Explanation of advantages— Science Diplomacy

High risk of Arctic War – try-or-die for increased US presence

Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina, 12/19/13, (“Global Arctic wars already started”, http://rt.com/op-edge/global-arctic-war-syria-488/)//AW

Round one in Syria: Putin: 1 / Obama: 0

Last September, US President Barack Obama suffered a crushing diplomatic and political defeat at the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin over the Syrian crisis with its tragic civil war that is claiming hundreds of thousands of lives.

Together with Iraq, Libya and Iran, Syria forms part of the staunch Anti-Zionist front of Muslim countries in the Middle East (and further afield, if we include Malaysia).

Allowing itself to be dragged (yet again!) by Israel’s own selfish national interests and powerful Israeli lobbying at home led by AIPAC – American Israeli Public Affairs Committee – the White House got itself into a dangerous diplomatic row with Russia and its allies, this time over Syria.

In 2013 this was reflected by Obama’s “all-options-are-on-the-t Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina.able” sabre rattling on behalf of America’s increasingly embarrassing Israeli ally, which forced him to stick his head too far out the window; particularly when the so-called “Syrian Freedom Fighters” showed their extreme brutality, mass-murder tactics, terrorist Al-Qaeda links, and suspect use of Saudi-Israeli chemical weapons against civilian populations in Damascus.

When things were on the verge of getting badly out of hand during September’s G20 meeting in Russia (of all places!), reality finally forced the US to stand down. That was when Russia’s and Putin’s prestige peaked and Obama dropped one further notch into becoming another lame-duck US president.

Round two: Setting up a trap against Russia?

So, when right smack in the middle of the Syrian affair and with the US declaring defeat at the G20 Summit, how timely it was for the “environmental NGO” Greenpeace’s vessel Arctic Sunrise show to “just happen” to take place… in Russia!

The crew of that Greenpeace ship, led by its US-born captain Peter Willcox, staged the irksome storming of the “Priraslomnaja” oil and gas rig owned and operated by Russia’s giant state-controlled Gazprom company, just off Russia’s Arctic coast inside its exclusive economic zone.

Video images of half a dozen of its 30-odd “environmental warrior” crew from 18 different nations hanging like a SWAT team from the Russian oil rig hit the global media headlines big time.

Given that Greenpeace is no innocent environmental organization but rather an NGO that systematically cosies up to UK (and by extension, US) geopolitical interests, one is tempted to insert many of its actions into the “grand chessboard” logic. Could its environmental zeal often play as a front for MI6, NSA, CIA spook activities? Isn’t it odd that whilst Greenpeace makes lots of noise against potential Russian environmental damage (by the way, no oil contamination of any sort came from the Priraslomnaja drilling rig), it never carries out high-media profile protests by trying to storm, say, some BP, Exxon or Chevron rig these days?

This is particularly suspicious considering that these Western oil giants have a simply horrific pollution track record as BP’s “Deepwater Horizon” rig Gulf of Mexico disaster in 2010; the “Exxon Valdez” in Alaska in 1989; or Chevron’s three decades of mass pollution in Ecuador have proven time and again?

Greenpeace also kept thunderously silent when London’s “The Guardian” newspaper reported in December 2003 that the UK Ministry of Defence “refused to say whether any nuclear depth charges were on board (British war ship) HMS Sheffield, which was sunk during the Falklands/Malvinas War” by Argentine forces during its 1982 war against Britain.

So whilst suspiciously quiet regarding US and UK polluters, Greenpeace has a history of very noisy militancy when it involves countries whose leaders do things counter to UK/US global geopolitical interests.

The world remembers, for example, how the Greenpeace ship “Rainbow Warrior” tried to stop French nuclear tests in the Pacific Mururoa Atoll in 1985. They failed after France’s General Foreign Security Directorate covertly sank that ship before it could interfere with the French military. And, - oh surprise! – US Captain Peter Willcox was also at the helm of the “Rainbow Warrior” as its skipper. Are we seeing a pattern here?

Russia, however, contrary to the French in 1985, kept a very cool head last September. Instead, they arrested the “Arctic Sunrise”, forcibly towed it to Murmansk Port in the Arctic, and promptly threw its environmentally inspired crew in jail for a couple of months.

