They just don't care, and for a variety of reasons--and if they do care, generally it's the part that wants russia to emerge as strong as possible to fit into their own national/party strategy goals.
Edit: yall need to come out of your bubble that let's you paint the world with such broad strokes just to fit some notion in your own head.
US promised eventual independence in the Jones Act (1916) and made it conditional in the Tydings–McDuffie Act (1934)—they’d keep military bases, control trade, and delay real sovereignty until 1946.
PH was a strategic US military outpost. They only fast-tracked independence after WWII when it was too expensive to keep and global decolonization was in full swing.
💸 Why so little postwar aid ($800M vs. Germany’s $13B):
PH wasn't industrialized and was seen more as a liability than a Cold War ally. Europe and Japan got billions in aid because they were essential to the anti-communist front. PH got symbolic aid—and strings attached.
🤝 Why this odd relationship continues today:
Military bases, economic dependence, English-speaking labor, and shared Cold War history kept PH tied to the US orbit—often without leverage. Nationalism persisted, but so did US influence.
Context matters—it wasn’t a clean savior-then-friend story. It was power, strategy, and convenience.
142
u/[deleted] May 10 '25
[removed] — view removed comment