US Allies Defy Trump and Head East: A Dangerous Game

Hello everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. Excited to be with you as always. Today's topic, I will be addressing the ongoing visit of the prime minister of England, uh, Starmer. He is in Beijing. As a matter of fact, his trip is going to end today because he's been for 4 days. So, and what I want to do in this analysis, I want to detail for you exactly what this is all about. So it would be interesting to put in perspective certain aspects of what Britain was doing just a year ago from now, and all of a sudden they are going begging for assistance from the Chinese. So it's interesting dynamics, to say the least. But before I'll do this, let me say hi quickly to our wonderful community. Uh, Laval, good to see you from Mauritius. Good to see you here. Say It Like It Is, uh, Bojar, good to see you. I most welcome. Hanging G, as always, thank you so much for your comments. And by the way, Hanging G, appreciate you supporting the channel on both platforms, on, uh, the trip for Asia and for the channel. So I'm very grateful to you for your generosity. Thank you so much, Hanging G, truly appreciate you. Christine, good to see you here. Farado Farhan de la Paix, good to see you here. Dejan, good to see you. Famida, thank you so much for your support in buying me cups of coffees last time, so very, very grateful to you. Phil, as always, good to see you here. And, uh, I can't read the last one here. Good to see you here. All right, let me get in into our— I have a lot to cover, so I'm only doing one headline for you. And the headline today, just put the two and two together and you will be able to know. Here is the headline: Washington approves $9 billion sale of Patriot missiles to Saudi Arabia. You know, that's all you need to know. And here is what they are saying. As a matter of fact, the US now is going to be— the Saudis will be purchasing about 730 Patriot missiles and related equipment. And what the State Department stated is that, oh, this has to do with the support of US foreign policy and national security objective by improving the security of a major non-NATO ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Gulf region, end of quote. You all see the hypes of the US. And what's interesting about this, it's also another sale that was approved for Israel. Yeah, the US approves now the sale of $6.5 billion worth of weapons and attack helicopters to Israel. And this was approved yesterday. The State Department approved it, uh, they're saying potential sale. There is no potential about it. It's a foregone conclusion. So the sale to Israel will be more than $6.5 billion under 3 separate contracts. I looked into all this, and it includes tactical vehicles, related equipment, an estimated $1.98 billion, and another sale for 30 AH-64E Apache helicopters for $3.8 billion. You all see where this is going, so makes you, makes you wonder what this is all about. But anyway, I, I will do a separate update, uh, I will do a separate video, uh, in which I'm going to talk about the updates of the US-Iran tensions forward slash Israel. So I probably will do it next week. So for now, let's get back to our main topic here for today, which is the Prime Minister, uh, Keir Starmer, uh, visit to China, which by the way marks the first visit by, by a UK PM since 2018. Now there are those who are saying, well, this signals a diplomatic pivot. Uh, not necessarily. Let's not get ahead of ourselves for that. What you need to think about is the delegation that went with Steiner. With Steiner, there were over 60 business and cultural leaders that traveled with him. Some other accounts put them at 50. So I've seen two separate sources that stated the numbers 50 or 60. It won't matter. So, but here's the thing, the visit, in my opinion, in my opinion, what they want Is the one the help of the Chinese? That's basically for them going begging the China to invest in England. Of course, the media is going to have you believe, especially coming out of London, is saying, you know what, this is about, about the UK establishing a long-term strategic partnership. Are you kidding me? You know, do you think the Chinese forgot what the UK just said last year during the strategic report of the Five Eyes? Can we forget what the Chinese did? What the— I'm sorry, what the British did when they banned Huawei? Espionage. But I'm gonna detail all this as I move forward. For now, suffice it to say that this so-called the long-term strategic partnership will aim at trade, investments, and of course economic cooperation. This is why I don't buy that argument of a diplomatic pivot. No, no, let's not fool ourselves with that. And the timing of it, the timing, it's another key factor that reflects now the multiple pressure the UK is facing. Of course, once again, the media inside England, they will have you believe that, oh, the UK modest economic growth. There is no growth. As a matter of fact, poverty is going up, and I am going to share the data with you, with the numbers. You also have about £42 billion trade deficit with the Chinese. And of course, we got— we can't deny this— Donald Trump's unpredictable foreign policy that is creating geopolitical uncertainty and some sort of a broader Western effort to diversify their economic partnership. Well, diversify, I won't even use that term because they don't have any other options. Did you see whether Steiner went to India