Talk:Second Cold War

Google trends on Cold War 2 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=RU&q=cold%20war%202

Use of the term in google news: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cold+war+2

2A00:1370:8172:4F3:D99:E505:2651:5D3A (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:10, 16 March 2022‎ (UTC)

The article is heavily tilted towards the U.S. and it's worsening relations with Russia and China, with barely any mention as for the situation within Europe and overall NATO, only the mention of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the opinions of European experts on the situation.

I believe this should either be fixed, or at the very least, a template on severe bias towards one subject/from one perspective (the American perspective) should be added such as the following template:

I would have done it myself but i figured a topic on the talk page to attempt to gain consensus before such a move would be better PLMandarynka (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

There was already a consensus to remove the "globalize" tag (discussion). I'll try to express my opposition to (the reinsertion of) the tag should it be reinserted. Also, please provide reliable sources that prove your point, so I'll evaluate their reliability and verification of info you've sought for. George Ho (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Just look at the article ...

The start of it says enough - "[...] have been used to describe heightened geopolitical tensions in the Post–Cold War era, usually between the United States and either China or Russia [...]"

The article then goes on to write the positions of Americans, American current and former government policy, and positions of experts and others on rising tensions between the U.S. and Russia or China.

NATO and Europe are seldom mentioned within the article, at most only as "US-allies" or maybe "the West". There is precisely just one section that provides a fair European perspective, on the new Cold War from the eyes of Europe, before the article going back to purely Americentric topics - China-US tensions and Russia-US tensions.

I approve of editing to include a wider perspective of the West (not just the U.S.) within the article, but a simple acknowledgement of the problem is also great and satisfactory PLMandarynka (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Please google any news articles about the "Second Cold War" (or "Cold War II") if you can. George Ho (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

In what way does this relate to the American-centric bias of this article? PLMandarynka (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The closer of that old discussion (that resulted in removal of the "globalize" tag) said this: I encourage editors to continue working on the article to provide additional information about this subject. I must rephrase what I said: "Can you find reliable sources that can help you counter the so-called US bias?" George Ho (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean, it's quite obvious that if we were to discuss a second Cold War, it's surely between NATO/US&Europe against Russia or China. Denying NATO's role, which is already mentioned, though sparsely, and purely focusing on the U.S., is a pure fallacy.

There already exist sources within the article that touch on NATO's and Europe's in general role within these rising tensions, which is undeniable PLMandarynka (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

This article is about whether the "second Cold War" exists... or not. It's never been about NATO's involvement, honestly. Somehow, by mentioning NATO, I can assume you implicitly believe the whole article subject to be an actual "event", despite the contrary said by others, right?

WP:V still matters, regardless of whether what you said is true or false. We shouldn't violate the policy by including stuff that isn't well verified by reliable sources, despite it being "true". George Ho (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I never stated it's about NATO's involvement, i'm simply inquiring as to the total focus on the U.S's role within it and polemic on it despite NATO also playing a large role that should be more evenly stated than just "U.S against Russia and China" which is what the front of the page states. Either the problem of a lack of equal perspective should be fixed or at least a template should be given for its awareness.

The point i raised and the topic i made is not towards the existance of the second Cold War, simply on the lack of perspective equality within the article. I won't debate whether it is an actual event or not PLMandarynka (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Either the problem of a lack of equal perspective should be fixed or at least a template should be given for its awareness. Please be careful of false dilemmas and WP:ULTIMATUM, all right? Can't you just forego the reinsertion and just figure out whether it violates WP:NPOV or any other core content policy? I don't wanna repeat what I said about searching for sources verifying NATO's involvement in the "second cold war" or "Cold War II", do I? Should you try to reinsert the tag, I'll still debate again whether to remove the "globalize" tag. George Ho (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The reason for the topic's creation is precisely to figure out whether it violates a lack of a neutral point of view, that being a major bias towards the U.S. specifically

And i don't seek to repeat my answer in regards to the pursuit of "sources" PLMandarynka (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

So far, I don't think the article violates NPOV because I've done my best to abide to WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, especially to avoid writing this article as if it were an actual event. Well, the NPOV rule has yet to address what you've raised so far. Have you realized why "WP:Systemic bias" has not yet been a rule? George Ho (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe the issue is systemic bias, if so the point wouldn't be raised, it is simply on the lack of equal perspectives in regards to the written article with the article presenting a mainly American point of view. All i seek is for that to be recognized with the template recognizing the problem being placed.

