What do you think - "Second Cold War" likely?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Just something I’ve seen discussed online occasionally in the past couple of years.

What do you think of the likelihood of a second Cold War? Or should it not be called that even if NATO/Russian relations continue to get worse because of the ideology differences from the Cold War? Or should it still be called that if it all/mostly by proxy?

If it does happen, do you think nuclear fears will get higher again? I don’t know how it was in the USSR, but in the US there was certainly a good bit of fiction written about it. Then you had movies like “The Day After” or “Threads” in the UK. And I’ve never gotten a sense of how many people really believed all-out nuclear war was going to happen “in the next five years” and how much they thought about it v. going on with their lives.

And spy fiction? I was once told an anecdote that the demand for spy novels in the US dropped dramatically after the end of the USSR. No idea if true.

2

Define what a Cold War is. We might be in a Cold War right now; with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc. Or maybe in a bunch of Cold War Juniors.

3

I specifically left the specifics to the responders, when I said the bit about deciding whether the ideology difference made it a “Second Cold War” or the proxy nature of fights or something else.

What I’m interested in is whether is going to happen that would be widely known as a “Second Cold War” in media or history books or colloquial discussion and involving Russia (which is why I mentioned the last couple of years - Ukraine) is likely to happen/begin in the next five to ten years (or in 2014 in hindsight).

As I mentioned, I’m interested in the fear level of nuclear war (then and in potential future) or the cultural impact in fiction. Like I read about the 1971 EBS Error and though a lot radio stations didn’t react, it seemed like almost everyone who heard it leapt straight to “nuclear weapons” in their heads (logical, if I correctly understand the purpose and nature of the system instead of just thinking of weather warnings). I mean, if I heard an “emergency, the President will speak to you now” warning, I’d be confused. I wouldn’t have a specific threat in mind that would cause that. They all seemed to.

So that’s my question - do you think it possible that that could become the primary “war fear” any time in the near future, but without actual active war between the parties.

Bunch of little cold wars wouldn’t count for what I’m talking about - one “Big Bad.”

4

My feeling is that the specific phrase “The Cold War” should refer to that specific milieu of tense relations between the Soviet Union and the western nations and the United States in particular, that existed from about 1948 through 1991.

It was more than just that. The term “world order” has come to mean, somewhat generically, an overall and overriding global milieu of international relations that largely define the entire trajectory of world diplomacy over an extended period of time. The phrase came into use, I think, late in the 19th century to refer to the major patterns of diplomacy among European nations at the time. (Source: The book “Diplomacy” by Henry Kissinger.) I think it was Otto Von Bismarck, or one of the major political thinkers of the day, who came up with the phrase.

After World War II, a very clear-cut global pattern of international relations evolved in which the US and USSR became, not just the “powers”, but the “superpowers”, enmeshed in non-stop diplomatic and military brinksmanship, and pervasive attempts by both sides to gain influence over other nations world-wide. And then, China got well entrenched into the mix too. I consider the specific phrase “The Cold War” to refer to that whole era, and I think of it as a bona-fide example of a “world order” of the time.

When the USSR finally collapsed in December 1991, the buzz-phrases of the day were that a world order had collapsed and a new one had begun. Myself, I agreed that a world order, specifically The Cold War had collapsed, and I agreed that it was indeed a real world order – but I didn’t agree that a new one had begun. I felt it would take another 20 years or so for a new overall world order to evolve, which would not necessarily look much like the Cold War world order.

Loosely speaking, it looks I was about right. We’ve had about 25 years now without a really well-defined international diplomatic schema. A new, but very chaotic schema involving lots of international terrorism centering around the Middle Ease has emerged in the vacuum, but it seems hard to call that a “world order”. Maybe a “world disorder”.

The newly re-emerging Russia may become part of some new world order. But I don’t expect it to be all that much like the Cold War, and no doubt once it becomes more well-defined, there will be a new name for it.

5

I think it has already started. And it is going to be a 3 way with a newly emergent Russia and China against a perceived to be weak US.

China is testing power in the South China Sea and will eventually re-absorb Taiwan, for economic reasons, and the US will offer a lot of bluster but no action other than symbolic.

