From US Today
...
Ultimately, many Europeans believe the strong-armed U.S. approach to battling enemies — using force, not persuasion or other less violent tools — is wrong-headed and costly, and could spell trouble for NATO, Oberg said.
In an ideal world this make perfect sense but in reality is not, in recent years China, Russian and India et al increase their defence spending double digits along with their economy power, their passive aggression through with the regional alliance, opening expansion trading blocs and their energy strategy, of course China, example not invaded any counties yet accept Tibet, that was 1950s. But China is showing off their military power through passively but the world explicitly aware. China has been investing vast their money on various countries – through Silk Road --e.g. around the world acquisition of natural resources and raw materials; energy mining food even buying up land at African countries to match their economic ambition to growth along with their military power. How they protected all these investment if things goes wrong? Well yes without military power (at background aggression, soft and hard) I bet no countries listen. No one listen Congo persuasion but listen China that is the reality. This kind of geopolitical game –trade- attitude has been beginning of civilisation, it continues. Another wary about recent development Eurasian geopolitics, accessing, transit of resources and trade, and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), Russia India and China military power where they are sharing boarders close proximity within Europe, Middle East and Asia. Soft and hard goes with hand hand is most effective you can not play without one another.
