Russia DA George Town

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]
[Name]
***NEG
[Name]
1NC- RUSSIA AEROSPACE

Status quo decline of American space programs is allowing the Russian aerospace industry to assume leadership SRAS 10 (2/10/10, School of Russian and Asian Studies, think tank composed of a team of consultants and advisers
dedicated to education and educational opportunities in Russia and Eurasia. They have studied within the Russian educational system and have worked closely with institutions for several years to identify programs of interest and value to international students, Russia May Become 'Absolute' Leader in Space Exploration, http://www.sras.org/russia_may_become_absolute_leader_in_space_exploration DH)
The U.S. administration's decision to abandon ambitious space exploration programs , including a manned Lunar mission in 2020, is giving Russia a chance to strengthen its position in manned space flight projects, Yuri Kara, a member of Russia's Tsiolkovsky Cosmonautics Academy, told Interfax-AVN. "In my opinion, Russia has received an amazing carte blanche in order to take over the 'flag' of the leadership in space exploration from the United States," Kara said. On Monday, President Barack Obama announced in his 2011 budget request that he would cancel U.S. plans to send humans back to the moon, saying the project was too expensive. In the next 5-7 years, Russia will be the only country capable of delivering
crewmembers to the International Space Station. But Russia should also start working on a manned mission to Mars, the expert said. "Today, Russia needs to focus its efforts on the Mars program. The time has come for it to become the absolute space leader," Kara said. In this case, "other states will join" space exploration projects implemented by Russia, he said. "I am not speaking about Russia's monopoly on this area. But it [Russia]
has been playing a leading role and, consequently, it will be able to determine the configuration of the future Mars mission," he added.
US space power trades off with Russian aeronautics industry. AP, 4/12. [VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV. Medvedev: Space will remain a key Russian priority
<http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110412/ap_on_hi_te/eu_russia_gagarin>] Russia must preserve its pre-eminence in space, President Dmitry Medvedev declared Tuesday on the 50th
anniversary of the first human spaceflight by cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin. The statement followed warnings by another cosmonaut that
Russia risks losing its edge in space research by relying solely on Soviet-era achievements and doing little to develop new space technologies. Gagarin's 108-minute mission on April 12, 1961, remains a source
of great national pride, and Russia marked the day with fanfare resembling Soviet-era celebrations. Schools had special lessons dedicated to Gagarin, billboards carried his smiling face and national television channels broadcast a flow of movies and documentaries about the flight. "We were the first to fly to space and have had a great number of achievements, and we mustn't lose our advantage," Medvedev said during a visit to Mission Control outside Moscow. On Monday, Svetlana Savitskaya, who flew space missions in 1982 and 1984 and became the first woman to make a spacewalk, harshly criticized the Kremlin for paying little attention to space research after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. "There's nothing new to be proud of in the last 20 years," said Savitskaya, a member of Russian parliament from the Communist Party. Russia has used the Soyuz and Progress spacecraft, whose designs date back to the 1960s, to send an increasing number of crew and cargo to the International Space Station . Russia's importance will grow even more after the U.S. space shuttle Atlantis closes out the U.S. program this summer, leaving the Russian spacecraft as the only link to the station. But Savitskaya and some other cosmonauts have warned that Russia has
done little to build a replacement to the Soyuz and could quickly fall behind America after it builds a new-generation spaceship. Boris Chertok, the former deputy to Sergei Korolyov, the father of the Soviet space program,
says it has become increasingly difficult for Russia's space industries to hire new personnel. "Salaries in space industries are much lower than average salaries in banks and commercial companies," Chertok, 99, told reporters last week. "We need (more) people of Korolyov's caliber." Korolyov, a visionary scientist as well as a tough manager, led the team that put the world's first manmade satellite in orbit on October 4, 1957. He then spearheaded a massive effort to score another first with Gagarin's mission. " Our
competition with America was spurring us to move faster to make the first human spaceflight," Valery Kubasov, a member of Korolyov's design team who later became a cosmonaut, told The Associated Press. Gagarin's accomplishment shocked the United States, prompting it to declare the goal of putting a man on the moon.
[Name]
Russian aerospace industry collapse causes asteroid collision --- causes mass death Russian Press Digest 2010 (RusData Line, Russia is developing equipment for exploration of a
potentially dangerous asteroid, May 19 )
Russian scientists are promising to develop a cosmic device for exploration of a celestial body which, according to certain astronomers, presents a certain threat to life on Earth. On Tuesday, director of the Space Research Institute, RAS, academician Lev Zeleny, told journalists that the leading domestic enterprise in the rocket and space industry - Lavochkin Scientific Production Association, is creating a device for the exploration of the asteroid Apophis. "In 2029, the trajectory of Apophis will be at a fairly close distance from the Earth, and during the second cycle of movement, in 2036, there is a probability that it will collide with our planet," cautioned academician Zeleny. According to him, the damage resulting from such a
collision will be three times more severe than the destruction that was caused by the Tunguska meteorite. Scientists believe that the space object that caused the explosion near the Podkamennaya Tunguska River on June
30, 1908, was 50 meters in diameter and could have weighed 1-2 million tons. For comparison: the size of Apophis, discovered in 2004, is 270 by 60 meters, and the asteroid's total weight, according to various estimates, amounts to anywhere from 26 to 45 tons. The likelihood that the giant cosmic "cobblestone" will collide with the Earth in 2029 is negligible: according to official estimates, published by NASA, the probability of a collision is 1 in 250,000. However, Apophis will "come near" our planet; according to the latest estimates, in 2029, the asteroid will pass the Earth's surface at a distance of 28,900 kilometers (give or take 200-300 km). Such proximity could have an effect on the orbit of a small celestial body. Deviation
from the previous route could result in the Apophis to once again pass the Earth at a dangerously close distance 7 years later, in 2036. According to NASA, in the event the "celestial guest" collides with the Earth, an explosion with the force of more than 500 megatons is possible (for comparison: the effects of the Tunguska meteorite's landing are estimated at about 10 megatons, which is equivalent to an explosion of a hydrogen bomb). Scientists, who based their estimates on a maximum possible size of the asteroid - 390 meters - concluded that if such a celestial body were to enter the Earth's atmosphere at a speed of 12.6 km/s, then the collision would form a crater on the Earth's surface of almost 6 km in diameter and trigger an earthquake, measuring 6.5 on the Richter scale, within a 10 km radius. If the asteroid falls into an ocean, it would result in an enormous tsunami; and, if a densely populated area is stricken, the destruction will affect several hundreds of kilometers. However, scientists note that even such a
pessimistic scenario does not assume that this will be a global-scale catastrophe, similar to the one which led to the distinction of the dinosaurs - Apophis is simply too small for this. According to the hypothesis of a Nobel Prize laureate, Luis Alvarez, the "stone" that caused a nuclear winter 65 million years ago was about 10 km in diameter. "People's lives are in danger. It is better we
spend a few hundred million dollars and create a system that will allow us to avoid a collision, than sit and wait for this to happen and thousands of people lose their lives," Anatoly Perminov, head of
Russia's Federal Space Agency Roscosmos, warned the public in January of this year. However, astronomers say that one should not expect the end of the world to come in 2036; the probability Apophis will collide with Earth is very small, but, as was noted by academician Lev Zeleny, this is not a "zero probability". In order to obtain some more precise data on the behavior of the asteroid it was suggested to place a special beacon on Apophis. This, according to Mr. Zeleny, should be accomplished in 2029 as the asteroid approaches the Earth. "The beacon will make it possible to obtain very precise trajectory measurements of the asteroid, which will allow making a more precise forecast as to whether or not it will collide with the Earth 7 years later as well as taking the necessary measures to divert it from its dangerous course," explained the director of the Space Research Institute, RAS. The topic of protection of the Earth from the asteroid threat has not only been discussed within the scientific community for a long time, but has also become a part of the mass culture - take the Hollywood production, Armageddon, as an example, which was filmed six years prior to the discovery of Apophis in 1998. In the movie, an American expedition lands on an asteroid, as it approaches the Earth, and destroys it with a nuclear explosion. Scientists are offering measures for eliminating the uninvited celestial guest that are no-less-effective and, at a first glance, equally science-fictional. For example, the space device could deploy a "solar sail" - a thin light-reflecting film - on the asteroid. It is believed that the pressure of electromagnetic rays could alter the asteroid's speed and direction. Experts of the European Space Agency proposed changing the trajectory of Apophis with the use of a special "orbit evacuator". The asteroid should be approached by a space ship, which will hover above it at the nearest possible proximity, which will be made possible by engines powered by solar batteries. The "cosmic traction engine" will pull the asteroid, while slightly accelerating is movement, and eventually bring the celestial body to a safer orbit. The development of such a "traction ship" or a "cosmic traction device" has been promised by the British corporation, EADS Atrium. In turn, the Lavochkin Scientific Production Association, which has not only produced artificial Earth satellites Lunokhod-1, and devices for the exploration of Venus and Mars, but also intercontinental cruise missiles, could use its designs. However, as was noted last December by the head of Roscosmos, Anatoly Perminov, there are no plans to destroy the asteroid. "No nuclear explosions, everything will be done
based on the laws of physics," stressed the head of the space agency.
[Name]
1NC- RUSSIA ECONOMY

Russia sphere of influence growing now due to the space program Zak, 08. [Anthony, editor of Russian Space Web. Russian Space Prgram: A Decade Review (20002010] Russian Space Web. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/russia_2000_2010.html] In May 2001, a respectable American magazine published an apocalyptic prophesy entitled "Russia is Finished." Intellectualizing the conventional wisdom of the 1990s, the article confidently promised "the unstoppable descent of a once great power into social catastrophe and strategic irrelevance." Little did the editors of the publication know that just a few months later, the only remaining superpower would be hit with the worst terrorist attack in its history, dragging its government into a protracted and costly conflict across the world. One of the unintended consequences of the post-September 11 global instability, combined with economic boom in Asia, became soaring oil prices, which quickly turned Russia's natural resources-driven economy from bust to boom. With the Kremlin coffers full with oil revenues, the Russian government managed not simply to postpone a "social catastrophe," but to take steps to reverse its "strategic irrelevance." On the international stage, Russian President Vladimir Putin made his official doctrine the creation of a "multi-polar world," which would challenge America's military and economic dominance. By the end of his two terms in office, President Putin consolidated so much power in his hands that he could make his old secret service bosses red with envy. Putin promised to use his new financial and political muscle to repair Russia's battered economy and military might. In 2006, Russian military spending approached 600 billion rubles, or double of its annual budget in 2000. By the
end of 2007, a Russian aircraft carrier group was heading back on patrol of the high seas, in a rare show of military power since the end of the Cold War. Strategic bombers, land- and submarine-based ballistic missiles resumed regular doomsday rehearsal missions. Oil money also started trickling down into the previously underfunded space industry. To the delight of Russian space officials, increased funding was accompanied by President Putin's declaration
that "...without astronautics, Russia can not compete for one of the leading positions in the world's civilization, and will not be able to provide its defense at a necessary level." (270) To restore
Russian presence beyond Earth, the Putin administration started drafting the nation's long-term space strategy. On October 22, 2005, the Russian government signed a decree No. 635, approving Federal Space Program for 2006-2015 and worth 305 billion rubles. (299) The industry was directed to propose its projects and plan its activities in the timeframe of a two-phase Federal Space Program, FKP: Short-term projects and goals until 2015-2020 Long-term projects planning for the period 2020-2040 The Russian space budget continued growing during the 2000s, almost doubling by 2009. Manned space flight Unlike in the 1990s,
cooperation with NASA was no longer a centerpiece of Russia's manned space program, reflecting the new political climate in the first years of the 21st century. Although the two space agencies were
continuing working closely on the construction of the International Space Station, the program was increasingly becoming a lone outpost of cooperation in the sea of unraveling hopes. America's bullish moves to stretch NATO toward Russian borders and hastily deploy a missile defense system in Europe pushed relations between the two countries, in the words of one American diplomat, "from bad to worse." On Feb. 10, 2007, at a major security conference in Munich, Germany, President Putin accused the United States of provoking a new nuclear arms race among other sins. Western pundits talked of a new cold war, while state-controlled Russian TV was full of paranoia about Western conspiracies to weaken Russia. In
such a climate, on both sides, rational ideas of building a common future for the world community were being replaced by chauvinistic urges for global economic domination and international prestige. At the beginning of 2004, NASA essentially declared its intention to divorce from Russia and Europe with its decision to withdraw from the International Space Station program and aim for the Moon instead. Unlike the ISS,
all the crucial elements of the future American lunar infrastructure would be built domestically, with no reliance on foreign contributions or major overseas contractors. Moon race: round two Although officially NASA left the door open to international participation in the lunar program, America's partners were left to decide for themselves about new directions in space. As rising giants of Asia -- China and India -- made their intentions for exploring the Moon
loud and clear, Russia and Europe could hardly afford to stay on the sidelines of what increasingly resembled a new moon race. Not coincidently, during 2005 and 2006, the Russian space agency and its
European partners rejected a proposal from the industry to build a new-generation reusable spacecraft, which would be best suited for operations in the low-Earth orbit. The idea of a new all-Russian space station fielded around the same time did get some traction as a possible foundation for lunar and martian exploration, but only as a secondary goal. Instead, both Russian and European space officials favored the concept of a lunar-oriented project, known as ACTS. To be developed cooperatively in Europe and Russia, the future program would include a new spacecraft capable of entering lunar orbit and, eventually, a lunar lander designed to deliver humans on the surface of the Moon. Unlike the United States, Europe represented a natural partner for Russia, since the two sides have been closely involved in every aspect of economic cooperation from energy to aviation for more than a decade. During the first years of the 21st century, Russia's chief spacecraft developer, RKK Energia, served as a major contractor in the development of the European ATV cargo ship, designed to resupply the ISS.
[Name]
US space hegemony trades off with Russian modernization Mack, 3/15 [David, journalist for Center of Strategic and International Studies. Russias New Space
Odyssey CSIS. < http://csis.org/blog/russias-new-space-odyssey>]
For those who view Russias space program as a mere rocket taxi servicea relic of its former gloryby the end of this year, Russia will finally complete the Soviet Unions most ambitious (and expensive) space project. (Global'naya Navigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema or Global Navigation Satellite System) was a Soviet-initiated project begun in 1976 which by the mid-1990s had fallen to the wayside. In the first years of Vladimir Putins tenure as president, work began to reprieve GLONASS with updates for the twenty-first century. The new GLONASS is intended for both military and civilian use and will compete with rival satellite positioning systems such as GPS ( United States), Galileo (European Union), and Compass (China). Russias national navigation system suffered many setbacks in recent years due to foolish mistakes, but Roscosmos is confident that there will be 100 percent coverage by the end of this year. Currently 22 operational GLONASS satellites (out of 26 total) orbiting the Earth cover 99 percent of the planet. The achievement is already sparking new possibilities within the realms of business and security. Russia's largest telecommunication provider, OAO Mobile Telesystems, has been advertising the country's first smart phone with the ability to access GLONASS navigation capabilities which will go on sale this April; meanwhile a special program called Safe Sochi will rely on GLONASS for its security surveillance operations during 2014s Winter Olympic Games at the doorstep of Russias most volatile region. The completion of GLONASS, however, should be viewed, above all else, as a symbolic act. In this decade Russia is looking to take on a leading role in the international arena, as exemplified by their playing host to a number of the worlds most sought after events, namely, the World Cup and the Olympic Games. Its no secret that Russia intends to
use the public eye to highlight their incredible achievements since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the resurrection of their space program will be at the forefront of that list . Russia is mulling
over the possibility of sending the Olympic flame (a torch which travels around the world before stopping at the host city to mark the start of the games) into space a novel proposal, and one that would make a bold statement about the clear path that a resurgent Russia is on. Recently Russia has revealed its space strategy up to the year 2035 which details plans for exploration and development of the Moon, Mars, and projects in deep space, as well as a new launch site to be built in Eastern Russia (Vostochniy Cosmodrome), and an all-Russian space station in low-Earth orbit to replace the ISS after the end of its operation in 2020. While logistically speaking manned-missions to the Moon and Mars are still some years away for Russia, they are not wasting any time in preparation. An elaborate experiment is currently underway to test, as accurately as possible, the psychological and physiological strains of a voyage to deep space. Mars500, as it is dubbed, is a $15 million collaborative effort of Russia, China, and the EU to simulate a manned round-trip mission to Mars. Six male crewmembers have been locked in a 1,720-square-foot windowless mock space shuttle located on the outskirts of Moscow for the duration of 520 days with limited contact to the outside world. The simulation is sure to break down some barriers on what is possible concerning the capabilities for manned deep space travel, and could potentially spark a space race for the red planet. [Infographic courtesy of Space.com] Russias space program in recent years has been given a breath of new life. This new decade, and in particular the next four to
five years, will be a critical timeframe for Roscosmos. The retirement of the American fleet of space shuttles will leave a void, and Russia can use this opportunity to step up and take a leading role in the international space arena, not to mention the profits they will rake in by monopolizing the market for near-Earth space travel. That is not to say that Russia should simply use this time to capitalize on the favorable supply/demand situation, but use it wisely to invest back into their rocket-space industry and build partnerships with up-and-coming space powers such as India and China so as to aid research and development and remain competitive for the future. The completion of GLONASS by the end of 2011 is certainly as symbolic an accomplishment as it is a strategic one for Russia, and though they have restored some of their lost grandeur, Roscosmos still has a lot to prove. But Russias space program is surely on its
way forward as true pioneers of mankinds final frontier.
Russian modernization key to Russian Economy CD 10 Institute of Contemporary Development, 2010, Information Technology and Russia's Future,
online: <http://www.riocenter.ru/en/_priorities/competitive_economy>
Russias extremely strong economic growth is one of the countrys recent major accomplishments. Undoubtedly, the natural resources sector has played a significant role in this achievement. However, economic growth based solely on the natural resources sector is neither sufficient nor sustainable. We are entering the era of the global information society, where knowledge is the core resource and mechanism of accelerated development. Russias continued economic growth will depend on the
successful development of the innovative industries of the nations economy, particularly innovative infrastructure. The advanced development of high-tech industries, including the Information and Communication Technology Sector (ICT), is also a key condition for a strong and growing economy. In
most developed countries, ICT represents 8-12% of a countrys GDP and is one of the leading sectors in terms of capitalization of the global economy. This sectors role will only strengthen with time. Alongside oil & gas, Russias ICT is one of the two drivers of economic development. Since 2000, this sector has developed four times faster than the average performance of the Russian economy. ICT has demonstrated rapid, steady and stable growth in all of its segments. The
[Name]
implementation of a number of key national projects and other large-scale government programs will also encourage the development of innovative industries.
Russian econ decline leads to Russia-Sino War TRENIN 2 (Dmitri, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Former
Russian Officer, After Eurasia, pp 308-309) Usually, there is no shortage of dire predictions concerning Russias ultimate fate. In a characteristic exchange of views on the eve of the year 2000, a prominent Russian intellectual predicted Russias disintegration within 10 to 15 years. His European counterparts vision of Russia was that of Muscovy west of the Urals, with Siberia under Chinese control. The American scholar limited himself to the vision of a Sino-Russian war.11 If a doomsday scenario were to become a reality, this would be the result of a major economic catastrophe. If Russia became a loose confederation, its borderlands would gravitate in different directions, and governing Russia would require the art of managing these very different orientations. In other words, Russia would still join the world, but it would do so in less than one piece.\
[Name]
1NC- RUSSIA-US RELATIONS

