Answers
Russian economy unstable if it isn’t diversified
Laaksonen 10
(Eini, University Teacher at Pan-European Institute, University of Turku, Pan-European Institute, Baltic Rim Economies Expert Articles 2010,
http://www.tse.fi/FI/yksikot/erillislaitokset/pei/Documents/Julkaisut/BRE%20Expert%20Articles%202010%20netti.pdf#page=115 CL)
When talking about the need of modernisation, the Russian President stressed the necessity of economic diversification. Due to the financial crisis and its economic repercussions, it has become more than obvious that Russia, by mainly basing its economic growth on revenues from its natural resources, has built its economic progress on an unstable ground. In order to gain more independence from developments on the oil and gas market, Russia has to diversify its economy. Other areas of interest to a comprehensive modernisation have been added quickly: technological development, financial sector reform, infrastructure investment and social policies.
Laaksonen 10
(Eini, University Teacher at Pan-European Institute, University of Turku, Pan-European Institute, Baltic Rim Economies Expert Articles 2010,
http://www.tse.fi/FI/yksikot/erillislaitokset/pei/Documents/Julkaisut/BRE%20Expert%20Articles%202010%20netti.pdf#page=115 CL)
There seems to be a consensus among analysts that the Kremlin started making noises about the need of a thorough modernization of Russia’s economic system having been seriously alarmed by the impact of the global crisis. No wonder – as the world-wide economic downturn has hit Russia particularly hard: by the end of 2008 Russia looked more like a fragile and unstable petro-state rather than a mighty energy superpower as its rulers chose to cast it during the pre-crisis “fat years” of the sky-rocketing fuel prices.
A2: Nationalism Impact Turn Power is zero-sum – a weakened Russia emboldens nationalism
Barry 9
(Moscow correspondent for The New York Times (1/12/2009, Ellen, “U.S.-Russia relations at a crossroads; Moscow can elect path of cooperation or one of retrenchment”, The International Herald Tribune, Lexis) MGM
But others see the crisis pushing Russia in the opposite direction. The second scenario is one of retrenchment and nationalism. ''Less resources means more selfish behavior,'' Sergei Markov, director of the Institute of Political Studies in Moscow, said. In this scenario, Russia finds itself facing internal dissent and the threat of regional separatism, while also short of the oil money that it used to disburse to maintain control. When forced to fight for their own survival, political leaders tailor their policies to public opinion. They tend to focus on an external enemy, for instance the United States, which Russian leaders already blame for the financial crisis and for provoking Russia by trying to exert military influence over Ukraine. By this logic, it would be absurd for Moscow to cede ground to the West now, after the long-awaited taste of satisfaction that Russia experienced with the recent war with Georgia. Indeed, many Russians see the war last August as having restored Russia's rightful place in the world. ''Russia has returned, period,'' Vyacheslav Nikonov, president of the Kremlin-aligned Polity Foundation, said. ''That will not change. It will not get back under the table.'' So which scenario is more likely? First, it is clear that the Russian authorities are preparing to defend their political power. After presenting himself as a liberal modernizer, Medvedev has made it a priority to extend the presidential term to six years from four. Meanwhile, the president also signed a law last week that eliminates jury trials for ''crimes against the state'' and that, pending legislation, would expand the definition of treason.
A2: Russia expansionism
Russian Army Sux No impact to Russian war – their army sucks
Trenin 2009
(Dmitri, director of the Moscow Center of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Russia and the United States, July, http://www.stimson.org/nuke/pdf/Russia_US_Format_FINAL.pdf 7/8/12, MDRJ)
Russia has declared that, in order to defend its own sovereignty, territorial security, and the territorial security of its allies, it would use nuclear weapons, even if it were the first nation in the conflict to use of them. This is a striking departure from the Soviet declaratory stance which proclaimed a “no-first-use” doctrine. This declaratory change of heart is attributable to the dramatic change in its own condition and resources, including its military capabilities, rather than Russia’s strategic environment. Russia’s conventional forces have been redeployed from the forward positions they previously occupied in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus, Afghanistan, and Mongolia. Russia’s defense perimeter has moved closer to Moscow, reducing its strategic depth in the west by about 1,000 kilometers (km). Russia’s conventional forces, also reduced to about one-third of their Soviet size, have still not been restructured for modern warfare and their quality has deteriorated drastically. Russia’s military has a top-heavy structure, with an outsized overhang of flag officers and colonels, a pathetic shortage of company officers, and a complete lack of professional non-commissioned officers (NCOs). Its weapons and equipment are obsolete, with virtually no combat systems purchased since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Its training exercises have only been resumed recently, after a break of a decade and a half. Russia took a long time and a lot of effort to defeat the insurgency in Chechnya, and although it did defeat Georgia in the short war in 2008, its conventional forces are no match for the forces of its principal neighbors—NATO in the west and China in the east. As a result, Russia has adopted a version of NATO’s 1970s doctrine, which envisaged the first use of nuclear weapons in response to a massive conventional attack by much larger enemy forces. Occasionally, Russia points to the continuing presence of US tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) in Europe as justification for its new policy and maintenance of TNW in support of it, but Moscow has no interest in eliminating TNW altogether. The likelihood of any attack on Russia is judged to be minimal in the west and – for now – very low in the east. In 1990, the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty eliminated the material possibility that NATO could potentially launch a surprise attack.
No ! – Russia wants peace Russia is moving toward cooperation now
Novosti 11
(Novosti, Russian news source, 12/11, “Russia wants better cooperation with U.S. – Putin,” Novosti, http://en.rian.ru/russia/20111215/170277377.html, 7/8/12, MDRJ)
Russia will continue cooperation with the United States despite the perception Washington needs to do more to achieve real consensus with its friends and allies, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Thursday. “Sometimes I think that America does not need allies, it needs vassals. But we want and we will develop cooperation with the United States, because I see that a transformation is taking place inside the United States itself,” Putin said during a four-hour Q&A session on Thursday.Russia, which opposes a monopolar world, is not going “to live as a country surrounded by enemies,” Putin said.
No ! - Domestic Russia cannot go to war due to domestic problems
Lieber ‘08
(Robert, a professor of government and international affairs at Georgetown, “Falling Upwards”, World Affairs, http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/falling-upwards-declinism-box-set, 7/9/12, MDRJ)
Farther East, and despite its economic recovery and the restoration of central power under Putin, Russia remains overwhelmingly dependent on the current boom in energy and commodity prices—and correspondingly vulnerable in the event of their decline. The country suffers from pervasive corruption, with a ranking from Transparency International that puts it at 121 among 163 countries in this category. Its population, already less than half that of the U.S. and plagued with alcoholism, chronic violence, a decrepit health-care system, and a male life expectancy of fewer than 60 years of age (lower than that of Bangladesh), shrinks by some half a million people per year. And its army, while bidding for attention and resources, remains weak and in disarray. As The Economist recently summarized Putin’s Russia, it has become one of the most “criminalized, corrupt and bureaucratized countries in the world.” True, the Putin regime plays to its domestic base with strident nationalism and xenophobia. In doing so, it has actively opposed and occasionally subverted American policies on some issues while providing a degree of cooperation on others. Instances of the former include opposition to NATO enlargement and to the stationing of anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, the use of oil and gas resources as leverage against neighboring countries, overt and covert pressure against former Soviet Republics, and arms sales to Syria and Iran. Yet Moscow grudgingly collaborates where it has shared concerns, as with North Korea and combating terrorism. Russia presents a problem for the United States, but its erratic behavior, its priorities at home, and its own internal decline put it well short of being a major power challenger.
Share with your friends: |