2014 ndi – Pre Camp Natural Gas Negative



Download 1.07 Mb.
Page17/19
Date01.02.2018
Size1.07 Mb.
#37897
1   ...   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19

Russia Econ DA

1NC Shell

Russian gas exports deal with china allows for long term economic growth


Hill, 5/25/2014 (Patrice, The Washington Times, “Russia’s Putin gains strategic victory with Chinese natural gas deal” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/25/russias-putin-gains-strategic-victory-with-chinese/?page=all)

In the tit-for-tat economic war between the United States and Russia this year, Moscow has scored a significant victory with its monumental deal to provide natural gas to China, directly challenging U.S. attempts to isolate Russia with economic sanctions. By securing a major new customer for Russia’s gas outside Europe, President Vladimir Putin has accomplished several top strategic goals. The most obvious is to stoke fears among Europeans that they will have to compete with China for Russian energy supplies. Another goal was to lay down the gauntlet for U.S. and Canadian ambitions to export liquefied natural gas to lucrative Asian markets. The deal establishes Russia’s presence in the heart of the biggest Asian market. But the geopolitical triumphs have been bittersweet. Russia’s economy is widely believed to have sunk into recession as a result of Western sanctions imposed in response to Mr. Putin’s takeover of Crimea and the investor stampede out of Russia caused by his Ukrainian land grab. Mr. Putin may have given a final push to clinch the long-stalled gas deal with an eye on the Russian economy. Russian energy giant Gazprom plans to spend $55 billion and hire 11,700 people to build the pipelines, gas processing plants and other infrastructure needed to make good on what Mr. Putin said would be the world’s largest infrastructure project. “I guess China never got the sanctions memo,” said Max Keiser, a former Wall Street trader and British broadcaster. He said the $400 billion, 30-year deal will further the strategic goals of Moscow and Beijing to diminish the status of the U.S. dollar by conducting world trade in critical commodities such as oil and gas using other currencies. Russia is the world’s biggest producer of commodities such as crude oil, gold and titanium. China is the world’s biggest consumer of these commodities. Both countries have chafed for years at having to conduct purchases and sales in dollars, as is customary worldwide. The gas deal announced in Beijing on Wednesday would be the first major commodities contract to be settled in Russian rubles and Chinese yuan rather than dollars. “This means the U.S. dollar’s days as the world reserve currency are numbered,” said Mr. Keiser, noting that Russia and China have been investing heavily in gold. Many analysts question whether Moscow and Beijing can succeed in displacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. If that happens, however, it likely would usher in a period of global financial instability and force Americans to pay much more for the massive amounts of imported energy, Mr. Keiser said. Some reports said Russia had to accept a lower price for gas, $360 per 1,000 cubic meters, than the $380 originally sought from China. Mr. Keiser said the strategic gains for Russia were well worth any short-term financial sacrifice. Strategic competitor Constantin Gurdgiev, an analyst at True Economics, said the deal was a mutual win for energy-rich Russia and its energy-hungry neighbor while posing significant strategic competition for the U.S. and its allies. “All across, this should be a very good deal for Russia and China,” he said. The deal settles on a way to build a pipeline network from western Siberia, northeastern China and Russia’s east coast, and will carry 38 billion cubic meters of gas a year to China. Russia has needed such a structure for years to sell its gas in the Far East. The project, which will be built jointly, will make Russia’s gas available for the first time to China and carry it most of the way to Russia’s Pacific ports, where it can be liquefied and sold to Japan, South Korea and other lucrative Asian markets. Russia has been searching for decades for ways to finance and build links to the Far East. Once the pipelines to China are in place, Gazprom plans to expand the network and use it to exploit and transport what energy analysts say is a vast untapped pool of oil and gas in mostly unexplored eastern Siberia. “The new pipeline holds the promise of bringing exploration and production further east from existing centers of production” in western Siberia and unlocking potentially large oil and gas fields in the Russian Far East, Mr. Gurdgiev said. Gazprom envisions a steady flow of gas that would feed a liquefied natural gas plant in Vladivostok on Russia’s eastern coast, which would funnel liquefied gas to the rest of Asia, including major port cities in China. “The core threat here is to the U.S. exports of LNG to the Asia-Pacific, where U.S. producers are collecting huge margins compared to European markets,” Mr. Gurdgiev said. “But this threat is still some years, if not decades, off from becoming a significant pressure point” because the Russian pipeline network and most U.S. liquefied gas terminals are years from being completed. Moody’s Investors Service Vice President Julia Pribytkova said Gazprom will have to take on a lot of debt to complete the project, but it should be worth it in the end. “The deal will provide a launchpad for Gazprom’s full-scale diversification into the Asia-Pacific region,” the biggest and fastest-growing market for natural gas worldwide, she said. The Ukraine link Tyler Durden, an analyst at Zero Hedge, said the Russian-Chinese deal represents a big strategic loss for the U.S., despite efforts by the Obama administration to minimize its importance. Secretary of State John F. Kerry insisted last week that the deal was not linked to the standoff in Ukraine, but Mr. Durden said the U.S. and Europe, in attempts to isolate Moscow, virtually “forced Russia into China’s embrace.” “This is merely the beginning of what will be a far closer commercial and political relationship between China and Russia,” Mr. Durden said. China used the announcement of the deal as an occasion to call for a security alliance of Russia, China and Iran — arguably the West’s three most formidable opponents. While the U.S. and Europe were “furiously scrambling” for ways to punish Russia for day-to-day developments in Ukraine, Mr. Durden said, the deal with China showed how Mr. Putin “once again was thinking three steps ahead and quite a few steps to the east.” Russia’s “holy grail” deal with China will “send geopolitical shock waves around the world and bind the two nations in a commodity-backed axis,” he said, while “laying the groundwork for a new joint, commodity-backed reserve currency that bypasses the dollar.” Although Mr. Putin is reaping some long-term economic gains, the Russian economy has been a short-term loser in its standoff with the West. Economic analysts say Russia’s economy likely sank into recession this spring as a result of the exodus of investment funds in response to its invasion of Ukraine. Mr. Putin seemed to acknowledge the dangers of cutting off all economic ties to the West, sparking a mild market rally after telling a gathering of corporate CEOs in St. Petersburg on Friday that Russia would not contest the weekend presidential vote in Ukraine. He also acknowledged that Western sanctions had cooled the business climate but said any effort to isolate Russia from the global economy would have a “boomerang effect.” With the Chinese deal fresh in the business executives’ minds, Mr. Putin said “the world is rapidly changing, and we are witnessing colossal geopolitical, technological and structural shifts.” He said the United States is behind the curve in recognizing new global economic realities. But Russia’s gas deal with China promises to provide a substantial stimulus for the economy, especially in Russia’s poorer regions in Siberia and the Far East where it is needed the most. “An extensive gas infrastructure network will be set up in Russia’s east, which will drive the local economy forward,” said Alexey Miller, Gazprom’s chairman, emphasizing that nearly all the steel pipe and other components will be manufactured in Russia. “Great impetus will be given to entire economic sectors, namely metallurgy, pipe and machine building.”