The article is all fair in regards to objectivity and sourcing, and on these points i have nothing to talk on PLMandarynka (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

All i seek is for that to be recognized with the template recognizing the problem being placed. I'll still try to revert the reinsertion of the tag should you try to do so. This tag, IMO, would encourage unwanted, unwelcoming edits in the name of countering so-called American POV that you've been raising. George Ho (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright. Until someone reopens the topic discussion, i will take it as closed and ended PLMandarynka (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with PLMandarynka in that the current wording focuses too much on the US rather than NATO as a whole. Many of the article sources mention "NATO" or "the West", not just "the US", but the wording in the article often fails to include them. A lot of the recent debate over whether there's a new Cold War focuses on Russia–NATO relations, especially as most of the things they discuss are taking place in Europe. I will find more references for the article and change the wording accordingly. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 11:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

In today's modern events there is a second space race forming so, we should add a new article on the Artemis mission and the Chang'e Missions this we be needed soon since the Artemis II Lauch will happen in February of 2026. We should include mention of the "Second Space race" as this is producing more breaking news headlines. Ducksquack2 (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

How is this "second space race" connected to this "cold war"? George Ho (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you seriously still waiting for world leaders to "declare a second cold war" before you will accept that there is one after everything that has happened in the last five years? Despite the fact that nobody ever "declared" the first cold war. Firebrace (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't mean primary sources, like world leaders. Can you cite a reliable secondary source please to verify such connection? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Only a photo of Sergey Lavrov has been the only photo used. Asarlaí added more photos in the Russia–US relations section (diff). Which photos should be kept or removed from the article? George Ho (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The image with the two delegation is alright. In general, we should follow the sources. Are the conflicts in Ukraine/Syria/Venezuela commonly considered part of the CWII? If yes I see no problems with a few illustrations. Other than the proxy conflicts, the purported cold war manifests itself in various sanctions, so perhaps an image of a former McDonalds in Russia would also be helpful. Alaexis_¿question? 21:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

In general, we should follow the sources. Are the conflicts in Ukraine/Syria/Venezuela commonly considered part of the CWII? Only if the article subject (CWII) is verified as an "event"; see this discussion (link). As of now, no reliable source has consider this an "event" at this time. The image with the two delegation is alright. If you mean a map, that's out of question right now. I'm thinking you mean this one, right: File:Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama (2015-09-29) 04.jpg?

What about the photos that Asarlai added: File:Крым, Варламов, март 2014, 25.jpg, File:Russian troops in Novoaidar, 6 March 2022.png? Now I'm worried that growing number of editors want to treat the article subject as a true "event" and want to write it as such, despite otherwise. George Ho (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that the term/event distinction is meaningful. Even if we don't say in wikivoice that CWII is real, illustrations can still be useful (let's say if a large number of experts think that it started in 2014, we can use some of the imagery related to the Rus-Ukr conflict). I'm not sure about these specific images, I'd probably use a map of the conflict as a more neutral option. Alaexis_¿question? 21:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd probably use a map of the conflict as a more neutral option. See this another discussion (link). Maps are no longer allowed here, especially due to "no consensus" to include at least one map. George Ho (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I meant a map of the conflict in Ukraine as of 2014 - assuming that we want to illustrate that section. Alaexis_¿question? 22:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Then please propose such a map (preferably in a new thread) in this talk page. George Ho (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe it is finally time to make this an official conflict article with an infobox and everything, or at least something more substantial. The war in Ukraine, the middle east crisis, the Iran war, the ongoing tensions in the pacific between the east "China, Russia, North Korea" and the West "Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, US, Philippines, Australia", proxy wars in Africa, US pressure on Venezuela and Cuba along with drug and gang wars in the Americas, it is finally time to label this a real geopolitical event/crisis akin to the first cold war, one between the west (NATO and the US and their allies) and the east (Russia, China, Iran and their allies). 04:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC) ~2026-13889-93 (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-13889-93: I can't help wonder whether you browsed past archived threads, like this one: Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 5#Term or event?

