There is a book by Michael Doyle which presented this term in the title. It is a political science book. I try to shorten it: basically what he tries to bring up is to describe a situation of how the west should handle Russia and China after the end of the Ukraine war. He hopes for a situation in which both sides are peacefull but still consider the other block as an enemy.

We would see an decrease of economic exchange, but not an increase of military spending. Honestly I feel like we are in a cold war situation again and political Realism clearly explains why. If we look on Russia from an economic perspective Italy or Mexico is doing better. The only thing Russia is good at is their army in fighting for war lords and dictators in developing countries or the third world. While on the otherhand little is known about how the military gear/equipment of the Chineses actually work in combat, as they try to negate conflicts. In Ukraine we see the military stuff of the US and EU tested against whatever Russia brings on the battlefield. We can conclude: Russia is semi good in their military, and bad in economy, China is unknown in their military power it is expected to be doing well, economic is doing well. The US is good on both. Europe is an economic power house and is also proving the military capacities right now.

For my perspective we need to show even more power and readiness of the people if we want to obtain peace, even if it is a cold one. It must be clear for Russia that the usage of their army for territory is insufficient. Else Russia will keep on testing how far they can go. Even if their army is doing not good.

You don't need Michael Doyle.


Alot of us here are familiar with..........


Samuel Huntington
Henry Kissinger
Graham Allison
Zbigniew Brzezinski
John mearsheimer
Hans Morgenthau
Lee Kuan Yew
Robert D. Blackwill
Carl von Clausewitz
Thucydides

Etc Etc

We can go on and on, I don't think Mr Doyle is on their level though.



No disrespect though.

Whatever is worth saying has already been said about the China situation 30 to 40 years back.

Try reading the Clash of Civilization by Huntington first and follow up with Graham Allison's Destined for War on Thucydides trap
and last but not least read Graham Allison and Robert Blackwill's book when they interviewed Lee Kuan Yew before he died and what Lee Kuan Yew suggested about the China situation.

Robert Blackwill is the ex Indian Ambassdor and is currently a senior fellow on the Council of Foreign Relationship in USA.
Graham Allison is the founding dean of Havard's Kennedy School of Public Policy.

The rest you should kinda know.

This post was edited by Hamsterbaby on Oct 2 2025 08:13pm

America is far better at war, but the Russo-Ukraine conflict illustrated how little technological superiority means if you can't replace weapons and men you will almost certainly lose within the first few weeks of war. Russia's invasion was largely a failure, and yet they've shown that cynicism and apathy can be strengths. They've dedicated the industrial resources and manpower required and the West, while superior, isn't willing to match it.

Thats all very well and good, but the US backed war against Russia is effectively a hot war. so the cold war is over.

I agree with topic author

Vietnam, Chinese civil war, Greek civil war, Indochina war(s) = second is Vietnam, Koren war, Mau Mau, Taiwan Crisises before fall of UdSSR, Cuba, Suez Crisis, countless crisis aand wars in the middle east, Thailand.. the list is so long..

the cold war did not become a hot war because of the proxy warfare.

Ok that is wild and selective. Doyle is a classical political science author like most of the authors you also mentioned, except you picked most of the "Realists" while Doyle falls under a "constructionist perspective". Maybe it would help to read also stuf which conflicts with the opinion someone prefer. this was also mentoned by Clausewitz: "Die Einwirkung theoretischer Wahrheiten auf das praktische Leben geschieht immer mehr durch die Kritik, als durch Lehre." Which translates to: The development of theoretical truth in perspective of the practible life happens always more threw critic than threw teaching.

All indicators are that there will be a conflict between Nato and Russia. So by all means debate between Doyle and Mearscheimer but the trajectory is only going one way right now. whether we return to competing blocks or not is something in the future. In the hear and now the question is how far is this conflict going to go.

a conflict must not be a classical war. it can be a prooxy war to. it can be a hybrid warfare. there are several possibilites on how a conflict is defined. Also a upcoming Cold War situation would be a conflict. Right now we are few steps before this.

An honestly it wouuld be the shortest Cold War ever. Russia literally is deep in depts.

i dont know what you are suggesting here.