But Russia is economically fragile – an increase in US exports will crush Russia’s economy.


Johnston, 5/29/2014 (J Bennett, former Democratic senator, “The United States can use its energy prowess to discipline Russia: J. Bennett Johnston” http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2014/05/the_united_states_can_use_its.html)

Fortunately, Russia has an Achilles Heel. Despite a strong military, Russia is economically weak, with a per capita income only one-third that of the United States. The Russian economy grew at a rapid clip during the early 2000s, but its growth has averaged just more than 1 percent in recent years. And despite its size, Russia's economy is one-dimensional, with energy as its major industry and only significant export. Europe relies on these supplies. But no country that is dependent on Russia for natural gas wants to remain so. In 2011, the United States surpassed Russia to become the planet's number one gas producer. Boundless ingenuity and capital are being focused on the production of gas from shale formations, which abound in such places as Pennsylvania, Texas and Louisiana. Thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, gas production has reached historic levels. Though estimates vary, most experts agree that we have within our grasp enough natural gas to last 100 years or more. America can -- and should -- utilize its newfound abundance to diminish Putin's ability to threaten the stability and security of Europe. To that end, the U.S. government should expedite approval of facilities on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts that can export some of our gas to Europe, thereby liberating our allies from Russia's stranglehold on energy. So far, the U.S. government has approved seven new export terminals for shipping liquefied natural gas (LNG) to countries with which the United States does not have a free-trade agreement, including most of Europe. Yet, more than 20 other applications are pending -- about half of which would result in major economic projects here in Louisiana. These exports will take time, and the first terminal won't be operational until late next year. But the signal will be crystal clear: America intends to become a major player in the global gas market, and Russia's ability to use energy as a weapon is coming to an end. Equally important, exporting natural gas will create good-paying jobs here at home. A study by IHS Global Insight estimates that, by 2035, LNG exports could support more than 74,000 new jobs in Louisiana alone. Exports also will reduce our trade deficit and strengthen our energy security. America has the potential to become an energy giant. We should start acting like one. Our allies in Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary and Bosnia-Herzegovina soon will be negotiating new contracts with Gazprom, Russia's largest gas company, and the prospect of U.S. LNG exports can give our friends overseas additional leverage.

Nuclear war


Filger 2009 – Sheldon, author and blogger for the Huffington Post, “Russian Economy Faces Disastrous Free Fall Contraction” http://www.globaleconomiccrisis.com/blog/archives/356

