Russia Adv – 1ac

Yüklə 0,75 Mb.

səhifə	5/29
tarix	10.12.2017
ölçüsü	0,75 Mb.
	#14978

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 29

a2 Relations Good

1. Relations Collapse Inevitable – The Russians are preparing to attack
A. Mock attacks

Christopher Ruddy, Media Fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, “Russia and China Prepare for War -- Part 6: Eleven Signs of a Russian Surprise Attack,” NEWSMAX, March 16, 1999, http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/3/16/84704.

2. Mock attacks. In the past two years, Russia has engaged in numerous mock attacks against the United States, including nuclear attacks. On February 21, 1997, then Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin "was at the Odinstovo nuclear command center, overseeing an exercise whose assignment was 'to destroy the US in less than an hour,'" according to a press account in Segodnya. In September of 1997 Russia's defense forces conducted a three-day nuclear attack exercise, which included a test firing of ICBM's, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bomber-launched cruise missiles. The Washington Times reported that in the fall of 1997, a Russian attack submarine stalked "close enough to sink ... with high speed cruise missiles" three carrier battle groups off the coast of Washington state. In October of 1998, TASS reported that Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces practiced a mock nuclear attack, firing an ICBM, against the United States. The exercise was coordinated with the Russian's strategic bomber force. The Washington Times reported that in April of 1998, "Russia's strategic bomber forces recently carried out simulated nuclear bombing raids against the United States in an exercise that included test firings of long-range cruise missiles." During these exercises, Russian bombers flew to the polar regions, as they would in an attack against the United States. These are the exercises that have been reported. Are these the actions of "America's friend?" In military strategy, mock attacks are a classic way to launch a real, surprise attack. Like high alert status, such repeated exercises create complacency on the part of American analysts who are being conditioned to view these exercises as normal.
B. High alert

1. Russia's Alert Status. As reported last year, Russia regularly put its missiles on a high state of alert, claiming their early warning systems did not work properly. Nyquist calls these periodical high alerts "one of the ominous signs of Russian duplicity." As Nyquist explains, firing a missile is not as simple as simply "pushing a button." An alert status means, in real terms, increased activity around a missile base as fuel and other preparations are made for a launch. Putting missiles on high alert means Russia is capable of launching in a matter of hours or even minutes. American intelligence analysts have scrupulously monitored such activity, largely through satellites. During Soviet days, an alert status would have been a huge red flag to US intelligence, leading the US to also heighten their alert status. The Russian's high state of alert and their frequent changes in alert status, have made the US military complacent. What normally would be a warning sign of an attack — Russia going on alert — is now viewed as business as usual.
C. Bunkers

10. Russia's Nuclear War Bunkers. Perhaps the clearest sign that Russia is planning on fighting and winning a nuclear war is their investment of billions of precious dollars to build a vast system of underground bunkers and shelters. This system has just one purpose: To enable millions of Russians to survive a nuclear war. In 1996 the New York Times described just one of these huge underground facilities, which was being was built under the Ural Mountains. Its size alone is staggering: Over 10 square miles of shops, homes, and storage facilities were being built underground — an area greater than that of the entire city of Washington, DC. The Times reported that the facility includes railways, factories, and apartment complexes — everything hundreds of thousands of people need to survive a nuclear war. And this is just one of scores of such facilities throughout Russia and the CIS. In 1997, the Washington Times reported that a CIA report detailed the vast underground network includes a subway from the Kremlin directly to facilities in the Ural Mountains. If the Cold War is really over and Russia is our friend, why have they built this enormous system of shelters?
D. Sea shift

This month's war games were widely seen here as aimed at further boosting Putin's popularity ahead of presidential elections March 14. The style and size of the exercise, and the talk of "aggressors," recalled the style of Soviet-era maneuvers. Analysts noted that the drill suggested that Russia still considers a conflict with the U.S. to be a possibility. Last October, Putin said that Russia retained the right to deliver pre-emptive military strikes, "if this practice continues to be used around the world."

E. Gold reserves

8. Russia is hoarding gold. Gold is a precious commodity, and in times of war it's even more precious. When war breaks out, the price of gold can go up 3, 5, even 10-fold overnight in a warring nation. Russia has long been one of the world's largest gold producing nations. At the end of the Soviet period, Russia was said to have had large reserves of gold, but these reserves mysteriously disappeared during the break-up of the USSR. In recent months more strange activity. In October of 1998, the Associated Press reported that Russia's gold production this year was approximately 120 tons, and that next year, the cash-strapped Russian government planned to spend $411 million to buy 50 tons of gold. The Russian government announced that it would begin something that is highly unusual: it would mint and issue to the public $1.5 billion in gold and silver coins. Still more interesting is the Interfax report just a month later. The Russian government approved legislation that abolished taxes on the sale of gold coins and ingots, giving its citizens a strong incentive to buy gold. This is extremely odd because Russia is in the middle of a major currency crisis in which their currency has been repeatedly devalued. Typically, during such a crisis, governments do everything they can to prevent their citizens from dumping the national currency and buying foreign currencies or gold Nyquist believes that the Russian government is encouraging its citizens to buy gold because it wants to have as much gold as possible within its borders in the event of war. The Russian government knows that gold would be the most stable currency in a war time economy.
F. Missile defense

Christopher Ruddy, Media Fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, “Russia and China Prepare for War -- Part 6: Eleven Signs of a Russian Surprise Attack,” March 16, 1999, http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/3/16/84704.