for investments? No, it's China. And I, as I always said, no matter how you look at it, no matter how you slice it, You cannot ignore the sheer size of the Chinese economy. Simple as that. I am, I feel comfortable saying this move is driven by desperation. Of course, media in London, Brussels, Washington will say, no, no, no, no, no, no, this is not driven by desperation. The visit represents pragmatic, some sort of engagements that balances commercial interests and so forth. Yes, I agree too. I agree with that assessment, but I will not remove the word desperation from the narrative because that's what it means. Otherwise, how would you explain the visit of most European leaders? As a matter of fact, in 2 weeks, you're gonna have the German chancellor heading out there. In about a month and a half to 2 months, you're gonna have Donald Trump himself going to Beijing. So to me, it's a desperate move, especially when you consider the current economic conditions in the UK— massive poverty. So, and this is why you're seeing Western leaders are simultaneously courting the Chinese investments, because China has a deep financial pockets. That's why I, I warned Beijing, last time when India said, oh, we want to lift the ban on allowing the Chinese firm to bid on Indian government contract. No, China, you can get your profit elsewhere. Stay away from a toxic environment. India is a toxic environment. And even with the UK going there now to China, that tells you the story. They didn't go to India, they went to China. Of course, we cannot ignore that the visit in itself carries historical weight, given the Opium Wars legacy of humiliation of the— in the Chinese memory. Do you think Chinese forgot about it? No. But Chinese are wise enough to know how they're gonna move strategically in this. So, because here is the thing, modern day China's economic power enables it on an equal footing, diplomatically, economically, and even advance in technology. Because this is, to me, it's unimaginable in comparison to the previous centuries. And I am going to touch on the, the Opium Wars. The question becomes now, how significant is this? Trip. Why now? So, and again, yes, I'm not denying there is a diplomatic moment, but I won't go as far as saying a diplomatic pivot because it is not. You cannot trust, you cannot trust the Brits. They'll flip on you like Australia, like Japan, like South Korea, Germany, you name it. You got the idea. But let's think about the significance of this trip. The first trip of a sitting prime minister since, I think, what's her name? May. I remember her name. She's the first one right here, Theresa May. This is Boris and this is Truss. And of course, Sunak, the incompetent. They're all incompetent, sad to say. And it's reality. And I'm not I don't shy away from stating the facts. Since 2018, and this is now marking now some sort of an 8-year gap, almost a decade, that underscores how frosty this kind of relationship has become. This is why they're using the term diplomatic pivot, but it's not in a true sense. So, because Starmer is bringing with him, as I said, over 50, almost 60, British business and cultural leaders. And this, in my opinion, signaled this fundamental change about wanting economic opportunities. Where else would you get economic opportunities in the world today? China is the only destination. That's why you're seeing every European leader is gonna be heading out to China. And the visit represents this attempt to move past years of deteriorating relations. Of course it's gonna be, but I won't go as far as how the British are categorizing this, a long-term strategic partnership. I won't go that far. Why now? Why the shift? Those are worth question, uh, questions that are worth asking. The timing reflects, of course, factors, conversion over domestic Starmer center-left Labour Party's government that is now struggling to deliver on the economic growth they promised. And making an engagement with the world, largest economy, not only attractive, but a necessity. So Starmer's trip to China is out of desperation, is out of necessity. He doesn't have the luxury. He didn't go to India. He didn't come to the US. He didn't go to Germany. He went to China. The optics matters. And of course, nobody's denying this because the numbers speak for themselves. The trade deficits with China has blown now over 18% year to year to about £42 billion. In the past 12 months, ending in 2025. Another word, in 2025. And that in itself puts and creates some sort of pressures to find opportunities, economic, for British service exports. And when you look at this from a geopolitical perspective, what first thing that comes to mind is Donald Trump's unpredictability. As a major driver for this trip. So the trip comes at a time when U.S. President Donald Trump, that is, foreign policy and tariff threats have unsettled traditional allies. You all remember Donald Trump was angered by the Canadian Prime Minister, Mar— uh, uh, Carney. I think I still have Yeah, I decided to keep that picture in case we need it. Yeah, right there. For the deals he cut with the Chinese. What the heck? Why would you get angry? He's a sovereign state. He can cut deals with whomever he wants. And because Canada sought some deep economic ties with China. It's the same West Armor is doing right now. And of course, there are those who say, well, this is going to force Starmer to pick sides. No, who cares? Chinese don't care for