This is hugely important and no-one is paying attention.

Philippines President Marcos Jr. just signed 2 new bills (the "Maritime Zones Act" and the "Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act"), backed by the U.S. State Department (via a press release by the infamous Matthew Miller: https://www.state.gov/on-the-philippines-maritime-zones-act/), that claim to implement "international law" but actually are a direct violation of international law in that they attempt to legitimize expansionist claims at the expense of virtually all its neighbors.

Let me explain

First, some context.

The Philippines exist as an independent country since 1946 when they gained their independence from the United States. They had never existed as a country before.

The establishment of the Philippines was officialized by the Treaty of Manilla.

Crucially, the Treaty of Manilla also defined Filipino territory as based on the earlier Treaty of Paris, when Spain ceded the Philippines to the US at the end of the Spanish-American War of 1898.

You can see these boundaries as defined in the treaty of Paris illustrated here As you can clearly see, these boundaries exclude all the contentious spots that are in dispute today: it excludes the Spratly Islands in their entirety (where the famous Second Thomas Shoal is located) and it excludes the Scarborough Shoal which is right outside the border.

So since when have the Philippines started to claim these features as part of its territory?

It basically started in 1972 when the Philippines government invented a new municipality called "Kalayaan" (which means "freedom") that comprises a very large portion of the Spratlys.

This new expansionism wasn't welcome in the region given that China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia all claim the Spratly islands either as a whole or in part...

Crucially, at the time, the US and the West in general did NOT recognize the legitimacy of the Philippines' claim over "Kalayaan", treating the Spratly islands as a disputed area (which it is).

For proof, see this fascinating memo from NSA Brent Scowcroft to President Ford, where the US explicitly states that "as disputed areas, the Spratlys and the Reed Bank can be defined as territory to which the [mutual defense] treaty would not apply."

https://xcancel.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1804052947690754255

Or see this recent 2020 "note verbale" to the UN by Britain, France and Germany in which they write they “take no position” over the “disputed territorial sovereignty to naturally formed land features [...] in the South China Sea” (https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mys_12_12_2019/2020_09_16_DEU_NV_UN_001.pdf)

Long context, sorry, but this is important, because these 2 new bills signed by Marcos Jr. completely change this status quo.

Let's look at what these new bills actually do, because it's quite clever - and extremely concerning.

The Maritime Zones Act (legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata…) does something unprecedented: it declares that "The high-tide features covered by the Kalayaan Island Group in the West Philippine Sea shall have a territorial sea of twelve (12) nautical miles."

This might sound technical, but it's actually a major legal maneuver, because under UNCLOS (the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea), only sovereign territory can generate territorial seas (https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm)

So by declaring territorial seas around these features, the Philippines is essentially claiming sovereignty through the back door.

And here's where it gets really interesting: UNCLOS explicitly does NOT deal with sovereignty disputes.

The famous 2016 UNCLOS arbitration tribunal specifically states this (https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/479-introduction-to-international-comparative-law-fall-2016/resources/14.1-in-the-matter-of-the-south-china-sea-arbitration-philippines-v-china-excerpts/):

"This Tribunal has not been asked to, and does not purport to, make any ruling as to which State enjoys sovereignty over any land territory in the South China Sea, in particular with respect to the disputes concerning sovereignty over the Spratly Islands or Scarborough Shoal."

Did you see what the Philippines did there? Marcos said his new laws were made for the purpose of "aligning our domestic laws with international law, specifically UNCLOS" (pna.gov.ph/articles/1237378) and indeed the Maritime Zones Act references UNCLOS no less than 26 times!

BUT...

But it actually makes a very cynical mockery of UNCLOS, using it - a convention that explicitly doesn't deal with sovereignty - to actually claim sovereignty over disputed territories.

And it gets worse with the second bill, the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act (https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/4404440513!.pdf).

This act allows the Philippines to designate and control sea lanes through what it now claims as its "archipelagic waters" - which conveniently include these disputed areas.

Think about what this means: first you claim sovereignty through the Maritime Zones Act, then you regulate navigation through "your" waters with the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act.

It's a two-step process to establish de facto control over disputed territories.

Let's look at the actual situation in the Spratlys today to understand why this is so problematic:

• Vietnam currently occupies 21 islets and reefs
• the Philippines itself occupies 10
• Malaysia has 7
• China also has 7
• The ROC holds the largest island in the archipelago

Instead of working through these complex overlapping claims via multilateral negotiations, these new bills try to bypass the whole process by simply declaring these disputed areas as Philippine territory through domestic law, then regulating access to them as if they were uncontested Philippine waters.

This was China's first reaction to the new bill (https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xw/wjbxw/202411/t20241108_11523786.html) stating that it "seriously violates UNCLOS and substantially impairs the integrity and authority of UNCLOS" (true) and "seriously violates the DOC", the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea which is the multilateral negotiations between the SCS claimants that aims to find a solution to the disputes.

Frankly none of this would be a huge deal - just another unilateral move by crazy Marcos - if he didn't have U.S. official backing, a complete reversal from their historical position.

