Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 1

Archive 1 Archive 2

The problem with things without proper names

When I decided to revamp the Arab Winter article I got into an edit war. This is about what to call Russian aggression in what it calls "The Near Abroad" Ericl (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Heres my thoughts. The only major difference between this 'war' and the Cold War is that Russia is in a much weaker position.
It's valid that Wikipedia shouldn't be coining phrases because that isn't being encyclopaedic. It'd be interesting for me to see when a member of high authority would first use the term because the political situation is heading into dangerous waters. Just what defines a 'cold war'? Antimatter31 (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Cold warfare can be defined as "a state of political hostility between countries characterized by threats, propaganda, and other measures short of open warfare, in particular." The countless instances of rhetoric going back and forth between Russia and Western leaders can easily be classified as political and/or economic threats, regardless of whether or not they've occurred.
Granted, as you mentioned, this new cold war involves a less than stable Russia, especially one who isn't as able to project itself on the global scale as was the case 50 years prior. So this probably is or could be a lesser scale cold war. But whether a sovereign state IS a great power or has the ability TO BE a great power is irrelevant. The fact that hostilities of First Cold War magnitude have reemerged and again exist between the West and Russia should be sufficient enough. (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


Is this actually a thing? Never mind the fact that hostile relations between countries does not instantly equal a cold war (other wise we'd have been saying there's one between the west and Iran) the article name doesn't seem to be in wide spread use and most mentions of the Cold War with regards to the current conflict have been warning about the possibility for a "Second Cold War". Seems rather like original research to me... (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The original cold war wasn't a thing as historians and politicians alike still can't come to an agreement on when it began and when It truly ended. Yes hostile relations between two nuclear armed powers to this extent does constitute a cold war especially if the term itself was coined by George Oin 1945 not in response to tensions but in response to the anticipation of these tensions between the US and the Soviet Union as nothing major happened at that point, yet things are happening now. As far as Iran is concerned it does not have the capacity of destroying the west and the only reason the west hasn't engaged Iran and that Iran is becoming more belligerent such as ending ships to our coast is because of the increasingly belligerent attitude of Russia and china. As far as it not being in mainstream use, the media and western governments are to politically correct these days to call things for what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the person who made this page serious ? I'm nominating this article for deletion. --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Rather than delete this article it could have use as lots of people are starting to wonder about this idea. You should probably just change the name to something that just suspicion related rather than an official second cold war such as (2008-ongoing tensions). Just leave the article alone until this crisis is over and if you still have the same opinion then delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. While this is a current issue with a lot of tension, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's another Cold War. Frauesh (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree as it doesn't just revolve around Ukraine rather the article should include other things such as the PLA ADIZ zone designation, 2008 Russia Georgia war, Russian American issues in Syria and Libya, and the increasingly belligerent attitudes of satellite states such as north Korea and the Cheonan incident and the shelling of a south Korean island, nuclear tests in 2013, and Iran with there attitudes, threats, and sending ships to our coast. all of these things are part of a recent tension increase happening within a 2008-2014 timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. Although one could technically argue its "not another cold war", enough significant events have occurred to inarguably point towards a new divide between east and west. A sharp divide in interests and ambitions, proxy wars, competition for allegiances, sanctions, NATO finding its use once again. Without doubt, a new era has opened up and this ought to be documented. TF92 (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
For the most part, it doesn't really matter what editors opinions are here, its whether the term is being used in reliable sources or not. And the ones here, Time, CNN, Foreign Affairs, The Guardian are a good start. That said, we could suggest merging this with the longer and established Russia–United States relations article.-- Patrick, oѺ 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I would point out that the article here specifically highlights the role of the European Union as a party to the conflict, so folding it into Russia-US relations seems pretty ill-advised, not to mention that there is plenty enough material out there for this to be an article on its own. Feel free to formally suggest it though. --Nizolan (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand completely, as I used to be an administrator on several different Wikia sites and that is precisely why I agree that something does need to happen with this article, because it is misleading. However as I suggested above we should probably remove the references to a new cold war and change it to a name that suggest a sudden increase of tensions with several interconnected high profile incidents involving the US and her allies vs. her traditional enemies of the cold war. The reason why I recommend this is because to continue having individual articles about these incidents on there own, without making a central article to point out their obvious and official connections is both inconvenient and also misleading. My point is that this article holds substantial weight and potential just not in it's present state. What I ask is that you give us 2 months(ending on November 1st) to make this article satisfactory for preservation. First step would be to change the name and to expand the article to include other related incidents making it less US Russia centric, and finally to remove all references to it being a cold war both implied and verbal. Through these changes undoubtedly we can acquire references and sources that meet Wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Patrick above that, per Wikipedia policy, it is not our place to be determining the name or debating the appropriateness of the term. That is OR. This article, broadly speaking, is not. The various analysts, journalists, and strategists who have floated the idea of Cold War II are using it to mean a specific thing, a renewed conflict between the West and Russia, and Wikipedia reflects that well. Of course, the article should probably also reference the several high-profile criticisms that have been made of the concept — a search for "Cold War II" on Google still returns "Why Cold War II isn't happening" as the highest result for me — and I may do that myself if I have the time later. --Nizolan (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this article could be unbiased or neutralized with sources from both sides instead of using mostly Western Media sources. I would highly recommend you look at RT, Al-Jazeera, Press TV and CNN and get pieces of information then put them in an order that would make practical and theoretical sense. If this is intended to be a propaganda article I would nominate this for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fly1224 (talkcontribs) 21:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Three Cold Wars?

