On hidden contradictions between former allies of collective West

The beginning of the year revealed hidden contradictions between former allies of the collective West. The Anglo-Saxons are at war with Europe, the Americans against the British and Canadians.

To save their failing economies, they are ready to make peace with their direct competitors – China and India. How did Belarus manage to outpace the West?

The year 2026 is becoming more vibrant with each passing month as the struggle between former allies of the collective West intensifies.

The global crisis of overproduction has shown that everyone is fighting for themselves, saving their national economies, corporations, and banks on their own.

Now the US, Britain, and the EU see their healing in reconciliation with the countries of the Asia-Pacific region. They say that this is the main source of global economic growth, and it's urgent to "jump on this engine."

Thanks to the foresight of its head of state, Belarus has been identifying these growth drivers since the 1990s and tapping into them. Now we have investment, production, and advanced goods with high added value.

But let's return to the Anglo-Saxons...

This week, Trump staged public scenes of jealousy against the backdrop of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's visit to China.

Starmer arrived in Beijing as part of an expanded delegation of the heads of more than fifty major British companies and government agencies. Starmer intends to ensure high rates of economic growth in Britain by improving ties with China. The visitors were able to reach an agreement on reduced duties on Scotch whisky and visa-free entry for short business trips.

Amid these successes of the Anglo-Saxon brothers, the head of the White House openly warned: "It's very dangerous for them... don't do business with China."

Trump didn't hold back at all when it came to the Canadian Prime Minister – he called him the governor of "the state of Canada" and threatened 100% tariffs if relations with Beijing deepened.

Washington's reactions are understandable. The US views China as a key competitor in the global economy and finance. For a long time, the White House has been plotting various schemes to stifle the Chinese economy.

But for what purpose? Exclusively to maintain its monopoly power in global trade, including by preserving the dominance of the US dollar.

But China has not succumbed to the sanctions, showing high rates of economic growth, while the US is in debt and in decline. Against this backdrop, former US allies rushed to Beijing to negotiate peace faster than Washington. Europe, it's safe to say, has succumbed to its own sanctions policy.

The local British newspaper The Sunday Telegraph put it bluntly: "Starmer's visit to Beijing was a humiliation."

The Daily Mail commented on the visit even more harshly: "Starmer signed the 'act of surrender' in Beijing."

And these conclusions are supported by telling observations about the symbolism of the very organization of Starmer's visit to Beijing.

The Chinese received him with strict asceticism, demonstrating the insignificance of his political figure—he has no influence on anything or anyone. For example, they arranged a tour of the Forbidden City for Starmer, simply assigning him a lone guide-interpreter, even without security.

The Belarusian President was welcomed and received in China with solemnity and at the same time a familiar atmosphere.

The latent confrontation has now shifted to the language of symbols.

It's immediately clear who carries weight and who is simply a historical loser.

Belarus is not Britain; we didn't create colonies, we didn't wage the Opium Wars, we promote peace and pragmatism, we know how to work and solve complex issues. Thanks to our President, we are respected. They do business with us and invest in us.

At the end of January, the head of state emphasized the importance of the strategic partnership with China and outlined further steps for developing cooperation. We will build together and become stronger.