US- Russia relations high now, but its tenuous
Washington Post, 1/21. [Russia's Ryabkov on U.S.-Russia relations: 'We can offer tangible results, and we will do more in the future' Washington Post < http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013105212.html>]
One of Ryabkov's areas of responsibility is security, and in that role he had just attended a meeting of a working group on arms control and international security of the so-called U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission, set up in 2009 by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. With both nations' legislatures having approved the new Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty, talks already have begun on the "complicated agenda" for what comes next, he said. While U.S. officials have focused publicly on a nuclear treaty that would cover reducing the numbers of not just
strategic arms but also shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons, Ryabkov talked first about turning to the control of conventional arms in Europe and reaching some predictability of forces on the continent. He said shaping the military relationships
on the ground, where Russia has vastly fewer troops and less equipment, would relate to the future of nuclear disarmament. He talked about the difficulty of finding the correct "platform" for any future agreements, saying that weapons in outer space, non-nuclear strategic weapons, other nuclear nations and missile defenses also have to be considered. He explained Moscow's concerns about missile defenses, which drew much attention during the U.S. Senate debate on the START agreement. For years, Ryabkov said, the U.S. and Russia had discussed putting together a joint threat assessment of missile and nuclear threats. He concluded that it cannot be done. A stumbling block has been whether the U.S. development of missile-defense capabilities "would eventually be used in a way to affect the nuclear posture of the Russian Federation," he said. The U.S. always said no, but the Russian answer was "probably yes," in a way that "may endanger our nuclear forces," he added. The situation is different when it
comes to cooperation on theater missile defense, and the presidential commission working group discussed this in its recent meeting, he said. Discussing the "reset" with the Obama administration, Ryabkov said, "We think
that this administration . . . has been very frank with us about its own views," even when talking about Russian domestic activities.
US SMD hurts US-Russia relations WPR, 10. (Jason Wood, journalist for the World Politics Review. The U.S.-Russia Space Relationship
and Future Space Security http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/7300/the-u-s-russia-spacerelationship-and-future-space-security] Second, any future expansion of U.S. or NATO missile-defense capabilities will meet significant Russian objections. In the event that these objections precipitate or give way to substantive accommodations or cooperation on missile-defense architecture, both states will necessarily have to collaborate on the development, testing, deployment and networking of space-based sensors and communications nodes. This collaboration cannot take place between adversaries. Third, the U.S. and Russia have everything to lose from adversarial relations in space. Any exoatmospheric engagement or attempt at interference would place substantial on-orbit assets at risk , regardless of who "shot" first. For the U.S. in particular, these costs would extend beyond the military and intelligence realms, given the U.S. economy's reliance on space for communications, data processing and navigation. Reminiscent of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, the U.S. and Russia cannot be certain that an attack on an adversary's space assets will not have a similarly devastating impact on one's own systems. The indiscriminate nature of space debris and electromagnetic fields, combined with the potential for escalation, greatly complicates the rationale of space conflict. Now and in the future, the costs of an adversarial U.S.-Russia space relationship will grossly outweigh any perceived benefit.
[Name]
Relations access warming and turn case Graham 8 (Thomas Graham, foreign service officer on academic leave with RAND in Moscow from
1997 to 1998. He previously had several assignments in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, including head of the Political/Internal Unit and acting political counselor. Between tours in Moscow, he worked on Russian/Soviet affairs as a member of the policy planning staff of the State Department and as a policy assistant in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Mr. Graham has a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard University and a B.A. in Russian studies from Yale University. July 2008 http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/080717_graham_u.s.russia.pdf, AD: 9/22/10)
What trends? Simply put the world has entered a period of great flux and upheaval of uncertain duration. We are witnessing an historic shift in global dynamism from Europe to the Asia-Pacific region, initially in the economic realm but one that will eventually reorder the geopolitical realm. The Middle East - Or more broadly the muslim world - is engaged in an epic battle between tradition and modernization that jeopardizes global energy security. Although the nation-state, the fundamental unit of the international system since the Westphalian peace of 1648, is thriving in East Asia and the United States, it is under mounting strain as Europe seeks to create a supranational structure and artificial states in the Middle East begin to break down along sectarian and ethnic lines. Globalization has fueled an unprecedented period of economic growth around the world while unleashing the forces of disorder - terrorism, transnational organizations to manage - global warming, pandemic disease, proliferation of the materials and know-how to build weapons of mass destruction. With the economic growth has come an historic transfer of wealth from the West to energy exporters, such as Russia, and rising manufacturing powers, such as China. In this uncertain world, the United States and Russia are not strategic rivals, and neither poses a strategic threat to the other (despite some overwrought Russian rhetoric to the contrary), in contrast to the situation during the Cold War. Rather, they share a set of common strategic challenges. Russia, by virtue of its geographic location, and the United States, by virtue of its global role, must build new relationships with a Europe that is expanding and deepening they both must find a way to cope with growing instability in the Middle East, the challenge to energy security that implies, and, at least for Russia, the threat that that instability will infect Russia's southern reaches; and they both must manage relations with a rising China. In addition, both countries must deal with the dark side of globalization, and both have a keen interest in the role and effectiveness of the institutions of global government, such as the United Nations and the G-8, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Common challenges, however, are not the same as common interests. And there are deep differences in the way the United States and Russia think of global order (consider, for example, the role of democracy or the United Nations). But the question of each country needs to ask is how important the other is to achieving its own strategic goals. For example: Given their standing as the world's two leading nuclear powers, the United States and Russia are each indispensable to dealing with the problems of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear terrorism, and strategic stability. The United States, as the
world's largest energy consumer, and Russia, as the largest producer of hydrocarbons, are essential to any discussion of energy security and energy's future. Global economic dynamics and transfers
of wealth will require bringing Russia, along with China, India, and others, into a more central role in managing the global economy, a service long performed by Europe and the United Stats. In East Asia, to create a favorable new equilibrium, Russia has an interest in a strong power - that is, the United States - acting as a moderating
influence on China, and the United States has no interest in a weakening Russian presence in Siberia and the Russian Far East, regions rich in the natural resources that fuel modern economies. In the Middle East, both the United States and Russia have levers that could help promote stability, if the two countries were working in concert, or fuel conflict, if they were not . In Europe, Russian energy is critical to economic well-being, and the United States remains essential to security and stability. On a range of other issues - for example, civil nuclear energy, pandemic disease, and climate change each country is capable of making a major contribution, given the vast scientific talent of each . In
the former Soviet space, both countries will be critical to building lasting security and economic structures.
Extinction Tickel 8 (Oliver, , Climate Researcher. The Gaurdian, 8-11-2008 ,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland . The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This
[Name]
is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks , notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea,
and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the
atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
[Name]
1NC- RUSSIA BMD