Might it be beneficial to address all the concerns here by having three pages (one for US-Russia, US-China, and US-Iran) separately for each "regional cold war"? Between the US and Russia, there has been one going on in full force at least since 2008, but it has only gotten the attention it deserved with the Ukrainian crisis. US-China has been going on since the 1990s in some form. And US-Iran has been since the invasion of Iraq, more or less. There is an Arab Winter and a Pivot to Asia article. I suppose that current events need to be covered in a more trend-based manner, so readers can see the patterns better. I'd therefore keep this article, add the Syrian war as a proxy conflict, along with Snowden, legal battles over human rights and adoption, and other issues. (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, while there is doubtless some merit to this idea, it's not our call to be making terminological decisions like this. People are using Cold War II, etc., to refer to the renewed tension between Russia and the West, so that's what this article refers to as well. I'm not aware of any major current of journalistic, analytic or academic interpretation referring to the current US-China relationship as a 'cold war', but if you have the requisite sources then feel free to suggest an article. --Nizolan (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Article is going off track i.e North Korea and China

The "Cold War II" article was created in reference to the obvious new tensions between the western and Russia and the subsequent events. I observe that incidences with China and also North Korea have been added as sections in this article.

To make such propositions are largely original research. There has been enough commentators and observers describe the situation between Russia and the US as "Cold War II" but such a position with China is nothing more than personal speculation. As much as China and the US have their differences (given the islands dispute and the pro-democracy movements in hong kong), we cannot say relations are "Cold War style". As for North Korea, well given its blatant lack of superpower status or capacity, a nuclear weapons dispute is hardly a "cold war", an impoverished, backward and isolated regime is hardly competing the US for global influence and alliance systems is it?

It may be best to thus remove the above TF92 (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability and definition of the term

In the intro the term is sourced to Time (magazine), but the link is not to Time but to If you read the actual article by Simon Shuster [1] he doesn't use "World War II" at all. So all we have is a cover on a magazine. I really think this needs better sourcing. Sjö (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Too Soon

I Think it's too soon to use this term. There has been some progress in Ukraine not to mention that no politician on either side has used this term. --MarcusPearl95 (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes this article is bullshit. NOTHING IS HAPPENIG - T

____ yes it is far too soon!

if anything this period will be viewed as an extension of the Cold War, the 1990's and 2000's being a period of Detente. That is of course if anything happens at all, I can't see a new nuclear arms race happening any time soon. (Fdsdh1 (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC))

All the increased Russian military activity

Don't flame me for this, but I wondered in what article (if any) we should mention the recent increase in military activity conducted by the Russian Air Force and the Russian Navy in areas where they haven't exercised at/forayed into. All these activities, like the alleged Russian submarine in Swedish territorial waters, the intrusion in Finnish airspace, the nuclear bombers intercepted both by UK and Portuguese air force and so on, these are all notable I think. I don't know where's the best place to mention them though. I'd say they need to be listed in a systematic manner (and of course, sourced). A reliable source: [2] --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that the article, if it is to focus on anything, it should discuss military build-up, particularly Russia's response to NATO members and vice-versa. That is a concrete effect of the increased hostilities that can be measured.-- Patrick, oѺ 02:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing and original research

Much of this article seems like original research, labeling any conflict as a part of a new cold war, regardless of whether there is a reliable source. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it is clearly OR. It is lacks enough notability and sourcing to be otherwise. It is far from a widely used term. Additionally it is redundant given that anything of substance here is covered in other articles pertaining to the conflict in Ukraine and Russian/American relations. Until either this has passed into history and historians decided this was a second Cold War or it becomes common in usage, this article should not exist. (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. Someone else wants to AfD this?  Volunteer Marek  18:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The term is becoming more and more used in the media with every passing moment really. You just have to look at influential figures such as Gorbachev warning of another cold war, for example. Even if one feels that a "second cold war" is going too far off the mark, there is undisputed evidence that there is a new divide that has emerged within the international system between Russia and the Western world and a series of tensions that has not been seen since the end of the Cold War itself. Its not only just the conflict in Ukraine, its that with Syria too and the notion of the "procy war", its Russia sending bombers towards the airspace of NATO nations to intimidate them, its the buildup of NATO forces, Russia's attempt to create a new political bloc called the "Euarsian union". There's definitely enough happening to justify some kind of notability. TF92 (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
For Example, here's an article for the BBC today "Rhetoric hardens as fears mount of new Cold War" TF92 (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Just because something is mentioned in an op-ed - and even then only as a possibility not an actuality - does not make it notable. Volunteer Marek  21:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I think this page is a POV fork of Foreign relations of Russia. All content should be merged there. My very best wishes (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Seconded. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Caption on the top picture

Caption on the top picture might be wrong.-- (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Blaue Max (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


There is far too much anti-Russian hatred in this article.