that. Pick a side or not. Chinese looking at it from in terms of economic opportunities, profit, investments, and what have you. Except that the Chinese will not forget. And I'm going to share it in a second with you, certain aspects of it. And this Starmer's trip appears to exactly mirror that of Canada because Canada also signed trade agreements with China earlier this month. And this is where Ottawa is now set on a trajectory to diversify trade and investment partners. Yeah, the US still there, but they are moving more and more towards the East. With Starmer going to China, or he's already in China, in my opinion, this reflects some sort of a broader European strategy. Because now you see, most European leaders wanted to go to Beijing, not to Washington. And that highlights for you, uh, uh, the idea of where things are. And all of this comes also against the backdrop of Britain approving a massive Chinese embassy in London recently. I saw some pictures and massive in comparison to— and I've traveled around the world for over 32 countries or so, and sometimes I will go to capitals and I will, when I do my walk, whatever, I'll pass by the embassies. I've never seen massive size of the Chinese government embassy like the one in, uh, London. So UK approved this. That tells you also it makes sense why that is. However, here is what I want you to be aware of, is the misleading headlines. I'm gonna share a link with you that comes from London. Here is what it says, and the headline, it says, why is China seeking closer ties with the UK? I mean, did you see how they flipping the narrative to mislead you? And this came from the BBC right there, fat bold letters. It says, why is China seeking closer ties? Uh, why is China seeking closer UK ties? Is the other way around, idiots. Whoever wrote this article in the BBC That's misleading. You mislead the readers into believing and thinking it's China that is after this. No, it's the other way around. UK that is desperate because the poverty level, the economic downturn that is going on, the, the, the chaos that exists within UK. That's why it's seeking, uh, help from China. And I'm gonna share the link with you in the chat box. You can read it yourself and reach your own conclusion later on. And to me, the question is, as I said, you ask, given the bad conditions of the UK's economy— sorry, I need to, uh, the UK— I get distracted. Because I was expecting a call earlier. Uh, well, now what was I saying? The idea of why, given the bad conditions of the economic— the UK's economy, it makes sense for London to seek help from China. That's, to me, it's a reasonable observation. We're gonna have to think in these terms. So, so let's talk about the UK's economy. Of course, once again, and I read, I read the analysis coming prior to the trip because it was announced publicly. So you're going to have certain media outlets that's going to say, you know what, let's do an analysis about this one. And we're going to say, oh, the UK's economy is not in a crisis, which is a lie. It's a fat lie. The UK has struggled to deliver the economic growth it promised under the, the party of Starmer, especially now with the data coming up suggesting a disappointment, disappointing expectations for the economy that is also on the verge of collapsing. So when they talk about growth, even if there is growth, a meager one, by historical standard. So let's not pretend. So I'm gonna be sharing with you some examples about why the UK's economy in a very, very bad shape, a bad shape. Let's start with the poverty. Poverty in the UK is intensifying with roughly 14.2 million people. Let me repeat that, 14.2 million people living in poverty. And that includes, by the way, 4.5 million children. That was from 2023-24, and it's still going up. And this was on the report issued at the beginning of this year. I'm gonna send you the link, you can read it, because I read and I said, oh, what the UK government is saying versus the facts are two different So the key trends that I need you to know, the key trends as of January 2026: record depth. Depth in what? In poverty. The number of people in very deep poverty— and this, you're looking at an income below 40% of the median— is the highest on the record since 1994. The child poverty has risen for the third consecutive year, reaching 4.5 million. Food insecurity— the number of food insecure individuals rose by 60% over the last two years, reaching almost 3 million people. You have destitution. Roughly 4 million people are estimated to be destitute, meaning unable to afford basic essentials like warmth, food, clothing. And this according to the European think tanks. Then you have the regional disparity. Some areas have seen income rises in England. Yeah, it is. While others, trend shows deepening long-term poverty. And this was even, was even an article issued by The Guardian, because here's what it says: UK people live in a very deep poverty. Analysis shows, and I'm going to share the link with you in the chat box and you can read it. And as a matter of fact, we do have sometimes viewers from England. Please, if you are in England, share with the community because this way it won't be just my word. We back up our statements with facts, and this is the importance of facts finding information. When I look at the stats 4.5 million children are growing in poverty in the UK today. You have about children in an average classroom of about 30, 31% of them, meaning 