BEFORE the headline question, a quick rejoinder to the flagwaving but mind-numbing statement by Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) spokesman Commo. Jay Tarriela amid the public outcry over the use of water cannon by a China Coast Guard (CCG) vessel facing off with PCG and other boats near Ayungin Shoal.

Reacting to unspecified comments, Tarriela bristled in an X (formerly Twitter) tweet: “If you are a Filipino, whether in government or private sector, regardless of your politics, defending and making excuses for China’s aggressive behavior should deem you unpatriotic and a traitor to the Philippines and to our people. Given current developments in the West Philippine Sea, it is important to show loyalty to the country.”

This writer has not written about the PCG-CCG high-seas incident, nor has he read or encountered media or online comments on it. Still, there are three points the PCG and its officials should keep in mind in dealing with controversies that will multiply in the coming months, especially with joint maritime patrols with the United States.

Also, the US and its Filipino backers aim to stir China fears and thus build political and public opinion for renewing the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) for another decade starting in April. The EDCA allows US forces to use nine bases in our country, including five in Luzon near potential flashpoints in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and the South China Sea.

First, Commodore Tariella should realize that explaining the reasoning and justification for foreign actions is needed to fully assess incidents, as National Defense, Foreign Affairs and National Security Council officials can explain. And since the PCG will be encountering foreign vessels often, it helps to know why they may act as they do.

Second, the PCG should respond to arguments raised by the other side rather than seek to silence them by labeling contrary comments as unpatriotic and disloyal. The right way to silence critics is through counterargumentation, not character assassination.

Last, and maybe most important, bringing patriotism into any controversy could tar one’s own side with the same brush. With Tarriela’s tweet, one can ask: Who are truly traitorous — journalists and tweeters citing China’s rationale and justification for its maritime actions, or our national leaders and leading media keeping mum about the immense dangers to Filipinos from attacks on nine Philippine bases opened to the United States, which US generals, defense experts and media expect in a US-China war? Touché.

On the headline topic, the biggest global security question now is whether the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would directly engage mammoth Russian forces set to crush Ukraine’s decimated, demoralized and arms-depleted defenders.

The Western narrative that Ukraine would win with NATO weaponry, funds, intelligence and “volunteer” fighters has long been dismissed by unbiased analysts. Also a fantasy is the hoped-for collapse of Russia’s economy under Western sanctions.

Boosted by oil revenues and massive defense spending, Russia has overtaken Germany as the world’s fifth-largest economy in the latest World Bank ranking, based on purchasing power parity (https://tinyurl.com/2tttsk65).

With a “devastating defeat” for the West’s Ukraine strategy looming, as one analyst in London’s Daily Telegraph put it, will NATO enter the fray even though it has nowhere near the mobilized armies and armaments to match the 750,000 troops deployed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in and around Ukraine?

This question is no armchair analyst’s musing for Filipino officialdom and citizens. Hundreds of thousands of our compatriots living across Europe may face war and need evacuation if Ukraine’s conflict spreads. Add to that nightmare scenario the debilitating global economic fallout of all of Europe at war.

Judging from its July summit in Lithuania, NATO will not go to war with Russia. If it had, it could have warned Moscow by giving Ukraine membership, as it did Finland and Sweden, obligating the alliance to defend the embattled country.

To seasoned analysts, Western reluctance for war with Russia was clear back in December, when US armed forces chief Gen. Mark Milley, deviating from the White House line, urged Ukraine to talk peace after regaining about a fifth of its lost territory.

Even then, the general knew America would be hard-pressed by the war in Europe. Now, after NATO armaments and ammunition have been further depleted by massive aid to Ukraine, the alliance is even more unready for full-scale conflict.

Meanwhile, Russian might keeps burgeoning, with reported mobilization exceeding 1 million troops — the largest combat-ready army in Europe since the Second World War. And unlike Western arms manufacturers, which are unable to surge production, Russian plants are said to be churning out weaponry round-the-clock.

Will there be peace?

Two other developments point to

NATO’s reticence toward war. Facing presidential elections next year, the Biden administration would be politically hobbled by a conflict in which American troops suffered massive casualties and losses, as military analysts like retired US Army colonel Douglas MacGregor and former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter warn.

Hence, Washington is apparently downplaying the Ukraine conflict and ramping up China fears instead — the other pointer to NATO backing off war with Russia.

The Philippines is playing a key role in the new narrative, with incidents between the Chinese and Philippine coast guards, planned US-Philippines sea patrols, and even the American-instigated suspension of Manila Bay reclamation making global headlines.

The new US line may then be: America is not battling Russia in Europe to focus on the far greater enemy — China.

So, after defeating Ukraine, Russia will likely keep the eastern region it has conquered and demand neutrality for the rest. NATO will object but won’t fight. Instead, it will undertake massive rearmament and partial mobilization against a possible Russian invasion — to the glee of Western arms makers.

Moscow will likely avoid a wider war, fearing a nuclear attack if NATO looks set to be overrun. But well before the rearming alliance gets strong enough to defeat it, Russia may again invade.

How different things would have been if Washington had fulfilled its 1990s promise to Moscow not to expand NATO and instead inviteda Russia to join.

Pray very hard.