Start again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Post some example of that "xenophobia" here so we can discuss it. - SantiLak (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
No, but thank you for your well-written and well-though analysis. Everybody here appreciates it. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Revisit this Article

I still believe that the use of this term is premature and that this article should be deleted. The Conflict in Ukraine should not be viewed as a catalyst to a new cold war unless a political figure says so. No one in power has used this term and if anything, this will end soon.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You are 100% wrong, despite I recognice your goodwill of peace and cooperation between this two great nations. But things are going from bad to worse. See the Russian Federation have quit the Conventional weapons Treaty with the NATO bloq, a Retired U.S Official calls to "kill as many Russian in Ukraine", later to be followed by a Russian Oficial saying the Russian federation could deploy Nuclear Weapons in Crimea. I only see this getting hotter (in the bad way).Mr.User200 (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
No political figures may have called it yet a new Cold War, but some newspapers [3] and analysts [4] have used this expression. I have to agree with Mr.User200, it's getting hotter and hotter, see by example these 3,000 U.S. soldiers sent to the Baltic States [5] Blaue Max (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

to much of a US-Russian centric view

I'm very happy this article is being given a chance but for greater accuracy we need to understand that this article is to us-Russia centric and should also have more about the us and her east Asian allies vs. china during the Asian pacific pivot which arguably is the largest foreign policy development in the world since the 9-11 terrorist attacks. By the way I don't think we should include anything unless it's happening either because of these global tensions and/or is primarily being fueled by them. for example Afghanistan isn't related to the degree necessary if at all but north Koreas shenanigans are because of their relations with last thing these tensions went from aggravated to hostile only after the us put missiles in Poland on march 2007 arguably the first hostile move. this will also provide the unbiased view we are looking for and should also mark the beginning point rather than the absurd 2014 date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Cold War is a US-Russia centric phenomenon. So whats your point? Its like complaining an article about France is too focused on France. (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Errors in Picture

The top picture, created with original research, shows a number of errors. There is only one country with a US base in Africa, Djibouti. Not Somalia, Morocco, or Egypt. The picture is clearly depicting US bases but there are none. Sources? No bases in Turkmenistan either, or Norway. or Indonesia. Ottawakismet (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It's been removed. bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

One-sided "Ideology and propaganda"

The section focuses entirely on Russia and its state media channels. There is absolutely no mention of any ideology of "the West" or any of the propaganda aside from the "they plan to combat Russian propaganda" bit at the end. I think US channels and other media outlets have their fair share in building up the Russia scare, presenting it as a threat. Let's not forget the numerous claims of direct Russian intervention into Ukraine made by Breedlove and then German BND intelligence pointing out that he was obviously hyping a threat, rather than providing numbers. Or the US using "proof of Russia's invasion into Ukraine" as provided by Ukraine and then turned out to be from Abkhazia and/or otherwise manipulated. Even USA confirmed that they were in fact provided false data. We shouldn't pretend that Russia is the only one doing propaganda.

As for the West's ideology, I think we could at least add Obama's West Point speech about "America Must Always Lead" in here somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Denials of "Cold War II"

Since consensus unilaterally opposed inclusion of other relationships, perhaps we must decide on including or omitting doubts or denials of the Russia–US relationship reaching to a near-heated tension level. Also, we can discuss whether this is actually "Cold War II". --George Ho (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

A lot of the article seems to focused on Cold War I

Clr324 (say hi) 21:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Russian invasion

I'm disputing the source cited as reliable because it's an opinion piece, and since it appears to be a minority view. See War in Donbass. A simple search of that page does reveal that Ukraine thinks it's been invaded by Russia, but everyone else calls it "military intervention", which is a step down from outright invasion. Even the Ukrainian sources call it a "stealth invasion" more than an "invasion", which indicates an evident difference in the intensity of the intervention. I think it's better to not claim that Russia is invading Ukraine. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Add "Terminology" section?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is to oppose the proposal. AlbinoFerret 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Does the term "Cold War II" refer to only Russian–US relations or extend to other political relationships? I found articles mentioning US–China relations with the phrase "Cold War": FT, US News editorial, Time. --George Ho (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose For what it's worth, a quick google of "new cold war -russia" reveals the term being used to describe conflict between secularism and religion, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and even the USPS and cyberterrorists. It seems to be applied broadly to any kind of geopolitical tensions. I fear a slippery slope if we don't keep the article in line with Cold war (general term). This article Cold War II seems to be almost entirely about post-cold war relations between Russia and the west. The thing is, the claim that China-United States relations have evolved beyond mere sabre-rattling is purely hypothetical. This article details mainly concrete facts, which I think is helpful because otherwise this would just be a compendium of possible scenarios where the US has tensions with another country. If you look at the lede at Cold war (general term), we could probably come up with a dozen other sourceable examples where the US is already doing these things (proxy war, propaganda, etc). I fear WP:COATRACK here. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for mostly the same reasons as Alt lys. This article is about a particular topic. We've chosen the name "Cold War II", which may nor may not be the best name for it. But other things to which that label has been applied are different topics, and if they're notable enough for coverage in Wikipedia, then we use WP:Disambiguation to separate them. SMcCandlish ¢ʌⱷ҅ʌ 00:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose?This RFC doens't ask a binary question to support or oppose. That being said, I agree with the two commenters above me, and believe it should remain largely an article for Russian-US relationships. If you open it up it could quickly become an article about my wife and I's cold war, where we steal the blankets from each other during the middle of the night.Lucutious (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Depends on how we use it I am opposed to making statements about the Cold War and using US-China info here because it's confusing, but if we add in interesting information talking about a new Cold War with China, those references could be useful. LesVegas (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The three sources may have used "Cold War", but they didn't use "Cold War II", which is what the article is titled. Besides the three sources linked are rather weak in that regard. They don't outright refer to US-China relations as a new cold war; one of them even denies that a US/China cold war will happen. If the article were about conflicts that have been called Cold War II, then I would support inclusion, but at present I don't think it deserves even a mention. Banedon (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this is all rather scholastic. The name is admittedly imperfect due to the fact that the article essentially catalogues very recent (by the standards of any encyclopedia) and ongoing events. But the term could be justified: the number 2 therein implies a clear reference to THE Cold War, which evokes unmistakable associations, the prime one being the rivalry exactly between Russia (the USSR) and the US for the global dominance (to put it bluntly). And not just some highly localised and geopolitically irrelevant (unless you watch CNN claptrap on a daily basis) squabble somewhere in the Near East. Russia is the only state that not merely defies the US, but challenges the entire status quo as established post-Cold War, as is clear from Putin's quotes cited in the Background section. There is every sign that he is determined to achieve at least what the USSR had, i.e. dominance over half of the Continental Europe, or to go nuclear in a very literal sense of the term, i.e. obliterating the centres of Western civilisation. This is almost official now. Thus, at the end of the day, Yes, it is about the US vs the RF, as the US is the only military force in NATO to speak of. But the implications thereof are very broad, the phenomenon is nascent, therefore a separate article is warranted, I think. We do not know as of now how it is to evolve: it may very well be the case, the appropriate title in a few months will be "THE RUN-UP TO WORLD WAR III".Axxxion (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Denial of Russian-Chinese alliance