9 or 10 live in poverty. You have 7 out of 10 children living in poverty have at least one parent in paid work. 49, almost 50% of children from Black and Asian communities are in poverty in the UK compared to 24% of the white children. And you got the idea how, how, how this is be. So when you look at what China did for, for uplifting 750 million people out of poverty And that lets you wonder why the UK Prime Minister trip is a desperation. He needs help. He can't get it anywhere else. And this is again where you have to understand about this dynamics. But let me remind you, let me remind you of the duplicity, the hypocrisy, the double standards, whatever term you want to use. I'm gonna share some facts with you, but of course you reach your own conclusion. Let me remind you that the UK government ordered a ban on Huawei equipments in 5G networks, and that starting with the prohibition on purchasing any 5G gears after December 31st, 2020. That's how far back you go. And requiring, by the way, the removal of all existing Huawei 5G infrastructure by 2027. This decision, which was announced back in June 2020, I was aware of it. I was aware of the countries, including India, that banned 5G, all of a sudden reaching out to China later on. But why, why this happened back then? Because it was driven by the US sanctions affecting the supply chain security and national security concerns according to what the UK were stating. It is also worth recognizing the broader strategic complexity here. The UK is still deeply embedded in Western alliances. Think about NATO, think about the Five Eyes. Think about all this. Close ties with the US. And that is why when you see that Donald Trump, he got upset because Carney went over to China and cut a deal. Who cares? Who the heck are you to dictate? And that tells you the idea of where things are. One thing that caught my attention, and I had a chance to read few years ago, about 2 or 3, the report— I always read the reports of NATO and the Five Eyes, the public version of it, not the classified one— the Five Eyes' position on China, perceiving it as a threat. The UK was the one that pushed on that, because here's the thing: the Five Eyes, which you, you know, the countries in Five Eyes— the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The Five Eyes, the way they see and the way they perceive and view alliance with China, or they view China rather, as a significant and escalating threat. And this is again where you see a move by Britain going to China It highlights to you that the alliance in itself is grappling with its internal tensions and the changing dynamics of the global order. This is where the confusion and the duplicity that exists. So when you think about the Five Eyes China threat assessments, all of them, US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, have elevated their threat perception of China. Why? Because they are arguing in their analysis that they're perceiving China's capabilities as the main source of threat, when in reality is that they couldn't compete with the Chinese. And that is what justifies the decision by those countries to counter China's power in Asia-Pacific as the main theater of competition. We have even our former director of the FBI, Christopher Wray. What a joke. What a joke. FBI is joke, by the way. It became different. Here is what Wray was saying. The idea that— the idea that for him to state a statement like this, which is more political, has nothing to do with his job. Because remember, FBI is law enforcement agency. So here is what he said, and I quote, "The People's Republic of China, PRC, represents the defining threat of this generation." End of quote. I mean, can you, can you just see the hubris, the nonsense? In this. And he continued, with no country presenting a broader, more comprehensive threat to our ideas, our innovation, our economic security, and ultimately our national security. End of quote. What a bunch of baloney. The bottom line is we couldn't compete. We couldn't compete with the Chinese. That's what's at the heart of it. And this is why when you look at even from 2018 forward, because remember Donald Trump was in power, through— it was an initiative released by Five Eyes, it's called Five Eyes Plus Three. And who are the three countries? France, Germany, and Japan. All of them They decide, oh, you know what we're gonna do? We're gonna now introduce information sharing framework to counter China and Russia. And that in itself, what I just shared with you about the Five Eyes, is exactly what part of what's complicated, one of the complicating factor for Starmer's visit. Because with the Five Eyes officially regarding China as a threat requiring coordinated containment, which will never succeed anyway, individual member states are simultaneously pursuing economic agreements with China. That just defies logic. You know, hey, you, I want you to sit down with me. I want to have economic cooperation with you. But I want to stab you in the back in the meantime. That just doesn't make any sense. Even New Zealand back in April, and I remember I did a video for the community, uh, I'm gonna put it, uh, uh, in the, uh, chat box for you, by which I argued, uh, sort of, uh, what's his name, uh, Tony Blinken at the time was pressuring, uh, uh, Mahuta to go in some direction that she said, no, we're not going to do that. I'm going to put it in the chat box for those who did not see this