 How did we look at the threats in the world? We looked at them really from three different angles. One was power, one was urgency, and one was will. Because we're in a competition of sorts to maintain this world and turn it over hopefully in slightly better condition than we received it. In terms of raw power, right now, I look at Russia and the nuclear arsenal they have. I look at their activities over the last 10 years from Georgia and Crimea to the Donets Basin to Syria, I can go on and on and on. They're violations of INF, for example, but in terms of just power, I think it's clearly Russia that we have to look at and address. In terms of urgency, there's two. One is the current fight against the violent extremists. For example, the Defeat ISIS Coalition is 70 nations plus four international organizations working on that fight that is ongoing. We must continue that. That character of warfare that is very unusual, we call it irregular, but at the same time, in terms of urgency, is the DPRK, the North Korea nuclear and missile programs that are clearly a violation of international sanctions are clearly a threat to peace and stability. In terms of will, clearly it's China. Now in China's case, we look at it as different than Russia. Russia wants security around its periphery by having insecurity with other nations. They want a veto authority over the economic, the diplomatic and the security decisions of the nations around them. China on the other hand seems to want some sort of tribute states around them. We are looking for how do we work with China. I think that 15 years from now we will be remembered most for how did we set the conditions for a positive relationship with China.