Putin is flexing his power and will re-absorb some of the former Soviet states, again it is about the economy. The US has acted weak toward him and he is taking the opening.

It probably won’t go nuclear because it is still really about the emergent economies and a large war will drain resources and ruin property.

But it is about dominance. The European Union is a joke of bickering nation/states who have no defense without the US, and the US not longer has the will or political leaders to challenge.

Third Cold War is already underway.

6

If you think Russia is emerging as a new superpower, let me ask you one question.

What’s the GDP comparison between the United States and Russia? And is Russia’s economy improving, or declining?

Wait, before I ask you that, is Russia’s GDP higher than Canada’s? Or lower?

And before I ask you that, is Russia’s GDP per capita higher than Mexico’s? Or lower?

And now…the reveal!

Russia has a lower GDP than Canada, despite having 5 times the population. Russia has a lower GDP per capita than Mexico. Russia has half the population of the United States. Russia’s economy is about 1/10th the size of the American economy.

Russia is a country plagued by serious internal problems, a poor economy dependent of export of natural resources. They’d be doing well to crawl their way into matching the economic success of Brazil. Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Canada, Japan, and SOUTH KOREA each have larger economies than Russia. Note that all these countries are military and economic allies of the United States.

Let me explain that again. Germany alone would be stronger than Russia as a world power. France alone would be stronger. Britain alone would be stronger. Japan alone would be stronger. Italy alone would be stronger. Canada alone would be stronger. South Korea alone would be stronger.

And which countries has Russia cultivated? Which countries are looking to Russia for leadership? Russia is completely diplomatically isolated. NATO is an explicit anti-Russian military alliance, consisting of every major country in Europe, including former members of the Warsaw Pact.

People who believe that Russia is on the advance and taking advantage of America weakness are literally delusional. They believe in a narrative of American decline for personal reasons that have nothing to do with empirical reality.

7

Russia has always punched well above its weight in military affairs.

Lemur866, I suggest that you read some of Stratfor’s information about Russia. It’s very enlightening. One of their biggest problems is that they have no barriers against invasion. From Poland to Moscow is one gigantic plain, which is perfect for armies to sweep in from central Europe. Therefore, they have always been somewhat aggressive, and always trying to overawe or outright conquer their close neighbors, in order to provide a buffer zone.

In this list, Russia is ranked with the #2 strongest military, while Germany is #18, and Canada is #20.

Comparing Russia and Germany in more detail, Russia has 1,335,000 people reaching military age annually, while Germany has only 791,000. Russia has 478 attack helicopters, while Germany has 44. Russia has 60 submarines, while Germany has 5. And on, and on, and on.

Here is Global Firepower’s full list. They calculate things differently. Russia is still #2, but Germany is #9, and Canada is #22.

8

Forget Russia.
Think China.

9

Yeah, yeah, Russia has a lot of surplus obsolete equipment rusting away on various military bases, and can muster up a lot of conscripts if needed.

So what?

Russia’s military spending is slighting higher than other European powers. But their economy, the logistical base of that military, is far lower than the other European powers. Italy, Germany, France, and the UK are each individually economically much larger than Russia. Russia isn’t quite a third world country, but it’s on par with Mexico and Brazil rather than Europe or Japan.

And the important part is that every European country is allied together against Russia. What countries are allied with Russia? Belarus? Moldava? You think Russia’s aggression toward Ukraine means their near neighbors will fall in line? Or will they beg for help from NATO?

And Russia being able to carry out operations in Syria is not exactly terrifying. Take a look at the overseas military adventures of Australia.

I’m not saying that Russia is militarily helpless. They do still have a giant nuclear arsenal. But the notion that they are economically or culturally or politically a rival to the United States is laughable. Back during the cold war the Soviets used to position themselves as a cultural center, a scientific center, an economic center, a political center. We used to worry about countries allying with the Soviets instead of the West. We used to worry about countries falling to communism and joining the Soviet Bloc.

There is no such thing as a Russian Bloc, or an anti-Nato alliance in 2016, and there is no prospect of any such thing. Nobody on the planet thinks the Russians are the wave of the future. The only thing the Russians have going for them is that they’re now a normal authoritarian country rather than an ideological state.

