Russia aerospace da
aff answers – nu – brain drain now
Download 349.97 Kb.
|
aff answers – nu – brain drain nowBrain drain in the squo – nationalism and higher taxes Whitmore 2/01/11, (Brian Whitmore is a senior correspondant @ RFE/RL, 6/21/11. “emigration blues: Russia’s sixth brain drain”. http://www.rferl.org/content/emigration_blues_russias_sixth_brain_drain/2294463.html. 6/20/11, google. AW) As noted in yesterday's web roundup, political analyst Dmitry Oreshkin has an interesting piece in the latest issue of "Novaya gazeta" looking at earlier emigration waves from Russia and the Soviet Union, and at the reasons why people are leaving the country now.Sergei Stepashin, head of the Audit Chamber, says approximately 1.25 million Russians have left the country permanently in the last several years. That figure is less than the two million who left in the two waves in the early 20th century -- immediately after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and following the advent of the Stalin-era terror in the 1930s. It is also slightly more than the estimated one million who fled the USSR in both the World War II era and in the 1970s. (The fifth wave was the mainly economically motivated exodus that immediately followed the Soviet collapse in the 1990s, the so-called "sausage emigration.") So why are Russians leaving now? According to an online poll of 7237 readers of "Novaya gazeta" who are considering emigrating (which Paul Goble points out in a post today is not the most representative sample), 2.2 percent cited rising nationalism, one percent said higher taxes, and 28.9 percent identified the possibility of Vladimir Putin returning as president. Most interestingly, a whopping 62.5 percent said they were considering leaving for all of these reasons combined aff answers – competition link turnRUSSIAN AEROSPACE INDUSTRY FALLING BEHIND NOW – RUSSIAN SPACE PROGRAM HAS 1/5 OF NASA’S BUDGET – COMPETITION NEEDED TO SPUR INNOVATION IN RUSSIA DE CARBONNEL 2011 [Alissa – contributing writer for the Moscow Times, “Analysis: Stagnation fears haunt Russian space program, REUTERS, April 10, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/10/us-russia-space-gagarin-idUSTRE73910C20110410] AW In the 1960s, Gagarin's flight seemed to leap off the pages of fantasy novels, inspiring dreams of Martian colonies and imminent deep-space travel. But much of that initial rapture has now faded, leaving nostalgia among many in Russia for the days when the struggle between the two nuclear-armed superpowers fueled and financed the pursuit of new horizons in science. U.S. astronauts and Russian cosmonauts "were never enemies in space, but when we began cooperating on the ground they cut the funding," said veteran cosmonaut Georgy Grechko, 79. "Even the Americans would call us and say 'launch something new, so they'll give us money.'" With competition eclipsed by cooperation, Russia's space agency has survived over the past two decades by hiring out the third seat aboard the Soyuz to foreigners. "Cooperation is good, but as the example of the international space station shows, it also leads to stagnation," Russian space policy analyst Yuri Karash said, according to state-run news agency RIA. Gubarev said Russia had fallen so far behind it could achieve little better than a supporting role today in the most cutting-edge projects. "In the meantime, America will take its time out and build an entirely new spacecraft, so that five or six years down the line our Soyuz will be entirely redundant," he said. "No serious money is spent on breakthrough projects." Experts say China could soon challenge both Russia and the United States in space. "The most important role will be played by our Russian Soyuz craft now. But we cannot discount the Chinese, who are following their own path and doing all this independently," Shamsutdinov told Reuters. NASA officials have voiced worries that the current budget financing will not be enough to fund a new rocket and capsule system for deep space travel. NASA's proposed budget for fiscal 2011 is $18.7 billion, some five times higher than Russia's. Russian industry insiders say President Barack Obama's decision to halt work on NASA's next-generation Orion capsule threatens to take the wind out of a parallel Russian effort to design a replacement for the Soyuz that can fly beyond the International Space Station's low 354-km (220 mile) orbit. "A little residual competition is a good thing," Sergei Krikalev, 52, who heads Russia's cosmonaut training center after chalking up a record 803 days in space, told Reuters. TURN – STRONG GLOBAL COMPETITION IS KEY TO THE STRENGTH OF THE RUSSIAN DEFENSE SECTOR BBC WORLDWIDE MONITORING 2010 [Russian newspaper Vedimosti, “Russian Armed Forces modernization may improve in 2011, paper says”, August 20, p. lexis] ttate Even in Soviet times the country's political leadership understood the importance of competition in the production of military equipment. Aircraft, helicopters, and tanks were developed and manufactured at three to six design bureaus and defence plants. A distinctive form of competition existed within the space and missile spheres. In combination with the fact that as much as 70 per cent of the military budget was used for investment needs, it provided very impressive results making the Soviet army one of the most advanced in the world. Today instead of dozens of design bureaus there are various "unified" corporations, but progress can only be seen in the squandering of funds and the inflating of production costs. Moreover, the financing of projects is delayed by hook or by crook, which is difficult to label as promising: the situation with the notorious non-flying "Bulava," which is stubbornly given preference over the more reliable "Sineva," is a good example of this. In addition, the features of Russian equipment are seriously losing ground to foreign analogs. In such a situation the Ministry of Defence leadership is behaving absolutely as it should by starting to purchase military equipment overseas. Can a reasonable military man really refrain from acquiring two strike helicopter carriers from France at a cost of 900m dollars (and the construction of another two in Russia), if our directors have over the past five years been modernizing the aircraft carrier cruiser, the "Admiral Gorshkov," which was sold to India for 2.2bn dollars, and the work on which there is no end in sight (the George H. W. Bush, the newest of the American Nimitz class aircraft carriers, which was added to the weaponry of the US Navy in 2009 and was built over a period of six years at a cost of 6.4bn dollars, is twice the size of the "Gorshkov" in water displacement and four-times greater in strike capacity). How much financing can go into the unmanned aerial vehicle programme if they ca n be purchased from Israel for far less? Or should the "Russian vehicles" be supported by buying their "Tigr" vehicles, whose features are substantially inferior to the Italian IVECO-LMV M65? The military men are right: in the standoff between producers and consumers priority must be given to the consumers -the soldiers and officers who must defend the motherland, rather than attempting to control equipment that operates from time to time, thereby sacrificing the other line items of the military budget for the sake of the immoderate appetites of our producers. The Russian military-industrial complex is in a bad way, but the only way out may be to optimize expenses, establish cooperation with foreign companies, and increase competitiveness. We are losing foreign markets (in recent years Algeria refused to purchase a batch of Mig-29 aircraft; China refused to buy 38 transport and Il-76/78S air-to-air refueling aircraft; and India, Norway, and Greece have reexamined several contracts), while largely retaining a presence where it is delivering weapons on credit, such as to Venezuela. Russia is losing ground not only with its traditional, but also its new competitors, particularly its "friend," China. Compensating for the problems of our defence complex by increasing purchases of outdated and very costly equipment for its own army is a big mistake. In an epoch when bloc-based confrontation has become a thing of the past, and the nuclear shield gives Russia a certain amount of time to defend against the major powers' possible aggressive feeble efforts, the critical task is to create a mobile, highly-professional army that is equipped with modern weapons. Towards this end it is necessary to preserve and develop those branches of the military-industrial complex that have serious reserves, but to put them in conditions of rigid competition on the domestic market, which essentially did not exist earlier. And starting to purchase foreign military equipment is a significant first step along the path, by which our army can be transformed from the "most modernized" into a relatively modern one. This is a difficult, but correct step. 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 349.97 Kb. Share with your friends:
|