Now, think what a media circus would have been staged by the US-UK if Russia, following France’s bad example, had ordered the sinking of Greenpeace’s intruder as the French did back then…

Oh, what a hullabaloo! One can almost imagine the headlines: “Authoritarian and environmentally incorrect Russia ignores basic human rights of a group of nice peaceful Greenpeace environmentalists from 18 countries”.

The Western media would have relished in giving Putin one great big “Zero” to tarnish growing Russian prestige. But, no: Russia just ordered vessel and crew arrested for piracy on the high seas. Again, US/UK: 0 / Russia: 1.

Ever since, Greenpeace has been licking its wounds with outright lies. For instance, since two of the “Arctic Sunrise” crew were Argentine nationals – Camila Speziale and Miguel Pérez Orsi – Argentina has been simply plastered with a very costly propaganda campaign which includes TV ads and giant posters showing these two young adults’ faces with the legend, “Prison for trying to avoid an oil spill? Outrageous!”.

The truth, however, is that there was no imminent oil spill; there was no danger of pollution. Again, shouldn’t Canadian-founded, Holland-based. US/UK-funded Greenpeace look more at their own dirty and filthy polluting oil companies at home rather than poking their noses in the Arctic?

No, I’m not talking about NATO’s Anti-Russian Missile “defence” installations authorized by the Poles in their native Poland. I mean, the North Pole!

For in recently months, the cat’s been scratching and biting its way out of the proverbial bag, ever since simply huge oil and gas resources have been discovered under the Arctic Ocean. Estimates run as high as 90 billion barrels of oil (20% of global reserves; 13% of world supply), 1.67 trillion cubic meters of natural gas (30% of world reserves), plus 30% of natural gas, plus platinum, gold, tin, plus…

One of the most aggressive countries claiming territorial sovereignty over all this wealth is Canada, which more than an actual country is but an offshoot of the British Crown and an American beachhead into the Arctic. One can clearly sense Uncle Sam’s breathe behind Canada’s forceful territorial claims.

Then there’s also NATO-ally Denmark filing its claims through Greenland territorial projection, weak ally Norway and, of course, there’s Superpower Russia which in 2007 actually planted its flag on the Arctic sea bed right on the North Pole. Canada too claims that the North Pole is hers. Alas! Poor Santa Claus, let’s just hope he’s not evicted before Christmas…

As history has shown time and again, the only language that the US-UK Alliance really understands is the language of force or the threat thereof.

So President Putin has very prudently ordered his military starting 2014 to beef up Russia’s presence and defence over its entire huge Arctic sphere of interest: a “top government priority to protect its security and national interest” in his own words.

In recent months, Russia has started creating new Arctic military units, reinstating its military bases in the Novosibirsk Archipelago and Franz Josef Land that had been abandoned after the demise of the former Soviet Union, and began restoring key airfields in the region including those on Kotelny Island which includes making ready the towns of Tiksi, Naryan-Mar, and Anadyr for increased military personnel and logistical needs.

For there lies another even vaster and richer region: the Antarctic which is not just a sea but an entire continent centred on the South Pole.

Indeed, in our complex world what happens in the scorched deserts of Arabia, Libya and Iraq; in the infinite steppes of Asia; in the steaming jungles of Africa; or in the windswept pampas of South America has an impact – albeit, indirect - on this new front which we could described as the coming polar wars.

Wars involving superpower nations, their allied countries, environmental NGO’s fronting for the global power elites, oil, gas and mining giants, and of course the bankers pulling the strings from above; way above 10 Downing, way above the White House, the Palais D’Elysee and Greenpeace’s HQ in Amsterdam.

1ar – russia expansion

Russia expansion now – doctrine of militarization

Sorri 13

Karl Sorri, analyst at Global Risk Insights, Political/Economic Assistant at U.S. Embassy Helsinki, 11/06/13, (“Russia Plans to Win the Arctic Race”, http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/global-risk-insights/russia-plans-to-win-the-arctic-race)//AW

Russia’s behavior in the Arctic reveals a strong prioritization of national economy and energy security at the expense of environmental sustainability. This behavior has an important effect on the region, to the point of introducing military concerns.

