Talk:Second Cold War

Cold War 2

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)

Length of the introduction

@Choucas: Hey there. You tagged the lead paragraph as "too short". What else should the lead summarize? George Ho (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a four sentences lead for a >6000 words article, so to me it is almost more "what else should the lead not summarize" at the moment honestly. In my opinion, the first paragraph should be about the definition, past predictions and use during the first cold war; there should be a full paragraph for the multilateral context, another one for USA vs Russia, and another one for USA vs China. The sizes of each of these sections definitely warrant it, and since each of these three has three subsections, one sentence for each would be reasonable. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with having four separate paragraphs about every key point you mentioned. However, I added another paragraph but have still intended to describe key points very briefly, if not concisely. I don't want the lead to exceed the brief sections about past usages in the original Cold War and "past predictions". As figured, one sentence describing each would be enough. George Ho (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it is much better like this already, yes. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 18:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Is the Info box widely agreed upon?

question Entryin (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Concerns about article weight and structure.

I would like to propose a discussion on if his article gives appropriate weight to China–United States relations compared with Russia–United States/NATO relations.

The article currently treats both Russia and China as possible rivals in a Second Cold War it appears that many scholars and academics are increasingly solidifying around the idea that U.S.–China competition constitute the foundation of a possible second Cold War while Russia instead constitutes a more of a direct military threat to Europe and NATO.

I am not proposing that the Russia sections be deleted because Russia is still a critical global competitor, my concern is whether the article’s structure currently give readers the impression that Russia is the primary or default frame, when many recent sources treat China as the more systemic long-term rival.

Id like other views on whether a rebalancing is due, and what structure would best satisfy WP:DUE. PaulRKil (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Please read the whole US–China section carefully: unfortunately, it's less about whether the term actually means growing tensions between the US and China. Indeed, it may be more about Trump's actions related to foreign policy, especially toward, separately, Russia and China. Also, one Chinese scholar said that Trump has wanted the US to be... more China-like. In contrast, the Biden administration wanted to be less hostile toward China but more toward Russia especially for warring against Ukraine.

Please provide sources that prove me wrong, okay? George Ho (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I am currently on mobile but I can share some later on PaulRKil (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2026 (UTC)