In Russia historically, economic health and political stability are intertwined to a degree that is rarely encountered in other major industrialized economies. It was the economic stagnation of the former Soviet Union that led to its political downfall. Similarly, Medvedev and Putin, both intimately acquainted with their nation’s history, are unquestionably alarmed at the prospect that Russia’s economic crisis will endanger the nation’s political stability, achieved at great cost after years of chaos following the demise of the Soviet Union. Already, strikes and protests are occurring among rank and file workers facing unemployment or non-payment of their salaries. Recent polling demonstrates that the once supreme popularity ratings of Putin and Medvedev are eroding rapidly. Beyond the political elites are the financial oligarchs, who have been forced to deleverage, even unloading their yachts and executive jets in a desperate attempt to raise cash. Should the Russian economy deteriorate to the point where economic collapse is not out of the question, the impact will go far beyond the obvious accelerant such an outcome would be for the Global Economic Crisis. There is a geopolitical dimension that is even more relevant then the economic context. Despite its economic vulnerabilities and perceived decline from superpower status, Russia remains one of only two nations on earth with a nuclear arsenal of sufficient scope and capability to destroy the world as we know it. For that reason, it is not only President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin who will be lying awake at nights over the prospect that a national economic crisis can transform itself into a virulent and destabilizing social and political upheaval. It just may be possible that U.S. President Barack Obama’s national security team has already briefed him about the consequences of a major economic meltdown in Russia for the peace of the world. After all, the most recent national intelligence estimates put out by the U.S. intelligence community have already concluded that the Global Economic Crisis represents the greatest national security threat to the United States, due to its facilitating political instability in the world. During the years Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia, security forces responsible for guarding the nation’s nuclear arsenal went without pay for months at a time, leading to fears that desperate personnel would illicitly sell nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. If the current economic crisis in Russia were to deteriorate much further, how secure would the Russian nuclear arsenal remain? It may be that the financial impact of the Global Economic Crisis is its least dangerous consequence.

2NC Overview

Impact defense doesn’t assume the magnitude of the link---low oil prices collapse Russia’s economy---guts political stability and governmental checks, which makes nuclear war uniquely likely---that’s Filger

The disad outweighs case---

Magnitude---Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal -- Plus it’s the Only existential risk


Bostrom 02 Nick (PhD Philosophy – Oxford U) 2002 Existential Risks, 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 terminal. 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.[4]  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 humankind’s potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.

And- It’s most likely scenario for nuclear war and causes US draw in


David 99 Steven, Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University, “Saving America From the Coming Civil Wars,” FOREIGN AFFAIRS, v 78 n 1, Jan/Feb 1999, LN.
Only three countries, in fact, meet both criteria: Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Civil conflict in Mexico would produce waves of disorder that would spill into the United States, endangering the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, destroying a valuable export market, and sending a torrent of refugees northward. A rebellion in Saudi Arabia could destroy its ability to export oil, the oil on which the industrialized world depends. And internal war in Russia could devastate Europe and trigger the use of nuclear weapons. Of course, civil war in a cluster of other states could seriously harm American interests. These countries include Indonesia, Venezuela, the Philippines, Egypt, Turkey, Israel, and China. In none, however, are the stakes as high or the threat of war as imminent.

2NC Uniqueness – Russia’s Economy is Fine Now

Russia’s economy is on the rise now – they don’t assume new Russia Chinese gas agreement – it ensures a sustainable level of income to maintain long term economic growth – even if they’re right that Russia’s economy is great now it’s on a sustainable rise due to exports – the link controls uniqueness – that’s the Hill.

Russia avoided a major economic downturn and is on the rise but that is dependent on natural gas exports.


Rosen, 5/28/2014 (Armin, Business Insider staffwriter, “Russia's Economy May Have Avoided The Worst Fallout From Ukraine” http://www.businessinsider.in/Russias-Economy-May-Have-Avoided-The-Worst-Fallout-From-Ukraine/articleshow/35689998.cms)

Russia's economy is expected to avoid the worst case scenario following its incursion into Ukraine, according to a new report from Morgan Stanley. Although Russia's aggression towards its southern neighbor has created lasting problems for the Russian economy and made it a riskier investment, commodities prices remain high, the ruble is slowly recovering value, and Russian corporate credit remains "fundamentally sound." Perhaps most importantly, the firm sees Ukraine's recent, successful elections as a sign of "de-escalation" between Kiev and Moscow - a prerequisite for a longer-term Russian economic recovery. More highlights from the report: The ruble is rebounding, but won't recover fully from its post-Crimea invasion losses this year, according to Morgan Stanley. Russian bonds "have been on a rollercoaster since February as spreads move between 600 and 800 [basis points]," yet Morgan Stanley is still "neutral" on them, concluding that "the risk/reward in the medium term is more balanced" and even "[acknowledging] there is room for further strength in the near term." Russian corporate credit hasn't cratered. Quite the opposite: "Valuations are attractive and fundamentals are currently sound" from the perspective of foreign investors, a fact which will "provide the basis for investors to increase exposure in the scenario of de-escalation, in our view." And in the firm's analysis, Ukraine's recent elections, which were among the cleanest in the country's history, could bring about just that scenario. There are several "potential catalysts for further upside," like the "de-escalation" of the Ukraine crisis, the end of gas negotiations with China, and the strength of Russia's energy and natural resources sectors. ... but the pre-Crimea invasion status quo isn't coming back for a while. The Russian economy has "subdued medium-term prospects," and the firm "[does] not expect a full return to the status quo before Crimea's annexation for some time." The lingering economic and political sting of EU and US sanctions, along with Putin's position that Russian-speaking areas in Moscow's near-abroad now have the right to secede, means that investors "are likely to reduce their exposure to Russian assets." The firm projects the Russian economy will grow in 2014 but at a sluggish 1%. Could this mixed economic landscape convince Putin to pull back from eastern Ukraine? The Morgan Stanley report suggests that Putin's adventurism has had some real mid-term costs attached to it. At the same time, the Russian president has annexed part of a neighboring country and is still succeeding in sowing chaos throughout Ukraine's east. The week of the election saw heavy combat between pro-Russian militants and the Ukrainian military at the Donetsk airport and the deaths of 17 Ukrainian soldiers in the eastern town of Volnovakha. For that kind of a hard power play - which has weakened the government in Kiev while lengthening Moscow's territorial reach, and put the entire western security alliance on notice - some slow growth, a faltering-but-recovering currency, and wild but not junk-status interest rates, might be an acceptable asking price.