Before making this a proposal, have you yet sought out reliable sources verifying what you wanted the article topic to be? George Ho (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

These talks occurred in 2021, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine and thus before the term could logically be considered and event. Now with all these interrelated conflicts, tensions and proxy wars, the term is becoming more and more suitable to describe today's 2026 world. 05:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC) ~2026-13889-93 (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-13889-93: I reverted your (mis)use of this source that mentions "Venezuela" just once but not in extensive detail. Rather it mentions the country very, very briefly. Obviously, your attempts to make the article less US-Russia centric shows your displeasure toward the current longstanding scope. Furthermore, we still can't insert our own original thoughts into the article as you tried here (link). I can't help wonder whether you want the section about US–China relations eliminated completely from this article or integrated into other sections... or whether you read the section completely. I also can't help wonder whether you're aware of cold war (term). George Ho (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and if you want something more recent, then this from last year should help you further: Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 8#Consensus on "event" to warrant images or infobox. George Ho (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-13889-93: I dunno what else it takes for you to refrain yourself from redoing what you've been doing, honestly. My mind gets frustrated by your attempts and reattempts, not to mention edit warring. I totally urge you to self-revert this edit you've made just now. I very insist. I might have to seek other ways to resolve this... or possibly report you to WP:ANI if you're still unwilling.

It instead states it is just a term to describe heightened tensions and inter-related conflicts, not one event. You just added "interrelated", huh? The previous revision didn't say "interrelated". George Ho (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I still can't believe people would read what you've done. Now I'm worried that others would try to make similar changes to the article's scope. This is very worrying. If no one else tries to revert the change you've done right away, then I don't know how else to bring such awful, awful, awful changes to their attention. Frustrating, so frustrating!! Has anyone else liked the changes you've made!? As a reader, I'd be too ashamed to read this (old id) over and over within 24 hours! This would put the quality of Wikipedia into question, doesn't it!?

The whole "conflicts" thing clearly proves you like to treat this topic like an actual real thing. Also, "conflicts" = "events"!? Wow! Using plurals, huh? George Ho (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Dude you need to relax. I understand your worries but a term describing a series of interrelated conflicts, AKA events, does not make that term an event, you realize this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-13889-93 (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand your worries but a term describing a series of interrelated conflicts, AKA events, does not make that term an event, you realize this?

Trying to reply to this calmly... Trying to slowly read what I'm quoting you... (inhales and exhales)... (inhales and exhales again)... (light bulb pops out!)

Perhaps I can discuss whether to call this a "term" (literal term perhaps) or "series" (of "events" or whatever a user wants the topic to be). Maybe I can create another RFC discussion entitled "Term or series?" How about that? George Ho (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright, though I want my revisions to be kept mostly intact but with improved terminology or better understanding, especially a modern, gradually refined idea of geopolitical phenomena by users. ~2026-13889-93 (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Dunno whether I'd like readers jumping to conclusions—after reading the version of reinserted content you have made—without sufficient skills of critical thinking, honestly. But... I'd still like someone else to revert the change you made. If the consensus still likes to stick with "term", then... I'd like to revert it right after the conclusion of the RFC discussion. George Ho (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, an {{infobox military conflict}} is still inappropriate. Consensus has been already against using it. George Ho (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the revision, it goes with the consensus that it is not a literal event but rather a term used to describe heightened instability and conflicts in the world involving the US/NATO and its allies and Russia/China/Iran and their allies. This is a term used both by scholars and politicians to describe this phenomenon, not an event.

"You just added "interrelated", huh? The previous revision didn't say "interrelated"." I did, this means that the conflicts are interrelated due to the power dynamics of global alliances, primarily the East-West divide. I wont be reverting anything as you have, because instead of refining or editing the page you have been reverting and blanking consistently without adding material or making it a bit more up to par. Let's agree to have other editors refine the page and have it evolve over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-13889-93 (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

because instead of refining or editing the page you have been reverting and blanking consistently without adding material or making it a bit more up to par.

Would this one (link) I made prove otherwise? I added what Trump had treated NATO as... but only for the US–China relations section and by paraphrasing and quoting what a Chinese academic wrote.

Well, I attempted to widely broaden the scope, but that led to moving portions to Talk:Second Cold War/Archive 2#"Saudi Arabia vs. Iran" section. Well, that's years ago, but still relevant for me to enforce the decisions. Will start the newest RFC discussion soon... George Ho (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

What do we mean by that term? I don’t see the use of it in the sources cited in that section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... Should the section name be "Past predictions" or....?

Shucks! I must've changed it to "foreshadowing" (link) when another editor added the "History" header to split one section into two (link). George Ho (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

"Past predictions" seems like a good alternative to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

 Section renamed. George Ho (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)