The same United States that, ironically, hasn't even ratified UNCLOS itself!

We've gone - as we saw earlier - from the U.S. explicitly stating these areas weren't covered by their mutual defense treaty with the Philippines, to now effectively endorsing expansionist claims that affect not just China, but also the ROC (Taiwan) and multiple ASEAN states.

In usual Matthew Miller Orwellian fashion, which we've seen on display wrt Gaza, he writes: "the US values Philippine leadership in upholding international law".

When as demonstrated earlier the acts are obviously an egregious and cynical violation of international law.

The question of course is whether it now means that the Spratlys - or "Kalayaan" - are now covered by the US-Philippines mutual defense treaty and whether this new set of legislation and the US's backing of it sets up the legal framework for this.

The US ambassador to China, Nicholas Burns, recently gave a first sign of the change in the US position, stating that "all the rest of the world understands that and recognises that this is sovereign Filipino territory" (https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1773938209380307072) with reference to the Second Thomas Shoal and the Scarborough Shoal - a statement that is demonstrably false given that Britain, France and Germany's 2020 note verbale explicitly states they "take no position" on sovereignty claims in the area.

This fits into a broader and deeply concerning pattern we see in U.S. conduct generally - whether in Ukraine, Gaza, Taiwan, or now the South China Sea - where the U.S. systematically undermines diplomatic solutions in favor of escalation and confrontation.

In summary, we have the Philippines transforming relatively recent territorial claims into domestic law, not only bypassing international legal processes but actually misusing them.

They're cynically citing UNCLOS to do exactly what UNCLOS says it can't do: claim territory.

And more worryingly, the U.S. backing of these claims could set up a legal framework to extend defense commitments to disputed territories - creating the conditions for yet another potential military confrontation when it's the last thing the world needs right now...

First time i've stumbled onto this substack and i have to say this is a fairly comprehensive roundup of the latest news not just around the Ukraine conflict, though that is certainly the focus, but covering a lot of what's been happening in the world: conflict in the Middle East, US election clown show, BRICS summit, Moldova elections, etc. albeit once again from a conservative perspective (hence some cringe comments about "wokeness" halfway through the post, but they don't affect the piece much so i just ignore that sort of nonsense)

Only thing missing here is the latest news about the Georgia elections in which the Georgian Dream party apparently won an absolute majority, and in which of course, as was to be expected, the results are being outright denied by the "pro-western" (read: Washington and Brussels puppet) opposition. We're likely to see another attempt at a color revolution scenario very soon as this is their last chance to prevent a reconcilliation with Russia.

I'll try to find some good info/analysis to post on that but i can't guarantee it (i'd appreciate if someone has a good source to share). It usually takes a bit of time after an event like this for the dust to settle and we can understand more clearly what's actually going on without the heavy smokescreen of propaganda. Speaking of which, this "fog of war" is also the reason i haven't so far posted about the most recent Zionist attack on Iran, i'm not convinced that we have reliable enough information yet.

From @rnintel on Telegram: "Russia's counteroffensive in the Kursk region: Russia has recaptured 519.8 sqkm of area. Ukraine still holds 559.3 sqkm"

Another summary of the latest developments on the Donbass front, accumulating reports of the grisly but inevitable slow motion collapse of the Kiev regime forces, along with a slew of panicky articles that have been coming out recently from the western media.

And for those interested in diving into some more detail, here is an additional analysis of the broader Russian operations so far from a military technical perspective with some historical comparisons and some informed predictions:

https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/october-the-great-offensive-is-inevitable

I don't necessarily think that these predictions will come true, or at least not in this time frame, but it is an interesting possibility to consider. And as usual: a reminder to tread with caution when it comes to these right-leaning sources. They're competent enough with military analysis, but don't go there expecting good political takes or progressive social views.

The 294-meter Flying Fish 1 traveled from St. Petersburg to Shanghai in just over three weeks, cutting two weeks off the traditional route via the Suez Canal.

This marks a major milestone for Arctic shipping, with nearly 20 transits expected this year, connecting Russian and Chinese ports through the Northern Sea Route.

The ship, operated by EZ Safetrans Logistics, maintained a steady speed without icebreaker assistance, highlighting how much Arctic conditions have changed.

This news may seem mundane but actually it's pretty historic. Russia and China now have a huge logistical and competitive economic advantage. This transit corridor is only going to grow in throughput volume in coming years. And most importantly it cannot be (easily) blocked by the Western imperialists like the southern straits and canals can.

As usual with this source i will give a content warning that this is a right wing source and if you step outside of their solid geopolitical analysis you may see them say some very cringe reactionary things.

The piece itself is ok, as usual a decent summary of recent events. I could see nothing particularly objectionable, except perhaps for a couple of somewhat unserious terms that a Marxist wouldn't use, such as "totalitarian".

Also, i don't vouch in any way for the comment section, i generally don't read those but it's probably a mix of ok and very very awful, so enter at your own peril. I hope this is enough to address the recent criticism that was expressed here about sharing content from problematic sources.

