Help support TMP

"Peril in a Tripolar World" Topic

12 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2009-present) Message Board

Areas of Interest


574 hits since 1 Nov 2018
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0101 Nov 2018 10:20 p.m. PST

"When it comes to relations between Donald Trump's America, Vladimir Putin's Russia and Xi Jinping's China, observers everywhere are starting to talk about a return to an all-too-familiar past. "Now we have a new Cold War," Russia expert Peter Felgenhauer commented in Moscow after Trump announced plans to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

The Trump administration is "launching a new Cold War," historian Walter Russell Mead said in The Wall Street Journal, following a series of anti-Chinese measures approved by the president in October 2018. And many others are already chiming in…."
Main page


Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP02 Nov 2018 2:07 a.m. PST

Mr. Mead's analysis is dead wrong, and completely backwards.

I recall Vladimir and his generals and other spokespeople: threatening to nuke half of Europe; sending in strategic, nuclear capable bombers and fighters to do practice runs over Western Europe at supersonic speeds with transponders turned off; invading and attacking Georgia; invading and annexing Crimea; invading Eastern Ukraine and supplying troops and heavy weapons to the guerrillas there; assassinating opponents; breaking the INF treaty with their new, Iskander mobile missiles deployed in the Baltic region and other locations; sending nuclear capable bombers and fighters close to the USA and Japan as well, etc., etc..

But, it's Trump's fault for restarting the Cold War?

How did he force Vladimir and the Russians to do all of the above while he was working on his real estate business?

When did he have the time?

He must have tremendous powers of mind control.

I guess on the plus side, ignoring the real human and financial costs of the above conflicts, it does make for interesting challenges to deal with him effectively, and for wargamers in general, since there are lots of possible scenarios and real conflicts to play out on the tabletop.

You can bet in some countries, professional wargamers and soldiers/generals are doing the same thing, with far bigger budgets, and stakes on the table, should they get things wrong with their analyses, or lose.

A pity a "historian" gets the issue so wrong.

I'm surprised the WSJ would print such drivel.

CFeicht Supporting Member of TMP02 Nov 2018 4:32 a.m. PST

Why let the facts get in the way of a nasty hit-piece?

pzivh43 Supporting Member of TMP02 Nov 2018 5:44 a.m. PST

+1 Thresher01

pzivh43 Supporting Member of TMP02 Nov 2018 5:50 a.m. PST

Her'e a quote from the article that shows the author has no concept of international relations:

"The United States, supposedly acting on behalf of its allies in the region, as well as to protect its "freedom of navigation" in the area, has sought to counter China's provocative buildup with aggressive acts of its own. It has dispatched its warships to waters right off those fortified islands."

So-called "aggressive acts" are no more than upholding international law and freedom of the seas. Wev, and other countries, have been doing it for years.

mjkerner Supporting Member of TMP02 Nov 2018 7:03 a.m. PST

I stopped reading the drivel from War is Boring a long time ago. "Analysis" in its articles is pretty much a joke.

Tango0102 Nov 2018 11:02 a.m. PST



Lobsterback02 Nov 2018 12:52 p.m. PST

The piece is originally from TOM DISPATCH….that says enough about it…..

28mm Fanatik02 Nov 2018 2:54 p.m. PST

It's an opinion piece by Michael Klare, a professor of "peace and world security studies" at a second-rate private liberal arts college in Amherst, Massachusetts, so I would be shocked if most TMP-ers would agree with it.

As to the content of the article, his warning about how the "dangerous path we're taking" (i.e. a new Cold War and arms race) could lead to nuclear apocalypse is gross exaggeration. I'm not even convinced that a conventional war would occur between the three near-peer powers, much less a nuclear one. The likelihood of high casualties in even a limited conventional conflict would be a deterrence in itself.

Muscle-flexing with overt military exercises or "harassing" foreign planes and ships conducting FON exercises in one's perceived regional sphere-of-influence isn't the big deal the media makes them out to be. It's sending a message, just like sailing our ships through the Taiwan Straits in a FON exercise is sending a message. If anything they provide real-life training opportunities for the rival militaries involved.

Lion in the Stars02 Nov 2018 5:35 p.m. PST

Muscle-flexing with overt military exercises or "harassing" foreign planes and ships conducting FON exercises in one's perceived regional sphere-of-influence isn't the big deal the media makes them out to be.

It's called Tuesday, in the Navy.

In the 1980s, the US and Soviets were playing bumper boats on a near-daily basis in the Med.

Captainbrown Inactive Member03 Nov 2018 3:11 a.m. PST

Focusing Americans hate on Russia with reds under the bed is exactly what trump wants.

gregmita203 Nov 2018 7:05 p.m. PST

Funny, just a while ago that was what the "impeach Trump" people wanted.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.