Editor's note: Jon Yuan Jiang, a special commentator for CGTN, holds a PhD in Media and Communication from Queensland University of Technology. Fluent in Chinese, English and Russian, he specializes in the Belt and Road Initiative, China's relations with the world and global political narratives. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On January 23, the U.S. Department of War quietly released its new National Defense Strategy (NDS), adopting a tone toward China far more measured than the administration's customary bravado. The document states outright: America seeks neither to dominate China, choke its economy, disgrace its leaders nor topple its regime. Its primary aim is straightforward – to block any power, China included, from gaining hegemony over the U.S. or its allies, while laying the groundwork for a "decent peace" in the Indo-Pacific: a balanced power dynamic that Beijing itself could endure.

This signifies a notable shift from the 2018 NDS of Trump's initial term, which dubbed China a "revisionist power" hell-bent on dismantling the world order and implied a more systemic, confrontational rivalry. The latest iteration steers clear of such dogma, homing in on reliable deterrence: ample military might to thwart bids for control – especially within the First Island Chain – without casting U.S.-China friction as an all-or-nothing apocalypse. The goal is equilibrium, not victory.

Intriguingly, this mindset resonates with Barack Obama's 2011 "Pivot to Asia" or "Rebalancing," which similarly viewed China's ascent as an unalterable fact and favored guided coexistence over outright reversal. Yet the approaches diverge: Obama stressed collective alliances and norm-based conflict resolution; Trump employs "peace through strength" rhetoric, deal-making foreign policy and adamant calls for allies to pull more weight in defense.

The strategy's pragmatic core shines through. It dismisses regime overthrow, tempers the rivalry's intensity and posits that heated competition doesn't inevitably spell doom. Authentic peace springs from reciprocal awareness of each side's boundaries, not from crushing Beijing. This broadcasts a nuanced signal to China: Rivalry has confines – unyielding barriers against dominance, paired with room for qualified harmony.

Alliances stay pivotal, yet they've taken on a transactional edge. For all Trump's gruff words to partners, the rationale is astute: Curbing an emerging China can't hinge endlessly on U.S. sacrifices alone. Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines and others must boost budgets, forge strong local forces and lead on various fronts. This is the real meaning of "America First": safeguard the homeland above all and avoid strategic over-extension.

Beijing receives a blend of balm and bite. The strategy renounces suffocation or undermining, floating a "decent peace" that subtly mirrors Chinese President Xi Jinping's notion that the Pacific is large enough to accommodate both giants. At the same time, it's crystal clear: Pursuits of regional supremacy will demand steep costs. Harmony is attainable, but only within Washington's framework.

This recalibration isn't abrupt. It builds on bipartisan consensus on China policy. China's surge can't be overlooked or undone; unbridled engagement has peaked; Cold War-style containment ill-fits our interconnected world. The sensible route is managed rivalry, bounded by credible deterrence.

But measured language coexists with military reality. The strategy's conciliatory tone is sincere, as is the military buildup that accompanies it. Though Taiwan goes unmentioned in the strategy, a deliberate softening, the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act speaks volumes: up to $1 billion for Taiwan security cooperation, mandated collaboration on drones and counter-drone tech, expanded Pacific Deterrence Initiative and rushed stockpiles of munitions, unified air defenses and supply chains among allies – all plainly tuned for Taiwan contingencies.

Such moves stem from brutal arithmetic: CSIS simulations reveal a fierce Taiwan clash might burn through vital U.S. precision weapons in mere days or weeks, with restocking spanning years. Hence, the rush to mass-produce long-range strikes, unmanned systems and firepower, and to cache them in Japan, the Philippines, Australia, South Korea and beyond.

Indo-Pacific fortifications follow suit: hardening bases, deepening multilateral access, joint exercises in sensitive waters and a congressional push for a five-year multilateral defense strategy. These operational realities – paired with ongoing tech derisking, supply-chain restrictions and alliance demands – can appear encirclement-like to Beijing, even as the NDS speaks of respectful relations.

Washington isn't playing a double game. It's openly pursuing both tracks: reassurance through dialogue, deterrence through strength. The velvet glove and the iron fist, plainly visible, working in tandem.

What emerges is a layered approach, arguably classic Trumpian gamesmanship: reassuring words on the ends, paired with robust means to ensure that any Chinese push for primacy would carry prohibitive costs. Whether this is deliberate strategic ambiguity – soft signals to encourage restraint while complex capabilities deter aggression – or simply the product of bureaucratic momentum and congressional hawkishness is open to debate. Either interpretation, the effect is similar: Beijing faces a mixed message that forces constant reassessment of U.S. intentions.

Both sides must probe, adjust and calculate. The real risk isn't who acts tougher – it's misjudging the other's core interests or confusing defensive postures for weakness. In these contested waters, coexistence is neither gift nor surrender; it's the delicate balance two giants must learn to maintain – however uncomfortably.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)