I suppose this is because most people either don't want to believe it or have rarely heard about it, but Russia and China enjoy extremely close relations today. There is without a doubt a notable resurgence of the Cold War today. But the main view is that–instead of a Cold War II–the original Cold War never actually ended. Americans often believe that it was only a war between America and imperialism of the Soviet Union; it wasn't. It was a power struggle between Western hegemony and newly independent or developing states that massively favored communism. Since communism still exists, and America still opposes it, why in the world would you leave out China? They are literally communist. No, Russia is not the Soviet Union. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"within the Russian empire"

The spamming of the phrase "within the Russian empire" throughout the article, after every country that has ever fallen victim to Russian government aggression, appears to be a form of irredentist territory marking. Unless it's necessary it should not be included, per WP:UNDUE. It should certainly not be spammed throughout.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It should be removed but actually seems more like anti-Russian mentality to me. It implies Russia even wants to restore their old "empire". I have no doubt it was an accusation. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Latin America

This Article should mention what happens in Latin America. It is clearly COLD WAR. Venezuela and it's communism and co-government with Cuba. Also in Colombia president Santos was elected to keep up the war against communist guerrillas, but he's doing the opposite and turning Colombia into a narco-state all over again like it was in the 90s (all this with the help of Venezuela).

All those communist leaders are dictators (leading fake democracies with fake elections), like Chávez, Maduro, Evo Morales, Ortega, Rousseff, Bachelet, Fernández de Kirchner, etc... they have strict control over the media and tell their citizens their economies are the fastest growing in the world. Russia is helping all these countries with armament, money and media support throug RT (Russia Today), but Europe and the US are not helping their few friends left. Obama is the Chamberlain who let Hitler rise, until some Churchill had to come make war a little TOO LATE.

That is an interesting opinion. I don't see why it should be incorporated into the article. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I also think there should be more talk about Latin America. But we must avoid the kind of biased language from above. Wikipedia has to remain neutral. But Latin America is a battleground for influence between east and west as it has always been. More coverage would be helpful. Charles Essie (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

they are not dictatorships,even Former US President Carter said so: Venezuelan Electoral System is “Best in the World”: and the only one in war is colombia,also venezuela is the country with most oil in the world(just see oil reserves article) and the starter of this turn to the left after chavez won the 1998 elections,democratically,with the goverment being another.wich has been caused by decades of neoliberalism wich in 1989 caused the caracazo.,they released telesur to counter CNN propaganda.wich constantly twists facts and omites facts like it did in ecuador recently or in the protests in venezuela where only 5 of the 43 deaths were caused by the police,hiding that the protesters used wire to behead innocent civilians.

-Elvis Duran de la Rosa: un motorizado muere cuando jefes de los sectores opositores, dieron la orden de colocar alambres en las calles, para obstaculizar la vía y evitar el tránsito automotor. Lamentablemente fue así, este joven iba en su moto, dirigiéndose del trabajo en su casa y se encontró una de estas emboscadas y murió decapitado. Este contenido ha sido publicado originalmente por teleSUR bajo la siguiente dirección: Si piensa hacer uso del mismo, por favor, cite la fuente y coloque un enlace hacia la nota original de donde usted ha tomado este contenido. William M.hijo (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)william m.hijoWilliam M.hijo (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

SERIOUSLY THIS IS NOT A FORUM!!!! I don't see what's so hard to understand about this, this isn't a place to discuss foreign policy. - SantiLak (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

sorry,the first person was making propaganda calling dictators democratically elected presidents even Jimmy Carter said where so,even if they are socialists,also i forgot to add, USA is supporting corrupt goverments that kill candidates in mexico and colombia and its trying to make corrupt goverments in guatemala and honduras not seem so corrupt after the protests started targetting their people. and RT at least in El Salvador with claro service its hard to get,only sometimes in channel 8.its easer to see telesur.and most people just see channel 19 wich is rather neutral. And in mexico televisa group and tv azteca have an authentic pro us monopoly on television,televisa itself basically made peña nieto win the elections,they even made a film on it called "la dictadura perfecta". this is not a forum,but when something its true its true and you cant let biased people outright lie,even if to destroy the lie you have to give information that favours a faction,its like saying that if a political party is proven to have commited crimes you shouldnt say that in a neutral newspaper because it could maybe benefict its oposition. (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)william ]M.hijo190.62.68.72 (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Info being removed

Axxion, please stop removing sourced info [6]. If you have to, move it to an appropriate section. But don't just remove it.

