Over the past 200 years, the strategic retreat of the United States has influenced the global geopolitical landscape, promoted international relations adjustments, and resulted in outcomes such as the promotion of multipolarity in the late Cold War. At the same time, in terms of safeguarding its own interests, it has produced at least three outcomes.

On December 5th, at Arroyo Beach in Puerto Rico, a US Navy light amphibious reconnaissance vessel (LARC) was disembarking from a general-purpose landing craft (LCU-1662) while military operations were underway.

After returning to the White House, the Trump administration released its first National Security Strategy report last week. The main tone of this report derived from the "Trump Corollary" is to abandon the concept of "world policing" and use strategic retreat to ensure the core national interests of the United States, shifting the country's strategic focus to its homeland and the Western Hemisphere. Compared to 10 years ago when the US government positioned 2020-2030 as a "decisive decade" for the transformation of the international order, the offensive strategic report of replacing "competition and cooperation" with "competition shaping" is ubiquitous in the new version of the report.

In fact, strategic retreat was not created by Trump. In the more than 200 year history of the United States, conservative retreat and isolationist strategies have accounted for at least two-thirds of American history, and the ambition for globalization only emerged in the decades after World War II, during which there were intermittent periods of "retreat" of various sizes.

The United States is the country with the most distinct characteristics of realism in the world. It has always been the position of the United States to actively shrink during specific periods due to practical considerations, in order to avoid comprehensive conflicts or deep involvement that may bring risks to itself. Faced with pressure from the British Navy to seize American merchant ships in 1794, the United States? The Jay Treaty made concessions to Britain to avoid direct conflict, and by 2021, the Biden administration, despite opposition from allies, insisted on withdrawing troops as the Kabul regime collapsed? Afghanistan is a choice that revolves around the core national interests of the United States and avoids unpredictable risks through rational calculations, regardless of which party is in power.

But over the past 200 years, the strategic retreat of the United States has not only affected the global geopolitical landscape, promoted the adjustment of international relations, and produced results such as the promotion of world multipolarity in the late Cold War period, but also resulted in at least three outcomes in terms of safeguarding its own interests.

One is to hide our capabilities and bide our time, in order to reduce our cautious attitude towards global affairs and exchange for the development of the United States itself. For example, through the United States? The Jay Treaty, let's switch back to 20 years of development time;? In the later period of the Vietnam War, the Ford government acquiesced in the unification of Vietnam by North Vietnam to avoid the United States being bogged down in **. In fact, it enabled the United States to focus on the new scientific and technological revolution. With the advantages of informatization and networking, it gained enough leverage for the final victory in the competition with the Soviet Union.

The second is to numb the opponent and quietly benefit from watching the tiger fight while sitting on the mountain. In 1863, Napoleon III launched an armed invasion of Mexico to suppress the United States and support puppet regimes. The Lincoln government protested loudly, but did not take any substantial intervention, causing the French authorities to be careless. As a result, they were defeated by the Mexican Republicans supported by the United States. In the end, the United States not only ended the civil war, but also controlled the Mexican market and silver mines that France had always wanted to control. In the same situation, after the reunification of Vietnam in 1975, the United States' "dignified failure" led to the expansion of the profitable Soviet Union, which eventually fell into the quagmire of Afghanistan and disintegrated itself from a superpower into more than ten countries.

Although there was no benefit, there was also no significant loss. For example, in 1971, with the support of the Soviet Union at the time, India launched the Third Indo Pakistani War, dividing Pakistan, an ally of the United States, in half. The United States, considering its inability to intervene and withdraw from the Vietnam War, has watched as Pakistan splits, but the outcome of the war does not affect Pakistan's or even Bangladesh's trust in the United States after independence. In the 1973 Yom Kippur War in the Middle East, the Nixon administration did not want to directly conflict with the Soviet Union and tacitly allowed the Soviet Union to airlift supplies to Egypt, promoting a United Nations ceasefire resolution. As a result, countries such as Egypt, which had long been influenced by the Soviet Union after the war, became closer to the United States.

