I'd argue that having follow a doctrine of agility, communication and cooperation is in itself part of a strategy. It only solves part of the equation, though. Your overall strategy is incoherent if you pair these traits with a long-distance ivory tower goal setting. If you had a process to quickly identify and refine smaller (or sub) objectives you'd use the agility to its potential. Add in some mechanisms to minimise the artifacts of fast-paced agile engineering (e.g. tech debt, bloat), and you have a complete strategy.
Hard disagree:
Those things are important, but I’ve seen teams with those qualities spin or fail to produce impact because they don’t have a strategy.
You need an objective and you need a plan to get there — “objectives and key results”.
Communication and agility allow for tactical changes in completing that strategy, which are important, but having no strategy will go nowhere.