This formulation will not survive contact with reality because no Central Asian country regards China as its “adversary.” That is an American construction that does not translate. And that is precisely why, in the past, the United States instead talked about “optionality” and the importance of helping to reduce the region’s dependence on a single point of transit, market, or partner. That is not the same as this construction, which has been tried before, e.g., by Pompeo, and went nowhere. As for Russia, as opposed to China, the administration itself is busily lifting sanctions and enabling Moscow, so that’s hardly credible either. “Multivector” foreign policy, which is a term often used in region, does not imply swapping one vector for another but means exactly what it says—having more than one vector and options in multiple directions on the compass.