video. Please make sure, take a look at it later on. So even New Zealand minister at that time, you know, Mahuta, and I have a picture of her, uh, because I remember I covered her in my, uh, right there. This is a Naniya Mahuta, very, very smart lady. Back then, she argued that it will not let Five Eyes Alliance dictate its bilateral relations with China. And that in itself, even back then, it revealed the fractures that exist within the alliance unity. And by the way, Naniya Mahuta sort of, you see in that what you call it, uh, I draw a blank on the word. Tattoo. I'm sorry. Yeah, tattoo. That's a reflection of her culture, by the way, because they are known for— it's known for her moko kauae, which is a traditional facial tattoo. That's part of the culture for, uh, for the Māori people. Anyway, this is where you see the starers visit Therefore, it sits awkwardly for him. That's like you get no freaking sort of, uh, uh, what's the word? Ah, when I get hyper, I kind of— the words start to escape me. You have no, uh, what's the word I'm looking for? Anyway, I can't think of it, believe it or not. It'll come back to me. The idea of thinking in terms not having some sort of credibility and you still stabbing China and wanted to go and shake hands with President Xi and have a photo op and seek opportunities. And this is again, I think the visit was an awkward one, let alone it's a desperation one. Why? Because at the same time he's in Beijing, at the same time he's cutting deals, at the same time shaking hand with President Xi Jinping, he's maintaining the intelligence sharing commitments that China is a threat. And that's why I kind of, where do you stand? Dignity, that's the word. That's the word. He got no freaking dignity. None of them. None of the Europeans do have that. And that's part of where the problem. And this is why any analysis coming out of London is going to have you believe that, oh, he's not seeking help or is in desperation, when in reality it is. Remember that headline I shared with you from the BBC? It's flipping the narrative. Why is China seeking ties with UK? No, it's the other way around. You want to mislead the population or the masses into believing that it's China that is after China is not. It's because the UK cannot afford anymore to be locked out of the Chinese market. The UK cannot afford where things are going domestically. Massive rise of poverty, homelessness. There's a picture in the streets, and I just spoke with someone who came from London about 3 weeks ago.. And I asked this specific question, how are things in London? He said, you won't believe what I saw. And I trust the person, ain't gonna be telling me just stories. It's of course the UK is going to be now playing a delicate balance, really diversifying economically without being seen as abandoning its traditional alliances, but at the same time Who cares about these alliances anymore when you see the global order has already shifted? Those who's not going to jump on the wagon, they're going to be left behind. And this is where the question of, uh, the, the important question is, is this visit, was it about cooperation, strategic partnership as they claim, or is it a desperate need for assistance from the Chinese? And I personally go with the latter. Of course, once again, because I read before I did this that the think tanks inside London, or even some analysts, are saying, well, we can't be framed this way because it is clearly framed as a strategic partner, winning partnership, when it is not. So they will never admit that is a desperation that drove Starmer to head out to Beijing seeking help. Remember, like I always said last time with the Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, when she went to China last time, and I had a title that says, "Seeking help with one hand, seeking a ball with one hand and holding a knife on the other." That's the exact setting of this guy here. So the official framing that they have you believe is this represents a building of a long-term strategic partnership. Has nothing to do with reality. So now we think about the other European leaders. Who are others that planning to visit? Remember, in 2 weeks, the German Chancellor, Mers— is going to be heading out to China. In April, you have Donald Trump is heading out to China. And that exactly gives you an idea as to why the trip for, uh, for, uh, Starmer. And by the way, uh, Hangin G, thank you so much for sharing the info about the, uh, visit, of course, of Starmer to China, but you disclosed about the MOUs that are worth £4.5 billion. You are correct about that because I had a chance to read the details from a different source prior to reading your email. We're talking about even AstraZeneca closed the deal for R&D in China. Not in India. And you know what the value of that is? Is a £15 billion in medical research. This is exactly where that big picture comes in. So the idea, when I looked at the details of it, and I'm going to share it quickly here with you just for you to know, you were looking at a market access. China agreed to half the tariffs on UK Whiskey, for example, from 10% to 5%. Because why? To Britain, the whiskey is, the whiskey network is estimated at £250 million over the next 5 years. China also granted free visa for 30 days for British passport holder. The investments of AstraZeneca, as I mentioned earlier, 15 billion pounds. Once again, it highlights to you, even in automotive, the manufacturer