Russia sphere of influence growing now due to the space program Zak, 08. [Anthony, editor of Russian Space Web. Russian Space Prgram: A Decade Review (20002010] Russian Space Web. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/russia_2000_2010.html] In May 2001, a respectable American magazine published an apocalyptic prophesy entitled "Russia is Finished." Intellectualizing the conventional wisdom of the 1990s, the article confidently promised "the unstoppable descent of a once great power into social catastrophe and strategic irrelevance." Little did the editors of the publication know that just a few months later, the only remaining superpower would be hit with the worst terrorist attack in its history, dragging its government into a protracted and costly conflict across the world. One of the unintended consequences of the post-September 11 global instability, combined with economic boom in Asia, became soaring oil prices, which quickly turned Russia's natural resources-driven economy from bust to boom. With the Kremlin coffers full with oil revenues, the Russian government managed not simply to postpone a "social catastrophe," but to take steps to reverse its "strategic irrelevance." On the international stage, Russian President Vladimir Putin made his official doctrine the creation of a "multi-polar world," which would challenge America's military and economic dominance. By the end of his two terms in office, President Putin consolidated so much power in his hands that he could make his old secret service bosses red with envy. Putin promised to use his new financial and political muscle to repair Russia's battered economy and military might. In 2006, Russian military spending approached 600 billion rubles, or double of its annual budget in 2000. By the
end of 2007, a Russian aircraft carrier group was heading back on patrol of the high seas, in a rare show of military power since the end of the Cold War. Strategic bombers, land- and submarine-based ballistic missiles resumed regular doomsday rehearsal missions. Oil money also started trickling down into the previously underfunded space industry. To the delight of Russian space officials, increased funding was accompanied by President Putin's declaration
that "...without astronautics, Russia can not compete for one of the leading positions in the world's civilization, and will not be able to provide its defense at a necessary level." (270) To restore
Russian presence beyond Earth, the Putin administration started drafting the nation's long-term space strategy. On October 22, 2005, the Russian government signed a decree No. 635, approving Federal Space Program for 2006-2015 and worth 305 billion rubles. (299) The industry was directed to propose its projects and plan its activities in the timeframe of a two-phase Federal Space Program, FKP: Short-term projects and goals until 2015-2020 Long-term projects planning for the period 2020-2040 The Russian space budget continued growing during the 2000s, almost doubling by 2009. Manned space flight Unlike in the 1990s,
cooperation with NASA was no longer a centerpiece of Russia's manned space program, reflecting the new political climate in the first years of the 21st century. Although the two space agencies were
continuing working closely on the construction of the International Space Station, the program was increasingly becoming a lone outpost of cooperation in the sea of unraveling hopes. America's bullish moves to stretch NATO toward Russian borders and hastily deploy a missile defense system in Europe pushed relations between the two countries, in the words of one American diplomat, "from bad to worse." On Feb. 10, 2007, at a major security conference in Munich, Germany, President Putin accused the United States of provoking a new nuclear arms race among other sins. Western pundits talked of a new cold war, while state-controlled Russian TV was full of paranoia about Western conspiracies to weaken Russia. In
such a climate, on both sides, rational ideas of building a common future for the world community were being replaced by chauvinistic urges for global economic domination and international prestige. At the beginning of 2004, NASA essentially declared its intention to divorce from Russia and Europe with its decision to withdraw from the International Space Station program and aim for the Moon instead. Unlike the ISS,
all the crucial elements of the future American lunar infrastructure would be built domestically, with no reliance on foreign contributions or major overseas contractors. Moon race: round two Although officially NASA left the door open to international participation in the lunar program, America's partners were left to decide for themselves about new directions in space. As rising giants of Asia -- China and India -- made their intentions for exploring the Moon
loud and clear, Russia and Europe could hardly afford to stay on the sidelines of what increasingly resembled a new moon race. Not coincidently, during 2005 and 2006, the Russian space agency and its
European partners rejected a proposal from the industry to build a new-generation reusable spacecraft, which would be best suited for operations in the low-Earth orbit. The idea of a new all-Russian space station fielded around the same time did get some traction as a possible foundation for lunar and martian exploration, but only as a secondary goal. Instead, both Russian and European space officials favored the concept of a lunar-oriented project, known as ACTS. To be developed cooperatively in Europe and Russia, the future program would include a new spacecraft capable of entering lunar orbit and, eventually, a lunar lander designed to deliver humans on the surface of the Moon. Unlike the United States, Europe represented a natural partner for Russia, since the two sides have been closely involved in every aspect of economic cooperation from energy to aviation for more than a decade. During the first years of the 21st century, Russia's chief spacecraft developer, RKK Energia, served as a major contractor in the development of the European ATV cargo ship, designed to resupply the ISS.
10
[Name]
New BMD hurts arms control between the US and Russia Ford, 10. [Christopher, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Technology and Global Security at
the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. Previously, he served as U.S. Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, and General Counsel to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. A graduate of Harvard College, Oxford University (as a Rhodes Scholar), and Yale Law School. New START and Missile Defense New Paradigms Forum. < http://www.newparadigmsforum.com/NPFtestsite/?p=387>] It is certainly clear enough that Moscow approaches BMD issues with a considerable degree of paranoia, viewing any U.S. capability to intercept ICBMs very negatively that is, with something between bitter distaste and outright alarm and regarding [t]he development of missile defense [as being] aimed against the Russian Federation. Even the most optimistic American assessment of the new treatys impact on BMD, therefore, must anticipate that if we contemplate additional deployments of any significance, Russia will not be particularly shy about using every lever available to slow or prevent such developments, including threatening to abandon strategic arms control with the United States.
No limits on their arsenals make conflict inevitable Collins 9 (James, Director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, and US Ambassador, A Chance for a Nuclear-Free World, Foreign Policy, 7/6, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=23356, AD: 2/8/10)
Two decades later, as U.S. President Barack Obama meets in Moscow with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the agenda is similarly crowded, with concerns ranging from logistics in Afghanistan to the status of Russia's satellite states. But as the Obama administration seeks a complete reset of the U.S.-Russia relationship,
progress on nuclear weapons must still be the top priority. The political environment on disarmament and nonproliferation has changed drastically in recent months. Both countries have agreed in principle to work toward a world free of nuclear weapons. Talks to create a disarmament mechanism to replace the expiring Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) are well underway. For the first time in many years, it seems likely that the United States and Russia will make dramatic moves toward fulfilling their Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) disarmament obligations. Improved U.S.-Russian cooperation would be generally beneficial on a range of problems. But on no other issue does so much depend on the agreements reached by just two countries. Combined, the United States and Russia account for more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons. If the two countries do not come to a strong and bold new agreement, then there will be no disarmament. Nor will there be any real chance to preserve and strengthen the NPT. It is that simple. Some will say that arms-control treaties
are relics of the Cold War, but a new agreement can help us define the future. The successor to START need not be about control, but instead can focus on collaboration. The strategic purpose of the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals has evolved over the last two decades. The two countries no longer stand unblinking on opposite sides of the ocean, facing
each other down with the threat of mutually assured destruction. Today, both sides can approach disarmament as a cooperative global exercise with mutually beneficial outcomes. If START expires in
December without a successor, there will be no agreed legal mechanism for controlling nuclear arsenals on both sides. This would be far more costly and dangerous for the United States than any cuts in its own nuclear arsenal. The 2002 Treaty of Moscow (SORT) will remain in force, but it is not an adequate replacement since it has no verification mechanisms and can be easily ignored by both parties. Disarmament is an exercise that is too complicated to occur on its own without a
formal agreement. Uncertainty breeds mistrust, which neither the United States nor Russia can afford right now. The absence of a formal agreement may not result in a new arms race, but even the specter of such a possibility is enough to make achieving other goals that much more difficult.
War with Russia ieads to extinction Bostrom 2 (Nick, Ph.D. Philosophy. Journal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 9, http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html) A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with
11
[Name]
consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and termina l. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization. Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankinds potential permanently.
12
[Name]
*2NC UNIQUENESS*
13
[Name]
UQ: RUSSIA AEROSPACE

Russian aerospace technology is competitive nowAmerican export controls make them especially lucrative Hennigan 6/15 (W.J. Hennigan, aerospace writer for the LA Times, U.S. arms makers look overseas as domestic demand
shrinks , http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/15/business/la-fi-weapon-exports-20110616/2, AM)
Although U.S. military technology is widely viewed as cream of the crop, it does not always win lucrative contracts overseas. In April, India announced its short list of bidders for about $10 billion in fighter jets, which bypassed American firms in favor of European ones. France makes sought-after fighter jets. Britain is a leading tank builder, and Russia's airplanes, cargo carriers, missiles and bombs have long been tough competition worldwide. At next week's Paris Air Show, one of the largest aerospace showcases, arms makers worldwide will compete to win some of the biggest foreign military deals. The Obama administration has embarked on an initiative to reform export control that will roll back many of the restrictions on the way weapons are sold to foreign countries. Northrop , which specializes in systems such as drones and cyber security, is supporting the change, saying it will help U.S. companies win contracts. "We have been
so focused on protecting our technological edge that we have actually done severe and unnecessary damage to our defense industrial base," Northrop Chief Executive Wesley G. Bush said at a recent conference in London. "To the credit of President Obama's administration," he said, "the U.S. has finally started serious attempts to reform the laws and regulations governing our export control."
Russia is eating up market share nowParis air show proves Gleeson 6/22 (Bill, writer for the Liverpool Daily Post, Russia and China pose new threat to planemakers,
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/ldpbusiness/business-local/2011/06/22/russia-and-china-pose-new-threat-to-planemakers92534-28918003/, AM)
RYANAIR yesterday signed a memorandum of understanding with Chinese planemaker COMAC that covers the development of a medium- sized airliner over the next seven years. The new plane would potentially represent an alternative to Ryanairs traditionally favoured Boeings. Whether this memorandum amounts to much is a moot point. Many in the aviation industry see it as nothing more than the usual bluster that comes
out of Dublin when Ryanair isnt getting its own way. The deal with COMAC needs to be seen in the context of Ryanairs failure to screw down the price of Boeings or Airbus planes. On the other hand, it may turn out the memorandum represents the start of a new era in the civil aerospace market. To date, airlines have been restricted to a simple choice between buying from Americas Boeing or Europes Airbus. A third manufacturer would significantly change the market place and in particular give airlines greater power when it comes to haggling over price. Nor might it end there.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was at the Paris airshow yesterday, raising the possibility that his country might also enter the fray. State-owned United Aircraft Corp, which owns Sukhoi, believes it can become a serious force in the commercial market by 2025, pinning its hopes on its mid-sized MS-21/MC21 airliner. That could create a fourth player in the plane manufacturing market, resulting in genuine competition from economies that are able to utilise much cheaper labour than is available in Europe and the US. Europes and Americas ascendancy in this market may be coming to an end.
Russian space spending increasing now GPSworld 5/3 (Online science news website, Putin Replaces Head of Russian Space Agency, Says Space a Priority,
http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/glonass/news/putin-replaces-head-russian-space-agency-says-space-a-priority-11579, AM)
About 153 billion rubles will be allocated to the national rocket and space industry this year, which is 30 percent more than in 2010, Putin said, adding that the branch has shown a 18 percent growth even despite the consequences of the global financial crisis. "We have the absolute competitive advantage in rocket engineering, many of our partners lag behind us, but in several spheres we have to catch up." The Russian defense industry complex is globally competitive , the premier added.
Russian aerospace functioning on all cylinders nowaerospace moves prove RT 10 (Russian Times, Revitalizing Russias aviation industry , http://rt.com/news/russia-aviation-industry-sukhoi/, AM)
Just ten years ago Russias aviation industry was all but grounded, but in the past five years the state has increased funding twenty times. Russian aviation industry is being cleared for take-off once again. In the
14
[Name]
beginning of this decade, Russias civil aircraft production had had its wings clipped so much that no more than a dozen or so planes limped off the production lines each year a far cry from the heady heights of the USSR, when Soviet jets thrust for dominance in the skies against Boeings and Airbuses, making up a quarter of the worlds fleet. In 2006, the Russian
government decided to do something about this jet lag and created the United Aircraft Corporation, or UAC, consolidating aircraft construction companies and state assets in the industry. Today, Russian plane-makers even say they are ready to eat into the lucrative market of the world leaders, Airbus and Boeing. Our main problem is that we have fallen terrifyingly behind in terms of
technology, admits UAC President Aleksey Fedorov, all our enterprises especially aircraft manufacturers and designers need to be massively re-equipped with the very latest equipment. That will take a lot of investment and we hope with the help of the state well make that break-through that will allow us to compete with the worlds leading producers. And while a brand spanking new range of all-singing, all-dancing Russian-made passenger jets is still far from taking off, there's much hope on the horizon.
Despite many problems, those dealing with them on the ground are convinced the lowest point of the crisis has already passed, and they believe theres a bright future for the Russian aviation industry. The Sukhoi Superjet-100 is Russias first post-Soviet middle-range passenger jet. Sukhois chief-pilot Aleksandr
Yablontsev, who with more than 30 years of experience, was the man at the controls on its maiden flight. He speaks of it with fondness and it seems he's not the only one. 120 orders have already been made for the new bird, and the first planes are expected to be handed over by the end of the year. We have tried to compile all the best things in this piece of machinery and I can see it coming out well. I have experience of flying similar types of planes in Russia and abroad, so I can compare, assures Yablontsev, and it shows me the Superjet is a great result. The quality is very good. It also makes me believe in our designers and others working in the industry. The Superjet is just the beginning though. For the UAC, bigger appears to be
better, and it's setting its sights on the much more lucrative mid-range jet market- and flying the Russian industry right into the heart of Boeing and Airbuses main territory. Depending on how Russias
economy recovers, I think well be able to produce competitive products by around 2015-16, forecasts Oleg Panteleyev of Aviaport. By 2017 at the latest, well definitely have the next fully-competitive product laying claim to one of the broadest market segments that's a mid-range jet with a capacity of 150-212 passengers. So after a turbulent few years, Russia's aviation
industry appears to have cleared the storms created by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and will be hoping it has the products that'll fly in the fleets of airlines around the world.
Industry viable now Bloomberg 4/5 (Financial News Service, Russia Speeds Up Space Mission Plans as U.S. May Cut Spending
, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/russia-speeds-up-moon-mars-plans-as-u-s-may-cut-space-funds.html, AM)
Russia may accelerate planned missions to the moon and Mars as it seeks to maintain its lead over China in space exploration and close the gap with the U.S. Russia may start manned flights to the moon
by the end of the decade, 10 years earlier than previously planned, and establish a base there by 2030, according to Russias Roscosmos space agency. Russia may also send a man to Mars by 2040. It is the first time that the government has allocated decent financing to us, Anatoly Perminov, head of the Russian space agency Roscosmos, said in a phone interview on April 2. The agencys $3.5 billion budget for 2011 has almost tripled since 2007, reaching the highest since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. We can now advance on all themes a bit, Perminov said. Unlike 50 years ago, when beating the U.S. into space marked a geopolitical victory in the Cold War, Russia is focusing on the commercial, technological and scientific aspects of space travel . President Dmitry Medvedev has named aerospace one of five industries the government plans to nurture to help diversify the economy of the worlds largest energy supplier away from resource extraction. We are increasing the space budget as the time has come for a technological breakthrough,Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman for Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, said by phone yesterday.
We need to replace outdated infrastructure and continue to support the flagship status of the space industry.
Space sector solid now Kislyakov 12/19 (Andrei, writer for Voice of Russia, New impulse to Russian space rockets
, http://english.ruvr.ru/radio_broadcast/36564197/37256125.html, AM)
Russias space industry is ending the year without mishaps . Although old headaches and problems are still there, things have not changed for the worse, and, in our troubled times, that is quite an achievement. Despite the crisis , Russia is leading the world in rocket launches. Russia made 27 launches in 2008, one more than in 2007 and 32 launches last year caring into orbit 29 domestic and 20 foreign payloads. This is a post-Soviet record. The Americans dropped markedly behind, with 14 launches, including one unsuccessful attempt, the Falcon-1. In January to October this year, 85 satellites were injected into space, with the largest number, 35, launched by Russia. In this case, however, it acted as a traditional freighter and orbited more foreign satellites than its own. Unfortunately,
in spite of the fact that Russia leads the world in rocket launches, it is still using technology created fifty years ago. Its rockets are robust, but, there is a limit to everything. It seems it is time to roll out new launch vehicles. At the same time, it is hard to
disagree with the Russian Space Agency (Roscosmos) that launch services require high technologies, of the same type that are used to develop nano-products, and Roscosmos is
15
[Name]
determined to stay ahead despite the global crisis. It is common wisdom that most efforts are needed where success
is assured. Russias space navigation system - Glonass is a nice example of that. Its 26 satellites are to be joined by three more by the end of the year covering all of Russia. Good progress was reported on the ground. The terrestrial
infrastructure for space monitoring has been improved and space findings are being used with greater effectiveness. It is also gratifying that college and university students are actively joining the effort. In 2008, three
Russian universities, the Siberian and Southern Federal universities and Tyumen State University, set up space monitoring centers. The technologies they are using were developed in Russia by the Scan X Engineering Technology Center. The centers serve to observe the environment in Russias regions from space. But, to be effective, they need a large number of remote-
sensing satellites, which are unfortunately lacking. However, next years plans include launching more Earth and weather satellites. If everything goes well, Russia will acquire its own constellation of weather satellites by 2013. Given a large and upgraded fleet of rockets and spacecraft of all types, Russia may become the absolute space leader at the beginning. To achieve this, the Russian government promised to replace
its key space assets, inherited from the former USSR, with a brand-new triad of space infrastructure for the 21st century. In addition to a next-generation manned spaceship, Russia committed to build a new launch site and a fleet of rockets with a wide range of capabilities. By the end of 2007, we had made the potentially momentous decision to develop a new launch facility for manned missions in the nation's Far East. On November 6 that year, President Putin signed a decree
on the creation of the Vostochny ("Eastern") launch site in the Russian Far East. When built, the new launch site would mark a historic shift of the Russian manned space program from Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan to its own territory. From the moment the Soviet Union disintegrated in December
1991, Russian officials have promised to abandon Baikonur and shift operations to the existing launch site in Plesetsk and to a newly built facility in the Far East. However, the severe financial crisis of the 1990s stalled all these plans. More than a decade later, record-high oil prices allowed Moscow's ambitions in space be more realistic. The creation of the new launch site aimed to end Russian dependency on Kazakhstan, whose government charged multi-million-dollar annual fees for the rent of Baikonur. The price tag of the whole undertaking (apparently including the development of the launch site, a new family of launch vehicles and a next-generation spacecraft was estimated at $ 60 billion. "Are you kidding when talking about a new family of launch vehicles and spacecraft? you may ask. Not at all. The Energomash Science and Production Association has developed the new RD-191 rocket engine, meant to equip Angara advanced carrier rockets, ready for mass production. Why is this development unique? The high cost of putting a payload into space has always been a headache for
launch customers. Huge and expensive multistage rockets are burnt up in just one launch. For decades Russian and Western engine building specialists have been wrestling with the problem of developing a re-useable rocket engine which could be brought back to Earth for further use after having worked its portion of flight. The oxygen-kerosene RD-191 is a further development of the RD-170-180
family. RD-180s are exported to the United States, where they are widely used to equip American-made Atlas carrier rockets. The RD-191 is a highly versatile engine, capable of working in two modes, both as first-stage and second-stage engine. Russian engineers added a limited amount of hydrogen to the oxygen-kerosene fuel, and managed to achieve simultaneous and stable combustion of all the three components. The new engine was originally developed as a re-useable one. When other engines are used, the burnt-out stages fall down to Earth, posing a serious threat both to the ecology of the impact areas and people's lives. The RD's recoverability and repeated use will cut payload deployment costs several times over. To be fair, it should be said that the Americans were the first to demonstrate the feasibility of a re-useable liquid-fuel rocket engine. In the mid 1990's, a small Delta Clipper single-stage rocket lifted off the launch pad and successfully returned. However, the Americans decided to exploit their success, joining forces with Russia. Between 1994 and 1995, Energomash specialists worked on a joint program to develop a reuseable rocket engine. Soon, however, the U.S. abstained on accepting Russian services, and classified all work in the field. Boeing was working on a multi-billion dollar Space Launch Initiative program to develop an advanced re-usable launch vehicle. Simultaneously, NASA tendered development of a next generation re-useable carrier rocket. The
European Space Agency also tried to develop re-usable engines. However, neither NASA nor Europe seemed to have obtained any significant results. In the near future, Russia is likely to have a variety of Angara carrier rockets fitted with RD engines, capable of deploying payloads of between 1.5 and 30 tons in low earth orbit. Therefore, the global launch services market can count on Russia for the next few decades.
America already falling behind Russia in the international aerospace market Recent India deals prove IW 6/23 (Indian Weekender, Mother of All Deals,
http://www.indianweekender.co.nz/Pages/ArticleDetails/10/2430/India/Mother-of-all-deals, AM)
Billed as one of the largest defence deals ever globally, Indias planned purchase of 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) has entered the final phase of its selection procedure. The process had begun in 2005, with the Indian Air Force (IAF) issuing a request for information (RFI) for new jetfighters to replace the vintage Soviet-era MiG-21s that had been its mainstay since their induction in the early 80s. The present estimate of $10.4 billion is likely to escalate as the full scope of the warplane and its attendant services becomes clearer. The IAF is already hamstrung by a depleting fleet, having just 31 squadrons of serviceable
16
[Name]
aircraft that fall far short of its targeted 39. Bordering both Pakistan and China, India requires to build up its defences accordingly, to thwart a two-front assault if need be in the worst case scenario. Having embarked upon a military modernisation programme, this country of 1.2 billion is expected to spend more than $35 billion over the next five years on defence acquisitions. Indias blossoming ties with the United States formalised with the March 2006 signing of the bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement - brought in American firms Lockheed Martin, with its F-16IN Super Viper, and Boeing Integrated Defence Systems, with its F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, in response to the request for proposal (RFP) floated by the IAF in August 2007. The other four contenders were Frances Dassault Aviation, with its
offering of Rafale, Swedish aerospace company Saabs JAS-39 Gripen, European consortium Eurofighter GmbHs Typhoon and the Russian Mikoyan-Gurevich Corporations MiG-35. Recently, Indias Ministry of Defence (MoD), however, shortlisted or down selected - the 24.5-tonne Rafale and the 23.5-tonne Typhoon as finalists for the MMRCA sweepstakes . One of them will ultimately be awarded the contract by September. Analysts were perplexed by the Defence ministrys move, as they widely anticipated that the final decision would be a political one rather than one premised on military and security considerations. After all, New Delhis earnestness to repay Washington for its nuclear benevolence has already made the US Indias third largest defence supplier, after Russia and Israel. US firms have already won almost $8 billion in defence sales within the last four years, starting with the $50 million
transfer to the Indian Navy in June 2007 of the amphibious transport ship, INS Jalashwa, commissioned into the US Navy in 1971 as USS Trenton. Clouding the situation was American ambassador to India, Timothy Roemers, abrupt resignation the very next day after Lockheed and Boeing were eliminated from the competition . He had made an American choice a priority, especially in light of a letter US President Barack Obama had written to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that indicated that favouring Lockheed or Boeing would cement the Indo-US strategic partnership and be mutually beneficial in creating thousands of jobs in both the countries. Pentagon spokesperson, Col. Dave Lapan,
affirmed, We are deeply disappointed by this news, but we look forward to continuing to grow and develop our defence partnership with India. He was not off the mark. The Indian Parliaments Cabinet
Committee on Security (CCS), at a meeting chaired by the Prime Minister last week, cleared a $4.1 billion deal with Boeing for 10 C17 Globemaster-III giant strategic airlift aircraft for the IAF. The ultimate deal could be for 16 of them and would top $5.8 billion. The US itself - with the worlds largest defence budget, of $895 billion, compared to Indias $33 billion - finds these aircraft exorbitant ($200 million each, without spares and training) and has stopped its purchase. The deal with India will, however, save 23,000 American jobs, an aspect noted by Ambassador Roemer himself. Boeing will also be supplying eight P-8I long-range maritime patrol aircraft for the Indian Navy in a $2.1 billion deal signed in January 2009.
No room for transitionstatus quo powers dominate the market Bloomberg 6/22 (Financial News Service, Airbus, Boeing still rule at show; smaller rivals make little dent
, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2015398755_airshowduopoly23.html , AM)
The Airbus-Boeing airliner duopoly survived the Paris Air Show intact as challengers from Canada, China, Brazil and Russia offered little evidence they'll break the pair's stranglehold on single-aisle jets. Bombardier's CSeries won 30 orders from Korean Air Lines and an unnamed carrier before the program took a blow: Qatar
Airways shelved a deal and Republic Airways Holding of the U.S. bought Airbus's rival A320neo, casting doubt on a contract for 40 of the Montreal-based company's jets. Russia's SuperJet won a single 12-plane deal, while Brazilian
regional jet maker Embraer said it will wait for Boeing's next move in the narrowbody market before deciding whether to go ahead with a 150-seater. Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China's C919 may be most
likely to mount a challenge after enlisting Ryanair Holdings as a development partner, though the Irish discount carrier is also in talks with Boeing, and analysts said a deal for the Chinese model is unlikely. " Going up against Boeing and Airbus in
head-to-head competition is really tough, not only because of their size, but because of their existing product line and industrial capacity," Embraer Chief Executive Frederico Curado said in an interview in Paris. "They can have a very quick response and literally flood the market." All four contenders are seeking
a slice of the biggest part of a global airliner market estimated at $4 trillion over the next 20 years. Airbus' neo, already the European company's fastest-selling plane, won more than 300 orders during the first three days of the Paris show, bringing commitments since the jet's December launch to more than 600. Boeing, which says it will take the rest of the year to decide between re-engining and an all-new model, still clawed in 75 orders for the 737. Louis Gallois, CEO of Airbus parent European Aeronautic, Defence & Space, said at a briefing in Paris that he expects some of the new models in the 100-seat-plus sector to fail. "Can the market accept six single-aisle plane makers? I'm sure the smallest
will have to buckle," he said.
17
[Name]
UQ: RUSSIA SPACE