In respect to this edit [7] and the edit summary: "The role of Germany is dwelt on in the article". This is completely false. The word "Germany" appears three times in this huge article. Once in the lede. Once in a table of nominal GDPs. Once in the sources. I.e. The role of Germany is NOT dwelt in the article. Please stop making stuff up in your edit summaries.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Volunteer Marek, stop pasting material that has no consensus without discussing it. Moreover, it is obvious you had not even familirised yourself with the value of that piece about Putin announcing new missiles as is clear from the fact you kept pasting it in the wrongly created duplicating section. IF you really think that that news report has relevance to the article, please expound your arguments hereinafter. I shall be most glad to see them. My view is that simply citing Putin on the missiles is quite meaningless, without experts′ analysis or at least commentary. This is a rather arcane and non-transparent subject. 40 new missiles announced (mind you, not put in service, but merely announced as a plan). So what? Is this more than last year, or fewer than prior? What meaning does it have, if it has any at all? Russia still has a largely Soviet-era nuclear arsenal, ergo, most of its ballistic missiles are technically past the expiry date and RF has been supposed to DEcommission hundreds of missiles each year for the past 20 years or so (which is not to say it has been doing it!). Meanwhile, as far as is publicly known, it has been commissioning about half a dozen, or a dozen on a good year. Thus overall, its nuclear arsenal has steadily shrunk. So far there is no info that this decline has been reversed. If SUCH news appears, THAT'll be relevant and notable!Axxxion (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure about Germany (did not check the sources), but the statement by Putin and opinion by Alexander Golts (a well known military analyst in Russia) in the firs diff [8] are important and should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
There are scores of comments of military experts published each day about Russia vs West confrontation. This is an encyclop article and any comment quoted here ought to make sense within the context of the article. I cannot see any value in Golts′ comment for us: mutatis mutandis, what he said is already said in the article. I am not entirely sure about Germany either. It is true it is mentioned but a few times in the main body of the article; that said, i think it should be borne in mind that the centrepiece of the subject at hand is the conflict in Ukraine wherein Germany plays a major diplomatic role as is clear from the other relevant articles. Thus, Germany does lurk in the subtext here too.Axxxion (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • We have here a quote of a defence minister of a major Nato country as saying that this ″not a new cold war with Russia, as the situation is already “pretty warm”″, i.e. acknowledging that Nato is in a de facto state of war with RF!Axxxion (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
A few things. First, we all know that the previous/real "Cold War" was not "cold". Millions died in the large-scale wars that involved both Soviet/satellite and US forces in Korea and Vietnam. Fortunately, we do not have this right now. Second, I think this statement by Putin was important (and should be included), because this is all not about real capabilities, but about intentions and decisions that can be completely illogical, given the current state of power and ideology in Russia. Finally, Russian nuclear weapons are actually in a workable state (the delivery systems were recently tested), and the army can indeed occupy a couple of surrounding states pretty quickly, as NATO generals admitted (so the opinions by analysts are also relevant). My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
My very best wishes, I fail to see in what you posted above any logic, let alone valid reasons for including Putin′s quote. The current situation is hot now in a much more direct and immediate way than ever during the original Cold war: we have regular russian troops fighting right across Russia′s border, under an exceedingly thin cover of deniability, in Ukraine, part of whose territory has been formally annexed, which in turn is hosting the US intelligence and military advisors and personnel. But that is extraneous to the subject of discussion here. As i said above, I am not claiming that Putin′s words on 40 missiles are not "important". I say that the exact meaning of those words, without a broader context and expertise info on the subject, is not clear (See my post above), and consequently the quote alone would stick out as a meaningless (or puzzling) throw-in. Then, you said above "Russian nuclear weapons are actually in a workable state". May I ask you: Whose opinion is that? And what does it matter? The RF nuclear arsenal has NEVER been used in actual battle and thus its actual battleworthiness (which includes a wide gamut of capabilities, apart from just having warheads and delivery systems that can deliver unhindered in a situation where no one actually hinders) is a matter of assessment and supposition. That said, there is an overwhelming body of experts′ opinion that this arsenal IS formidable and capable of destroying the US both in a putative first strike and in a retaliatory strike, in a guaranteed way, even in a situation where the entire political and military leadership of Russia is destroyed (See Dead Hand (nuclear war)). I hear your point about "this is all not about real capabilities, but about intentions and decisions that can be completely illogical". But where do you see any intentions, or illogical decisions in those words by Putin? He does appear to be boasting (by quite possibly lying as is common in such matters), but what is his intent? The most likely intent to be deduced from his words: he is trying to pull the wool over the eyes, and hide the rapid rate of the shrinking of the RF arsenal. But that is a speculation. If you can find an expert′s analysis of these words, then it may well be interesting and notable.Axxxion (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have included Golts′ quote in an expanded way, as i think it makes more sense that way. Apropos Putin: please read the source (the NYT article) in full and note that the thrust of the piece is not about Russia successfully and rapidly re-arming itself, but rather the opposite: it cannot afford it and failing. Even the quote about 40 new missiles to be added in 2015 is contrasted against Putin′s prior boast to put 50, in fact! So what does it tell us?Axxxion (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
This statement by Putin was published and widely discussed in a large number of sources that can be added if needed. It should stay for the reasons explained above. My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok. I included it with an accompanied Kerry′s reaction. Stop editwarring.Axxxion (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

