The meaning of commemoration is to draw necessary lessons and to prevent mistakes from happening again. The lessons from World War II — we have five of them to share — are critical for understanding how to restore and maintain long-lasting and just peace and security in Europe today, when they are again at risk.
1. Appeasing the aggressor leads to more aggression, not peace.
Concessions on unlawful territorial claims are a disastrous mistake. The partition of Czechoslovakia in 1938 only fueled Nazi Germany’s appetite and resulted in a global war. Learning from this lesson, Ukraine will never accept the legitimization of Russia’s occupation and annexation of any part of Ukraine’s territory. Respect for territorial integrity is a fundamental principle of international law. There will be no sustainable peace and security at the cost of Ukraine’s people, independence, sovereignty or territorial integrity.
2. Spheres of influence never bring peace and stability.
They bring oppression. World War II began when Nazi Germany invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, one week after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and secret protocols to it between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich, agreeing to partition Poland, the Baltic States and the rest of Europe. Similarly, the victors sought to establish and consolidate their spheres of influence at a meeting in the Crimean city of Yalta in 1945. The cessation of fire in Europe on May 8, 1945, did not bring freedom to many European nations. They remained under Soviet occupation and control and suffered decades of international crimes, oppression and lack of freedom. For many of our states and our people, this nightmare ended only five decades later, with the re-establishment of our sovereignty and independence from 1989 to 1991.
Today Mr. Putin fantasizes about another Yalta, where he can draw borders on Europe’s map, once again undermining international law and the right of nations in Russia’s neighborhood to make their own choices and decisions. We must never allow this. Our principled position is that no third country has veto power over the choice of unions and alliances of Ukraine or any other nation. Ukraine has already made its choice — the choice of the European Union and NATO — and it is not for the Kremlin to scrutinize this.
3. A lack of accountability breeds future atrocities.
Nazi crimes were widely exposed, condemned, investigated and prosecuted, unlike Soviet ones. It’s very important that both totalitarian ideologies — Nazism and Soviet — receive proper evaluation in Europe. More light must be shed on crimes by the Soviet regime, including the deportations and executions of political prisoners in our countries, the destruction of Kyiv’s city center and the Dnipro Hydroelectric Station dam during the Soviet retreat in 1941, the mass-scale deportations of our people to Siberia, the violent repression of the members of anti-Soviet movements and the genocide of Crimean Tatars through deportation from their native land in 1944, to name a few. Hundreds of thousands of people were forcibly removed from their homes, many packed into cattle cars, and sent to remote regions of Siberia from the Baltics states alone. The crime of the Holodomor genocide, in particular, in which millions of Ukrainians starved to death, should have a more prominent place in the European historical understanding.
Soviet crimes must be properly condemned, including those committed during the Soviet occupation of Europe after World War II. Russia’s failure to properly condemn Stalinism and to compensate for the occupational damage and its overall feeling of impunity led to revanchism and aggression against Georgia and Ukraine. This case highlights the importance of accountability for Russia’s current crimes, including after the future fall of Mr. Putin’s regime.
4. Historical manipulation must be corrected.
As Russia continues its war against Ukraine and intensifies its hostile actions toward democratic European countries, the need to promote shared European remembrance narratives across the continent and beyond is more pressing than ever. A truthful assessment and profound understanding of history form the foundation of a society’s democratic resilience. We all stand ready to counter Russian disinformation activities and Russia’s attempts to rewrite European history.
Russia has no right to monopolize the victory over Nazism, which was accomplished by multiple nations and peoples. Even the Red Army was multinational, with at least six million Ukrainians fighting in its ranks. Instead of commemorating World War II victims, Mr. Putin’s regime has crafted an ugly cult of victory, utilizing the collective victory over the Nazis to justify its current aggression and atrocities against Ukrainians. The upcoming May 9 parade, in which Russia annually marks the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany, is designed as the glorification of this cult. Mr. Putin will use it to rally more Russians to the front lines, solidify his regime and create an impression that his international isolation is fading. These plans must fail.