Russian space leadership high after US abandonment Interfax-AVN 10 corporate-owned Russian military news agency (2/3/2010, Russia's space
exploration plans won't change - agency chief, Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Lexis) MGM
Moscow, 2 February: The
head of Roskosmos [Russian Space Agency], Anatoliy Perminov, has said that the United States' abandonment of its lunar programme will not bring about changes to the Russian space policy. "Our programme for the near future did not include the development of lunar settlements. We need not be swaying from
side to side," Perminov said at the Security Technologies exhibition commenting on the latest space policy decisions by the US administration. The head of Roskosmos said that a number of decisions taken by the US president "fully coincide" with the Russian and European vision of the prospects for space activities. [The head of Roskosmos' manned programmes, Aleksey Krasnov, has said, as quoted by Interfax-AVN: "We need some time to understand what is happening in the USA. I think that all the partners will start thinking about it. Because this has once again confirmed that initiatives like the lunar programme initiative of Bush (former US President George Bush Jr - Interfax-AVN),
in terms of expenditures their implementation requires, are unmanageable even for an economy as developed as that of the USA. This is a very serious signal to everyone." US decision opportunity for Russia to become world leader in space exploration In the meantime, Yuriy Kara, corresponding member of Russia's Tsiolkovskiy Academy of Cosmonautics, has told Interfax-AVN that the US decision to scrap its lunar programme has presented Russia with an opportunity to become the world leader in manned space programmes: "I think that Russia is getting a fantastic carte blanche to pick up the banner of space leadership which is falling out of the hands of the United States." "Russia should focus its efforts on Mars and become not a relative but the absolute space leader," he said.]
Russias ahead in satellite launches INA 3/4 Interfax News Agency (3/4/2011, Russia did twice as many space launches as U.S. in 2010,
Russia & CIS Military Weekly, Lexis) MGM
MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russia has 114 satellites in orbit, Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said at the Monday meeting of the Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) Board. "Russia remains the leader in the number of space
launches. We performed 31 launches last year, while the United States, which ranked second, performed 16," he said. "Twenty-three satellites were put into orbit in 2010, and the orbiting cluster grew to 114 units of defense, civilian and dual use," Ivanov said. The development of prospective delivery vehicles has intensified. "First
and foremost, these are the Angara and Rus-M rockets. Land-based infrastructure is growing, too. I am implying the beginning of construction of the Vostochny spaceport," Ivanov said.
The US is ceding space to Russia now RIA Novosti 4/11 Russian and international news from the state news agency (4/11/2011, US
Leaves Space For Russia, http://www.spacetravel.com/reports/US_Leaves_Space_For_Russia_999.html) MGM By the end of this year, NASA will no longer be able to send humans into space. According to Barack Obama's plan, responsibility will go to private companies, which are expected to come up with cheaper ways to ferry
astronauts to low-Earth orbit. "They know they have a big step to take if they are going to put humans into space... They have a lot of work to do," says NASA Astronaut Sunita Williams. No one can say for sure when the private American
companies will come up with a new spaceship. For years to come, it will be the Russian Soyuz spacecraft, which is going to be the only means for people to reach the International Space Station, which is perfectly fine with the leaders of Russia and the US , but does not sit well with many
Americans.
Russia space leadership now Moon, ISS, Mars SRAS 10 The School of Russian and Asian Studies (2/10/2010, Russia May Become 'Absolute'
Leader in Space Exploration, http://www.sras.org/russia_may_become_absolute_leader_in_space_exploration) MGM
MOSCOW. Feb 2 (Interfax-AVN) - The
U.S. administration's decision to abandon ambitious space exploration programs, including a manned Lunar mission in 2020, is giving Russia a chance to strengthen its
18
[Name]
position in manned space flight projects, Yuri Kara, a member of Russia's Tsiolkovsky Cosmonautics Academy, told Interfax-AVN. "In my opinion, Russia has received an amazing carte blanche in order to take over the 'flag' of the leadership in space exploration from the United States," Kara said. On Monday, President Barack Obama announced in his 2011 budget request that he would cancel U.S. plans to send humans back to the moon, saying the project was too expensive. In the next 5-7 years, Russia will be the only country capable of delivering crewmembers to the International Space Station. But Russia should also start working on a manned mission to Mars, the expert said. "Today, Russia needs to focus its efforts on the Mars program. The time has come for it to become the absolute space leader," Kara said. In this case, "other states will join" space exploration projects implemented by Russia, he said. "I am not speaking about Russia's monopoly on this area. But it [Russia] has been playing a leading role and, consequently, it will be able to determine the configuration of the future Mars mission," he added.
Putin is committing to Russias space program now RIA Novosti 4/30 Russian and international news from the state news agency (4/30/2011, Putin
calls development of space industry Russia's top priority, http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110430/163794807.html) MGM Development and advancement of the national rocket and space industry is a priority for Russia, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Saturday. "From the perspective of the country's defensive capacity the rocket and space industry...is an absolute priority along with the nuclear industry and its military branch," Putin said during a meeting with scientists from Penza's Research Institute of Physical Measurements. About 153 billion rubles will be allocated to the national rocket and space industry this year, which is 30 percent higher than in 2010, Putin said, adding that the branch has shown a 18 percent growth even despite the consequences of the global financial crisis. "We have the absolute competitive advantage in rocket engineering, many of our partners lag behind us, but in several spheres we have to catch up." On the whole, the Russian defense industry complex is globally competitive, the premier added.
Russia is regaining leadership in space HUFFPOST 4-10-2011 (Russia Plans Space Program Expansion And Moon Base By 2030: Reports,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/10/russia-space-program-expansion-_n_846702.html)
Russia is planning a massive increase in its space launches and may even build a base on the moon as part of a manned mission to Mars in the next two decades, according to reports. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Thursday that his country's plans go well beyond transporting crews to the International Space Station. With a 2010-2011 space budget estimated at 200 billion rubles ($7.09 billion), Russia is the world's fourth-largest spender on space after U.S. space agency NASA, the European Space Agency and France, Reuters reports. "Russia should not limit itself to the role of an international space ferryman. We need to increase our presence on the global space market," Putin is quoted as having said at his residence outside Moscow. The meeting was planned specifically to coincide with the 50th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's pioneering space flight. Other reports cite official documents which claim a manned Russian mission to Mars could be possible in 2030 following the creation of a moon base. "Above all, we are talking about flights to
the moon and the creation of a base close to its north pole where there is likely to be a source of water," read one of the documents, according to the Telegraph. Russian
scientists are also said to have touted the moon as a potential source of energy, saying it contains large reserves of helium 3, a sought-after isotope that may be the key to a new way of generating power.
Russia is regaining leadership in space DEUTSCHE WELLE 2010 (Russian space program on the rise, Nov 3, http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,6185232,00.html)
The Russian space industry, which had become a shadow of itself after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is once again enjoying state support. The government has increased spending on the space industry by 40 percent for each of the past five years. In 2009, it received a record $2.8 billion . Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin also confirmed this fall that Russia's new $800 million Vostochny cosmodorome in the country's Far East should be up and running by 2015. "I must say that the construction of the new space center, commissioned in 2007, is one of the biggest and most ambitious initiatives in Russia today," he said in a speech earlier this year. "Not only will it confirm Russia's status as a technological leader and boost its potential in science and technology, but, just as importantly, it will allow hundreds, if not thousands, of young specialists to prove themselves, to show their talent, and to make their most ambitious plans come true ."
19
[Name]
Russia is emerging as a space power US relies on Russian spaceflight capabilities Belfiore 10/1/09 [Michael, writer for Popular Mechanics, International Space Dominance,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/4307281] Six private cosmonauts have paid tens of millions of dollars each for rides on Russian Soyuz ships, and the demand is now so great that the Russian space agency plans to launch the first mission dedicated to paying passengers next year. Russia seems to have found its niche, serving the emerging commercial spaceflight industry--including selling rides to NASA's astronauts. It has even approved plans to send a manned commercial mission to the moon-if only two passengers will step up with $100 million each for tickets.
US is falling behind in space other nations are expanding Kaufman 7/9/08 [Marc, Washington Post staff writer, US Finds Out its Crowded out There,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070803185.html?sid=ST2008070900751] Space, like Earth below, is globalizing. And as it does, America's long-held superiority in exploring, exploiting and commercializing "the final frontier" is slipping away, many experts believe. Although the United States remains dominant in most space-related fields -- and owns half the military satellites currently orbiting Earth -- experts say the nation's superiority is diminishing, and many other nations are expanding their civilian and commercial space capabilities at a far faster pace.
Limited public interest in space exploration for the US compared to other states Kaufman 7/9/08 [Marc, Washington Post staff writer, US Finds Out its Crowded out There,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070803185.html?sid=ST2008070900751] At the same time, the enthusiasm for space ventures voiced by Europeans and Asians contrasts with America's lukewarm public response to the moon-Mars mission. In its assessment, Futron listed the most significant U.S. space weakness as "limited public interest in space activity"
US space infrastructure and leadership are in a worse condition now than a decade ago Armor 3/18/09 [James, Director of National Space Security, Testimony of James B. Armor before
Strategic Forces Subcommittee, http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/SF031809/Armor_Testimony031809.pdf] While the U.S. currently leads the world in space, there are numerous problems other than simple security threats that jeopardize our continued leadership. We face near-term mission gaps in important space capabilities, our space industry and workforce is losing its competitive edge, our engagement and influence in international space activities has declined, and there is widespread program overreach that is, there are more government space programs than the federal budget can support. In many respects, all of the nation's space sectors commercial, civil, defense, and intelligence are in worse condition today than they were a decade or more ago. To the point, as our security and well-being has grown more reliant on space capabilities they have become increasingly vulnerable to breakdown, disruption and attack. It is with this heightened sense of urgency that I now return to today's timely and vital discussion about space security. Let me address each of the three main questions.
20
[Name]
UQ: RUSSIA INFLUENCE