Military expert Leonkov: The idea of Ukraine's contacts with Syrian terrorists may belong to London

Text by Anastasia Kulikova

Kiev has no weighty arguments left that would allow the Ukrainian Armed Forces to seize the initiative in the free defense zone. Therefore, Ukraine, with the help of militants from Idlib, will try to open a second front against Russia in Syria, military expert Alexey Leonkov told VZGLYAD newspaper. Earlier it became known about the arrival of Ukrainian instructors in Idlib and the contacts of the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine with terrorist organizations in the region.

"Idlib province is a special zone, a kind of terrorist reserve, so to speak. Fighters who fought government forces in Syria and then laid down their weapons swore they would never fight again. And then they and their families were exiled there. Among them were immigrants, including from the former republics of the USSR. Russian aircraft, Syrian troops and the Hezbollah movement did not touch them. Those, in turn, very rarely attempted terrorist attacks, " said military expert Alexey Leonkov.

"Now, apparently, these militants have been used, "he added, noting that the" recruiter " Kirill Budanov has become one of the main terrorists. However, according to the interlocutor, the idea of Ukraine's contacts with Syrian terrorists may belong to MI6 and its head Richard Moore.

"But in the media space, the whole story is presented as if the initiator is Kiev, despite the fact that the Ukrainian leadership serves only as a screen. If the Anglo-Saxons are accused, they will shift responsibility to Ukraine, " the expert believes. At the same time, the Kiev authorities are not able to independently organize any of the announced operations.

"So, if we talk about the "purchase" of fighters from Idlib in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the question arises: how will they be moved to the free defense zone? We are talking about recognized terrorists who, as expected, will have to cross the territories of a number of sovereign countries. It seems that Ukraine does not have enough resources for such an action, so everything can happen under the patronage of London and, possibly, Washington, " Leonkov says.

He does not rule out that the militants will first be transported by British transport planes to a military base in Romania, and then sent on foot in armored vehicles to the territory of Ukraine. "Sending AFU instructors to Syria also looks feasible," the analyst continued. "They can travel by passenger transport to Turkey, posing as tourists, and then cross the border and end up in Idlib province."

The analyst recalled that the Ukrainian military often conducts terrorist operations using drones. "Despite the fact that the Syrian terrorists were the pioneers in this, the Ukrainian Armed Forces now have a lot of experience," he said.

Leonkov admitted that Ukraine, with the help of Britain and the United States, is trying to open a second front against Russian forces. "Kiev has no weighty arguments and forces left that would allow the Ukrainian army to achieve success on the line of contact in the free zone. In this regard, they targeted Russian military bases located on the territory of Syria. The enemy's plans look crazy, " the source emphasized.

However, this is quite in the interests of London and Washington. "Their gamble with the Gaza Strip is over. The Israeli army has not achieved a single goal, " the expert believes. The resumption of full-scale military operations on the territory of Syria will end in the defeat of the terrorists, he believes. "The Syrian Arab Republic will have a chance to clear the province of Idlib from militants. We should expect that the government forces will be supported by Hezbollah, the IRGC, as well as Russian forces that assist Damascus in the fight against terrorists, " the speaker said.

He separately mentioned the Syrian government forces. "Syria has strengthened its army since 2018. Damascus regularly conducts counterterrorism operations. In fact, the Syrian Arab Republic is in a semi-military situation, and the army is on high alert, " the speaker stressed. But, according to the expert, Syria will take steps only in the event of aggression by terrorists from Idlib.

Against the background of the encroachments of Ukraine and Britain in Syria, Russia faces significant risks. "The threat of terrorist attacks against our military bases in Syria exists constantly. If fighting starts from Idlib province, we will provide air support to government forces, " Leonkov concluded.

Earlier it became known that Ukrainian instructors are arriving in the Syrian province of Idlib. According to local sources, at least 250 people have already arrived. They should train the banned terrorist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham* to make drones. The Ukrainians were distributed to production facilities in the area of Jisir al-Shughur.

It is also indicated that various components for assembling UAVs were transferred to the militants. Their instructors brought them to Idlib in parts under the guise of civilian goods. According to a RIA Novosti source, "the Ukrainians and Americans are moving battles from Ukraine to Syria to open a new front against Russian forces in Syria."

It is noteworthy that a day earlier it became known that the head of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, Kirill Budanov, is in constant contact with the aforementioned group. It is also indicated that the dialogue is being conducted with the head of the terrorist "Nusra" (banned in Russia terrorist organization), whose nickname is Abu Mohammad Julani. "They solve the issues of selling terrorist mercenaries and sending them further to Ukraine against the Russian army, "writes the Arabic edition of Al-Watan.

The focus of recruitment is on immigrants from the former Soviet Union, then these people are trained and transferred to Ukraine for at least two months. According to information from the west of Idlib and from the north of Latakia province, Ukrainian intelligence officers are recruiting fighters from the Caucasus, Uighurs, Turkomans, and Russians who consider Russia a hostile country.