5. As President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine has said, ‘Freedom must be armed better than tyranny.’ In the current severe security deficit, sufficient defense capabilities are a must. Si vis pacem, para bellum. (If you want peace, prepare for war.) Ukraine will never accept any restrictions on its armed forces, defense capabilities or defense assistance. Instead, Kyiv is working to expand defense-industrial output and achieve defense self-sufficiency.
Learning these simple but important lessons of World War II is critical both to prevent the outbreak of World War III and to reinvent a fair international system with real security guarantees for peaceful democratic states that offers accountability for aggressors and deterrence of them. We must avoid repeating the mistakes that led to World War II and the subsequent Yalta system. We are confident that with sufficient resolve, we can do better, defend our principles and secure a free, united and secure Europe. We will continue working together to achieve this. Never again. This is the common warning of countries affected by the Treaty of Munich, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Yalta Agreement.
Matteo Bruni, a Vatican spokesman, told reporters on Thursday that Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost’s choice to be called Pope Leo XIV had been a clear and deliberate reference to the last Leo, who led during a difficult time for the Roman Catholic Church and helped marshal it into the modern world.
Leo XIII — who was head of the church from 1878 to 1903, one of the longest reigns in papal history — is known for his 1891 encyclical “Rerum Novarum,” which strongly defended the rights of working people to a living wage and set the tone for the church’s modern social doctrine. He became known as the “pope of the workers.”
“Addressing the rising socialist threat — as the church saw it in the late 19th century,” Leo XIII “called on the church to reach out to a working class and to basically try to ameliorate some of these goals of capitalism and to benefit the working class and work out a amicable relationship between capital and labor,” said David I. Kertzer, a professor at Brown University whose book “Prisoner of the Vatican” examined the role of Leo XIII’s predecessor, Pius IX, the last sovereign ruler of the Papal States. “In that sense,” Leo XIII is “seen as a kind of connection between the pre-modern and the modern church.”
“The choice of name is a moderate reference, in that Leo XIII was a pre-modern pope and conservative in many ways, but he was also a transitional figure reaching out to the poor,” said Professor Kertzer. “You could say he was a middle-of-the-roader.” The selection of the name Leo XIV “seems like a choice of following Francis, but taking the edges off,” he added.
Leo XIII was a strong pope who was “very much engaged in the issues of his time,” said Robert Orsi, a professor of religious studies and history at Northwestern University. “He responded with authority and compassion to the industrial era” and defended workers’ rights and labor organizations.
Choosing to be called Leo XIV could signal the new pope’s intention “to equally engage the issues of his time,” Professor Orsi said.
Pope Leo XIV referred to the notion of a global church open to the world in his first address to the faithful on Thursday, which Professor Orsi said might be a signal “that he’ll be challenging resurgent nationalism everywhere in the world.”
Mr. Bruni, the Vatican spokesman, said that choosing the name of a pope associated with the church’s modern doctrine “was clearly a reference to the lives of men and women, to their work — even in an age marked by artificial intelligence.”
Leo XIII began his reign with the papacy having lost its temporal power when the Papal States it had ruled for hundreds of years were annexed by a unifying Italy in 1870. He sought to reinforce that the role retained a moral authority that reached beyond national borders, said Roberto Rusconi, a church historian.
Mr. Rusconi added that Leo XIII had also deepened devotion to the Virgin Mary, writing 11 encyclicals on the rosary, the cycle of prayers invoking Mary that Catholics count out on rosary beads. Leo XIV recited the rosary at the end of his first address Thursday.
Leo XIII was the first pope to appear on film. He founded the Vatican Observatory, a research institute, as a signal of the church's openness to science. “It must be clear that the Church and its pastors do not oppose true and sound science, both human and divine, but that they embrace, encourage and promote it with all possible commitment,” he wrote.
A fluorescent green cake has become a daily staple in Singapore. Locals grab a slice of the ring-shaped pandan chiffon cake on their way to work or pick up an entire one for friends’ birthday celebrations.
The light, fluffy cake gets its color and subtle grassy vanilla taste from the tropical pandan plant, which is believed to have originated in Indonesia’s Moluccas Islands, and has been used in cooking for hundreds of years.