11. Russia has a sophisticated anti-ballistic missile system. According to William Lee, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst, Russia has between 10,000 and 12,000 anti-ballistic missiles ringing Russia, controlled by 18 battle management radar systems. The only possible use for this system is to neutralize a nuclear counterattack by the United States. Under Russia's 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the United States, this anti-missile system is completely illegal. Moreover, the system is widely believed to use nuclear weapons at the tips of their interceptor missiles, which could be exploded high above the atmosphere to knock out incoming US missiles. Clinton has yet to utter one word of protest.
2. And, relations are impossible – multiple warrants

Suslov 10 – Deputy Director for Research at the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (Dmitry, May 18, “US-Russia relations after the New START treaty”, http://en.rian.ru/valdai_op/20100518/159060786.html),
That is not to say, however, that U.S.-Russia relations have matured into a stable partnership. First, the level of mutual trust is still very low (as demonstrated by the talks on the New START treaty and the U.S. plans to deploy missile defense systems in eastern Europe). Second, the main obstacles in their relations remain; the sides have put off dealing with them, which will result in growing antagonism in the future.  Third, the agenda for U.S.-Russia relations is very limited and rooted in the sides’ desire to achieve other, more important foreign policy goals rather than the desire to promote a stable relationship. Moreover, the adoption of the New START treaty has greatly reduced the positive potential of the bilateral agenda, which is dominated by military problems. Fourth, there are major problems even where the countries’ interests seem to coincide, and it takes a great deal of political will to promote this cooperation and overcome new obstacles. Proof of this was provided by the talks on the New START treaty and cooperation on Iran and Afghanistan. Fifth, the sides have failed to develop a strong economic relationship, and their bilateral trade and economic cooperation has plunged by almost 50% since the start of the crisis. And sixth, there is no mechanism in place that would prevent U.S.-Russia relations from deteriorating into hostility and political confrontation if the political situation changes and disagreements reach a critical level. In other words, bilateral relations are not insured against a rollback.
3. US – Russian Relations collapse are impossible – no political cooperation, change in foreign policy

Baran 10 – Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Eurasian Studies at the Hudson Institute – (US – Russian Relations: Is conflict inevitable, http://www.fbird.com/assets/US%20-%20Russian%20Relations%20-%20Is%20Conflict%20Inevitable__628200714258.pdf)
Fifteen years after the fall of communism, Russia is reverting to patterns of behavior characteristic of the Soviet Union. This is reflected in foreign policy, in domestic policy and in the realm of ideas. In foreign policy, Russia increasingly seeks to frustrate the goals of the West. On February 7, President Putin, in a speech to the Munich security conference, accused the U.S. of “overstepping its borders in all spheres,” and imposing itself on other states. He accused the U.S. of a “hyper-inflated use of force.” Insofar as the policies of the U.S. have been undertaken either to protect the U.S. and other countries against terrorism or to promote and strengthen democracy, it is hard to interpret Putin’s words other than as a call for the U.S. to forswear almost all influence in the world and to leave the fate of democracy to the world’s dictators. In domestic policy, Russia has steadily destroyed political pluralism. The Duma was reduced to subservience, as were the courts. Oligarchic wealth was put at the service of the regime, the free press was all but eliminated (a few exceptions remain) and NGOs were placed under bureaucratic control. With independent centers of power in this way effectively neutralized, the fate of the country is in the hands of a small group of rulers divided by their hatred of each other and driven by their fear of losing control over the country’s wealth. In addition to a retrograde foreign and domestic policy, the Russian regime has made efforts to develop a new, undemocratic ideology. Leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church, which has become a pillar of the regime, have denied the universal validity of human rights. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov has declared Russia’s neutrality in what he calls “the West’s supposedly inevitable conflict with Islamic civilization.” At the same time, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, now a strong supporter of the Putin regime, has equated human rights with the “right” of a caveman to “snatch a piece of meat from his neighbor or hit him over the head.” The danger of these developments is that they are capable of defining a durable system of anti-Western authoritarian rule. Recent developments show that there is a sharp divergence between Russia’s interests and the interests of the small group of people who run it. The result has made Russia a disruptive and unpredictable force in international relations and a danger to itself. The best way to counteract authoritarianism in Russia and the tendency, once again, to live in a world of illusions is for the U.S. to demonstrate strict fidelity to its own values. By demonstrating that we have principles that we are ready to defend, we will positively influence Russian policy and offer needed support to the liberal minority in Russia that shares the values of the West.

Yüklə 0,75 Mb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 29