4 ms·
Eh, I can see where you're coming from but Russia wasn't a serious challenger in the 2000s—their military was a complete mess until the end of the 2000s, and ev
by starwind 5y ago
Eh, I can see where you're coming from but Russia wasn't a serious challenger in the 2000s—their military was a complete mess until the end of the 2000s, and even then they didn't perform that well in Georgia, that's why I peg the start date later
- dragonwriter 5y ago> their military was a complete mess until the end of the 2000s Their military remains a complete mess, but that's largely irrelevant to the existence of a Cold War, which doesn't have to rely on both sides engaging in direct military confrontation with proxies of the other. One side doing their bit primarily by sponsoring, aiding, and instigating asymmetric threats against the other is a way a Cold War can happen, especially when it is shielded from many of the direct consequences that would otherwise be imposed by a large nuclear arsenal and a UN veto.
- starwind 5y agoYeah, the definition of a cold war is that the two parties don't come directly to blows. But I feel like there needs to be a credible challenge, and Russia's military is today light years ahead of where they were when they invaded Georgia (even though, yeah, it still sucks). I just don't think their sabre rattling had anyone in the US government all that worried through the first decade of the 2000s—the US and Russia collaborated on several counter-terrorism efforts
- klyrs 5y agoWith nukes in play, one needn't have a competent military to participate in a cold war.