In Singapore, pandan chiffon cakes started appearing in the 1970s, says local food historian Khir Johari. Today, the dessert is ubiquitous in the city, appearing everywhere from mom-and-pop bakeries to upscale restaurants.
One particular family-owned bakery helped take the cakes citywide, Johari adds.
“I made it popular in Singapore,” says Anastasia Liew, who in 1979 founded the first Bengawan Solo cake shop, a small neighborhood store. “Sorry, we’re not very modest,” chimes in her son Henry, a company director, with a chuckle.
Anastasia initially sold cakes she baked at home but had to open a shop to meet the licensing requirements to sell to department stores. Today, Bengawan Solo has more than 40 shops across the city of six million people.
Henry says the bakery’s popularity comes down to word of mouth, with a little help from celebrity fans. For example, eight years ago Singaporean Mandopop star JJ Lin gifted a Bengawan Solo cake to fellow judges on a Chinese singing show. In 2022, Taiwanese music superstar Jay Chou posted on Instagram about being gifted the cakes when he performed in Singapore.
The company sells other products like kueh lapis, a layer cake, ondeh ondeh, glutinous rice balls filled with palm sugar, and pineapple tarts, pastries filled with fruity jam. But pandan chiffon cake is its best-known product.
Last year, the bakery sold about 85,000 whole pandan chiffon cakes, which cost 22 Singapore dollars ($17) – achieving sales revenue of about 76 million Singapore dollars ($57 million) across its products, up 11% from 2023. But its biggest opportunities may lie overseas.
“I don’t think we can grow very much more in Singapore,” says Henry. He adds that the company plans to focus on selling its products as food gifts across Asia, and hopefully further afield, by working on things like unique packaging. “In the Asian region, there’s a very strong gift giving culture,” he says.
Going global
It’s impossible to leave Singapore’s Changi airport without passing a Bengawan Solo. There are five stores at Changi, the world’s fourth-busiest international airport in 2024, including one in each departure terminal.
The cakes have become wildly popular in places like Hong Kong, where the friends, family, and colleagues of travelers from Singapore often expect a cake. Demand has even sparked a secondary market on Facebook Marketplace and the app Carousell.
Henry says that airport stores now account for more than half of Bengawan’s total sales, and its products seem to be the most popular with travelers from Hong Kong, mainland China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.
The company has considered expanding overseas, he says, but it has come up against barriers like high rental costs in Hong Kong. The family also wants to ensure its quality is maintained. Today, it uses mostly local sources for its ingredients and gets the 300 to 400 kilograms of pandan leaves from just across the border in Malaysia.
With or without Bengawan Solo, the global appetite for pandan appears to be growing. In Hong Kong, Pandan Man is selling the cakes in two upscale shopping malls. Pandan cakes, and pandan-infused dishes, from mochi egg tarts to cronuts, have started popping up across cities like New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Keri Matwick, a senior lecturer at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, who researches food and language, says that there’s been a rise of interest in Asian baking in the US, including desserts flavored by ingredients like matcha, coconut and ube — a purple yam from the Philippines.
Matcha, a Japanese green tea that has been incorporated into everything from tiramisu to cupcakes to banana pudding, has become so popular that some tea sellers in Japan are warning of an impending shortage.
Now, it might be pandan’s turn to go global. “Matcha has already set that precedent of something green is okay,” says Matwick. “I think (pandan is) starting to emerge as more of a star than it ever has before.”
Pope Francis, who rose from modest means in Argentina to become the first Jesuit and Latin American pontiff, who clashed bitterly with traditionalists in his push for a more inclusive Roman Catholic Church, and who spoke out tirelessly for migrants, the marginalized and the health of the planet, died on Monday at the Vatican’s Casa Santa Marta. He was 88.
The pope’s death was announced by the Vatican in a statement on X, a day after Francis appeared in his wheelchair to bless the faithful in St. Peter’s Square on Easter Sunday. The cause of death was a stroke followed by a coma and irreversible cardiocirculatory collapse, the Vatican said.