Russia’s economy is still growing but is on the brink of a double dip recession.


Business News, 6/24/2014 (News Source, “Russian economy to grow 0.5pc amid political turmoil” http://www.independent.ie/business/world/russian-economy-to-grow-05pc-amid-political-turmoil-30306542.html)

The Bank of Russia will probably revise its 2014 gross domestic product growth forecast to around 0.5pc, Ms Nabiullina said, revealing that it had earlier forecast a 0.9pc expansion. The economy is on the brink of recession after quarterly GDP fell by 0.5pc in the first three months of the year, impacted by sanctions and instability resulting from the stand-off with Ukraine and wider emerging market uncertainty. Ms Nabiullina said it was too early to speak of a recession, before full macroeconomic data for the second quarter was out, but she acknowledged that the economy had been affected.

Investment is increasing – helps the economy


Devvitt, 6/19/2014 (Polina, Reuters, “Russia may revise 2014 GDP forecast upwards - economy minister” http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/19/uk-russia-economy-gdp-idUSKBN0EU0EC20140619)

(Reuters) - Russia's gross domestic product growth forecast of 0.5 percent for 2014 may be revised upwards in September due to the slowing pace of a decline in investment, Economy Minister Alexei Ulyukayev said on Thursday. "For now our official (forecast) for this year is 0.5 percent, but most likely we will revise it in September, most likely upwards," Ulyukayev told journalists. Investment by Russian companies in tangible goods such as plant infrastructure, a major contribution to the country's economic wellbeing, had been falling since last year and plummeted after the West imposed sanctions on Moscow for annexing Ukraine's Crimea region. There are no figures for investment for May yet, but Ulyukayev said there were signs that the fall had eased. In April, investment was down 2.7 percent year-on-year. "There are no concrete figures," Ulyukayev said. "But the dynamics of the decline have flattened. ... We are still in negative territory. From now on (the numbers) should show a growing trend."


Growth now is a result of natural gas- plan causes a fiscal trainwreck


Burke 12 [Justin Managing Editor , Eurasia News, 3/1 “ Russia: Putinism and the Russian Economy”, http://www.eurasianet.org/node/65070 //]

During his tenure in power, Russia has experienced robust economic growth and benefited from a favorable balance of trade, enabling the Kremlin to amass cash reserves of just over $505 billion, according to Central Bank statistics. But trade-surplus figures provide only a partial picture of the Russian economy, creating an illusion of economic health. Russian growth is overly dependent on the export of raw materials, especially oil & gas, but also including minerals, precious metals and timber. During his first go-round as president, Putin spoke repeatedly of a need to transform Russia’s economy. In a May 2006 speech to the Federation Council, for example, he said his administration was already taking “concrete steps to change the structure of our economy, and turn it into an economy of [technological] innovation.” And on May 8, 2008, the day he stepped down from the presidency and returned to the post of prime minister, he announced the government’s “number one priority” was economic diversification via the “development of innovative industries.” If figures compiled by Russia’s Federal Service for State Statistics (FSSS) are to be believed, Putin’s quest to create a knowledge-based, high-tech economy has been a dismal failure. Import-export data for the past 12 years shows that Russia’s role in the global economy remains that of raw materials supplier, and that the high price of oil & natural gas is all that stands in the way of Russia becoming a fiscal train wreck. When it comes to the state budget, the stability of Russia’s finances is dependent on an increase in the cost of energy. The Kremlin thus stands to benefit economically from increased tension between the West and Iran. Prior to the global financial crisis, Russia could balance its books with an oil price of about $90 per barrel, former Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said last September. Now, according to the Finance Ministry, the Russian budget needs an oil price of $117 per barrel this year to remain in good shape.


2NC Link Wall – Plan will Increase US exports

SQ exports are limited but the plan would cut off Russian exports – provides US capacity to export to Europe and lets them develop their own sources.


