S T R AT E GI C E N V I RON M E N T USA: continuation of national power politics The strategic rivalry between the USA and China will remain a decisive factor in global politics. In the years to come, the USA will make substantial efforts to assert its military capability in the Indo-Pacific region to counter China’s growing potential. How far the USA will go in the economic conflict with China is currently an open question. President Trump may content himself, at least for the time being, with Chinese concessions to correct the imbalance in bilateral trade. However, there are voices in the administration calling for a more ambitious strategy for curbing China, wanting to also severely restrict the strategic rival’s access to the American market and to American technology. There is currently no sign of an imminent thaw in frosty US-Russian relations. President Trump has repeatedly made it clear that he wants to accommodate Russia in order to improve the tense relationship. However, he is encountering widespread opposition to this in US institutions, particularly in Congress, where the majority favour a hard line and continued pressure through sanctions on Russia. The President’s room for manoeuvre has so far in his Presidency also been limited by ongoing investigations and continuing speculation about problematic links with the Kremlin. In contrast to his administration’s national security strategy, President Trump’s stance toward the USA’s alliances is one of marked disregard, and he clearly shows his willingness for the USA to go it alone as a nation. This has manifested itself particularly problematically in the withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran and the resulting breach of a multilateral agreement without regard to the position of the European allies. It can be assumed that the President’s aversion to restrictions on US sovereignty by multilateral mechanisms will remain a defining feature of his foreign policy. Donald Trump would like, if possible, to disengage the USA from costly operations in the Islamic world. He seems to take little account of the question of whether a further reduction in US engagement might promote destabilizing developments in the regions concerned and give other actors the opportunity to gain influence at the USA’s expense. Broadly speaking, the question remains as to how far a withdrawal of the USA from its previous role as a global regulatory power and reliable partner to its allies could be reconciled with a successful strategy in the global competition with other powers. The USA’s strength rests not least on its global network of alliances and partnerships, and a policy of self-interest, which does not take this into account, could jeopardize what has so far been a key advantage in the competition with rival states. 30 S I T UAT I O N R E PORT 2 0 1 9 | F I S