10

Do you think there has been only one Cold War? What made it unique, compared to any other comparable relationship between multiple powers?

Extra credit: Was “The Cold War” a good or a bad thing? Would another one also be?

11

Yes. In the terms I’m talking about - capitalized and with a “The” in front of it.

12

no, because there’s no benefit to either side. Post WWII, it was all about who had the bigger bombs, or the better technology, or who could get where in space first. That’s over and done. Russia’s heyday is over, our heyday is over.

13

So what are you doing on this board? You’re clearly not interested in learning anything.

14

I’m not too worried. They’re taking their rightful place as a nation of merchants; trade has always been in the Chinese soul. They’re happy selling us products. They have no incentive to harm us.

If their economy crashes…maybe. But as long as times are good, they don’t want to topple the applecart, as they’re the ones vending the apples.

15

WWI was known as “the world war” until WWII started.

16

Which really is entirely consistent to what I’m saying - do you think something else on the scale of “The Cold War” that might be called “The Second Cold War” is likely to be forthcoming in the next five to ten years? Not small cold wars or lots of different factions but something that similar enough to evoke the title and big enough to qualify for a “The.” Would it be required to have some sort of overreaching ideological difference rather than just different nations exerting political/military influence to qualify? Would Russia v. NATO be the likely players? Would nuclear fears play in again? If you do think it likely, how different or similar from the Cold War do you think it would be?

Obviously, it’s very speculative - that’s why it’s in IMHO, to get opinions.

17

It takes at least two to have a war, cold or otherwise. The First Cold War (CW I) ended when the USSR decided not to keep playing. In their words: the US wouldn’t have an enemy to fear any more. CW II started when Russia decided it needed one for domestic political purposes. The West has forces, primarily military, who are in favor of having an enemy that doesn’t actually hurt anyone. It helps in the never-ending battle of the budget without causing a lot of negative domestic pressure.

Whether CW II will continue depends on a) the continued importance of the CW to Russian domestic policy and b) whether the broad western political organizations, of which the military is an important part, agree to participate. As long as it doesn’t get too expensive to either side, I think CW II will continue. When it becomes inconveniently expensive for one side, it will stop. Just like CW I.

18

What about you?

Are you interested in learning that Russia has half the population and 1/10th the economy of the United States?

Yeah, their military is, on paper, very large. But you can’t just look at the number of tanks or airplanes listed on the books. What is the condition of the equipment? How many of those tanks are actually ready to fight? A bunch of surplus obsolete equipment in mothballs isn’t exactly useless, but it doesn’t help you project power around the world.

The question is, are we facing a new Cold War? In my opinion, bad relations with Russia aren’t the same thing as a new Cold War. We have bad relations with a couple dozen countries, but we don’t have a Cold War with them. Despite having a strong military in comparison to their economic strength, Russia is in no position to play the role of a superpower rival to the United States. They don’t have the economic power, they don’t have the cultural power, they don’t have the scientific power, they don’t have the political power. And while their military is much larger than Germany or Italy, it’s a fraction of the United States, let alone the United States plus our NATO allies, plus Japan, plus South Korea, plus Australia.

Remember how the Soviets used to have the Warsaw Pact alliance? How many Warsaw Pact countries are still militarily allied to Russia? How many European countries have friendly relations with Russia? How many former Warsaw Pact countries have joined NATO? How many former Soviet Republics have joined NATO?

Russia still has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons, and a very large and moderately capable military. It certainly can’t be ignored, and it certainly can’t be invaded. But the former Cold War divisions of First, Second, and Third world countries is over. Russia is a normal non-ideological authoritarian country. The only ideological threat on the horizon isn’t from Russia or China, but from Islamism.

Again, propaganda-driven bad relations with Russia aren’t the same thing as a Cold War. It’s not even close to the same thing.

19

No.

A) China is making territorial claims, a phrase that would chill your blood, if you read the history of what can happen after it is used.

B) China has severe internal issues, & the Party is worried about a “Chinese Spring” scenario. They are stirring up Nationalism & Xenophobia to distract the discontent masses.

20

So what the question means is "Will there be another cold war capitalized with a “The” in front of it?