Example collocations logo

Strategic in sentence

2937 examples of Strategic in a sentence

It will be tested and calibrated to account for changing strategic realities, available defense resources, inter-service debates, and American forces’ operational experience.
It is increasingly clear that both China and the US are gradually adopting a portfolio of defense doctrines, operational concepts, and capabilities that will enable their militaries to offset, deny, delimit, and interfere with each other’s strategic engagement in the region.
In order to guarantee national security, the Strategy is categorical – without giving in to the temptation of isolationism – in admitting the strategic value of the example and the importance of doing one’s homework first.
The two main criticisms – lack of strategic clarity and less emphasis on the classical concepts of power – point to America’s loss of influence, power, and leadership.
That task requires patience and strategic perseverance.
Kadima is built on Sharon’s charisma and program, which reversed the most basic Israeli strategic thinking of the last half-century.
This approach appealed to the vast majority of Israelis, regardless of their political loyalties, and the victory in January’s Palestinian election by Hamas, which extols terrorism and demands Israel’s extinction, only reinforced the new strategic consensus.
They include American strategic primacy; massive and rapid cross-border flows of people, technology, goods, services, ideas, germs, money, arms, e-mails, carbon dioxide, and just about anything else; and relatively peaceful relations among the major powers – the US, China, Japan, Russia, India, and an increasingly integrated and enlarged Europe.
The challenge for Europeans and Americans today could hardly be greater: to cooperate in a very different context than the one for which the relationship and its institutions were designed – and to do so without any agreement on a new strategic framework.
The US should support European integration, because a strong Europe is at least a potential strategic partner, whereas a weak Europe is not.
Revisions to America’s strategic posture would be a reasonable response to Russian aggression and rule-breaking, particularly in Eastern Europe, and to China’s growing assertiveness on the world stage.
New START builds on a legacy of strategic nuclear arms limitation that goes back to the 1970’s.
In time, strategic arms control treaties became the measure of the political relationship.
It would limit each country to 1,550 strategic warheads on 700 deployed delivery vehicles.
The language in the preamble to New START states that the agreement will not “undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.”
Critics contend that the clause, along with the Kremlin’s implied warning that it could withdraw from the treaty unilaterally were America’s defenses to become too robust, provides the Kremlin with leverage to impede deployment of any strategic missile-defense system.
To be sure, the country’s “America” card – the result of the two countries’ longstanding strategic relationship (I myself was educated at West Point and fought alongside US troops in the Korean War) – must be played carefully and not be taken for granted.
And Turkey wanted Assad gone to extend its strategic reach and stabilize its southern border.
But it would make the world much more dangerous, as the unfolding strategic conflict between the US and China would no longer be constrained by shared economic interests.
But when they happen between strategic rivals – such as the US and China today – there is likely to be more to the story.
It is that strategic objective that underlies America’s recent economic maneuvers, including Trump’s extravagant demand that China cut its trade surplus with the US by $200 billion in two years.
While China might be able – with substantial concessions and a healthy dose of luck – to avoid a devastating trade war in the short term, the long-term trajectory of US-China relations is almost certain to be characterized by escalating strategic conflict, and potentially even a full-blown cold war.
In such a scenario, containing China would become the organizing principle of US foreign policy, and both sides would view economic interdependence as an unacceptable strategic liability.
For China, too, economic disengagement and technological independence from the US, however costly, would be viewed as critical to stability and to securing the country’s strategic goals.
But they would almost certainly engage in an arms race that fuels overall global risk, while extending their strategic conflict to the world’s most unstable areas, potentially through proxy wars.
Given this, a second scenario – managed strategic conflict – is more likely.
Trump’s erratic approach to China demonstrates that he has neither the strategic vision nor the diplomatic discipline to devise a policy of managed strategic conflict, much less a doctrine (like that created by President Harry Truman in 1947) to pursue a cold war.This means that, at least in the short term, the most likely trajectory of Sino-American relations is toward “transactional conflict,” characterized by frequent economic and diplomatic spats and the occasional cooperative maneuver.
In this scenario, bilateral tensions will continue to mount, because individual disputes are settled in isolation from one another, based on a specific quid pro quo, and thus lack any strategic coherence.So, however their current trade spat plays out, the US and China seem to be drifting toward long-term conflict.
Trump’s erratic approach to China demonstrates that he has neither the strategic vision nor the diplomatic discipline to devise a policy of managed strategic conflict, much less a doctrine (like that created by President Harry Truman in 1947) to pursue a cold war.
In this scenario, bilateral tensions will continue to mount, because individual disputes are settled in isolation from one another, based on a specific quid pro quo, and thus lack any strategic coherence.
BackNext