One more time, since this went unanswered. Germany does not get mentioned in the text, so there's no reason to put it in the lede. And Axxion. You broke 3RR just the other day and squaked through with a warning because you ceased edit warring for a day and a half. As soon as the edit warring report was closed with a warning you came back here and resumed edit warring again. And then you have the chutzpah to accuse other editors of "editwarring"? Please! Act in good faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If i did break, you have deliberately provoked me. I think your edits here have been less than constructive. This attitude is illustrated by the edit comment
"this whole article is about stuff which is "trivial and to recent". Given it exists, you can't cherry pick" - it is clear people pushing the Putin bit do not like the article and apparently try to make it grotesquely nonsensical. Things catalogued here are not that terribly recent, much less trivial. E.g. in 2014 there were scores of reports about Russian aircraft testing the Nato air defences: as a result, if we had been just cataloguing all those reports, we would now have a huge meaningless section of these reports, without any rhyme and reason. Instead, the article has just one paragraph that presents an aggregated and analysed summary of all these flights on the basis of sources of the late 2014. Axxxion (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Include Greek debt crisis?

Is the Greek debt crisis related to the new Cold War II? --George Ho (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

No! In fact most of this article needs to be shortened and lots of irrelevant trivia removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Tagged the article as "overly detailed". --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


Among the sources that believe there's a new Cold War, do they more often use the term "second Cold War" or "Cold War II"? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

NO!, why this is even an article is completely unbelievable! Way too soon to call this crisis the Second Cold War! It's not near at a severe enough level to be even called a Cold War at all!
I have only heard a few news sources call this a new cold war, but this is far from a frozen conflict and that's what most are saying. We still have much better diplomatic relations with China, Russia and Iran as opposed to the actual Cold War where civilian travel to these countries were prohibited and due to NATO and the West and the Communists being at each others throats for the most part. Civilian travel is allowed in all of the following countries I have listed, China and Russia except for Iran and the fact that neither side has for the most part shut itself off from one another I.E. like with the Iron curtain and the Berlin Wall and instead we allow media from both sides to come in shows that The United States and Russia are more along the lines of allies with their friendship as of current dangling by a thread rather than bitter enemies like back in 1946-1989!
That said, this is no new Cold War!! Way too soon to call it that. End of Story! Kirby (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
EDIT: Btw, If asked, I will list off sources that will truly make this entire article completely moot if I really have to! Just saying, this article is way too soon! Kirby (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I Lost this argument a year ago. Not worth trying again.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Middle East

Should the recent tensions regarding ISIS be added here as well ?--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Only if the republic completly brakes from the coalition. Isil is funded by the saudis which fund the kurds now under isis control. If the garb is truly revealed, a new coalition will be in place.
Saudi arabia, Turkey, USA, Qatar against Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Cuba. The sunnis are helping the shiites. The Coalition in the east against this Federation. Israel may be a deciding factor in the event, and it may destroy Damascus with Nukes come 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


This article is a well-sourced personal essay representing a point of view that has not been universally adopted. I don't think it has a place around here. (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "essay"? Do you also mean WP:UNDUE? --George Ho (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I second this! I have said it before! This is not a universal POV just yet! Therefore I believe we should all have a vote on whether to delete this article or not! Kirby (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The article's too big. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Perhaps some of the content should be moved from the article to this talk page and, if consensus is not achieved for its inclusion, it could be left out (per WP:ONUS).
Failing that, I would support deletion.Ríco 05:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion indeed! It's time for another RfC! This article I strongly believe needs to go! Kirby (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no no (repeating "no" endlessly)..... Kirby, there's no need for another RFC if you want deletion. Place {{subst:afd1}} on top of the article if you can. --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Alright! I will do that right away!Kirby (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It is done! Kirby (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you going to create an AFD subpage, Kirby? George Ho (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, just give me time! I need to get something else done real quick!Kirby (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ALRIGHT EVERYONE!! I just put this article up for deletion! Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cold_War_II

Time to vote now! Kirby (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Should this be in the article: "also known as the New Cold War, Cold War Redux, and Cold War 2.0"?

I deleted this:

also known as the New Cold War, Cold War Redux, and Cold War 2.0,

In my edit summary, I simply pointed to my analysis here on this talk page. This is my argument here too.

Axxxion put it right back in. So per WP:BRD, I'd like to see a discussion here.

Wikipedia Verifiability policy requires consensus for inclusion (WP:ONUS), so I'd especially like to see if anybody else has an opinion. — Ríco 18:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Should this be in the article: "is a term that"?

I deleted this:

is a term that

This strikes me as so much masking the lack of wide use — an attempt to defend these "terms", that is written into the article — and a proof by assertion. The phrase is otherwise unnecessary. (Where's that Wikipedia bit about, 'methinks the lady doth protest too much,' backfiring?)

I see a lot of writing in the article that postulates the general acceptance of names, and "terms", that are used in the article — which are usually not capitalized in the sources, and are usually part of a question about whether it's happening, rather than an assertion that it is.

Are these adjacent words, "terms"? And even if they are construed as such — they're so infrequently used, I don't think what I deleted should be written into the article in a way that suggests that they're — not only not infrequent, but standard, per WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.

Axxxion put what I deleted right back in. So per WP:BRD, I'd like to see a discussion here.