Last US space launch means Russia will rule space Harwood 7/6/11 [William, writer for Spaceflight, US must Rely on Russians for Access to Space,
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts135/110706preview/index3.html] "Some say that our final shuttle mission will mark the end of America's 50 years of dominance in human spaceflight," Bolden said in a recent speech. "As a former astronaut and the current NASA administrator, I want to tell you that American leadership in space will continue for at least the next half-century because we have laid the foundation for success -- and here at NASA, failure is not an option." The man who made that last line famous, in the movie "Apollo 13" if not in reality, was Gene Kranz, the legendary fight director who helped guide Apollo 11 to the moon in 1969, who orchestrated the Apollo 13 rescue and who ran mission operations during the early years of the shuttle program. "The challenge of space is not in building the space systems, it is in building the space team," Kranz told CBS News in an email exchange. "With the termination of shuttle operations the NASA and contractor work force that took a decade to build and mature is being destroyed. Now, with inept national and space leadership, we stand with both feet firmly planted on the ground. Our nation has surrendered the high ground that the NASA space team captured July 20, 1969."
Russia in charge of US spaceflight operations perceived as space leader Harwood 7/6/11 [William, writer for Spaceflight, US must Rely on Russians for Access to Space,
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts135/110706preview/index3.html] But reliance on NASA's former Cold War rival has been a particularly bitter pill to swallow for many at NASA, forced to retire the most sophisticated manned spacecraft ever built before a U.S. replacement is available. Equally devastating, in the eyes of many, is the loss of manned spaceflight experience as thousands of highly skilled aerospace jobs are eliminated.
Status quo decline of American space programs is allowing the Russian aerospace industry to assume leadership SRAS 10 (2/10/10, School of Russian and Asian Studies, think tank composed of a team of consultants and advisers
dedicated to education and educational opportunities in Russia and Eurasia. They have studied within the Russian educational system and have worked closely with institutions for several years to identify programs of interest and value to international students, Russia May Become 'Absolute' Leader in Space Exploration, http://www.sras.org/russia_may_become_absolute_leader_in_space_exploration DH)
The U.S. administration's decision to abandon ambitious space exploration programs , including a manned Lunar mission in 2020, is giving Russia a chance to strengthen its position in manned space flight projects, Yuri Kara, a member of Russia's Tsiolkovsky Cosmonautics Academy, told Interfax-AVN. "In my opinion, Russia has received an amazing carte blanche in order to take over the 'flag' of the leadership in space exploration from the United States," Kara said. On Monday, President Barack Obama announced in his 2011 budget request that he would cancel U.S. plans to send humans back to the moon, saying the project was too expensive. In the next 5-7 years, Russia will be the only country capable of delivering
crewmembers to the International Space Station. But Russia should also start working on a manned mission to Mars, the expert said. "Today, Russia needs to focus its efforts on the Mars program. The time has come for it to become the absolute space leader," Kara said. In this case, "other states will join" space exploration projects implemented by Russia, he said. "I am not speaking about Russia's monopoly on this area. But it [Russia]
has been playing a leading role and, consequently, it will be able to determine the configuration of the future Mars mission," he added.
21
[Name]
Russian sphere of influence low now, but they want to expand without the US intervening Kyrgyzstan conflict proves Sestanovich 6-23-10 (Stephen, Writer for the Council on Foreign Relations, Why Russia Didnt Act,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/22503/why_russia_didnt_act.html?breadcrumb=/publication/by_type/region_issue_brief)
As the killing in Kyrgyzstan escalated, some American analysts feared that Moscow saw disorder there as a chance to throw its weight around in its own neighborhood. There can be little doubt that Russia wants to create a sphere of influence, but in this case that goal was better advanced by passivity than by activism. Intervening in Kyrgyzstan would, as a practical matter, have required a great deal of international coordination and approval. And that--above all, when the states of the former Soviet Union are involved--is something Russian policymakers still have trouble with. It's for
this reason--limiting the role of outsiders, whatever the human cost--that Russia has long blocked efforts to expand the peacekeeping role of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). For years it has professed
support for the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan, but without ever supporting its obvious prerequisite, U.S. access to Central Asian airbases. (Just last week, Medvedev repeated that use of the airfield in Manas must not continue indefinitely.) Given this record, it was no surprise that Russian diplomats also dragged their feet in letting the UN Security Council even issue statements on events in Kyrgyzstan.
Russia wants to expand its sphere of influence now Kyrgyzstan proves Sestanovich 6-23-10 (Stephen, Writer for the Council on Foreign Relations, Why Russia Didnt Act,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/22503/why_russia_didnt_act.html?breadcrumb=/publication/by_type/region_issue_brief)
Russia's nonintervention in Kyrgyzstan earlier this month is a good example that should be on the minds of U.S. policymakers when Presidents Obama and Medvedev meet on June 24. Some of Russia's reasons for not acting were reassuring, others less so. Ethnic cleansing and mass disorder ought to be a reminder that Russia and the United States can have common interests. But these events also make clear why real cooperation is so hard. Let's start with the good news. It turned out that Moscow wasn't just looking for an opportunity to nail down its sphere of influence or revive the nationalist excitement created by the war against Georgia in 2008. Despite the Kyrgyz government's request for help, Russian policymakers made the legal point that the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)-a mutual defense pact joining Russia and six other post-Soviet states--was created to deal with aggression, not internal conflict. Russia was willing to provide equipment and advice, not troops. Getting in might look easy, it was said, but solving the problem was likely to be too long a slog. Modest goals, narrow legalism, respect for sovereignty, sober practicality--these are traits that Russian policy has not always displayed, and we should be glad to see them when they appear. They reflect lessons learned in Afghanistan a generation ago, and in more recent conflicts as well . A Russian leader who has
Understanding events that don't happen can sometimes be as important as understanding the ones that do. been through the Chechen meat-grinder (or remembers how poorly many Russian units performed in Georgia two years ago) knows that turning the army loose means relying on hot-headed generals and half-trained conscripts. That may be a risk worth
taking when you want to bloody an adversary or teach him who's boss. When the task at hand is to keep drunken gangs off the street and protect international relief workers--in another country, no less--it's a lot harder to justify.
Russia expands its sphere of influence now Brzezinski 2000 [Zbigniew, head of the National Security Council under U.S. President Jimmy Carter.
Currently he is a Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies [CSIS] and Professor of American Foreign Policy at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies [SAIS] at Johns Hopkins University, Geopolitically Speaking: Russias Sphere of Influence , http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/81_folder/81_articles/81_brzezinski.html]
The present Russian leadership is clearly attempting to re-establish a Russian sphere of influence throughout most of the space of the former Soviet Union. Note that I emphasize a "sphere of influence" - not re-establishment of the old Soviet Union - but a "sphere of influence". Unfortunately, this priority of establishing a "sphere of influence"
interprets the presence and access between the outside world and that region as a threat to its own interests. These goals have been explicitly stated by a number of contemporary Russian leaders.
22
[Name]
Russia expanding now Zeihan 6/15/10 (Peter, PhD in Asian Studies, Masters in Political and Economic development, and bachelors in political
science. The Kyrgyzstan Crisis and the Russian Dilemma. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100614_kyrgyzstan_crisis_and_russian_dilemma)
The U.S. distraction in the Middle East has offered Russia a golden opportunity to re-establish its spheres of influence in the region, steadily expanding the Russian zone of control into a shape that is eerily reminiscent of the old Soviet Union. Since 2005, when this process began, Russia has clearly reasserted itself as the dominant power in Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Ukraine, and has intimidated places like Georgia and Turkmenistan into a sort of silent acquiescence
STRATFOR often discusses how Russia is on a bit of a roll.
Russia asserting power in the Middle East now Nemtsova 6/4/10 (Anna Nemtsova, Telegraph, Russia aims to regain Middle East influence,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/culture/7803263/Russia-aims-to-regain-Middle-Eastinfluence.html) Medvedev's approach There is something new today. In order to strengthen Russia's dwindling power in the world and promote Russian language and culture, president Medvedev founded a federal agency, Rossotrudnichestvo (Russian Collaboration), two years ago. The new agency's funding has increased at
least by 50pc since last year this year, the state invested 350m in various humanitarian programmes and salaries for employees working in 72 Russian cultural centres around the world. Rather than starting with a blank page, they build on the existing Russian diasporas, adjusting to the peculiarities and interests of even little-known pockets of Russian culture like that in Beirut.
According to the deputy head of the agency, Mikhail Kozhokhin, the Middle East is a geopolitical priority region for developing Russia's influence. The Centre representing the agency in Damascus educates 500
students; the Russian Centre in Tel Aviv runs successful youth contests of writing and poetry among the huge Russian-speaking diaspora there. Last year, the agency opened a new Russian Centre in Amman, Jordan. However, Yekatherina Sokirianskaya of the Memorial Human Rights group sounded sceptical about the amount of money Russia is investing into its Centres of Culture and Science in the Middle East. She suggested that the money would be better spent on some of the republics in the territory of the Russian Federation: "I have never seen any palaces of culture in Grozny or Nazran. Children in Chechnya and Ingushetia do not see Russian people dance ballet or sing opera: they think that all Russian men wear uniforms and patrol their streets." A home in the Middle East "The Middle East has traditionally been in the sphere of serious Russian interests. A
huge number of people in Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria had their higher education in the Soviet Union they now occupy high positions in governments, businesses and science. These people, as well as Russian expatriates living in the region, look forward to the improvement of Russia's presence in the Middle East," Mr Kozhokhin said.
Russia is taking its sphere of influence back

CSM 5/20/10 (The Christian Science Monitor, Russia is getting its 'sphere' back, http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/0520/Russia-is-getting-its-sphere-back)
In case you havent noticed, Russia is making progress in bringing former Soviet satellites closer to its orbit. Ever since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russia has worried about Western encroachment on its geographic sphere of influence. Part of this concern has to do with feelings about lost empire. Thats understandable. Britain, too, struggled with diminution when the sun set on its empire, and theres much hand-wringing in the US about the limits of its superpower clout. Another Russian worry is deeply-rooted anxiety about strategic vulnerability. Thats understandable, too. Its hard to forget the gruesome battle of Stalingrad, or even a cold war. Still, theres nothing for Russia to fear in former client states choosing membership in the democratic European Union or NATO alliance, which includes Russia in a special joint council. Moscow, however, still thinks otherwise, and that perspective drives its foreign policy. To what extent is becoming clearer by the day. By
taking advantage of situations or through strong-arm tactics using its political, petroleum, or even military clout Russia is getting its sphere back. The latest example is Ukraine, which in 2004 joined the democratic color revolutions that included Georgia in the Caucasus region and later, Kyrgyzstan in central Asia. Since 2004, though, Ukraines democratic leadership succumbed to fierce political infighting, and its economy has been slammed by corruption and world recession. This year, elections gave rise to a new president, Viktor Yanukovich, who is much more friendly to Russia. He dropped Kievs interest in
joining NATO, and last month extended the lease for Russias naval base in the Black Sea port of Sevastopol until 2042.
23
Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] The US is ceding to Russia a sphere of influence now Kramer 5/15/10 (David J. Kramer, Washington Post, U.S. abandoning Russia's neighbors,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010051404496.html)
[Name]
Obama and other senior U.S. officials have repeatedly said they do not recognize a Russian "sphere of influence," but actions, or non-actions, speak louder than those words. Through its neglect of countries in the region except for Russia, the administration is ceding to Moscow exactly such a sphere. By some counts, Obama has spoken and met with his "friend and partner," President Dmitry
Medvedev, more times than with any other leader, including on Thursday. He should use those occasions to lay down clear markers that Russian aggression toward and occupation of its neighbors are unacceptable. He also should start making "friends and partners" elsewhere in the region. Some of these leaders aren't the easiest to get along with, nor are they poster children for democracy and human rights -- but then again, neither are Medvedev and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
Russia expansion of sphere of influence now Kramer 08 [8/31/08, Andrew, reporter for New York Times, Russia Claims its Sphere of Influence in
the World, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/world/europe/01russia.html]
MOSCOW President Dmitri
A. Medvedev of Russia on Sunday laid out what he said would become his governments guiding principles of foreign policy after its landmark conflict with Georgia notably including a claim to a privileged sphere of influence in the world. Speaking to Russian television in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, a day before a summit meeting in Brussels where European leaders were to reassess their relations with Russia, Mr. Medvedev said his government would adhere to five principles. Russia, he said, would observe international law. It would reject what he called United States dominance of world affairs in a unipolar world. It would seek friendly relations with other nations. It would defend Russian citizens and business interests abroad. And it would claim a sphere of influence in the world. In part, Mr. Medvedev
reiterated long-held Russian positions, like his countrys rejection of American aspirations to an exceptional role in world affairs after the end of the cold war. The Russian authorities have also said previously that their foreign policy
would include a defense of commercial interests, sometimes citing American practice as justification. In his unabashed claim to a renewed Russian sphere of influence, Mr. Medvedev said: Russia, like other countries in the world, has regions where it has privileged interests. These are regions where countries with which we have friendly relations are located. Asked whether this sphere of influence would be the border states around Russia, he answered, It is the border region, but not only.
US is falling behind in space other nations are expanding Kaufman 7/9/08 [Marc, Washington Post staff writer, US Finds Out its Crowded out There,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070803185.html?sid=ST2008070900751] Space, like Earth below, is globalizing. And as it does, America's long-held superiority in exploring, exploiting and commercializing "the final frontier" is slipping away, many experts believe. Although the United States remains dominant in most space-related fields -- and owns half the military satellites currently orbiting Earth -experts say the nation's superiority is diminishing, and many other nations are expanding their civilian and commercial space capabilities at a far faster pace.
Limited public interest in space exploration for the US compared to other states Kaufman 7/9/08 [Marc, Washington Post staff writer, US Finds Out its Crowded out There,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070803185.html?sid=ST2008070900751]
At the same time, the
enthusiasm for space ventures voiced by Europeans and Asians contrasts with America's lukewarm public response to the moon-Mars mission. In its assessment, Futron listed the most significant U.S. space weakness as "limited public interest in space activity"
24
[Name]
US space infrastructure and leadership are in a worse condition now than a decade ago Armor 3/18/09 [James, Director of National Space Security, Testimony of James B. Armor before
Strategic Forces Subcommittee, http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/SF031809/Armor_Testimony031809.pdf]
While the U.S. currently leads the world in space, there
are numerous problems other than simple security threats that jeopardize our continued leadership. We face near-term mission gaps in important space capabilities, our space industry and workforce is losing its competitive edge, our engagement and influence in international space activities has declined, and there is widespread program overreach that is, there are more government space programs than the federal budget can support. In many respects, all of the nation's space sectors commercial, civil, defense, and intelligence are in worse condition today than they were a decade or more ago. To the point, as our security and well-being has grown more reliant on space capabilities they have become increasingly vulnerable to breakdown, disruption and attack. It is with this heightened sense of urgency that I now return to
today's timely and vital discussion about space security. Let me address each of the three main questions.
25
[Name]
UQ: US-RUSSIA RELATIONS