The world is witnessing an exciting development: A previously remote region, the Arctic, is slowly becoming an arena for vital future trade and natural resource development. Meanwhile, the planet’s northernmost states are defining the boundaries for acceptable behavior in the Arctic – and their current actions will determine whether the Arctic of the future is characterized more by competition or cooperation. While there are many who think that phrases such as ‘scramble for the North’ are hyperbolic, there is little doubt that Russia, at least, sees the Arctic as a race that it is eagerly trying to win.

Historically the Arctic has occupied a special place for Russia. Having long described its 7,000 km-long coastline as a ‘fourth wall of containment’ during the Cold War, Russia is now looking keenly at the economic opportunities that global warming and a reduced ice cover is offering. In 2007, Russia attracted significant media attention by ceremoniously planting its flag at the bottom of the Arctic seabed underneath the North Pole. This was viewed – correctly or not – as a symbolic claim that Russia was entitled to control the Arctic Sea.

The move was an especially thorny issue for Russia’s regional neighbors. Because contemporary international maritime law has blurry regulations of continental shelves and Exclusive Economic Zones, it can be hard to determine which states have control over which exact areas. Considering the potentially vast natural resources in the Arctic, these territorial disputes can be touchy, and Russia’s flag stunt did little to ease tensions.

Realistically, Russia is unable to completely ignore other states in the region, and has also taken part in many cooperative ventures. For instance, agreements with Norway over territory disputes and subsequent joint economic projects in the Barents Sea have made promising progress in recent years. Russia is also an active member of the Arctic Council, the regional body that is concerned with all international Arctic affairs. Here Russia has united with other Council members in creating legal frameworks that even restrict its own Arctic behavior.

Nevertheless, Russia is stirring the waters more than the other countries of the High North. Whereas the values of sustainable development and environmentalism are trumpeted by other Arctic states, Russia is steaming ahead in controversial natural resource extraction projects. Gazprom, the government-owned Russian gas giant, is pushing forward with the Prirazlomnaya oil rig in the Pechora Sea. At the same time, Rosneft (Gazprom’s oil counterpart) is set to begin drilling for oil in the Kara Sea already next summer.

The recent drama with Greenpeace – where 30 activists protesting Gazprom’s activities were threatened with piracy charges of up to 20 years – reflects Russia’s distaste for international environmental norms. On the other hand, there are also those who emphasize the socio-economic development of Russia’s northern populations. More economic activity will boost local infrastructure and employment, and thus are more valuable than obstructive green policies.

What is more, Russia is also investing heavily in Arctic military upgrades. The idea of a dominant Arctic fleet has been a popular vision with Russian leaders since the 18th century, and now Putin has quickly reallocated resources and reinstated a permanent Russian Arctic military presence. Some are worried that this behavior exposes Putin’s intent to control the shipping lanes that pass by Russia’s coastline, which are set to become hotspots for international trade in years to come.

Even though such strategic military concerns may seem incredible in modern times, Russia’s systemic significance and brute size mean that other Arctic players (including ‘near-Arctic’ ones such as China) will have to come up with their own moves soon. The biggest concern is that increased military activities can escalate and enforce a Cold War-style attitude, negatively affecting both economic and environmental hopes. However, mutual benefits of cooperative trade are likely to prevent any major clashes, as can currently be observed in the South China Sea.

While Russia’s pioneering activities will have an effect on how the world perceives it and behaves in the Arctic, this is also contingent on wider developments outside of Russia’s control. If Arctic-related technology breakthroughs such as better extraction or shipping techniques prove economically viable, it is likely we will see strong and rapid economic development in the area, meaning many green voices will go unheard. As a result, military tensions and territory disputes may also flare. But in the case of an ecological disaster such as a major oil spill, Russia’s national interests may be overwhelmed by global anxieties over the planet’s welfare.

In any case, the evidence suggests that Putin sees a strong military presence, close involvement in shipping lanes, and future energy security as key elements of Russia’s Arctic policy. While the Arctic Council may be humbugging over moral and cooperative elements, Russia is making sure that it gets all it can before it becomes too entangled in obstructive legal frameworks. As such, a ‘scramble for the Arctic’, whether in terms of natural resources, shipping lane control, or normative values, is happening, and Russia is reaching with a strong hand to grab the prize at the top.