On the other hand, global expansion can indeed bring practical benefits to the United States, but the risks are also significant. Especially after the end of the Cold War, the United States relied on its own strength and launched wars such as the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, and the Iraq War. The expansionist strategy brought the United States a false reputation but a real disaster. During this period, China worked hard and accelerated its development, even positioning China and the United States in a strategic stability relationship in the US National Security Strategy.

It can be seen that the strategic offensive or contraction of the United States focuses on its core interests, and "contraction" is not uncommon in American history. So, whether "contraction" is considered "retreat" or "advance" for the long-term development of the United States, whether it is "contraction" or "expansion", is not the focus that the outside world should pay attention to. The core logic of maintaining the United States' global dominance and curbing the rise of competitors is what needs to be speculated. So, the concerns of Latin American countries triggered by the report's "reaffirmation and implementation of the Monroe Doctrine", the dissatisfaction of European countries with "certain NATO member countries being likely to become 'non European' majority countries", and Japan, South Korea, and others who have been hit by the United States no longer considering Indo Pacific allies as political 'value partners', do not need to worry about a few words. Instead, they should follow the United States' thinking and focus more on doing their own country's affairs well.

The US China relations that have caught the attention of both Asia and China, especially the report that identified China as the "most significant geopolitical challenge" and "primary threat" in Biden's 2022 edition, have been adjusted to shift its policy towards China towards "winning the economic future, preventing military confrontation," and prioritizing "reciprocity and fairness." However, this does not mean that the United States is willing to let China dominate, as the latter cannot be justified in any sense for its core interests. In other words, the United States has only adjusted the means and narrative of competition.

In today's world, no matter what, any action taken by the United States will trigger a global chain reaction. Now that the United States is backing down, how should the world view it? In fact, the United States has made it very clear that "only when the actions of other countries directly threaten American interests, their affairs are relevant to us." Putting its own interests first is the focus of the United States' National Security Strategy this time, which means that the first thing the United States should do is its own affairs.

And when the United States has clearly recognized this, other countries do not need to focus more on things outside of themselves. In this chaotic world, it may be a necessary but practical choice for everyone to sweep the snow in front of their own door.

Over the past 200 years, the strategic retreat of the United States has influenced the global geopolitical landscape, promoted international relations adjustments, and resulted in outcomes such as the promotion of multipolarity in the late Cold War. At the same time, in terms of safeguarding its own interests, it has produced at least three outcomes.

On December 5th, at Arroyo Beach in Puerto Rico, a US Navy light amphibious reconnaissance vessel (LARC) was disembarking from a general-purpose landing craft (LCU-1662) while military operations were underway.

After returning to the White House, the Trump administration released its first National Security Strategy report last week. The main tone of this report derived from the "Trump Corollary" is to abandon the concept of "world policing" and use strategic retreat to ensure the core national interests of the United States, shifting the country's strategic focus to its homeland and the Western Hemisphere. Compared to 10 years ago when the US government positioned 2020-2030 as a "decisive decade" for the transformation of the international order, the offensive strategic report of replacing "competition and cooperation" with "competition shaping" is ubiquitous in the new version of the report.

In fact, strategic retreat was not created by Trump. In the more than 200 year history of the United States, conservative retreat and isolationist strategies have accounted for at least two-thirds of American history, and the ambition for globalization only emerged in the decades after World War II, during which there were intermittent periods of "retreat" of various sizes.

The United States is the country with the most distinct characteristics of realism in the world. It has always been the position of the United States to actively shrink during specific periods due to practical considerations, in order to avoid comprehensive conflicts or deep involvement that may bring risks to itself. Faced with pressure from the British Navy to seize American merchant ships in 1794, the United States? The Jay Treaty made concessions to Britain to avoid direct conflict, and by 2021, the Biden administration, despite opposition from allies, insisted on withdrawing troops as the Kabul regime collapsed? Afghanistan is a choice that revolves around the core national interests of the United States and avoids unpredictable risks through rational calculations, regardless of which party is in power.

But over the past 200 years, the strategic retreat of the United States has not only affected the global geopolitical landscape, promoted the adjustment of international relations, and produced results such as the promotion of world multipolarity in the late Cold War period, but also resulted in at least three outcomes in terms of safeguarding its own interests.