Throughout his 12-year papacy, Francis was a change agent, having inherited a Vatican in disarray in 2013 after the stunning resignation of his predecessor, Benedict XVI, a standard-bearer of Roman Catholic conservatism.
Francis steadily steered the church in another direction, restocking its leadership with a diverse array of bishops who shared his pastoral, welcoming approach as he sought to open up the church. Many rank-and-file Catholics approved, believing that the church had become inward-looking and distant from ordinary people.
Francis reached out to migrants, the poor and the destitute, to victims of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy members, and to alienated gay Catholics. He traveled to often-forgotten and far-flung countries and sought to improve relations with an antagonistic Chinese government, Muslim clerics and leaders from across the fragmented Christian world.
After some early stumbles, he took strong steps to address a clerical sex abuse crisis that had become an existential threat to the church. He adopted new rules to hold top religious leaders, including bishops, accountable if they committed sexual abuse or covered it up, though he did not impose the level of transparency or civil reporting obligations that many advocates demanded.
In his final years, slowed by a bad knee, intestinal surgery and respiratory ailments that sapped his breath and voice, Francis used a cane and then a wheelchair, seemingly a diminished figure. But that was a misleading impression. He continued to travel widely, focusing on exploited and war-torn parts of Africa, where he excoriated modern-day colonizers and sought peace in South Sudan.
His insistence on shaking up the status quo earned him no shortage of enemies. He demoted conservatives in Vatican offices, restricted the use of the old Latin Mass dear to traditionalists, opened influential meetings of bishops to laypeople, including women, allowed priests to bless same-sex couples and made clear that transgender people could be godparents and that their children could be baptized.
He also refused to endorse calls to deny communion to Catholic politicians supportive of abortion rights, including when he was president, Joseph R. Biden Jr., who said Francis had called him a “good Catholic.”
His avuncular charm and easy smile belied his reputation inside the Vatican as a steely — his opponents said ruthless — administrator as he brought greater transparency to church finances and overhauled the Vatican’s bureaucracy.
The traditional Italian power bases of the Vatican grew frustrated with his purposefully unpredictable governing style, which relied on a small group of confidants, many of them Jesuits like himself, and his own gut.
Conservative Catholics accused him of diluting church teachings and never stopped rallying against him. Simmering dissent periodically exploded into view in almost medieval fashion, with talk of schisms and heresy.
But Francis also disappointed many liberals, who hoped that he might introduce progressive policies. His openness to frank discussion gave oxygen to debates about long-taboo subjects, including priestly celibacy, communion for divorced and remarried people, and greater roles for women in the church. While he opened doors to talking about such issues, he tended to balk at making major decisions.
“We are often chained like Peter in the prison of habit,” he said of the church in 2022 in a speech in St. Peter’s Basilica. “Scared by change and tied to the chain of our customs.”
"It is solved by walking." the problem can be solved by a practical demonstration referring to Diogenes' response to the claim that motion is unreal by getting up and walking.
Politics as entertainment is precisely just that. Popcorn. Sleight of hand to trick our attention. What about our economy? The country now is glued to Tiktok, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram all of which generate and spread political memes, soundbites and daily doses of entertainment. What is happening to our PhilHealth, SSS, Maharlika Sovereign Fund, per capita GDP, inflation, ad infinitum?
"Bread and circuses" ("bread and games") panem et circenses.
Meanwhile who is minding the economy? Where are we headed?
Next season, Midterm Elections. After that, Impeachment. Meanwhile quo vadis, Philippines?
Author Annie Dillard wrote that “how we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives”. So, how was it that I spent a large portion of my 20s terrified of the big, long life I had before me? After Stanford University, I’d moved to New York to work at Google but I was depressed, anxious.
When I realised that many brilliant and accomplished people were also secretly miserable, just trying to make it through the day, I looked for terminology to describe this, but there was none. So I came up with my own: the underfulfilled overachiever, or UFOA. This describes a constant striver who is living a great‑on‑paper life, yet feels disconnected from their work, life and self. UFOAs see success as the organising principle of our lives. We call it by a catchy name: hustle culture. We brag about our intense busyness. Side hustles are a badge of honour. Going “above and beyond” in our jobs is routine. Our primary purpose, unabashedly, is achievement.
