I don't know about bloodless, Vietnam, Afghanistan. Sure there was no direct conflict, but there were proxy wars all over the place. Its definitely not to that level yet, but Russia's growing boldness does show a faltering US foreign policy position.

Lol, bloodless. Half the world gets bombed on the daily because of policies stemming from the Cold War.

The victory for the west was relatively bloodless (iron curtain falling, dissolution of the USSR) except for the obvious events. I think western-nations are very right in adopting the hyper-careful attitude toward Russia they have; however, the doomsday "OMG OMG OMG a new cold war" scenario just doesn't frighten me all that much.

@bo
That's because it happened to be the most recent world order. This will hold true for any future world order.

Russia's growing boldness belies their own desperation more than any faltering US policy position. And why must it always be the US who counters Russia? Oh, that's right. We're the leaders of the free world and everyone else is just a follower.

Find me another "world order" that bombs cities and flies military drones in an attempt to kill a philosophy, redhouse. You wonder why ISIS can still line the streets with recruits even though they behead journalists - it's because they see us as worse. Tell me how that world police idea doesn't directly stem from the Cold War era.

"That's because it happened to be the most recent world order. This will hold true for any future world order."

That's the spirit.

"The victory for the west was relatively bloodless except for the obvious events."

So... um... deaths don't count if they're 'obvious'? You only worry about unexpected casualties?

To clarify my previous message, I think stopping the 'dirty warfare' going on should be a really high priority, and people should look at it like a millenium goal or something.

Until every nation has nuclear weapons--the only true deterrent that exists--proxy wars will continue and blood will be spilled on the lands of less fortunate nations.

It will be quite a long time before the Dominican Republic has a significant nuclear capability, Jeff. You could be waiting quite a long time.

We could at least stop it from being so .. accepted and organised.

@jt99uk: Precisely.

@Jeff: Really? You want to put a nuclear weapon in the hands of North Korea or Iran? Or are you being funny.

I would say that for all intended purposes, both countries came out on top.
There is too much evidence for me to state

The nuclear powers will always conduct the "Cold War" via proxy wars in nations that don't have nuclear capabilities to defend themselves. They have the power to impose their will on lesser nations in this way. My statement is not an endorsement of nuclear proliferation, but rather an acknowledgement of the reality that follows when there are only a handful of nuclear states. Proxy conventional wars are "better" than global thermonuclear ones.

@Jeff - that's only true until a new, better deterrent comes out. Like a comprehensive missile defense shield that makes nukes obsolete. Or space-based platforms that can do kinetic strikes on targets (would actually be kinda neat to see a demonstration of this). But otherwise, yeah. Typical realist point of view in foreign policy.

@bo - replace "drones and bombs" with "destroys and kills" and I will find you countless examples throughout history of dominant civilizations who used military power to crush deviant philosophies. Whether a major civilization counts as a world order is up to debate.

As for the question, it is worrisome because it represents a step backward. We had the potential to be headed into an era of unprecedented peace, with no major powers sponsoring proxy wars against each other. But now its not so certain.

X37B FTW.

Sure, goldie, there have been, but hardly in an age where a world power like the US will butt in "for the greater good" (I say that ironically, of course) and in an era where international coalitions around the world will condemn you for it.

As for your last paragraph, we're still in an era of unprecedented peace. It's simply not Immanuel Kant's perpetual peace. The simple fact that Germany hasn't attacked anyone in 70 years says a lot about how far we are...

If anything, a new cold war would be a good thing, as a resurgent Russia may be able to act as a restraint on US imperialism.

...This is trolling, yes?

This has to be trolling?

Why would we fear a new Cold War, with all the fun racism, nationalism, East vs. West fervor, many, MANY near misses to full-scale or nuclear war, and of course, the fun choice of US Imperialism vs. Russian Oppression?

(Where's krellin and Putin when I need them, to argue the USA and USSR were both paragons of virtue, respectively?)

There will be no Second Cold War with Russia. It has no real economy outside the extraction sector. Its population is shrinking, especially in Siberia (where most of the natural resources the economy relies on are). It has a political system entirely dependent on Putin personally.

Instead of a new cold war, it makes more sense that we'll see more little hot wars as Russia tries to stave off irrelevance and decline by imposing its will on smaller neighbors.