Example collocations logo

Strategic in sentence

2937 examples of Strategic in a sentence

Like many strategic analysts, they worry whether Germany, in pursuit of purely short-term economic interests, might forsake long-term strategic interests and concerns about human rights, environmental problems, press freedoms, and other political and geopolitical issues.
Panama, by contrast, took the risk of imagining some key strategic, export-oriented investments, and then focused on creating the conditions to make them happen.
But policymakers did not shy away from large strategic public investments when needed, as in the case of the Canal expansion or the airport.
To the extent that other countries rely on China for preserving the trading system, they are correspondingly less likely to object to China’s other strategic initiatives, in the South China Sea and elsewhere.
This reasoning leads to three lines of argument that preclude basic strategic analysis.
European integration owes much to France’s Robert Schuman and Germany’s Helmut Kohl, both of whom prioritized strategic European interests (through the European Steel and Coal Community and the eurozone, respectively) over the pursuit of immediate national advantage.
In particular, the Trump administration takes issue with the Made in China 2025 strategy, introduced by China’s State Council in 2015 with the aim of boosting ten strategic industries, including advanced information technology, automated machine tools and robotics, aviation and spaceflight equipment, and electric vehicles.
Through a variety of mechanisms, we are working to make citizens’ lives easier, streamline business activities, and relieve the authorities of extraneous work that diverts attention from important strategic tasks.
This is all the more true in France, where citizens place high expectations on the state – not to do everything, but certainly to draw strategic lines and enable local actors to succeed.
In Donilon’s words, “by elevating this dynamic region to one of our top strategic priorities, Obama is showing his determination not to let our ship of state be pushed off course by prevailing crises.”
As Kevin Rudd, the former Australian prime minister, noted in a remarkable speech a few weeks ago, the US security establishment has become convinced that strategic engagement with China has not paid off and should give way to strategic competition – a stance that would encompass all dimensions of the bilateral relationship.
Iran’s nuclear program is the decisive factor in this equation, for it threatens irreversibly the region’s strategic balance.
China is seeking to alter the status quo gradually as part of a high-stakes effort to extend its control to strategic areas and resources.
This shrewdness not only keeps opponents off balance; it also undercuts the relevance of US security assurances to allies and the value of building countervailing strategic partnerships in Asia.
For the question now is whether the time is ripe to make the transition to another strategic paradigm altogether, one in which the levels of offensive and defensive systems change in both absolute and relative terms.
This logic appears to have persuaded the Republican Party's presidential nominee George W. Bush to support moving to a new strategic paradigm.
This attempt to introduce modest changes within the existing strategic paradigm has won few converts.
Clinton's brand of limited missile defense appears to be too much for the Russians, who fear it as the start of something bigger that threatens their strategic position.
It disconcerts many European leaders who appear to favor the strategic status quo to the alternatives.
Instead, the US should undertake three things: aggressive testing of various architectures for a missile defense system, including sea-based systems that could intercept missiles in the immediate post-launch, boost phase before warheads and decoys can be released; careful study of the consequences of moving to various mixes of offensive and defensive systems; and intense consultations with Russia, China and America's allies in Europe and Asia about how to maintain strategic stability in the post-Cold War era.
This strategic fact is more evident now than ever before.
ASEAN meetings are sometimes criticized as “talking shops,” but this time dialogue and strategic leadership are needed immensely.
A shift of relative strategic influence and strength is discernible, especially given the rise of India and China.
There is also talk about establishing a new strategic dialogue among leaders.
The US has shown interest in a multilateral path to engagement with Asia on strategic issues.
But, with the onset of the Cold War, economic interest quickly morphed into a strategic interest in preventing the emergence of anti-Western, Soviet-friendly governments.
The US-backed insurgency of the 1980s, launched under the banner of jihad against the occupying Soviet Union, transformed two close American allies – Pakistan and Saudi Arabia – into strategic threats.
Of course, engaging in a war led by powers that view Lebanon merely as a piece of a broader strategic puzzle is not in the country’s best interests.
Breaking with these strategic policies would harm Peru’s economy.
Netanyahu is still stuck in the third season of “Homeland” – that is, obsessed with Iran – whereas Obama, having begun to include the renewed Russian threat in his strategic calculus, has already moved into the third season of “House of Cards.”
BackNext