I disagree, Lynn. If all techniques trained aiki, then there wouldn't be such a commentary going on by all of us who have gone to meet Dan, Mike, Rob, or Ark. You can't get aiki by focusing on the subtleties of connecting, blending, or taking balance. You can't get aiki by training techniques. Being soft and being relaxed isn't going to get you aiki.
This perspective is such a fishbowl. I do not demean what the gentlemen mentioned do ( whatever other differences I may have) -- but it is not necessary to discuss the distinctions to have to"one-up" or demean very traditional aikido training. Aikido has a far wider and deeper range than you, or they give it credit for having. Relying on those with a vested interest in promoting other training, while not necessarily making their points irrelevant, seriously taints the weight of their perspectives -- on aikido
-- which none of them have trained widely in.
I am not at all surprised that some very able people in the surface aspects of aikido, found training in aikido to lack depth FOR THEM. Not all methods and perspectives, even to similar goals, are fitting to all persons. But that is no more damning a comment than it would be to note some people are colorblind or lack perfect pitch. The differences that they see - and they can see differences -- are not the same as differences that other people see. It is pointless to argue that the green is not green or red or an off shade of umber. But their frustration would not be shared by those for whom the green and red are quite plain. To take their perspective on traditional forms of aikido training as being unhelpful is simply a self-selected and biased sample. One should take such evidence with the chunk of salt it deserves -- whatever the value of the training paradigm that may lead them to.