Chery announced its European headquarters now will be established in Liverpool. And that is, again, you have to put this in a bigger picture. And this leads me to one key question that are not a question, a reflection of a history that I am going to share with you after I play this clip. Liking this video so far? Don't just be a watcher. Go ahead and hit the like, share, and subscribe button. And don't forget to tap the bell so you will not miss any of my videos or live streams. This way, you will be supporting a channel that stands for the truth and objective reporting. The choice is yours. Thanks for your support. What about the history of the UK opium wars in China? Can't ignore it, can't ignore it. Is the same issue with the Japanese atrocities in Nanjing. Can't ignore that, can't forget it, can't— and it— you have to touch on the reality because because it's very important, because it's an important historical context to understand now the position UK is in vis-à-vis China. And before I'll delve deeper into this, let me share something with you that rarely come on in a conversations. When you think about the two wars, the Opium Wars, why do you think that was all about? It was about trade. It was about the fear at that time in Britain, if the fear in Britain, if it allows Peking to be making the decisions. In other words, in a simple term, with the trade at that time, the fear in London was that if the decisions will be made in Peking rather than the West, that's why they launched the wars. And let me just share a historical snapshot about the war, uh, the Opium Wars. You have the first one and second one. The first one happened between 1839 to 1842. The second one happened between 1856 to 1860. And those were deeply traumatic, uh, sort of, uh, time of history, uh, for the Chinese. That's when Britain forcibly opened the Chinese market to opium trade from India, exploiting China's addiction to drugs at that time because they push drugs. Don't be shocked, don't be surprised, because the same thing happened in the US in the southern part of California when the drugs were introduced in the '70s. And the reason the Britain did it back then to the Chinese is to extract trade concessions. That's why the fear was— they were afraid that the decisions will be made in Pekin or Beijing at that time versus in London. So when China's Qing Dynasty tried to restrict opium imports, Britain went to war twice, not just once, twice. The objective, of course, was to keep the trade flowing. And the war resulted in sort of a British military victory, territorial concessions, including Hong Kong. And of course, the key aspects of all this is the humiliation for the Chinese. But, but, but, but what I am seeing going on right now with all these Europeans going to China or whatever is the reversal of the Century of Humiliation. Remember, Chinese went through that. Now is in the reverse, is the European or the collective West humiliation. That's the way I see it. Because remember, these wars that took place were found— then foundational for the Chinese, or how China— if you want to understand the Chinese history, you know, and I am in the process of writing the China book, by the way. So I'm not saying much about it at this point. You know, start doing the research right in some here. And the more I deep into the history, the more I realize I don't know much. Because when you look at these wars, these two Opium Wars, you know, they marked the beginning of what Chinese historian called that Century of Humiliation. That's why I'm saying now is in reverse. And it was from the mid-1800s till the, the 1949. That's when the Western power and Japan carved up China's territory, extracted concessions, and treated China as weak and exploitable. Things have changed now. So why it matters today? Because this history creates an interesting dynamics for us to understand at least this UK-China relations. Because on one hand, you're going to have to think in terms of the Opium Wars were a source of deep resentments in Chinese collective memory and education, and rightly so. No different than the Japanese atrocities in Nanjing. On the other hand, You think about when President Xi Jinping came to power, he became economically and strategically smart enough and powerful enough to understand how to navigate these historical grievances while remembering, but it didn't prevent his pragmatic engagements. That's usually what a smart leader does. You don't react emotionally. Of course, Chinese will never forget. You know, that will be irrational to think they will ever do. And this is why to Chinese, they thinking, they thinking they're on a different level. They are not seeking some sort of reparations from the British or even apology from the Brits because they saying Britain is going down on its own. It's like America going down on its own. You don't need to. You remember Sun Tzu, how to deal with the enemy? If you notice the enemy is digging a hole for itself, just let it be. That's exactly what the Chinese— so the Chinese interested in trade, interested in investment. That's what they're interested in. And once again, if this trip of Starmer wasn't a desperation Why didn't he go to India, for example? And the fact, the fact that now Britain is willing to engage China on an equal footing, seeking its investments, asking for help, courting its favors, could be read symbolically as a reversal, reversal of that century of humiliation. Because