Most of us were shaped around expectations from the beginning. We praise kids for being “good students”, by which we don’t mean curious and engaged. We mean high grades and awards. Our education system is built on this principle. This means prioritising productivity – achievement’s codependent partner – above almost all else. The central question becomes: “How can I be the most productive today?”
The way we’ve been taught to “do” life is all wrong. “Destinational living”, by which we pursue recognisable outcomes based on the lie that these will guarantee security and happiness, is an “end justifies the means” philosophy. Destinational living says: “Decide what you want your life to look like, come up with a 10-year plan, and then work backward to determine the most advantageous place to start.” In the abstract, this is a lovely idea. There’s a reason why it’s the dominant cultural paradigm. It’s comforting to believe that the world is so predictable that we can plot it all out in advance. If only it were true.
But if this is supposed to guarantee our happiness, why do almost 50% of millennials report symptoms of depression and/or anxiety disorders and 84% report burnout? And why are these numbers rising? Those are not metrics of success by anyone’s definition. Clearly, our system is broken. The problem is the expectation that with achievement comes fulfilment. It’s not about the most enjoyable way to get to work or being and feeling well during your day; it’s about what each choice can earn you.
Destinational Living means outsourcing our decision-making. What is impressive, what is valuable, is defined not by what matters to us personally but, rather, by what matters to others. In effect, we’re “life plagiarising”. It’s asking, “what did that person do to achieve such success?” and then turning around and saying, “OK, got it. Copy, paste”.
What most UFOAs eventually learn the hard way is that being, or appearing, successful (becoming a CEO, parent, spouse, homeowner) is a different experience from being fulfilled. Fulfilment is a deep sense of belonging to yourself.
In line with his preference for concrete philosophy that speaks in ordinary language, Marcel begins many of his philosophical essays with an observation about life. One of his central observations about life and experience, from which he is able to derive many of the philosophical distinctions that follow, is that we live in a “broken world.” A world in which “ontological exigence”—if it is acknowledged at all—is silenced by an unconscious relativism or by a monism that discounts the personal, “ignores the tragic and denies the transcendent” (Marcel 1995, p. 15). The characterization of the world as broken does not necessarily imply that there was a time when the world was intact. It would be more correct to emphasize that the world we live in is essentially broken, broken in essence, in addition to having been further fractured by events in history. The observation is intended to point out that we find ourselves hic et nunc in a world that is broken. This situation is characterized by a refusal (or inability) to reflect, a refusal to imagine and a denial of the transcendent (Marcel 1951a, pp. 36–37). Although many things contribute to the “brokenness” of the world, the hallmark of its modern manifestation is “the misplacement of the idea of function” (Marcel 1995, p. 11).
“I should like to start,” Marcel says, “with a sort of global and intuitive characterization of the man in whom the sense of the ontological—the sense of being, is lacking, or, to speak more correctly, the man who has lost awareness of this sense” (Marcel 1995, p. 9). This person, the one who has lost awareness of the sense of the ontological, the one whose capacity to wonder has atrophied to the extent of becoming a vestigial trait, is an example of the influence of the misapplication of the idea of function.
Democracy is a conversation. Its function and survival depend on the available information technology. For most of history, no technology existed for holding large-scale conversations among millions of people. In the premodern world, democracies existed only in small city-states like Rome and Athens, or in even smaller tribes. Once a polity grew large, the democratic conversation collapsed, and authoritarianism remained the only alternative.
Large-scale democracies became feasible only after the rise of modern information technologies like the newspaper, the telegraph and the radio. The fact that modern democracy has been built on top of modern information technologies means that any major change in the underlying technology is likely to result in a political upheaval.
This partly explains the current worldwide crisis of democracy. In the United States, Democrats and Republicans can hardly agree on even the most basic facts, such as who won the 2020 presidential election. A similar breakdown is happening in numerous other democracies around the world, from Brazil to Israel and from France to the Philippines.