One is to hide our capabilities and bide our time, in order to reduce our cautious attitude towards global affairs and exchange for the development of the United States itself. For example, through the United States? The Jay Treaty, let's switch back to 20 years of development time;? In the later period of the Vietnam War, the Ford government acquiesced in the unification of Vietnam by North Vietnam to avoid the United States being bogged down in **. In fact, it enabled the United States to focus on the new scientific and technological revolution. With the advantages of informatization and networking, it gained enough leverage for the final victory in the competition with the Soviet Union.

The second is to numb the opponent and quietly benefit from watching the tiger fight while sitting on the mountain. In 1863, Napoleon III launched an armed invasion of Mexico to suppress the United States and support puppet regimes. The Lincoln government protested loudly, but did not take any substantial intervention, causing the French authorities to be careless. As a result, they were defeated by the Mexican Republicans supported by the United States. In the end, the United States not only ended the civil war, but also controlled the Mexican market and silver mines that France had always wanted to control. In the same situation, after the reunification of Vietnam in 1975, the United States' "dignified failure" led to the expansion of the profitable Soviet Union, which eventually fell into the quagmire of Afghanistan and disintegrated itself from a superpower into more than ten countries.

Although there was no benefit, there was also no significant loss. For example, in 1971, with the support of the Soviet Union at the time, India launched the Third Indo Pakistani War, dividing Pakistan, an ally of the United States, in half. The United States, considering its inability to intervene and withdraw from the Vietnam War, has watched as Pakistan splits, but the outcome of the war does not affect Pakistan's or even Bangladesh's trust in the United States after independence. In the 1973 Yom Kippur War in the Middle East, the Nixon administration did not want to directly conflict with the Soviet Union and tacitly allowed the Soviet Union to airlift supplies to Egypt, promoting a United Nations ceasefire resolution. As a result, countries such as Egypt, which had long been influenced by the Soviet Union after the war, became closer to the United States.

On the other hand, global expansion can indeed bring practical benefits to the United States, but the risks are also significant. Especially after the end of the Cold War, the United States relied on its own strength and launched wars such as the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, and the Iraq War. The expansionist strategy brought the United States a false reputation but a real disaster. During this period, China worked hard and accelerated its development, even positioning China and the United States in a strategic stability relationship in the US National Security Strategy.

It can be seen that the strategic offensive or contraction of the United States focuses on its core interests, and "contraction" is not uncommon in American history. So, whether "contraction" is considered "retreat" or "advance" for the long-term development of the United States, whether it is "contraction" or "expansion", is not the focus that the outside world should pay attention to. The core logic of maintaining the United States' global dominance and curbing the rise of competitors is what needs to be speculated. So, the concerns of Latin American countries triggered by the report's "reaffirmation and implementation of the Monroe Doctrine", the dissatisfaction of European countries with "certain NATO member countries being likely to become 'non European' majority countries", and Japan, South Korea, and others who have been hit by the United States no longer considering Indo Pacific allies as political 'value partners', do not need to worry about a few words. Instead, they should follow the United States' thinking and focus more on doing their own country's affairs well.

The US China relations that have caught the attention of both Asia and China, especially the report that identified China as the "most significant geopolitical challenge" and "primary threat" in Biden's 2022 edition, have been adjusted to shift its policy towards China towards "winning the economic future, preventing military confrontation," and prioritizing "reciprocity and fairness." However, this does not mean that the United States is willing to let China dominate, as the latter cannot be justified in any sense for its core interests. In other words, the United States has only adjusted the means and narrative of competition.

In today's world, no matter what, any action taken by the United States will trigger a global chain reaction. Now that the United States is backing down, how should the world view it? In fact, the United States has made it very clear that "only when the actions of other countries directly threaten American interests, their affairs are relevant to us." Putting its own interests first is the focus of the United States' National Security Strategy this time, which means that the first thing the United States should do is its own affairs.

And when the United States has clearly recognized this, other countries do not need to focus more on things outside of themselves. In this chaotic world, it may be a necessary but practical choice for everyone to sweep the snow in front of their own door.