that's a reversal of power dynamics that took place from the 19th century. So of course, the Opium Wars will linger in a memory, but they don't seem to be blocking, at least on part of the Chinese. Will the Brits feel remorse about it? Do they have any shame? No, they don't. And that is where you you have to think in terms of the big picture. And let me share my conclusion with you because I, I decided just to do this brief here. So given the shifting sand of the global geopolitical landscape, what can we conclude from now the UK Prime Minister trip to China, which concluded today, by the way? So you can look at it as some will ask, and I am asking that, but I am not answering it yet. Because I didn't see confirmation. And the question is the end of Western unity on China. It's still there. Don't be fooled. It's still there. Because some would say the most conclusion is that the post-Cold War Western consensus on China, that is threat and all that stuff, is fracturing. The Five Eyes Alliance still officially treats China as a strategic threat requiring coordinated intelligence sharing and containment, which will never happen anyway. And yet you have individual members are simultaneously pursuing independent economic engagement. Could it be that Starmer's trip to China is part of this broader pattern? I don't know. I don't know. I am yet to see about the— because when I think about the visits, for example, of the Prime Minister of Ireland, Michael Martin visited China. What do you think about the Finland Prime Minister? What's his name? Is Pietro— Piteri, I'm sorry, is Piteri Orpo. That's his name. When you look at now the upcoming visit of Merz, Corny was there, the Stormer, and soon Trump will be there. All this, it gives me a hint as to where this is going. It's because the fracturing of the global order under the unipolarity and dominance of the US has come to an end. And now you're going to be seeing, as they say, right rats jumping ship. So, but it's too late for those countries. Look where the economy of Germany is right now. Look where the economy of the UK is right now. And there are those who argue, and they will be one of the core arguments in my book about China that I, I am in the process of working on, is the idea of the fundamental question is what role China will play in this new global order. Because what you have, you have Western mindset are already arguing because they know they cannot stop this decline of the Western hegemony. And they already sort of launching the ideas, the narrative that China restored the power is enabled to divide the West. Which has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that the West could not compete with China. I mean, I looked at last the education in China and the, the ranking of the Chinese institutions, academia. They all went up, all of them, because the fact of the matter is that the century of humiliation narrative is now being inverted. That's the fact, the historical irony that you are witnessing before your eyes. Britain once coerced China through military force to accept unfavorable trade terms. Now, Britain is going to China with a ball asking for help, asking for China's favors for trade, asking for China's investments. This reversal of power dynamics is perhaps the clearest indicator of the geopolitical realignments underway. That's the way I see it. So what does it mean moving forward? The old bipolar framework where you were either in the West or against China is done for, is giving way to a new multipolar order, to a new global order where countries now pursue selective agreements, assuming they have the stomach to stand for it. You look at the Germans, they're so weak, like wet noodles. The French, the British, the Spaniards. Canada at least showed some stamina and some determination. To take stand. Whether Starmer's visit to China signaled that the UK believes it can maintain intelligence sharing with the Five Eyes while at the same time deepening economic ties with China. What makes the Brits think that the Chinese will be okay with that? But also it highlights another aspect, and that aspect is that This proves the sustainable dependency of the Western countries on the Chinese markets, because the US is not in the picture at all, because it's done for. That's the way I see it. So what do you think? Make sure to leave me a comment in the comment section. I would love to read your feedback on this particular, uh, livestream here. I take this opportunity to say thank you to Hanging G for your generosity in buying me so many cups of teas in support of my upcoming trip to Asia and also in supporting the channel. I thank also American Citizen X, Ramzi Abdulrahman, and many others. Thank you so much for your support. Should you decide to support the channel you all know the type of information you are receiving here. Here is the link. I will greatly appreciate your support for the channel. I am also, as I mentioned to you, planning a trip to Asia in few months, and here is the link if you want to support the, the channel, if you want to support my upcoming Asia trip. For this, so far we're still out of 5% of the fundraising goal. Which is at $10,000, and I'm hoping to reach that by the time I get closer to traveling. Hope you all enjoyed this. Have a safe weekend, and I look forward to seeing you next week. As always, remember, geopolitics impacts your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, bye-bye.