U.S.-Russia relations are good now Burns 11 (William J., Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, United States Ambassador to Russia
from 2005-2008, highest ranking Foreign Service Officer in the United States, Interview with Interfax from Russia, U.S. Department of State, February 10, http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2011/156449.htm) I am very pleased to be back in Moscow. This is a moment of great promise in relations between Russia and the United States. In the two years since our two presidents launched the reset, weve made significant progress. Weve ratified the New START agreement; completed the 123 Agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation; deepened our cooperation on Afghanistan; worked closely together on nonproliferation issues, especially on Iran and North Korea; strengthened our partnerships on counternarcotics and counterterrorism; and established the Bilateral Presidential Commission to intensify ties not just between our governments but between our societies, on issues ranging from energy efficiency to health and youth and sports exchanges. Trade and investment are also increasing in both directions. And recent public opinion polling suggests that more than 60% of Russians today have a favorable view of the United States, which is more than two times what it was two years ago. There are similar trends in the United States in attitudes toward Russia. The challenge before us today, and the central purpose of my visit, is how to build on this momentum, to move beyond the reset, to widen and deepen our cooperation in a range of areas, but particularly in the economic area. I met, over the course of the last couple of days, with a number of senior government officials in the Kremlin, the White House, and the Foreign Ministry. Ive also met with political reform, civil society, and business leaders. I emphasized the very high priority that President Obama attaches to doing everything the United States can to help Russia achieve accession to the World Trade Organization and graduation from Jackson-Vanik this year, in 2011. I also highlighted the value for both of us in building genuine cooperation on missile defense. Both of our presidents have stressed the importance for Russias future of transparent, accountable, democratic government. Thats not easy. As many Russians know far better than I do, the truth is that there are problems and abuses in the path of that progress, whether its pervasive corruption; the unsolved murders of journalists like Paul Klebnikov and Anna Politkovskaya; attacks on human rights activists; and the selective application of justice. Its deeply in the interest of Russia, in our view, to address those challenges, and its certainly deeply in the interest of the United States to do everything we can to support economic and political modernization in Russia. What I would say overall is that weve come a very long way together over the last two years, and I think a great deal more can be accomplished in 2011 and beyond.
26
[Name]
*2NC LINKS*
27
[Name]
US-RUSSIA RELATIONS
US BMD endangers Russian nuclear deterrent, upsetting the balance of power and causing Russian strategic insecurity Miasnikov 8 (Yevgeniy, Senior Research Scientist at the Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies, LongRange Precision-Guided Conventional Weapons: Implications For Strategic Balance, Arms Control And Non-Proliferation International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, 2008, www.icnnd.org/Documents/Miasnikov_Long_Range_Missiles.doc Concurrently, a number of American and Russian experts are expressing their concerns regarding the future viability (invincibility) of Russian nuclear forces in the case of a hypothetical nuclear counterforce strike by the USA . They forecast that the increased vulnerability of Russian deterrence (counterstrike forces) in the face of a combined strategic ABM system and a counterstrike nuclear potential by the USA creates
an outlook for growing strategic instability, political tension, and a new blind alley in SNF negotiations. The situation becomes even more complicated due to the presence of new additional factors that potentially
decrease the viability of Russian strategic forces. Among them is the growing counterstrike potential of precision-guided weapons . Some Russian experts are inclined to think that the USAs precision-guided weapons are intended
for use in a sudden disarming strike on Russia.
28
[Name]
US SOFT POWER
US weaponization of space causes US to lose legitimacy on international issues, especially with Russia and China Brown, 09. [Trevor, BA, Indiana University; MSc, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies,
Nanyang Technological University [Singapore]) is a new author interested in political, economic, and military strategy for the medium of space. Soft Power and Space weaponization Air and Space Journal Spring 2009. http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/spr09/brown.html#brown] The United States has plans to weaponize space and is already deploying missile-defense 1 platforms. Official, published papers outline long-term visions for space weapons, including directascent antisatellite (ASAT) missiles, ground-based lasers that target satellites in low Earth orbit, and 2 hypervelocity rod bundles that strike from space. According to federal budget documents, the Pentagon has asked Congress for considerable resources to test weapons in space, marking the biggest step 3 toward creating a space battlefield since the Strategic Defense Initiative during the Cold War. Although two co-orbital escort vehiclesthe XSS-11 experimental microsatellite and the Autonomous Nanosatellite Guardian for Evaluating Local Spaceare intended to monitor the space environment and inspect friendly satellites, they possess the technical ability to disrupt other nations military reconnaissance and 4 communications satellites. These developments have caused considerable apprehension in Moscow, Beijing, and other capitals across the world, resulting in a security dilemma. Russia and China believe that they must respond to this strategic challenge by taking measures to dissuade the United States from pursuing space weapons and missile defenses. Their response will likely include developing more advanced ASAT weapons, building more intercontinental ballistic missiles, extending the life of existing ballistic missiles, adopting countermeasures against missile defenses, developing other asymmetric capabilities for the medium of space, and reconsidering commitments on 5 arms control. The military options for Russia and China are not very appealing since neither can compete directly with the United States in space on an equal financial, military, or technical footing. Consequently, their first and best choice is the diplomatic route through the United Nations (UN) by presenting resolutions and treaties in hopes of countering US space-weaponization efforts with international law. Although such attempts have thus far failed to halt US plans, they have managed to build an international consensus against the United States. Indeed, on 5 December 2007, a vote on a UN resolution calling for measures to stop an arms race in space passed by a count of 178 to one against the United States, with Israel abstaining.6 The problem for the United States is that other nations believe it seeks to monopolize space in order to further its hegemonic dominance.7 In recent years, a growing number of nations have vocally objected to this perceived agenda. Poor US diplomacy on the issue of space weaponization contributes to increased geopolitical backlashes of the sort leading to the recent decline in US soft powerthe ability to attract others by the legitimacy of policies and the values that underlie themwhich, in turn, has restrained overall US 8 national power despite any gains in hard power (i.e., the ability to coerce). The United States should not take its soft power lightly since decreases in that attribute over the past decade have led to increases in global influence for strategic competitors, particularly Russia and China. The ramifications have included a gradual political, economic, and social realignment, otherwise known as multipolarism and translated as waning US power and influence. Soft power, therefore, is not just a matter of ephemeral popularity; it is a means of obtaining outcomes the United States wants. . . . When the United States becomes so unpopular that being pro-American is a kiss of death in other countries domestic politics, foreign political leaders are unlikely to make helpful concessions. . . . And when U.S. policies lose their legitimacy in the eyes of others, distrust grows, reducing U.S. 9 leverage in international affairs. Due to US losses of soft power, the international community now views with suspicion any legitimate concerns that the United States may have about protecting critical assets in space, making it far more difficult politically for the Air Force to make plans to offer such protection.
29
[Name]
RUSSIA COMPETITIVENESS
Russia feels threatened by US development of BMD Ruck, 10. [Jimmy, Stanford University, Anna Saakyan, Moscow State University. The US Plans for
Ballistic Missile Defense: Impact on International Security and US-Russia Relations Surf Journal. < http://www.joinsurf.com/uploads/pdf/The%20US%20Plans%20for%20Ballistic%20Missile%20Defense%20Impact%20on%20International%20Security%20and%20US-Russia%20Relations.pdf>] The US BMD program does not deal primarily with Russia. At first glance, the US and its allies are creating the ABM system in order to protect themselves against growing missile threats from rogue states, something that should theoretically not disrupt a strategic nuclear balance with Russia. Nevertheless, Russia feels that its military, political interests and position within the international arena are infringed upon by these developments. The situation is further complicated by high uncertainty with regard to the future of the program. Russias concerns stem from a variety of issues. First among them, as argued by some Russian and US experts, elements of the ABM system, which were intended to be placed in Poland and the Czech Republic, could potentially intercept Russias ballistic missiles and control space and missile operation activity in
the European part of Russia, including the Plesetsk Cosmodrome.23 The same is true for the SM-3 missiles which will be deployed in Romania in the 2010s. Secondly, deployments near Russias border are also regarded as a political challenge, strengthened by the fact that the US does not intend to limit its activity in this geopolitical area. According to the US Department of Defenses report on ballistic missile defense, The United States will continue to engage with Russias neighbors as fully independent and sovereign states.25 Lastly, the prospects of cooperation with Russia are vague, which is reflected in the
evasive statement that the US looks forward to a peaceful and prosperous Russia that makes contributions to international peace and security as a global partner.
Purpose of BMD is to reduce Russian geopolitical weight Ruck, 10. [Jimmy, Stanford University, Anna Saakyan, Moscow State University. The US Plans for
Ballistic Missile Defense: Impact on International Security and US-Russia Relations Surf Journal. < http://www.joinsurf.com/uploads/pdf/The%20US%20Plans%20for%20Ballistic%20Missile%20Defense%20Impact%20on%20International%20Security%20and%20US-Russia%20Relations.pdf>] Future evolution of the US ABM plans and their impact on US-Russia relations will depend on a number of variables involving domestic and foreign policy. For the US they include success in technological
advancement of the program, ability to deter rogue states from developing ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons by other means, scale of military lobbying and public support of the program inside the country, and reaction of other actors to these plans. Russia, on its side, will respond depending on the way the US BMD program will be implemented, assessment of military consequences of creating the ABM system, the countrys foreign policy priorities, and the nature of its political regime. In general, it is possible to outline three future scenarios, namely, US-Russia cooperation on this issue, continuation of debate about it, and substantial deterioration of the situation. Cooperation will become possible if the sides find an appropriate way to integrate Russias existing ABM elements into the US BMD system and consider such a move reasonable, for example, in light of the Irans growing missile capability. It is noteworthy that at the suggestion of Russia, these issues have already been discussed at the highest levels. As observed by Alexei Arbatov, Proposals made by Russian president in the summer of 2007 could become the basis for an agreement on missile defense. The proposed idea was to use the Gabala early-warning radar station in Azerbaijan to detect and track missile launches from the south... The radar could be linked to the missile launch data exchange center in Moscow, work on which began in accordance with the American-Russian agreement of 1998, but which was subsequently frozen.28 However, realization of these ideas demands more than technological and military analysis. Paving the way to US-Russia and West-Russia rapprochement, this concept of cooperation cannot be effectively carried out without shifts in identity of actors. Creating a common missile shield would mean a decision to not view each other as threats and a commitment to search for common approaches in the international arena. One should not underestimate the role of European countries and Euro-Atlantic institutions, which can create a positive atmosphere of cooperation.29 Based on these assumptions, it is possible to argue that the previous Russian proposals have not been truly considered in practice precisely because they were not identity-driven and merely aimed at becoming an alternative to the US plans for Eastern Europe. A second scenario implies continuation of business as usual and, frankly speaking, it is the most probable scenario. After President Barack Obamas revision of the ABM program, there is little doubt that the US will continue to move forward with the BMD installations. On its side, Russia can express serious concerns but it will still lack effective mechanisms for deterrence or symmetrical responses. Given the technological hardships and flexibility of the program, the situation may stall in this damage limitation phase for years. Marginalization of Russia with regard to this issue is therefore quite a feasible option, which can even seem attractive to different actors. The US and some of its allies may
regard the ABM issue as a means to offend Russia, reducing its geopolitical weight. Russia, on its side, may use debate over the BMD system as an opportunity to actualize its post-imperial identity
30
[Name]
and make its resenting voice heard in the international arena. However, striving for maintenance of this state of
affairs would be a serious mistake, bringing actors short-term political benefits at the price of strategic stability and possibilities for partnership in the future. The risk of realization of the worst scenario has fortunately lowered after declaration of a reset in USRussia relations and the US revision of the BMD system. However, these developments dont mean that the worst-case scenario has completely vanished from the landscape. Russia has moderately reacted to the US plans for deployment of some BMD system elements in Romania but it can start focusing on this issue in future. The level of conflictedness may also rise if the US insists on further deployments in the Eastern European and Caucasus countries, or in the Black Sea. Russias possible asymmetrical responses, such as armaments build-up or withdrawal from the INF Treaty, would not prevent the US from continuing its plans but definitely undermine strategic stability. Nowadays finding new modes of cooperation with regard to the issue of the US BMD program seems critically important. So far, this program has generated collisions in the international arena rather than contributed to global stability. Current challenges lie in moving from insinuations about this issue to multilateral work creating a new, stable ABM regime and an effective BMD system. If the US and Russia are able to work through these challenges, a potentially powerful arena of cooperation will open up. However, the future likely holds more business as usual, making
cooperation a difficult task and possibly widening the political gap between the two countries.
BMD causes power gap between US and Russia Ruck, 10. [Jimmy, Stanford University, Anna Saakyan, Moscow State University. The US Plans for
Ballistic Missile Defense: Impact on International Security and US-Russia Relations Surf Journal. < http://www.joinsurf.com/uploads/pdf/The%20US%20Plans%20for%20Ballistic%20Missile%20Defense%20Impact%20on%20International%20Security%20and%20US-Russia%20Relations.pdf>] Russia feels especially vulnerable to the US BMD program both in military and sociopolitical aspects. First, despite numerous statements of the US officials, Russia sees the BMD system as a potential threat to its strategic nuclear deterrent capability. Second, it is dissatisfied with a growing power gap with the US in its sphere, which for a long time was subjected to mutual control. Third, there are worries that the deployment of the US BMD system abroad may correlate with anti-Russian sentiments in former Soviet bloc countries. So the issue of the ABM system clearly exceeds the military realm, but the extent and meaning
of this process are still unclear. The bulk of past analytical literature concentrates mainly on the military specificity of the problem by assessing technical details. However, the literature is largely unable to fully explain the driving logic behind the program and specificity of actors attitudes. On the contrary, this paper aims at studying political aspects of the development of the US BMD system with special attention paid to their impact on US-Russia relations. It will logically investigate the historical timeline of the ABM issue, technological capacity of the current US BMD system, possible international consequences of implementation of the US plans, and different scenarios of US-Russia relations with regard to this problem.
31
[Name]
*2NC INTERNAL LINKS*
32
[Name]
I/L: RUSSIA ECON

