Example collocations logo

Strategic in sentence

2937 examples of Strategic in a sentence

The UK, for its part, shares France’s belief that military power is a prerequisite to strategic effectiveness.
After all, NATO expansion was essentially a political and strategic act, not a military one, given the absence of any significant threat against the countries of Western and Central Europe.
The first is a distinct European defense entity alongside NATO: a strategic and financial non-starter today.
If one adds to this European sketch of global development the fact that, whatever the outcome of the US election, America will shift its strategic focus to East Asia (and otherwise mainly look after itself), nearly everything cries out for a robust EU foreign and security policy.
Wastewater management is thus a central feature of the AfDB’s strategic priorities, known as the High 5s, which aim to improve Africans’ quality of life, boost public health, achieve gender equality, create jobs, and increase communities’ resilience to the effects of climate change.
Making sustainable urbanization a strategic priority might be the only way to overcome the interrelated crises of jobless growth, youth unemployment, and income inequality.
Moreover, given current fiscal constraints, the EU budget should be used more systematically to leverage financing of strategic private-sector investments with the support of the European Investment Bank (EIB).
The US strategic is committed to an “international order based on rights and responsibilities,” including a “broader voice – and greater responsibilities” for emerging powers, and the imposition of real consequences on countries that violate their international obligations.
And some are trying to reform their police and adopt a more strategic approach to fighting drug trafficking and organized crime.
The consequences have been a deep crisis in relations with the Palestinians, a cooling of relations between Israel and its great strategic partner, the United States, and an internal climate of deep divisions, ethnic tension and a vulgar coarsening of almost all political discourse.
And, while a long-term strategic alliance between Russia and China may not be in the offing, tactical cooperation to stop the West from imposing its values on the global community is likely to persist, so long as Vladimir Putin retains power in Russia.
But such tactical moves can lead to strategic and even ideological shifts.
But to embrace it would be a grave strategic error.
But, in confidential briefings, Nigeria has strongly hinted that it will not tolerate any foreign incursions on a vital and strategic resource in its own backyard.
And leaders from both the UK and the EU should be forging a strategic partnership to ensure European security, now that Trump’s presidency has cast doubt on US security guarantees.
When Turkey's parliament voted in March 2003 against allowing American troops to open a northern front against Iraq, Turkey's traditional strategic partnership with the United States ended.
Turkey has no desire to serve as a strategic counterweight to Iran and believes that only a territorially intact Iraq can continue to play that role.
But the same – and perhaps worse – can be said about China, yet the EU has invested much political capital in a strategic, multifaceted partnership with its rulers.
After all, no EU strategic partnership is unconditional.
The transfer of potentially strategic information about ports into foreign and perhaps unfriendly hands clearly carries with it national security risks.
Given the differing views of President Dmitri Medvedev and former President and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin – the main candidates in next year’s presidential election – many Russian bureaucrats prefer to avoid offering bold initiatives regarding BMD or other strategic arms-control issues until they know who the next president will be.
Medvedev seems less fearful of NATO than his semi-paranoid predecessor, but Putin has in the past shown surprising flexibility on some strategic issues.
More generally, for reasons of pride and history, many Russians refuse to believe that US policymakers have become more concerned about Iran’s minimal strategic potential than they are about Russia’s robust nuclear forces.
They therefore presume that, despite American professions to the contrary, the US seeks BMD capabilities that can negate Russia’s strategic deterrent under the guise of protecting America and its allies from Iran.
Russian officials have expressed some interest in these projects (some of which were originally proposed by the Kremlin), but they have insisted on first achieving consensus with the US on underlying strategic principles.
Above all, they want the US to sign a legally binding agreement affirming that US BMD will never threaten Russia’s strategic deterrent.
American officials stress that they will not try to negate Russia’s strategic deterrent – an impossible effort, given the size and sophistication of Russian’s offensive nuclear forces.
Beyond these specific BMD discussions, US arms-control efforts with Russia currently focus on strategic stability talks and other dialogues designed to establish a favorable conceptual foundation for the next round of formal arms-control negotiations.
Besides missile defense, topics could include non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons; reserve nuclear warheads that have been removed from operational arsenals, but have yet to be destroyed; and the placement of conventional munitions on strategic delivery vehicles, such as long-range ballistic missiles, that are normally used to carry nuclear warheads.
Only a small group of Russian specialists, primarily nongovernmental experts, embrace and employ US strategic concepts.
BackNext