Efforts to placate both the United States and the PRC are proving ever more challenging, as the recent Group of Seven and NATO summits have shown.

Both countries know that confrontation only leads to a dead end in the long run. A mix of cooperation and competition remains the norm that has worked for both countries in the past. But it’s difficult to strike a balance, and competition is likely to overwhelm cooperation, as it always has.

The Quad, a revitalized clique of democratic nations surrounding China, has been criticized by Chinese as a thinly-veiled ploy to contain its growth. It could prove to be a formidable obstacle, if the U.S. maneuvers correctly.

The U.S. has placed the other members of the group in a disadvantageous position, expecting each of them to confront China. Instead, what they will discover is that they are missing out on the benefits China offers.

With only four countries in the bloc — the United States, Japan, Australia and India — and with dissension in the ranks, it’s unlikely that a NATO-style alliance will ever emerge in the Eastern Hemisphere. It cannot work without consensus.

Since the late 1990s, China and Russia coordinated their diplomatic efforts to serve mutual interests and simultaneously oppose US global hegemony. A ‘Eurasian’ worldview began to concretize after the NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. In response to NATO and US unilateralism, China and Russia became more concerned with protecting concepts of sovereignty and territorial integrity within the rules-based international order.

The SCO, which is jointly led by Beijing and Moscow, has become the most prominent Eurasian regional security organization. Even so, its defense and institutional capabilities lag behind those of NATO.

Trump’s antics have frayed the transatlantic alliance.

Put simply, President Trump thinks that Europe and other allies have profited too much at the US’ expense and that the US should stop being such a sucker. That view will shape trans-Atlantic relations for the duration of this presidency.

Soft power can reach goals through attraction and persuasion rather than threats of coercion or offers of payment. Information warfare can be used offensively to disempower rivals, and this could be considered “negative soft power.” By attacking the values of others, one can reduce their attractiveness and thus their relative soft power.