Editor's note: Azhar Azam writes on domestic, regional and global issues. The article reflects the author's opinion, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Donald Trump is well-known for suddenly changing his gears. During his inaugural term as the U.S. President, he battered a number of U.S. allies and rivals over terrorism, trade, nuclear and other issues before abruptly dropping the heat to break a deal with them.

He frequently accused China of "unfair" trade practices and "stealing" U.S. manufacturing jobs, reprimanded Pakistan for providing "safe havens" to Afghan Taliban, and upbraided the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) for nuclear tests. But as of now, he has a trade truce with Beijing, applauded Islamabad for its support to resolve Afghanistan dispute and agreed to resume stalled nuclear talks with Pyongyang.

Trump's newer approach is likable. He seems to have learned from his interaction with a number of heads of states and understands their point of views. The change in his foreign policy may also have a backdrop link with the launch of his reelection bid for a second consecutive presidential term.

But the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) perhaps does not agree with Trump, at least, not on China. In a 171-page white paper, the Pentagon's chief of staff and independent strategists noted a "broad consensus" that Russia, through an alliance with China, aims to reclaim its influence over Soviet nations to retrieve its worldwide recognition as a "great power" and gain economic, military and political sway over foreign countries.

Although the paper delineates military and strategic experts' thoughts on "Russian Strategic Intentions" and its use of "propaganda and disinformation" campaigns in Western countries, the outcomes are more China-oriented.

One of the white paper contributors retired Brigadier General Rob Spalding III opined that the U.S. should bilaterally engage Russia to peel them away from China's orbit. "The U.S. can work with Russia in ways that improve the U.S.-Russia relationship without detracting from European efforts to balance and deter," he said.

Wary of Sino-Russian collaboration, Jason Werchan encouraged the U.S. "to effectively foster distrust and unease" between Beijing and Moscow. The report also supported then Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan's focus on "China, China, China" and presented Beijing as "the greatest threat to U.S. interests and national security."

Pentagon-backed defense analysts reminded the Trump administration about the "more advanced and powerful" China whose rapprochement with Russia seeks to end the U.S. hegemony across the world. The report also advised providing information about "Chinese predatory lending" to European countries so that they could avoid "China's debt diplomacy."

The group of strategists came up with a terrible suggestion to hinge on Russia to deter China. This is quite laughable because China and Russia sustain unrivaled relations, and Xi's last month visit to the Kremlin has truly bolstered their comprehensive strategic partnership. As the Sino-Russia relationship touches new heights, the idea to sow seeds of distrust between the two is merely an eccentric proposition.

It is odd the DOD is orchestrating a program to discuss and advise its federal regime on how to weaken the political and economic interests of its adversaries, which exceedingly supersedes its jurisdiction.

The DOD must recall that it is a defense organization of the U.S. and not a conventional media outlet that can discharge its responsibilities by issuing "disclaimers." It should not try to circumvent the rules and behave like a rogue organization that works beyond the control of the national government.

It would be interesting to see how the Western media responds to the report, which for many years has been trying to uphold that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is not China's national army but a military wing of the founding and ruling Communist Party of China that ensures the Party's rule over China.

For highbrow defense and military analysts and officials in Washington, the increased operational effectiveness and preparedness of the PLA as a military organization is something more grievous for U.S. national interests and global preeminence.

Unlike the Pentagon that pursues international military outreach to protect American allies and its national interests, the PLA does not have any global ambitions. For the PLA, China's interests rest in its national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity.

China thoroughly realizes that in today's world, economy and defense are symbiotic, and it cannot be lethargic on either of two crucial issues of national interest. Thus it has to be vigilant on both fronts simultaneously under rapidly-changing geopolitical circumstances.

With these comparative facts, it is obvious that the DOD is trying to make inroads with a political and economic façade that could eventually undermine the legitimacy of the Trump administration.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)