The Pentagon released the new "National Defense Strategy" on Saturday morning Beijing time, which has drawn global attention. The first wave of foreign media commentary generally believes that it uses a "more moderate tone" toward China, suggesting that the U.S. should respond to China's influence in the Indo-Pacific region through "strength-based deterrence, not confrontation."

"Our goal is not to dominate, humiliate or suffocate China. On the contrary, our goal is much more specific and reasonable: we simply want to ensure that China or any other country cannot dominate us or our allies. This does not require regime change or any other life-or-death struggle." This is the most quoted part of the report regarding China.

The report also states, "President Trump sought to establish a stable peace, fair trade, and mutually respectful relationship with China," and the U.S. clearly and realistically views the "historical speed, scale, and quality of China's military construction." The report says the U.S. will "establish a strong defense mechanism along the First Island Chain," and Washington hopes to create military conditions for the "balance of power in the Indo-Pacific."

This latest "National Defense Strategy" does not mention the term "Taiwan." According to a report by Nikkei Asia, an individual who read an earlier version said that this formal document never mentioned "Taiwan" at all, which differs from the draft circulated at the Pentagon in August last year. Politico also mentioned that in September last year, the draft had been submitted to the U.S. "Secretary of War" Hegseth's desk. However, due to disagreements among government officials on how to describe the "Chinese threat," the draft was delayed for several months.

The report emphasizes the Western Hemisphere and the defense of the U.S. homeland, calling on U.S. allies to invest more effort in maintaining their own security. It claims, "The Department of Defense will no longer be hindered by interventionism, endless wars, regime change, and nation-building."

The document also states that the U.S. is committed to establishing "a decent peace—conditions favorable to the U.S., which China can also accept and live within."

Similar to the 2023 December U.S. "National Security Strategy" report that established the Western Hemisphere as a top priority, the "National Defense Strategy" places "defending the U.S. homeland and the interests of the entire Western Hemisphere" at the top of its agenda, with China coming second. However, Washington rejects the outside label of "isolationism" or "strategic retrenchment." The new strategy states, "Viewing the world with a flexible and pragmatic realism, with a clear-eyed perspective, is crucial for safeguarding the interests of the American people."

The Wall Street Journal believes that the Pentagon shows a "reconciliation" attitude toward China in its latest document.

The report notes that this contrasts sharply with Trump's first term and the Biden administration. In the strategic documents released by the Pentagon in 2018, China was described as a "revisionist" power and considered the greatest threat to U.S. security, a top priority.

Trump's continuous aggressive actions in Venezuela, Greenland, and Iran indeed showcase another side of his preference for "action" and "offensive moves." His approach is difficult to evaluate using traditional U.S. interventionist or isolationist lines. His methods seem to be a mix of hegemonism, mercantilism, and realism.

Trump seems to show more moderation and respect toward China, which should be seen as a positive development. The fundamental reason for this change may be his increased fear of China's strength. Besides the actual lessons he learned from being defeated by Beijing in the trade war last year, many public and secret analyses must have shaken his belief during his previous term of trying to crush China.

The Heritage Foundation recently released an internal report on China, which is very typical. Although some "classified content" was removed, the public part is already very impactful. The report warns Washington that if a high-intensity conflict breaks out between the U.S. and China, the U.S. military would reach a breaking point within the first few weeks, with its ability to sustain combat far weaker than China's.

The report used an AI-driven model to conduct thousands of simulation iterations, tracking the consumption of weapon platforms, ammunition, and fuel, and concluded that the U.S. military would face shortages of key precision-guided munitions (such as long-range anti-ship missiles, air-to-air interception missiles, and missile defense systems) within five to seven days after the start of large-scale operations. Moreover, these critical munitions would be completely depleted within 35 to 40 days, while China would only experience a turning point in consumption after 20 to 30 days of the operation. As replacement plans for munitions are implemented, China's combat endurance could be extended for months, far exceeding the U.S. military's combat limit.

The report states that in multiple simulated scenarios, up to 90% of U.S. and allied aircraft stationed at major forward bases could be destroyed on the ground at the beginning of the conflict, as the adversary would simultaneously strike runways, fuel depots, command facilities, and parked aircraft. The rapid loss of weapon platforms, a fragile logistics system, highly concentrated base deployments, and insufficient industrial emergency capacity would collectively lead the U.S. military to face combat limits at the beginning of the conflict.

This pessimistic prediction about U.S.-China conflict is not just the conclusion of one U.S. think tank or a comprehensive war game. It is likely that the Trump team has realized that continuing to take a hard line against China poses risks that are unbearable for the U.S. Therefore, the new "National Defense Strategy" claims to maintain a favorable military balance with China in the Indo-Pacific, which is an unavoidable adjustment.

However, Old Hu believes that the Chinese people should not relax their vigilance toward the U.S. because of the lowered tone and some short-term adjustments in the U.S. attitude toward China. We must maintain the bottom-line thinking of using force to solve the Taiwan issue, and our preparations must be aimed at the most extreme scenarios where the U.S. and Japan carry out armed interference. Only by forming such strategic redundancy and firmness can we more easily achieve a swift and decisive unification at minimal cost, even achieving a complete peaceful unification, by destroying the resistance will of the Taiwan authorities and deterring external forces' interference at the critical moment.

The U.S. "National Defense Strategy" repeatedly talks about "strength," which reminds us from the outside that strength is the key to the next phase of strategic rivalry. After Trump destroyed many past rules, the importance of strength has become more prominent than in any period after the Cold War.

Original: toutiao.com/article/1855203508187212/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author.