deal.

France: Europe’s hard power

France’s entry into the Philippine defense orbit introduces something we have long lacked: European hard power in Asian waters. Beyond patrol craft, Paris offers a pathway to undersea capability. Submarines change psychology before they change tactics. The calculus shifts when every Philippine asset is no longer trackable from orbit. Presence becomes ambiguity. Vulnerability becomes doubt.

What emerges is not a replacement for the American alliance, but a mesh — overlapping, redundant, resilient. If one ally hesitates, the others remain engaged. Exit becomes costly. Commitment becomes rational.

Asean as a survival blueprint

Europe’s defiance offers Southeast Asia a lesson it has long resisted learning: collective economic retaliation changes the arithmetic of intimidation. As chair, the Philippines must push Asean beyond its comfort zone —— from a gallery of pliant clients into a coalition of consequence. A unified trade posture transforms Southeast Asia into a market whose response is automatic and coordinated. Coercion loses efficiency when the target is not Manila alone, but a regional network.

The gray zone thrives on isolated victims. It withers under collective friction. This is not idealism. It is mechanics.

Living without illusions

The ice has melted — geographically and morally. Defense can no longer be treated as a hand-me-down from MDT 1951. It must be understood as a multilateral joint venture, assembled deliberately for an age of transactional power.

The emerging architecture is clear enough: overlapping partnerships among the United States, Japan, Australia, key European actors, and a more assertive Asean core. If one partner “chickens out,” others remain in the water. Multi-alignment raises the entry price for Chinese aggression and the exit price for American abandonment.

Manila survives not by demanding loyalty, but by making exit more expensive than commitment. We must sail with those already afloat — and build a hull that does not crack when the bluffs come roaring.

The final hurdle: The internal rot

Even the most elegant security architecture collapses when its foundations are rotten. The Philippines’ gravest vulnerability is not external pressure, but internal decay. Systemic corruption has hollowed out institutions, shattered public trust, and made strategic commitments brittle. Against this rot, American double-speak and Chinese intimidation are secondary.

Corruption masquerading as governance is the republic’s foremost national security threat. It distorts procurement, weakens deterrence, and turns strategic nodes into points of coercion. Sovereignty is not a slogan; It is the capacity to absorb pressure without fracture. So long as our internal systems remain compromised, our maritime claims rest on sand.