Driessen, 6/20/2014 (Paul, Washington Times writer, senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, “DRIESSEN: Fighting Russia with U.S. natural gas exports Lawmakers should expedite aid to needy allies” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/driessen-a-shale-gale-to-blow-away-russias-energy-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS)

In reality, though, America’s dependence on foreign petroleum was never due to a lack of oil and natural gas deposits. It arose because the United States lacked the political willpower to find and produce them on federal lands, and did not have the technology to develop them in state and private areas. The advent of directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing changed that dramatically. The technologies made the United States the world’s largest producer of natural gas and greatly increased domestic oil production. By enabling us to extract energy from vast shale formations, they put the nation well on its way to again being a global energy powerhouse. Imagine what could happen if these new technologies could be employed on those still-closed onshore and offshore federal lands. America could easily have ample hydrocarbons to meet domestic needs, export natural gas and even some oil and refined products to allies, and keep oil prices manageable even in the midst of renewed Russian aggression and Middle East turmoil. The United States now has more than a 100-year supply of natural gas — and could support its allies by shipping liquefied natural gas (LNG) by tanker to foreign ports. That would counter Russian cutoffs and threatened price hikes or supply disruptions, and give our allies time to deploy fracking technologies in their own extensive shale deposits, as some European countries are now doing or contemplating seriously. The Department of Energy has given conditional approval to seven LNG export plans, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has been reviewing 14 proposals submitted by terminals that need to make modifications for export operations. On the East Coast, the list includes Dominion’s facility at Cove Point, Md., and the LNG plant operated by Southern LNG Company at Elba Island, Ga. With approvals needed from both agencies, the requirement that gas-exporting terminals ship LNG only to countries holding free-trade agreements with the United States, and with the entire process facing various delays, congressional action is required to streamline the process. It’s also essential that the United States drill and produce still more natural gas, which not only supports our allies but also benefits us here at home. The “shale gale” brought a 40 percent increase in oil and gas jobs between 2007 and 2012, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, amid a paltry 1 percent job growth in the rest of our economy. IHS Global Insight projects that another 1.3 million shale-related jobs will likely be created by 2030. Yet President Obama has given our enormous natural gas opportunities little more than lip service, beyond saying natural gas is helpful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to prevent global warming. The president and his regulators are also making numerous federal onshore and offshore energy prospects off-limits, moving at the pace of continental drift in issuing drilling leases and permits, and looking for ways to impede fracking on state and private lands.

Natural Gas competition will heat up


Martin, 5/30/2014 (Richard, Forbes Contributer, “Russia-China Gas Deal Narrows Window for U.S. Exports” http://www.forbes.com/sites/pikeresearch/2014/05/30/russia-china-gas-deal-narrows-window-for-u-s-exports/)

Competition in the international gas markets is bound to heat up, and the United States may have already missed its opportunity for an LNG export bonanza. Expanding pipelines, more export terminals, and better technology for liquefying and shipping natural gas will all help globalize the natural market, in the way the crude oil market is already globalized. Already, the relatively low price that China will pay for Russian gas (around $350 per thousand cubic meters, analysts estimate) is putting downward pressure on higher prices for Japan and South Korea. Earlier this month Dominion Resources D -0.75% won approval from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to build an LNG export facility at Cove Point on Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay. The company said the $3.8 billion terminal could begin shipping gas as early as 2017.

2NC I/L Wall – Exports K2 Russia’s Economy

Exports to the EU are half of Russia’s total exports


Rusling, 5/31/2014 (Matthew, ShanghaiDaily.com, “News Analysis: U.S.-Russian relations remain strained amid ongoing Ukraine crisis” http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.aspx?id=221644)

WASHINGTON, May 30 (Xinhua) -- The U.S.-Russian relations remain strained amid the ongoing Ukraine crisis, with no apparent signs of easing tensions on the horizon, U.S. experts said. The United States and Russia have been at odds in recent months over the surprise deployment of Russian troops into Crimea, Ukraine. Washington blasted the Russian move for violating international law and slapped sanctions on Russia as punishment, though Moscow defended it as simply protecting the region's Russian-speaking population. The development has caused a rift between the White House and the Kremlin, although experts said any military conflict between the two countries is highly unlikely. Still, there is no U.S. ambassador in Moscow three months into the Ukraine crisis after former Ambassador Michael McFaul left the Russian capital a day before Russia's surprise troop deployment. The spat has given way to much sabre rattling, with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week publicly mocking his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama. "Who is he to judge, seriously? If he wants to judge people, why doesn't he get a job in court somewhere?" Putin said in an interview with the CNBC, reflecting his view that the United States should not interfere with events in Ukraine. "I think Putin ... made an assessment of Obama and decided that (Obama) is weaker than Putin. And therefore that Putin can push Obama on a number of issues," Ariel Cohen, senior research fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies at the Heritage Foundation, told Xinhua. "He thinks that he can get away with publicly disparaging and offending Obama. That he can undermine Obama's stature as the ... leader of the United States," he said. Moscow also grabbed headlines last month when a Russian SU-24 fighter plane buzzed closely by the USS Donald Cook in the western Black Sea in a move analysts said was a message to Washington to keep out of Russia's sphere of influence, as well as a bid to gauge the U.S. response. That event, plus Russia's general stance toward the United States at the moment, suggest that Russian policy makers view America as strong but perhaps not as strong as previously, and not as focused on Europe as its main strategic priority following Obama's Asia pivot, David Clark, chairman of the Russia Foundation, told Xinhua. So far, Putin has viewed Obama as weak and unable to economically punish Russia for the latter's moves in Ukraine. After lambasting Moscow for its moves in Ukraine, Obama merely slapped travel bans on a handful of Russians, a move viewed as a lackluster response by those who advocated much harsher sanctions. "In order to make sanctions work, the U.S. needs to get the Europeans on board," Cohen said. "The U.S. managed to do that in the case of Iran, and Iran's willingness to negotiate the nuclear program was a result of the sanctions. Russia is a much more powerful country than Iran, and I think Mr. Putin thinks that the U.S. and Mr. Obama cannot impose meaningful sanctions." Still, if Obama succeeded in getting others on board with sanctions, Russia would re-assess the situation, he added. Russia currently supplies around a quarter of Europe's oil and natural gas, not to mention 40 percent of economic powerhouse Germany's gas, and Moscow also has a deep trade relationship with Eurozone nations. Some experts said this could make Europe hesitant to impose sanctions. Russia sends nearly 300 billion U.S. dollars worth of exports to EU countries, which account for nearly half of Russia's total exports, whereas Russia is only the 20th largest trading partner of the United States.

Russia’s heavily dependent on exports.


Williams and Demick, 5/26/2014 (Carol and Barbara, LA Times, “Russia-China natural gas deal signals growing ties between former foes” http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/11526795-113/china-russia-ukraine-deal)

K IEV, Ukraine — A landmark natural gas deal with China offers Russia an alternative to markets in European countries angered by the Kremlin’s stance on Ukraine and highlights growing ties between the former rivals at a time when they are both at odds with Washington. The 30-year deal signed Wednesday calls for Russia to supply 38 billion cubic meters of gas via a pipeline from Siberia to energy-hungry cities in northeastern China, including Beijing and Tianjin. Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose country is heavily dependent on energy exports, had eagerly sought the agreement to protect against a reduction or cutoff by big European customers such as Germany, a possible next step in sanctions against Russia in the dispute over Ukraine. Putin also knows that most of his country’s exports to Europe go through pipelines that cross Ukraine, making them subject to retaliation for Russia’s seizure of the Crimean peninsula and its suspected backing of pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine. The Russia-China deal “is a clear signal to the West that Russia has a real alternative,” said Andrei Kokoshin, dean of Moscow State University’s world politics faculty and a former head of Russia’s Security Council. “It would not be wrong to say that it (the relationship with China) has reached the highest level in all its centuries-long history. — Vladimir Putin, Russian president Senior Russian officials have warned that reaction to the seizure of Crimea and concern over Kremlin policy in Ukraine were cutting into economic growth rates and fueling capital flight from Russia. Russia has edged away from Ukraine’s separatists, declining to endorse the results of referendums on independence they held May 11. Kremlin officials also have refused to recognize the opposition politicians running Ukraine since former President Viktor Yanukovich was ousted, saying they are unelected and therefore illegitimate. Moscow also had denounced as illegal the election to replace Yanukovich, set for Sunday. But it changed its stance after U.S. and European leaders warned that further economic sanctions would follow if Russia interfered with the vote. Putin, attending an Asian security summit Wednesday in China, told journalists that he had ordered Russian troops back from the Ukrainian border to “create additional, favorable conditions” for the election. “Any political process is better than an armed standoff,” he said, apparently referring to round-table talks between Kiev’s interim leaders and representatives of Ukraine’s disparate regions on ways to decentralize power in the nation. Polls in Ukraine indicate that confection magnate Petro Poroshenko has a commanding lead in the presidential campaign. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said last week that Poroshenko was someone with whom Russia could deal. Pro-Russia separatists also are under new pressure from a steel and mining magnate who employs 300,000 people in eastern Ukraine. He claimed Wednesday to have mobilized a million protesters against the separatists. Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine’s richest man, heralded his Voice of Donbass campaign as evidence that most people in the turbulent east oppose the armed disruptions in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Protests organized by Akhmetov and managers of his industrial operations, which are the economic backbone of the Donbass region, have galvanized the peaceful majority “against destabilization of the situation in Donbass, against violence and chaos, banditry and looting,” the mogul said in a statement. The protests began last Tuesday with employees called to stand outside their workplaces at noon while factory whistles sounded from dozens of enterprises. Akhmetov said Wednesday that more than a million workers took part, including 200,000 from his own businesses. The figures could not be independently confirmed. The magnate’s enterprises are scattered across a wide swath of eastern Ukraine and are inaccessible to most journalists because of the separatists’ roadblocks and railroad disruptions. The Voice of Donbass campaign demands the disarming of all “illegal insurgent gangs,” release of hostages and unblocking of occupied buildings and seized rail and road links to the region. In Shanghai, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping witnessed the signing of the energy deal on the last day of the security summit. The agreement was signed by the heads of the countries’ state-owned energy giants, Russia’s Gazprom and China National Petroleum Corp. Before the meeting, Putin extolled Beijing as a most “reliable friend.” “It would not be wrong to say that it (the relationship with China) has reached the highest level in all its centuries-long history,” Putin said in an interview with Chinese media. The gas deal had been in the works since the 1990s, with China holding out until the end for price concessions. Financial terms were not disclosed. Russia and China also celebrated their friendship with joint maritime exercises in the East China Sea, where China is locked in a dispute with Japan over uninhabited islands. China also is at loggerheads with Vietnam and the Philippines over resource rights in the South China Sea, a situation for which it blames the United States. “The relationship between China and Russia is definitely at a new stage. Both trust each other. The leaders keep frequent communication,” said Yang Chuang, a retired diplomat at China Foreign Affairs University in Beijing. The friendly relations between the onetime foes come as both are caught in a cycle of deteriorating relations with the United States. The U.S. and China are dueling over accusations that China’s military is engaged in Internet hacking of U.S. businesses; Russia has angered the U.S. by embracing secrets leaker Edward Snowden and by intervening in Ukraine. Putin’s visit to Shanghai came almost exactly 25 years after a 1989 trip to Beijing by then-Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev to seal the reconciliation of the two communist powers. Gorbachev was welcomed as a beacon of liberalization by pro-democracy students who were camped out at Tiananmen Square, just weeks before the brutal crackdown by the Chinese military. A quarter of a century later, Beijing is under heightened security as the leadership rounds up activists and curtails the Internet to prevent commemorations of the crackdown.

kills Russia’s economy


Mead 12

Walter Russell Mead, April 25, 2012 (Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College, Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and Editor-at-Large of The American Interest magazine), , The American Interest, North American Shale Gas Gives Russia Serious Headache, http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/04/25/north-american-shale-gas-gives-russia-serious-headache/



North America’s shale gas boom is chipping away at the market for gas producers like Russia. What’s more, if the United States becomes a gas exporter, Russia’s customers (especially in Europe) could decide to cancel expensive contracts with Gazprom in favor of cheaper American natural gas. “If the US starts exporting LNG to Europe and Asia, it gives [customers there] an argument to renegotiate their prices with Gazprom and Qatar, and they will do it,” says Jean Abiteboul, head of Cheniere supply & marketing. Gazprom supplied 27 percent of Europe’s natural gas in 2011. While American gas is trading below $2 per MMBTU (million British thermal units), Gazprom’s prices are tied to crude oil markets, and its long-term contracts charge customers roughly $13 per MMBTU, says the FT. European customers would love to reduce their dependence on Gazprom and start to import American gas. Already Gazprom has had to make concessions to its three biggest customers, and others are increasingly dissatisfied with their contracts. Worse, from Russia’s point of view: evidence that western and central Europe contain substantial shale gas reserves of their own. Fracking is unpopular in thickly populated, eco-friendly Europe, but so are high gas prices. All this ought to give Russia serious heartburn. Eroding Gazprom’s dominance of the European energy market would be a major check on Russian economic growth and political influence.

2NC Accidental Launch Impact

Russian economic decline causes accidental launch


Blair & Gaddy, 1999 – Bruce Blair and Clifford Gaddy, 1999. President of the Center for Defense Information, former Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Minuteman launch control officer in the Strategic Air Command, Ph.D. in Operations Research from Yale, has taught security studies as a visiting professor at Yale and Princeton and Senior Fellow at Brookings. "Russia's Aging War Machine," http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/1999/summer_russia_bruce%20blair%20and%20clifford%20gaddy/Blair.pdf

Effects on the Nuclear Forces For Russia’s conventional forces, the combination of lack of resources and the time and effort that must be diverted to sheer survival has been devastating to combat readiness. But nowhere does the weakness and inefficiency of Russia’s state economy have more serious implications than famous nuclear suitcases that accompany the president and other top authorities are falling into disrepair. Prestigious institutes, such as the laborator ies that design nuclear weapons, build the deep underground command posts, and engineer the communications links that would be used to send the “go code” to the strategic weapons. But conditions that might drive individuals or groups to violate nuclear safety rules or threaten to fire weapons are ripening. At the least, worsening conditions of life and work in the nuclear forces decrease proficiency in managing weapons and sap motivation to adhere strictly to safety rules. [continues] If we are very lucky, the Russian nuclear arsenal and control system will atrophy without incident, coming to a safe instead of deadly end. In such a happy scenario, this atrophy will also encourage Russia to ratify the START II arms reduction treaty and negotiate even deeper bilateral reductions, lowering the ceiling on strategic deployments from 3,500 (START II) to 2,500 (START III) or fewer.Within a decade or so Russia’s aging force could easily shrink to 500 or fewer, creating enormous latitude to negotiate vast reductions in deployments. But this scenario is wishful thinking loaded with untenable assumptions.The START process has stalled and may not be revived any time soon, leaving in place increasingly decrepit and hazardous forces that Russia might not retire after all.The decay of the Russian arsenal is certain to run growing risks of proliferation and to erode safety along with basic offensive capability. For example, a degraded early warning network is less able to detect an actual attack—but also less able to screen out false indications of attack. Similarly, failure in the nuclear command link between the General Staff in Moscow and the launch crews in the field would disrupt not only the ability of the General Staff to quickly transmit the go code, but also the feedback loop from the missiles to the General Staff that detects and prevents an unauthorized launch attempt at any subordinate level of command. Finally, the departure of security guards from their posts at weapons depots to forage for food or escape inclement weather may not only impede the authorized dispersal of those weapons during a crisis but also increase the vulnerability of the weapons to theft. And the danger is not merely theoretical. A 1996 CIA report noted that broken locking devices on some Russian nuclear weapons had not been repaired for lack of spare parts. In short, progressive nuclear deterioration in Russia increases the risks of mistaken, illicit, or accidental launch, and the loss of strict central control over Russia’s vast nuclear complex bodes ill for nonproliferation. If Russia’s nuclear designers, producers, and custodians surrender to economic pressure, they could open the to the illicit transfer of nuclear materials, weapons, and delivery technologies to America’s adversaries. A meltdown of Russian nuclear control could be catastrophic for Americans. Securing Russia’s nuclear weapons and materials and strengthening safety and control over operational deployments deserve top billing among the security priorities of the U.S. government. To alleviate the immediate danger, Russian and U.S. strategic missiles should be taken off hair-trigger alert so that none could be fired on a moment’s notice. “De-alerting” our arsenals, ideally by detaching the warheads from missiles,would reduce their susceptibility to illicit or mistaken launch.Today it takes only minutes to prepare those forces for launch. Reducing the interval to days or longer would provide a far larger margin of safety against many scenarios, ranging from the temporary loss of legitimate civilian control over Russian weapons to false warning in Russia’s early warning system—both more plausible dangers than a deliberate, cold-blooded attack by Russia or the United States against each other. The challenge of deterrence today pales beside the challenge of operational safety. But even a comprehensive nuclear stand-down falls short over the long run.As long as Russia remains mired in economic, political, and military despair, the nuclear threat will continue. Russia will not be able to reduce its reliance on nuclear weapons until it can afford an adequate conventional military force. It will not be able to ensure control over its nuclear weapons and materials until it has a strong state, one based on a healthy economy and a civil society. The West’s vital stakes in this process of nation-building have not diminished, despite all the failures and frustrations of the past decade. If anything, those stakes have grown—as have the cost and effort needed to stabilize and transform Russia.

Extinction


Leslie 96 – John Leslie, Professor Emeritus of philosophy @ University of Guelph. “The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction,” p. 32.

Probably, however, it has been accidental nuclear war between the United States and Russia which has represented the most immediate danger to humankind since Russia's development of the H-bomb. This statement is as defensible today as it ever has been. The fragmentation of the Soviet Union has presumably made it easier, if anything, for missiles to be launched without authorization, and an attack from as low as the regimental level could result in three hundred nuclear explosions.19


AT: Sinkevicius

He concludes that more exports are still possible


Sinkevičius, 6/19/2014 (Virginijus, staffwriter @ Lithuiana Tribute, “Opinion: crumbling myths against the export of LNG” http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/69309/opinion-crumbling-myths-against-the-export-of-liquefied-natural-gas-201469309/)

The Russian energy empire was not build in a moment; it was a long-term project with aims into the future. The United States has the capabilities and resources to undermine Russia’s energy dominance in Europe dramatically faster than it took Russia to complete the Druzhba pipeline. The Cheniere Sabine Pass terminal, which can easily serve the demand of both Lithuanian and Polish LNG terminals, will be fully operational in three years, even after an approval process that took over a year. Clearly that time argument is invalid as the United States holds all required resources and technologies to build LNG export terminals. Even more compelling for the United States authorities is the geopolitical argument. Current events in Ukraine cannot be overlooked. For a decade, Vladimir Putin has used his nation’s wealth of natural gas and oil as a stick to bully Europe and especially NATO member states in Central and Eastern Europe. Past experience shows that regional partners are too weak to help sort out the gas problem. Germany, a powerhouse in the EU, is also extremely dependent on Russian gas. During the Ukrainian crisis, Putin has constantly pulled out the gas card threatening to shut off the supply as a measure to deter Europe from imposing more strict sanctions on Russia. If this argument does not sound threatening for spring and summer seasons, during the winter Europe can be left freezing again like in 2006 and 2009. Conclusion Energy projects always require large investments, but they also offer enormous gains. Current LNG exportation projects will be able to offer significant help to close American allies in Central and Eastern Europe and also bring massive profits to the United States economy. According to the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, each new terminal created to ship LNG overseas could generate more than $10 billion in investment for the U.S. economy, including wages and purchase orders for equipment. A single project will likely generate more than $10 million per year in new tax revenue at the federal, state and local levels. Overall, the resource exporting debate looks strange as the United States has been exporting natural gas to Mexico and Canada since the 1930s. These exports are rarely questioned and volumes are also currently rising with an increase of demand in Mexico.




Download 1.07 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
economic activities
general situation
national interests
gradual increase
overwhelming weight
russian embassy