Russian hegemony in Central Asia key to Russian economy Bhatty 8 (Roy Sultan Khan, M.Phil/Ph.D candidate at Area Study Centre for Europe, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan,
Russia: The Traditional Hegemon In Central Asia, Center for Strategic Research, http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/volume13/autumn/RojSultanKhanBhatty.pdf Russias long-term interests in Central Asia are very clear and unambiguous.
Russia wants to maintain stability in Central Asia to avoid any spill over effects. Conflicts in Central Asia would create a power vacuum that could develop security challenges for Russia. Stability in Central Asia is also a prerequisite for the smooth import of oil and gas from Central Asia. Russia desires to keep the CARs in its sphere of influence to ensure their cooperation, not only in energy supply, but also in other areas of strategic importance. The
CARs oil and gas pipelines links with other regional states like Turkey, Pakistan, Iran and China and will integrate the CARs with these regional states which will hurt Russias long term strategic and economic interests. For instance, if the CARs succeed in transporting their energy resources through Turkey, Pakistan or Iran excluding Russia, it will result in large revenues in the CARs which they will use in establishing their independent forces and stable economies. Then, their dependence on Russia will decrease and Russia will always discourage such kind of developments. As a part of long-term strategy, Russia wants to counter any penetration by the US, US dominated institutions like NATO and regional powers. In this paper it is argued that by strengthening its influence on the CARs energy resources, deploying its troops in CARs, exploiting the threat of extremism and strengthening different pro-Russia regional blocs, Russia has tried to maintain its hegemony on the CARs. In Russias hegemonic designs democratic CARs do not fit. Here we discuss how Russia is manipulating its polices to acquire its interests. Russias active involvement in the CARs is very important for its own stability and for smooth import of energy from the CARs.
Export of oil and gas accounts for about 60% of Russias federal budget revenues and two thirds of its exports. Despite the fact that Russia has rich oil and gas resources, it imports huge quantities of oil and gas from the CARs at low prices to supply it to the lucrative European markets. By exploiting its position as a transit country for energy supply to Europe, Russia has signed different agreements with
the CARs in field of energy. For the six years from 1994 to 2000, Russia did not buy Turkmen gas; as Gazprom, the Russian energy giant (which deals 20% of world gas), thought it unprofitable to purchase it at the price asked by Turkmenistan. In a dispute with Turkmenistan, Moscow cut off the new state pipelines that flow to European markets in 1997. In 2003 circumstances forced Turkmenistan to sign a 25 years working agreement with Gazprom in order to export gas via Russia to Ukraine and Europe; but the agreement signed in 2003 lasted just over a year before Ashgabat cut off supplies in attempt to get higher energy prices. In September 2006, Gazprom agreed to a 50% price increase for Turkmen gas deliveries at the cost of $100 per 1000 cubic meters. The previously agreed price was $65/1000 cubic meters. In exchange, Gazprom gained access to the rich Yolotan natural gas field of Turkmenistan. Gazprom also acquired de facto control of Turkmenistans export routes and surplus potential until 2009. In November 2007, Gazprom again revised its price mechanism and agreed to give $130/1000 cubic meters for Turkmen and Uzbek gas. Turkmenistan exports about 50 billion cubic meters (bcm) gas/year to Russia. Export of natural gas to Russia accounted for 85% of Turkmen gas. Russia then sells it to Ukraine on higher prices.
33
[Name]
I/L: RUSSIA STABILITY

Russian hegemony in Central Asia key Russian stability Bhatty 8 (Roy Sultan Khan, M.Phil/Ph.D candidate at Area Study Centre for Europe, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan,
Russia: The Traditional Hegemon In Central Asia, Center for Strategic Research, http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/volume13/autumn/RojSultanKhanBhatty.pdf
Russia has significant economic, security and political interests in Central Asia. Russia is on the receiving end of transnational threats such as narcotics trafficking, weapons smuggling, transnational crimes and terrorism that come from Central Asia. To keep the CARs in its sphere of influence, Russia is maintaining its presence in the CARs. For this purpose, Russia has signed different agreements with the CARs for the deployments of troops and the leasing of their bases. About 14,000 Russian soldiers are stationed in republics of Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine.
Russias 201st Motorized Rifle Division in Tajikistan is the largest Russian deployment outside its borders. More than 5000 Russian troops are stationed in the Dushanbe, Kurgan-Tube and Kulab regions.
34
[Name]
I/L: GLOBAL STABILITY

Positive U.S.-Russia relations key to global stability Antonenko and Yurgens 10 (Oksana, senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, Igor,
chairman of the Institute for Contemporary Development in Moscow, November 18, A NATO-Russia Strategic Concept, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/opinion/19iht-edantonenko.html
NATO and Russia share more security concerns today than at any point since the Cold War. These include instability in Afghanistan and the neighboring region, escalation of regional conflicts, proliferation of WMD and missile technology, and the threats posed by terrorist networks, organized crime and other non-state actors. In these and other areas Russia and NATO may not always have identical interests, but invariably their cooperation makes it easier to achieve important overlapping policy objectives. The NATO summit in Lisbon should take advantage of the window of opportunity created by the reset in U.S.-Russian and Polish-Russian relations to take a step toward a Euro-Atlantic security community free of dividing lines and internal threat perceptions. As NATO adopts a new Strategic Concept, it should also set out a NATO-Russia Strategic Concept a new strategy for NATO-Russia relations. This should set the goal of bringing Russia closer to NATO (though not yet into NATO) through enhanced confidence-building mechanisms, improved joint decision-making and expanded areas of practical cooperation.
Loss of Russias sphere of influence risks conflict Kramer 8 (Andrew E., writer for The New York Times, Russia Claims Its Sphere of Influence in the World, The New York
Times, September 1, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/world/europe/01russia.html
President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia on Sunday laid out what he said would become his governments guiding principles of foreign policy after its landmark conflict with Georgia notably including a claim to a privileged sphere of influence in the world. Speaking to Russian television in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, a day
before a summit meeting in Brussels where European leaders were to reassess their relations with Russia, Mr. Medvedev said his government would adhere to five principles. Russia, he said, would observe international law. It would reject what he called United States dominance of world affairs in a unipolar world. It would seek friendly relations with other nations. It would defend Russian citizens and business interests abroad. And it would claim a sphere of influence in the world. In part, Mr. Medvedev reiterated long-held Russian positions, like his
countrys rejection of American aspirations to an exceptional role in world affairs after the end of the cold war. The Russian authorities have also said previously that their foreign policy would include a defense of commercial interests, sometimes citing American practice as justification. In
his unabashed claim to a renewed Russian sphere of influence, Mr. Medvedev said: Russia, like other countries in the world, has regions where it has privileged interests. These are regions where countries with which we have friendly relations are located. Asked whether this sphere of influence would be the border states around Russia, he answered, It is the border region, but not only. Last week, Mr. Medvedev used vehement language in announcing Russias recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Though he alluded in passing to respecting Georgias territorial integrity, he defended Russias intervention as necessary to prevent a genocide. Mr. Medvedev, inaugurated in May, was an aide to Vladimir V. Putin, the former president and now prime minister. Mr. Putin appeared on Russian television on Sunday from the nations far east, where he was inspecting progress on a trans-Siberian oil pipeline to China and the Pacific Ocean, a clear warning to Europe that Russia could find alternative customers for its energy exports. He was later shown in a forest, dressed in camouflage and hunting a Siberian tiger with a tranquilizer gun. Leaders of the 27 members of the European Union, who will meet in an emergency session on Monday, were considered highly unlikely to impose sanctions or go beyond diplomatic measures in expressing disapproval of Russias conflict with Georgia. The members in Eastern Europe have tended to be more wary and more confrontational toward Russia, while Western European countries have tended to be more concerned with not jeopardizing energy imports from Russia.
35
[Name]
*2NC START MODULE*

US Russia Cooperation high now due to START Good, 6/21. [Allison, journalist for Times Picayune. U.S. and Russia are strengthening their
relationship, Ambassador says <http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2011/06/us_and_russia_are_strengthenin.html>] The Obama administration has experienced a positive reset in U.S.-Russian relations both politically and economically, U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation John Beyrle said during a speech in New Orleans on Tuesday. "This relationship has been reset over the last two to three years,"
Beyrle said at an event at the World War II Museum sponsored by the World Trade Center of New Orleans and other organizations. "We're on the threshold of a new and better period of relations." Beyrle noted recent U.S.-Russia
accomplishments such as the signing of the START Treaty to reduce nuclear arms in both countries, increasing Russian support for NATO troops in Afghanistan and increased cooperation and coordination within the United Nations Security Council to curb Iran's nuclear program. The ambassador also emphasized that relations with Russia are not only politically advantageous for the United States, but also economically essential. "Good political relations are not enough, and we need more solid foundations of trade and business. Our prosperity is closely intertwined with Russia, since it's a major market for U.S. goods and
services," he said during the luncheon program, which was called "The Current State of U.S.-Russia Relations." While trade between the United States and Russia has doubled over the past four years, the scope of economic cooperation between Russia and New Orleans has also expanded. "Our exports to Russia from New Orleans grew exponentially between 2006 and 2010," said Mayor Mitch Landrieu. "There's a great partnership between New Orleans and Russia." American companies have taken
the reset to heart, added Beyrle. "U.S. companies are now well-established in Russia and are creating jobs," he explained, citing the recent activities of Ford, General Motors, and high-tech entities such as Microsoft, Cisco
and Boeing. Democratic development in post-Soviet Russia has also had positive implications for United States tourism. "Russia is now more open and increasingly connected with the world," the ambassador said. "Russians recently discovered the American South, and now there are direct flights to and from Houston and Atlanta." Beyrle, however, noted that there are still significant obstacles overshadowing the U.S.-Russia economic relationship. "Russia is still a tough place to do business because there are bureaucratic obstacles and corruption is an enormous problem," he continued. "For example, the United States is constantly fighting protectionist lobbies that want to keep American beef and poultry out of Russia." American initiatives to improve trade relations with Russia include working to support Russia's membership in the World Trade Organization. According to Beyrle, this will "allow the United States to benefit from the free movement of goods and services." The United States is also concerned with the uneven democratic development in post-Soviet Russia and popular calls for more governmental accountability. "The road ahead for Russia is not completely clear," the ambassador said. "It is our interest as Americans to support their transition to democracy." Despite these impediments, Beyrle emphasized, the U.S.-Russia relationship remains an important cornerstone of
American foreign policy and trade. "This relationship has been and remains fundamentally important to our national interests as Americans," he said.
New BMD violates START, leads to Russian withdrawal Ford, 10. (Christopher, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Technology and Global Security at
the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. Previously, he served as U.S. Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, and General Counsel to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. A graduate of Harvard College, Oxford University (as a Rhodes Scholar), and Yale Law School. New START and Missile Defense New Paradigms Forum. < http://www.newparadigmsforum.com/NPFtestsite/?p=387>]
Encouraged by President Obamas decision in 2009, after years of Russian complaints about U.S. missile defense planning, to abandon U.S. agreements with Eastern European NATO allies on the deployment of ground-based interceptor (GBI) missiles in Eastern Europe, Moscow pressed hard to have limits on U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) enshrined in the New START agreement. Having already been subjected to considerable domestic political criticism for his reversal of U.S. policy in the face of Russian saber-rattling, however, President Obama and his senior officials reassured anyone who would listen that BMD limitations would absolutely not be a part of the strategic arms treaty they were pursuing with Russia. As we shall see, the Preamble to the treaty does mention missile defens e, but the Administration and its friends today insist that Obama indeed succeeded in keeping BMD limitations out of the deal. What does this new treaty actually say about missile defense? In the Preamble, New START declares that there exists an interrelationship between
strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, [and] that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced. While the Treaty acknowledges that current strategic
defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties, this phrasing highlights the possibility that additional defensive armaments would be destabilizing . The comment about how the relationship between defensive and offensive arms will become more important as strategic reductions continue also highlights
36