Wikipedia Verifiability policy requires consensus for inclusion (WP:ONUS), so I'd especially like to see if anybody else has an opinion. — Ríco 19:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

So I made this point on the deletion discussion, but yes, if there is an article here, that article should be about the term "Cold War II" and how it is used. The current content of the article is about much broader issues, so I'm not sure how to best refocus on the term.-- Patrick, oѺ 16:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't edit this article

I put a lot of work into the article, trying to improve it, and then it looks like Axxxion comes along, finds a diff, makes a null edit to it, to recklessly destroy everything I've done[9] — quite a few edits — despite the big, pink warning boxes that stare you in the face if you try to do this. Why do I think that? Would any reasonable editor argue that this:

and even a "a proto-world war"

is better than this:

and even "a proto-world war"

Lazy, WP:Disruptive editingRíco 21:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I never do "null edits". I simply restored a version of the lede that had existed for a long time. Your claim that i thus "recklessly destroyed" "a lot of work" is quite hilarious and utterly amusing, given the fact that you had merely deleted some sourced material from the lede (BTW, it had NOT been put there by me, mostly). I felt it was a tad churlish of you to remove any referenced material from the article, especially that that concerns the term while all the discussions and debates are pending. Please, be reasonably courteous and respectful to other editors who in fact did put a lot of work into the article.Axxxion (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this article for real? I got to it from the 'Western World' article and can't in all honesty believe there's a second Cold War and the only place I've heard it is from Wikipedia. I mean, just think about that. Isn't Wikipedia suppose to reflect information, not make it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

corresponding to the Eastern Bloc and Western Bloc similarly to the Cold War

False. Quite a big part of former Eastern Block belongs to Western Block. At the same time many people in Western Europe are Anti-American and support Russian nationalism.Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The current title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I still have doubts about calling this another Cold War. Of course, Wikipedia encourages using titles that are well known to users... not some, though. This is capitalist country vs capitalist country, not capitalist vs communist again. Still, Russia is more authoritarian under Putin, while the US... I don't wanna summarise where the US is heading towards. George Ho (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I Tried to fight this argument sometime ago, I lost, badly.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
When and where was this? George Ho (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
See the Archive herein.Axxxion (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see it, Axxxion. Just content-related. --George Ho (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I made the topic, First one is Too Soon and Revisit this Article--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's too soon to label this "Cold War II" or the "Second Cold War." It may be a cold war in the general sense, but labeling it as the successor to the 20th century conflict is too forced. The Cold War took place in a bipolar world, with the United States and the Soviet Union as the two undisputed superpowers competing for economic, ideological, military, and diplomatic influence on multiple continents and, at times, veering very close to direct war with one another. This article essentially covers Vladimir Putin's foreign policy and international reactions to it. As it stands, it simply does not make a strong case for the use of the term, and it might be better served with another title for the time being. -- Kdowns1453 (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think about creating an RFC on this. What do you say? --George Ho (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

See "Add "Terminology" section?" section in the Archived Talk. Every one agrees the title is not perfect; but perhaps we have to bear with it for the time being. A phenomenon does exist, whatever you call it, and is an ongoing thing. Thus the title is intrinsically subject to subsequent amendment, or wholesale change. In fact, even now one could make the case to call it "World War III". Fancy that better?Axxxion (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Referring to the thread that I started, eh, Axxxion? None of archived discussions refer to policies and guidelines. I still believe that another RFC is needed. George Ho (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment -Personally this looks like a POV fork or Russian foreign relations covering the last few years. Additionally the title seems to be based on sensationalist news titles, so I can see merit in changing the title. Hollth (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Kdowns1453 on this one! This article's title and maybe even the article itself should be put up to a vote on whether to move it into Russian foreign relations or NATO - Russia relations since this seems like a fork of an article at this point as Hollth pointed out to an extent or whether we should just delete this article altogether!

Either way, I think it's time for a support or oppose vote on this article on the basis of moving it or deleting it! Kirby (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Accuracy of the title

Responding to the request at WP:ANRFC. The consensus among editors in this discussion is that at this time, the article title should not imply that this is a successor to the Cold War. The arguments supporting a "Cold War" title did not provide source-based rationales, and the implied COMMONNAME argument has not been established. There wasn't enough discussion to decide on a new title, although merging was supported by several editors. (Note that the Keep result at AfD does not affect the choice to merge or redirect, per WP:DEL.) Of course, the sources discussing the possibility of a second Cold War can still be used in the article body, either here or elsewhere. Sunrise (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The title has been discussed since the article was created a year ago. The recent tensions between the United States and Russia is "Cold War II" has been debated, but very little discussion participation has been made. I created the RfC discussion to attract more people. Per WP:COMMONNAMES, an inaccurate or ambiguous title is often avoided, even when certain sources use either. Is "Cold War II" an accurate title, even when sources use the term to refer to recent US–Russia tensions? If not, what alternative title do you suggest? (As for deletion, if you believe in deleting the article, follow procedures of WP:AFD, or (if existent) go to the AFD nomination page.) George Ho (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