2ac – link turn

Icebreakers solve – levels the playing field but doesn’t provoke conflict

AB 14

Alaska Business Monthly, 6/16/14, (“U.S. Must Answer Russia's Challenge in the Arctic, Treadwell Says”, http://www.akbizmag.com/Alaska-Business-Monthly/June-2014/US-Must-Answer-Russias-Challenge-in-the-Arctic-Treadwell-Says/)//AW

***Quotes Alaska Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell – B.A: Yale University, M.B.A: Harvard University****

Russian President Vladimir Putin's Arctic expansionism is a challenge the U.S. must answer with icebreakers, ports, and territorial claims of our own, Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell said today. Treadwell spoke this morning at the 34th Annual U.S.-Russia Forum in Washington, DC, on a panel focusing on foreign policy issues between the two nations.

Speaking just after Russia's Ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, kicked off the program on foreign policy issues between the two nations, Treadwell talked about the need for cooperation with Russia despite disputes over Crimea and Ukraine, Syria and Iraq, which have brought U.S.-Russia relations to their lowest point in decades.

“My challenge to Russians is this: where we are neighbors, help bring our relations back to normal. Help us eliminate salmon by-catch in the North Pacific Ocean. Help us work together to prevent oil spills from all these ships coming through, and help us protect food security in the Arctic. Alaskans depend on this ocean for food and for jobs.

"My challenge to Americans is this: don’t let Russia go it alone in the Arctic. A quarter of the world’s oil and gas and one of the world's most important fisheries are located in the Arctic. Let’s exercise leadership now, by developing our own energy and building ports and icebreakers, and not let just one country control shipping.”

“In today’s tough international climate, we can’t forget we’re neighbors,” Treadwell said. "The Arctic situation demands cooperation and friendly competition. If we don't exercise stronger Arctic leadership, we will be sorry later."

Treadwell cited an April 22 speech by Russian President Vladimir Putin to his Security Council, committing for a stronger Russian military presence in the Arctic, and predicting that shipping in the Arctic would grow from 1.5 million tons in 2013 to four million tons in 2015. Putin also expressed his wish that ships using the Arctic be primarily under Russian control.

"Russian control of Arctic shipping is likely to produce more of the same kind of disputes we've had in the Caspian region," Treadwell said. "To prevent that, U.S. icebreakers, U.S. Arctic ports, and a stronger U.S. Coast Guard presence will offer the world alternatives, healthy competition, instead of a monopoly."

Treadwell discussed Alaskans’ and Russians’ shared heritage and close family and cultural ties, which have grown since the Alaska-Russia border opened in 1988. In addition, Treadwell said Alaska and Russia cooperate now on commercial aviation, weather, and wildlife management at the border. Both Treadwell and Kislyak called for expanding Alaska's trade with Russia, which at 10 or 11 million dollars per year, Treadwell said, is smaller than our trade with Mexico.

“There is much more trust and cooperation to be built all around the Arctic neighborhood,” Treadwell said. “Meanwhile, we need to stand up for Alaska's and America’s interests in the Arctic, no matter what difficulties we face with our neighbors.”

1ar – link turn

Aff solves – icebreakers reinvigorate cooperation

Russell 14

Anthony Russell, 2013-2014 Coast Guard Executive Fellow to the RAND Corporation, 5/6/14, (“Crimea, Climate Change, and U.S.-Russian Relations: A Perfect Storm”, http://gcaptain.com/crimea-climate-change-u-s-russian-relations-perfect-storm/)//AW