the possibility that limits
[Name]
on BMD will become more necessary as President Obama moves forward with his disarmament agenda. These two corollary points, however, are not stated explicitly: all the agreement actually says is
that there exists a relationship that will become more important as our arsenals shrink. Nor are such BMD issues discussed in the operative sections of the instrument; these comments appear only in the Preamble. Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is leading the ratification fight in the Senate, has proclaimed that it is
absolutely clear that [t]his treaty does not undercut our ability to protect the country from missile attack in any way. Lt. Gen. Patrick OReilly, the current head of the Missile Defense Agency, echoes this assessment,
declaring that [t]he New START Treaty has no constraints on current or future components of the Ballistic Missile Defense System. (New U.S. deployments such as a new GBI missile field, OReilly says, would not [be] prohibited by the treaty.) Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher waxed positively eloquent on the subject: [T]here is no limit or constraint on what the United States can do with its missile defense systems . . . . Definitely, positively, and no way, no how there are no limits . There seems, however, to be some disagreement on this not least from the very negotiating partners with
whom the Obama Administration cut the deal. According to the Russians, the new treaty can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile defence capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively. They have explicitly threatened that, should the United States increase its BMD capabilities in such a way that threatens the potential of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation, Moscow would consider this grounds for withdrawal from New START. As Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov put it, the treaty was signed against the backdrop of
particular levels of strategic defensive systems, and any change in these particular levels would give each side the right to consider its further participation in the arms control process. Lavrov has been quoted as saying that the treatys link to BMD would be legally binding. To be sure, there is some wiggle room in these formulations. As far as I have seen, at least, the Russians have yet explicitly to assert that an increase in U.S. BMD deployments would be a violation of the new treaty, and it is in any event clearly true that each side does indeed possess, under Article XIV of New START, the right to withdraw if extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the treaty jeopardize its supreme interests. One could read the Russian st0atements as being aimed at setting up more a political than a specifically legal confrontation in the event that we deploy any additional capabilities. One should expect, however, that the Russians will press this issue any way they can, legally or politically. One factor of relevance as Senators debate the treaty is therefore whether the instrument makes such gamesmanship more difficult or less difficult and how prepared we are to cope with the challenges we must assume Moscow will be prepared to raise at the first opportunity. It is certainly clear enough that Moscow approaches BMD issues with a considerable
degree of paranoia, viewing any U.S. capability to intercept ICBMs very negatively that is, with something between bitter distaste and outright alarm and regarding [t]he development of missile defense [as being] aimed against the Russian Federation. Even the most optimistic American
assessment of the new treatys impact on BMD, therefore, must anticipate that if we contemplate additional deployments of any significance, Russia will not be particularly shy about using every lever available to slow or prevent
such developments, including threatening to abandon strategic arms control with the United States.
The impacts are nuclear miscalc, relations, and Russia warSTART is key Rojansky and Collins 10 (Matthew and James, executive director of the Partnership for a Secure
America + director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "START is key to reducing the nuclear threat," http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/81321-start-is-keyto-reducing-the-nuclear-threat?tmpl=component&print=1&page=, AD: 9/22/10)
But arguments from both hawks and doves have missed an urgent point: that without
a new treaty, Washington will be unable to manage the risks associated with Russias vast nuclear arsenal, which still poses the single greatest existential threat to the United States. With around 4,000 deployed nuclear warheads, a staggering
1,000 tons of weapons-grade nuclear material, hundreds of deployed ballistic missiles and thousands of experts with the knowledge to construct such systems from scratch, Russia is still potentially the worlds nuclear supermarket. Agreements governing
these arsenals are essential to preventing the many national security nightmares of nuclear proliferation to rogue states and terrorist groups from becoming realities. To protect America, we must
agree to, and verify, limits on what the Russians have, know how they are using it, and take adequate steps to ensure that devastating weapons and dangerous materials remain safe from terrorist theft. As of Dec. 5, 2009, when the 1991 START agreement expired, we lack any enforceable, verifiable treaty to provide that level of information. We need a new treaty in force not only to plug holes left gaping by the old treatys expiration, but also to increase our security by imposing further limits on what new nuclear weapons the Russians can develop and deploy. A successor to START would likely lower the maximum number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads allowed to between 1,500 and 1,675 on each side still enough to destroy the world many times over, but far below the 6,000 allowed under the old treaty. Strategic delivery vehicles missiles, bombers and nuclear missile submarines will be further cut from 1,600 to around 800. Reducing Russias nuclear arsenal and taking missile
launchers in both countries off alert reduces the likelihood of accidental nuclear war, keeping Americans safer. Verified and permanent reductions in the Russian nuclear arsenal will dramatically reduce the number of
targets for potential theft or diversion of nuclear technology to terrorists. Over the past two decades, the U.S. has invested at least $10 billion to ensure security for Russian and former Soviet nuclear material, technologies, facilities, and individual experts under
37
[Name]
the auspices of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction and other bilateral and multilateral programs. These programs have helped to deactivate over 7,500 former Soviet nuclear warheads, destroy over 2,000 missiles, and eliminate over 1,100 missile launchers. But without a comprehensive U.S.-Russian arms control agreement in place, steps like these could be totally nullified by production of new nuclear materials, weapons and launchers without any U.S. or international monitoring. Even after a new treaty enters into force, the U.S. and Russia will possess the worlds largest nuclear arsenals by a wide margin. And as long as nuclear weapons exist, leaders across the political spectrum concur, the U.S. must maintain the worlds strongest, safest and most reliable arsenal. Yet in addition to reducing the size of the threat itself, a new agreement would be beneficial for
increasing regular engagement between the U.S. and Russia on strategic issues, which will help build mutual understanding, and avert needless suspicion and conflict. Two decades after the end of the
Cold War, Americans and Russians are increasingly intertwined in global financial and energy markets, and we share immediate and vital national security interests in preventing terrorism, state failure and drug trafficking throughout the Eurasian region. Yet our communication on security issues has been in dangerous decline for the past decade . In a sense, this should come as no surprise, since the most recent comprehensive U.S.-Russian security treaty was actually signed by the United States and the Soviet Union, which no longer exists. Any reset that puts U.S.-Russian relations on a
more productive footing will depend first and foremost on forging a durable bilateral agreement to replace START. Arms control is not in itself a solution to U.S.-Russian tensions, or a guarantee of security from the nuclear terror threat, but if history is any guide, it is where we must begin.
WAR WITH RUSSIA IS THE ONLY SCENARIO FOR EXTINCTION Bostrom 2 - (Nick, Ph.D. Philosophy @ Oxford. Journal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 9,
http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html) A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and termina l. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization. Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankinds potential permanently.
38
[Name]
39
[Name]
***AFF ANSWERS
40
[Name]
N/U: NO RUSSIAN EXPANSION

Russia not looking to expand its influence now
Matthews and Nemtsova 7/5/10 (Owen, studies modern history at Oxford, Anna, Finding a Friendly Face in Russia
http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=2064617061&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType =PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277748512&clientId=17822) What has come over Vladimir Putin? Not
so long ago the Russian leader was raging against the United States for trying to become "the one single master" of the world, blasting NATO for "creeping up to Russia's borders," and commissioning a rewrite of his country's history textbooks to glorify the murderous dictatorship of Joseph Stalin. But lately the prime minister is sounding downright temperate. Instead of excoriating the West, he's pushing U.S. business deals and drawing up a new partnership with the European Union on trade and visa-free travel. In April he publicly denounced the brutality of Stalin's "totalitarian regime." And initially, instead of flexing Russia's regional muscle by sending troops to quell ethnic violence in neighboring Kyrgyzstan, he pushed for a regionwide aid effort. Putin's new, softer tone doesn't mean he has given up his longstanding ambition to restore Russia's status as a great power. On the contrary, the difference now is that for the first time in a decade, the world is finally going his way, and he can afford to relax a bit. During his eight years as president, Putin fought constantly to defend what he regarded as Russia's rightful sphere of influence along its borders. During the Bush years, relations soured over Russian suspicions that America was instigating "color revolutions" that toppled pro-Putin regimes in Georgia, Ukraine, Serbia, and Kyrgyzstan. But Obama offered to "reset" relations and backed off plans to plant anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. Thanks to the victory of a pro-Moscow president in Ukraine, NATO membership is off the table in that country. And no one was able to stop Russia from effectively annexing Georgia's northern territories in 2008. Putin may be playing it cool in Kyrgyzstan, but at the
same time, he's strengthening Moscow's leadership of a Central Asian security bloc that spans the region.
No Russian sphere of influence now

Weir 6-28-10 (Fred, Why Russias Medvedev is Blasting ally Kyrgyzstan,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0628/Why-Russia-s-Medvedev-is-blasting-ally-Kyrgyzstan)
Analysts say they are unsure what Medvedev might have been hoping to achieve by trashing the plan, since Russia's only hope of restoring stability in the region appears to ride with interim government head Roza Otunbayeva, whom it has supported since she came to power in April. But Russia dithered while riots
shook Kyrgyzstan this month, and then decided against intervening in the turmoil, despite Kremlin assertions that the former Soviet Union constitutes a Russian "sphere of influence." Some analysts say Medvedev was voicing his frustration with what
Moscow sees as a deteriorating situation in central Asia, which it seems increasingly incapable of dealing with. "In Moscow they are deeply disappointed with the interim government in Bishkek, which they had hoped would be stronger," says Alexei Malshenko, an expert with the Carnegie Center in Moscow. "But Russia's inaction reveals it as impotent to affect events in the region. It's a tragedy for Russian foreign policy, and this appearance of helplessness will encourage all of Moscow's enemies to be more active."
US checks Russias sphere of influence now Cooper and Kulish 09 (2/7/09, Helene Cooper and Nicholas Kulish, New York Times, U.S. rejects 'sphere of influence' for Russia, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/world/europe/07iht-07munich.20001384.html) But for all the talk of a new era in relations between the United States and the world, old sores remained, and with no sign of healing soon. For instance, while Biden's wording virtually echoed the stance on missile defense that Obama took during the presidential campaign, it was notable because Biden did not announce a strategic review of the issue, which administration officials had considered as a way to reduce tensions between Washington and Moscow. Instead, Biden hewed to a line long expressed by the Bush administration and said the Obama administration would pursue it "in consultation with our NATO allies and Russia." "We will not agree with Russia on everything," Biden said.
"For example, the United States will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. We will not recognize a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances." Biden said that the United States and Russia can disagree but should still look for ways to "work together where our interests coincide."
Russia not expanding now US suppression 41
[Name]
Japan Times, 2004 [Dont Tease the Russian Bear, February 15, 2004; Accessed on LN, CJC]
Badly in need of outside investments, the Kremlin doesn't want to antagonize the West too much . Besides, the Baltic nations have always looked somewhat alien to Russians anyway because of their explicit European cultural roots. However, if NATO expansion proceeds further east and embraces nations such as Ukraine or
Georgia, Moscow could feel driven into a corner and the ghost of the Cold War might re-emerge. One of the key words used by those who wish to expand NATO further east is appeasement - meaning that if the West doesn't step in, it will deliver the post-Soviet nations into the hands of Russian neo-imperialism, as France and Britain gave up Czechoslovakia to German Chancellor Adolf Hitler in 1938 in Munich. But appeasement is a very strong word and must be used carefully. Can Putin's approach to "near abroad" be interpreted as neo-imperialist? Yes, absolutely. But Putin is no Hitler. One would have to be a complete lunatic to attempt the conquest of lost territories like Georgia when one's army and police are unable to crush rebellion in tiny Chechnya. Experience with Chechnya indicates that Russia is still shrinking. Other Muslim minorities in the Caucasus could join Chechnya's revolt anytime, so the notion that Russia might send troops to reclaim Lithuania or Ukraine is completely ludicrous. The ways in which Putin could keep the "near abroad" in check do not look appealing: They include economic blackmail, subsidies to pro-Russian political parties and the instigation of political instability there. NATO's expansion will not solve the problem.
42
[Name]
N/U: EXPANSION INEV

Expansionism inevitable- Russia uses oppressions of expatriates as an excuse
Jules Evans, freelance journalist and writer who covers two main areas: philosophy and psychology (for publications including The Times, Psychologies, New Statesman and his own blog, The Politics of Wellbeing) and emerging markets (for publications including The Spectator, Economist, Times, Euromoney and Financial News), September 3, 2008. To stop Russian expansionism, take away the excuse for it http://www.globaldashboard.org/2008/09/03/to-stop-russian-expansionism-take-away-the-excuse-for-it/
Ive argued before that if the West wants to stop Russian expansionism, it has to take away the excuse for that expansionism the oppression of Russian citizens in former colonies like Georgia, Ukraine or the Baltics. This oppression is real, and as long as it exists, as long as the EU isnt really pro-active in protecting the rights of Russian citizens outside of Russia, then Russia will use this as an excuse for its military sorties. An interesting historical parallel for this strategy was drawn to my attention today. It turns out that, during the Great Game of the 18th and 19th century, the Russian empire used exactly the same strategy, using the excuse of Russian slaves in central Asia as an excuse to invade the khanates of Khiva and Bukhara and extend the borders of the Russian empire. The British empire, realizing what Russia was up to, dispatched two secret agents to the
khan of Khiva, in what is now Uzbekistan, to persuade him to release all his Russian slaves, which he did, thus removing the excuse for Russian aggression.
Russian sphere of influence inevitable

Zhukov 8 (Yuri, PhD in government from Harvard, Masters with Honors from Georgetown, and AB with honors in International
Relations, A Russian Sphere of Influence is Geopolitical Reality http://www.nextamerica.org/node/460) Even so, U.S.
participation in such a competition would be unsustainable. Though currently in a muchdiminished state, a Russian sphere of influence is not simply the ambition of Moscows current leadership, it is geopolitical reality. Through its position on the Eurasian landmass, Russia controls many of these countries links to the outside world, including critical pipelines, railroads and ports. Russia also remains the destination for most of the regions labor migrants and is the origin of large volumes of remittances, amounting to as much as 25-30% of some receiving countries GDP. The U.S. will struggle to find a sufficiently compelling national interest to justify an allocation of resources and political capital sufficient to roll back this Russian influence. U.S. interests in Eurasia tend to be driven by the extent to which regional trends can support or hinder success in other areas strategic access to Afghanistan, containment of Iran, diversification of energy routes. These interests are significant, but by force of geography alone they will never be as proximate or enduring as those of Russia. Violence in the separatist regions of Georgia has clear implications for security in the North
Caucasus. Likewise, a security vacuum in Central Asia has direct implications for the smuggling of Afghan narcotics into Russia. It should come as no surprise that throughout the last 20 years, no other major power has taken an equally active interest in the resolution of regional conflicts.
43
[Name]
NO IMPACT
Russia doesnt have the means to expand its sphere of influence
Zhukov 8 (Yuri, PhD in government from Harvard, Masters with Honors from Georgetown, and AB with honors in International
Relations, A Russian Sphere of Influence is Geopolitical Reality http://www.nextamerica.org/node/460) Russias intervention in the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict has ignited talk of a new East-West confrontation in the post-Soviet states of Eurasia. For the U.S., such a confrontation would presumably entail a policy of neo-containment toward Russia and a credible commitment to regional security. Yet given the balance of U.S. and Russian
interests in the region, such an approach would be unnecessary, unsustainable and ultimately counterproductive. A policy of neo-containment would be premature, so long as Russia remains neither welcome as a big brother nor fully capable of playing the role of a regional hegemon . Few in the region are
terribly enthusiastic about Russias resurgence. Even Moscows closest allies prefer to keep some distance Kazakhstan continues to delicately balance Russian interests against Chinese and U.S., while the idea of a Russian-Belorussian Union has been dead in the water since its conception. Perhaps more importantly, Russia suffers from grave domestic problems
endemic corruption, political violence in the North Caucasus, a shrinking population, poor infrastructure, declining oil and gas production, potential Chinese domination of the Far East, an economy highly vulnerable to fluctuations in commodity prices, armed forces that suffer from deep manpower problems and lack sufficient power projection capabilities. Russias willingness and ability to dominate its neighbors will be constrained by these weaknesses for the foreseeable future.
44
[Name]
45
[Name]
46

Russia DA George Town

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Russia DA George Town

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

1NC- RUSSIA AEROSPACE

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

1NC- RUSSIA ECONOMY

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

1NC- RUSSIA-US RELATIONS

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Extinction Tickel 8 (Oliver, , Climate Researcher. The Gaurdian, 8-11-2008 ,

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

1NC- RUSSIA BMD

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

UQ: RUSSIA AEROSPACE

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

will have to buckle," he said.

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

UQ: RUSSIA SPACE

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

UQ: RUSSIA INFLUENCE

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Russia is taking its sphere of influence back

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

UQ: US-RUSSIA RELATIONS

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

for use in a sudden disarming strike on Russia.

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

*2NC INTERNAL LINKS*

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

I/L: RUSSIA ECON

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

I/L: RUSSIA STABILITY

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

I/L: GLOBAL STABILITY

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

*2NC START MODULE*

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

N/U: NO RUSSIAN EXPANSION

No Russian sphere of influence now

Russia not expanding now US suppression 41

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

N/U: EXPANSION INEV

2NC INTERNAL LINKS

2NC START MODULE