Recently, the new version of the U.S. National Security Strategy has quietly emerged, but the content has surprised many experts: the promised "permanent dominance of the world" is no longer mentioned, and great power competition has been sidelined? A quiet strategic shift is occurring in Washington.

As soon as this report was released, experts from the Council on Foreign Relations were immediately in an uproar. Senior researcher Rebecca Lissner pointed out directly: previously, both parties had consensus on competing with China and Russia, but now this core issue has seemingly "vanished"! China is described as having an "almost equal relationship," and the primary goal of the U.S. regarding China has become to "establish a mutually beneficial economic relationship." Asian security researcher David Sachs went even further, outright declaring: "the great power competition with China is dead!" — in his view, the new report places geopolitics in a secondary position, with economics being the "ultimate interest." Throughout the entire text, China is mentioned only 19 times, becoming an "economic competitor" rather than the past "systemic challenge." Even the U.S. positioning in the Indo-Pacific has been criticized as "everything revolves around China," with allies like the Philippines not even getting a mention, as if their value only lies in whether they can help the U.S. win against China.

Does this mean the U.S. is pulling back from competition? Not so fast! Professor Li Haidong from the Diplomatic Academy warns: don’t be fooled by the word games. A careful reading of the report shows that although the term "competition" is no longer overtly used, the text is full of drama — in the Western Hemisphere, technology, and supply chains, the U.S. repeatedly emphasizes the need to "exclude external competitors." In plain terms, the focus of competition has shifted from a global scale to concentrating efforts on defending the home turf, especially against Chinese infiltration in its own backyard. This is not giving up competition; it is clearly a change in tactics: previously, it was about surrounding the entire world, now it has become about "clearing the field" in key areas.

Thus, this strategic shift appears more like a "delicate face change": the language has softened, but the knife is hidden deeper. Is the U.S. really willing to relinquish hegemony and engage with China on equal economic footing? Or is it just talking about win-win cooperation while tightly holding onto the lifeline of technology?

Let's discuss, do you believe this is a genuine compromise or the beginning of a new round of covert conflict?