As I have stated before, this is a fork of Russian foreign policy covering the last few years. Cold War II is a sensationalist news headline to grab people attention and sell papers, as I suspect everybody is aware. We, not news outlets, have the burden to be NPOV and descriptive, which the current title is not. I can see no reason for the non-descriptive, POV title to be in place when it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the common name. If this is not to be merged (presumably into Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin) or deleted, I would be in favour of renaming it to something that clarifies this is about Russian foreign policy in the most recent decade. Russian Foreign Policy in 2010s or some such permutation. Hollth (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I should also add that I am agnostic about this article being deleted, renamed or merged. However, one of those three should happen. Hollth (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have read—repeatedly, in reliable sources—that relations between Russia and the West have fallen to their lowest point since the Cold War. However, they haven't been naming this frigid period, "Cold War II." Perhaps rename the article something like, Russia-West relations since Russia annexed Crimea — or since February, 2014. — Ríco 00:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sources haven't named this period of poor relations between Russia and the West "Cold War II"...they've been naming it the "Second Cold War." Ideally the name of this article would be changed to that. But regardless, multiple sources have discussed a "second cold war" to the point that I believe it is a real phenomenon, and deserves to be considered more than just a fork to "Russian foreign relations." The current situation is analagous to relations between Russian and the UK around 1900, aka The Great Game. Orser67 (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Orser67, can you cite any reliable sources that have been naming this low point in Russia-West relations as the "Second Cold War"? — Ríco 03:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Excluding op-eds and last year's sources, Rico, American Foreign Policy Council calls it the Second Cold War; so is the Russian Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev. That's all. George Ho (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I clicked on the first link, but it wasn't there. Think tanks, while usually impressive, often have biases.
Medvedev said that we are "approaching a second cold war".
Contrast that with this Wikipedia article, which refers to "the Second Cold War" — capitalized, as if it were a proper noun. Can Wikipedia declare that this "Second Cold War" has arrived, all by itself? WP:ORRíco 06:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Not accurate. Looking through the article, the characterization as the second cold war is used as a moniker that wouldn't be appropriate for an article title rather than a legitimate name to a conflict. It would be more appropriate to refer to this as something like Russia-West relations as RicoCorinth mentioned. Calling this Cold War II, etc. at this time has WP:CRYSTAL issues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are some snippets from every mention of "cold war" in it:
  1. "[...] pushing the world towards a new cold war."
  2. "Any new cold war-type confrontation would..."
  3. "A new cold war would..."
  4. "[...] the 'new cold war' scenario."
  • In the source cited for "Cold War Redux" — "Ukraine: Cold War Redux Or New Global Challenge?" — the question asks which it is, or is going to be. The phrase, "Cold War Redux," is not mentioned outside of the headline.
  • In the source cited for "Cold War 2.0," the phrase "Cold War 2.0" is only mentioned in a section header.
Here are some excerpts from this source:
  1. "You have to put cold water on the faddish idea of a 'second Cold War,'" says Mark Kramer, director of Cold War studies and a senior fellow at Harvard University's Davis Center.
  2. "Russia also lacks a key element of the Cold War battle: the Marxist ideology ..."
  3. "[Archie Brown, emeritus professor of politics at the U.K.'s University of Oxford and author] adds, 'Calling this a second Cold War is an exaggeration, even if elements of it are reminiscent of the real Cold War.' " — Ríco 17:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The source for "Colder War," actually provides some small justification for the name. However, it is just one source — a book review, an opinion of a Forbes Contributor. "Colder War" is the title of the book. The Contributor only refers to "Colder War," when referring to the book's theme.
    He does not even state that he agrees with it. He writes, "while I may not agree with all the book’s conclusions, the subject matter is vitally important".
    Were we to rename this article, "Colder War," it would have to be an article about the book — or, at the very least, the context would have to be the theme of the book. — Ríco 18:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge - feel this is not an article in its own right and the title is inappropriate. These are individual actions for forcing policy and shifts on the borders, and are not showing a grand picture or long-term continuation that deserves the title 'war'. The events should be in event articles (be it Syria or Ukraine) and the linkage should be that they are mentioned in the policy article. Markbassett (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@Marek and Mark: Which content should be pasted to what articles? George Ho (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
George Ho - the many mentioned 'main article' would individually consider if info here is of use. I would think that Putins rise to power and the Ukriane information is significant enough to have some transfer over, but the short one-para tidbits might have nothing of additional value. Mostly I'm simply saying that these events are artificially stuck together to explain what a catchy phrase means - but if it really is just a catchy phrase of a few it does not need an article, it would be a redirect. Just follow the cites and say what the general consensus du jour is -- do MOST say a battle in Ukraine or do most call it a cold war ? Markbassett (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Cold War II (or Second Cold War). These are the common terms. МандичкаYO 😜 13:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
No they're not. — Ríco 15:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright everyone, take your opinions/positions on this here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cold_War_II from now on! Kirby (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The AFD will eventually result as "keep" unfortunately. Therefore, I reinserted the RFC tag. George Ho (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it is a tragedy and a travesty for Wikipedia! Hopefully people will vote to Move the article to Foreign Policy of Vladimir Putin or NATO-Russia relations as I did put the move vote on the table as it has been seen before in AFD debates! So hopefully the Keep vote will lose to the Move vote as the delete vote is clearly losing.. *sigh* Kirby (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
'Move' is not synonymous to 'merge'. You might know that; common sense, eh, Kirby. --George Ho (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

But, George Ho you could still vote on the situation on the AFD none of the less! Kirby (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

George Ho Sorry about that misunderstanding, I meant to say, Redirect rather than Move and I am aware that Redirect is not the same as Merge. Regards. Kirby (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Apart from what i have said, i would note that i find the position of those questioning the title and the very existence of this article quite hypocritical in view of the fact that it had been recently decided (overlooked by me) that the article Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition be kept! All the info in that article is duplication; and the heading is a mere invention! And it is not that it is simply not sourced, but more importantly that it presumes the existence of something that is highly disputable too! (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition) Axxxion (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Most feel that this is indeed a Second Cold War, but push for a merger of some sections and possibly, allow for future discussion as the world watches Syria.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.