As Russian forces took Crimea in late February, commentators repeatedly emphasized the Ukrainian peninsula’s strategic importance as a warm-water port. Meanwhile, the rapidly growing importance of Arctic waters is sometimes overlooked. The polar ice cap, now 40 percent smaller than it was 35 years ago (PDF), will continue to thaw in the coming decades, opening new shipping routes and access to oil and gas. Russia possesses the world’s most Arctic shoreline, water, and operating resources. But the United States is also an Arctic nation, even if much of the American public tends to under-appreciate this special status. With frigid international tensions and the severe impacts of climate change swirling like a perfect polar storm, the United States can’t afford to ignore the opportunities and obligations that come with being one of the world’s few Arctic nations. Less than a decade ago, presumed cooperation and overt reliance on external assistance became popular planning factors for U.S. polar activities. Given the condition of its aged icebreaker fleet, the United States turned to leases with Sweden and Russia for icebreaker capability. This approach was considered a more efficient way to traverse polar regions. Cooperation with Russia has long been among the greatest challenges to implementing a comprehensive U.S. Artic strategy. But the crisis in Crimea has already resulted in a significant retreat from engagement and cooperation with Russia: The United States and its allies dismissed Russia from the G-8, and NATO is reviewing the extent to which it cooperates with Russia. These actions are warranted, given Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s borders and the troubling precedent it sets. But the West should avoid disengagement with Russia when it comes to the Arctic, a unique region that deserves special consideration. Allowing or forcing Russian withdrawal from Arctic engagements and regulating forums could seriously weaken America’s ability to manage the increasing amount and diversity of activity in the Arctic, as well as adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Excluding Russia could even bring about Arctic militarization. But despite chilling relations with Russia and the slow burn of climate change, the United States can prevent diplomatic frostbite in the Arctic through a number of actions: Take a seat at the negotiating table. The U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) outlines procedures for establishing sovereignty over the continental shelf (the sea floor directly offshore) beyond 200 nautical miles. With Russia finalizing its long-standing claim on the Arctic shelf, the United States is absent from negotiations, limiting its ability to counter Russian claims or submit its own, placing itself at a severe strategic and diplomatic disadvantage. Sustain engagement. The United States will assume a two-year chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2015. (Secretary of State John Kerry also announced a special representative for the Arctic.) A lack of Russian participation in this body stemming from international discord would produce limited results at best. Even more pragmatically, the Arctic is home to the only shared U.S.-Russian border. Established communication channels and operational protocols are necessary to enforce laws, avoid conflict, and protect sovereignty in this region. Invest in icebreakers. International regulations and agreements are critical, but they cannot rescue mariners, respond to environmental incidents, or monitor borders. Only a physical presence can accomplish these things. In the Arctic, that necessitates icebreakers. These special vessels aren’t cheap or quickly built, but America’s current inventory is in need of upgrading.. Russia’s actions against Ukraine make leasing icebreakers from Russia a non-option for the foreseeable future. This illustrates how important it is for the United States to maintain the unique capabilities required to exercise its sovereign responsibilities as an Arctic nation.

Russia is edging ahead – US nuclear icebreaking key

Pike 8

John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, Former Senior Member of The Federation of American Scientists, directed the Space Policy, Cyberstrategy, Military Analysis, Nuclear Resource, and Intelligence Resource projects, 2008 (last date referenced), (“Military: Atomic Icebreakers”, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/icebreaker-3.htm)//AW

Russia is the only country to operate civilian nuclear-powered icebreakers in the Arctic, and it has been doing so for over 40 years. The first reactor for the Lenin icebreaker was developed in 1954-1956, and the ship itself entered service in 1959. Seven more icebreakers and an ocean-going cargo icebreaker were built in 1975-1992. The start was a slow one. As early as 1948 the Russian director for Institute for Problems in Physics, Academician Anatoli Aleksandrov, wanted to see a nuclear-propulsion project established. However, Stalin's right-hand man, Beria, said that nothing was to be done until a nuclear bomb had been built. The bomb was finally ready, and on September 9, 1952, work on a submarine using a nuclear-propulsion reactor was officially initiated by the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union. By 1985 the Soviet Union operated approximately 70 icebreakers of many types and 14 specialized icebreaking cargo ships of the SA-15 class. However, within this fleet only 16 vessels can be considered true polar icebreakers - large, powerful ships capable of independent operations in multi-year ice. These polar icebreakers, all built since 1959, are the mainstay of the Soviet Union's polar marine transportation system. Three classes of Finnish design - MOSKVA, YERMAK and KAPITAN SOROKIN - comprise 12 vessels. The nuclear fleet includes LENIN, LEONID BREZHNEV (ex-ARKTIKA), SIBIR and in 1985 ROSSIYA. As of 1985 two vessels of the new TAYMYR class and an additional ARKTIKA class ship were under construction. Each of these classes rank among the most capable and largest polar icebreakers in the world. A progression in design from deep-draft, conventional power to shallow-draft, nuclear power was evident. The main features and icebreaking performance of these capable ships compared favorably to the world fleet. The importance of these ships to the ice season extension along the Northern Sea Route and to the overall development of the Soviet Arctic is fundamental. While only limited information is available about the design of the reactors used in Russian military naval vessels, the situation is different for the country's icebreakers. Here a significant amount of information is available on reactor design. The reactors are all pressurized water reactors. The development of a Russian marine reactor for civilian purposes started with the OK-150 power plant, which was the first plant used in the NS Lenin. Later on came the OK-900 and the KLT-40 plants. The OK-900 and the KLT-40 plants exist in various versions. As of 2000, according to MSCO, 2 Arktika and 2 Taymyr class ice-breakers were needed during winter to maintain the year-round Murmansk-Dudinka line at a level of up to 1.4 mln tons of cargo annually210. Furthermore, MSCO claims that its present fleet will be capable of escorting annually up to 10 mln tons of hydrocarbons from future fields in ice-covered parts of the Kara and Barents Seas, as well as 3 mln tons of cargoes to/from the Yenisey River and eastern NSR (including transit trade and the year-round Dudinka trade). This scheme would employ all its 8 major ice-breakers - 2 Arktika-class and the 2 relatively old diesel-electric ice-breakers for the hydrocarbons export, and 2 Arktika-class and the 2 shallow-draft Taymyr-class ice-breakers for the escort of ships on the Yenisey River and the eastern NSR. If such a capacity to escort totally 13 mln tons of cargo annually can be sustained, it would be sufficient for several years to come. Even if the old diesel-electric ice-breakers were to disappear, the capacity would still be sufficient to accommodate the 5.0 mln tons of cargoes that had been estimated for 2005. Funds for operating Russia's six operational nuclear-powered icebreakers and one nuclear-powered container ship were cut out of the federal funding in the 2003 budget. The federal budget had allotted $14.3m a year during the previous two years. To finance the operation of the nuclear icebreakers, Murmansk Shipping Company [MSCo] raised the cost of icebreaker services in the Arctic by a minimum of 50%. But even though Norilsk Nickel, the major customer of MSCo, agreed to the new rates, MSCo feared that cargo shipping volumes would drop. By 2007 the Murmansk Shipping Company in Russia had the largest nuclear surface fleet in the world: five Artic-type icebreakers, two icebreakers designed to serve on rivers, and one nuclear-powered container ship. And the Lenin is not the only one that can claim a first. The Artika, which began operation in 1975, was the first surface ship to reach the North Pole. In August 2008 Andrey Nagibin, Chairman of the Board of All-Russian Public Organization, stated that "Russia's strongest rival, the Untied States, is gradually losing its strength in the Arctic Sea because it has paid insufficient attention to the development of its nuclear icebreakers in the last years. Meanwhile, we are actively enlarging our fleet and can be sure that its placement under the management of Rosatom will help it to become the world's leader and will give our country all prerequisites for a victory in the "arctic race."" In August 2008 Semyon Dragulsky, Director General of the Russian Energy Efficiency Union, said "The United States also has a very strong icebreaking fleet. But in the last years two 30-year US icebreakers - Polar Sea and Polar Star - and one smaller scientific icebreaker have almost exhausted their resources. So, it is yet unclear how our rival is going to explore the Arctic region in terms of both ecological safety (nuclear icebreakers are ecologically friendly) and economic efficiency (it is very hard to transport thousands of tons of diesel fuel for such long distances for ordinary icebreakers). Hence, nuclear icebreaking fleet has been and will be an important component of Russia's strategic power." On 27 August 2008 Atomflot FSUE was given control over all the nuclear icebreakers of Russia: Lenin (1959), Arktika (1975), Siberia (1978), Russia (1985), Taymyr (1988), Soviet Union (1988), Vaygach (1990), Yamal (1992) and 50 Years Since Victory (2007). All the nuclear icebreakers of Murmansk Shipping Company were transferred to the Territorial Department for Murmansk region of Rosimuschestvo until 27 August 2008 and afterwards to Atomflot FSUE. In its turn, Atomflot was given to Rosatom State Nuclear Energy Corporation.

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 1.36 Mb.

Share with your friends: