Impacts- Econ Good- Russia Good- Nukes

Impacts- Econ Good- Russia Good- Nukes

Russian economic decline causes nuclear
Filger 9 (Sheldon, founder of Global Economic Crisis, The Huffington Post,, 5.10.9, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/russian-economy-faces-dis_b_201147.html ) ET

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.

Russian economic collapse breeds political instability and global insecurity
Filger 9 (Sheldon, founder of Global Economic Crisis, The Huffington Post,, 5.10.9, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/russian-economy-faces-dis_b_201147.html ) ET

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

Impacts- Econ Good- Russia Good- War

Russian growth prevents war with the US
Bronwen 9 (Maddox, Chief Foreign Commentator for The Times, The Times, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwe n_maddox/article6 652936.ece ) ET

The most interesting and unexpected ingredient in the Russia-US summit is how well the Russian leaders have managed the financial turmoil. That changes in their favour, slightly, the dynamics of the meeting, which otherwise turn on that peculiar Russian mix of extremes of strength and weakness. On one hand, President Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister, hold cards that matter hugely to any US president: nuclear missiles; oil; gas; one of the world’s largest armies; friendship with Iran; influence, obsessively deployed, over the Caucasus and Central Asia; a permanent seat — and veto — on the United Nations Security Council. On the other, there is the reality of Russia’s vulnerability on every count of finance, trade, and military strength. There are the big, bald statistics of its shrinking population (although that may be reversing), falling life expectancy (although that is suddenly improving), and stubborn poverty. Most painfully, too, there is the memory of the Soviet era and the incredulity at the sharpness of the reversal. The US team has made clear that in its calculation, the strengths make it worth its while trying to “reset” the relationship. But the weaknesses mean that if the attempt fails, Russia could be relegated behind more pressing problems. The element that might change this calculation is the Russian leaders’ recent skilful management of the economy. It not only points to surefootedness in economic management, which their rhetoric has not often suggested. It offers hope that Russia may find its way out of its current sour resentment, and autocratic rule, and into a more stable future. A World Bank report last month spelt out the unexpected upside to Russia’s otherwise unsurprising suffering during the crisis. Yes, there has been plenty of damage. Real gross domestic product is expected to shrink by about 7.9 per cent this year (compared with a global fall in output of 2.9 per cent). That is a big shock after a decade of high growth, driven by high oil and gas prices. The stock market lost two thirds of its value in the five months to November 2008. Unemployment could now rise to 13 per cent and poverty to 17.4 per cent by the end of the year, the bank warned, noting that the middle class would also shrink by a tenth, or more than six million people, to just over half the population. However, the bank, which called the Government’s response “swift, co-ordinated, and comprehensive”, noted that Russia’s leaders had moved quickly to cut spending as the oil price fell (including pushing through an aggressive rethinking of the military). They had arranged a large stimulus, and had responded to the plunge in foreign reserves (figures yesterday showed a net capital inflow of $7.2 billion in the second quarter of 2009, after $35 billion flowed out in the first quarter). The worst effects of the crisis were perhaps past, the bank suggested. If — a huge if — Russia took the chance to reform old industries, and made them more competitive, then it could come out of the crisis with a more modern, diversified economy. There are a few slight signs that Russia’s leaders might seize that chance, such as the overhaul of the military (arms, and rules for conscription). Alternatively, they will persist with their technique of blaming others for their problems, and focusing on external threats, not obstacles at home. President Obama’s quest of trying to find a new deal to cut stockpiles of nuclear missiles is an honourable one. But its success will depend on whether Russia can be persuaded out of the mindset in which the expansion and success of the European Union and Nato are a threat. The US has had much less success with Russia than with China in persuading it of the value of becoming part of international organisations and laws. Not much in Putin’s or Medvedev’s recent behaviour suggests that they are that way inclined. All the same, the weakness of modern Russia, clutching the few great prizes of its recent past, in the form of missiles and oil wells while the rest lies in tatters, is one point of leverage. So is the Russian leaders’ astute reaction to the crisis, which they dubbed the failure of capitalism. That shows that they can set ideology aside and take quick steps in the country’s interest. That can only be a hopeful sign for Russia’s chances of becoming a less fearful and more modern state.

Impacts- Econ Good- A2: Russia Conflict

Russian growth prevents war with the US – capitalism must look good in order to maintain its ideological prominence and avoid conflict
Bronwen 9 (Maddox, Chief Foreign Commentator for The Times, The Times, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwe n_maddox/article6 652936.ece ) ET

The most interesting and unexpected ingredient in the Russia-US summit is how well the Russian leaders have managed the financial turmoil. That changes in their favour, slightly, the dynamics of the meeting, which otherwise turn on that peculiar Russian mix of extremes of strength and weakness. On one hand, President Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister, hold cards that matter hugely to any US president: nuclear missiles; oil; gas; one of the world’s largest armies; friendship with Iran; influence, obsessively deployed, over the Caucasus and Central Asia; a permanent seat — and veto — on the United Nations Security Council. On the other, there is the reality of Russia’s vulnerability on every count of finance, trade, and military strength. There are the big, bald statistics of its shrinking population (although that may be reversing), falling life expectancy (although that is suddenly improving), and stubborn poverty. Most painfully, too, there is the memory of the Soviet era and the incredulity at the sharpness of the reversal. The US team has made clear that in its calculation, the strengths make it worth its while trying to “reset” the relationship. But the weaknesses mean that if the attempt fails, Russia could be relegated behind more pressing problems. The element that might change this calculation is the Russian leaders’ recent skilful management of the economy. It not only points to surefootedness in economic management, which their rhetoric has not often suggested. It offers hope that Russia may find its way out of its current sour resentment, and autocratic rule, and into a more stable future. A World Bank report last month spelt out the unexpected upside to Russia’s otherwise unsurprising suffering during the crisis. Yes, there has been plenty of damage. Real gross domestic product is expected to shrink by about 7.9 per cent this year (compared with a global fall in output of 2.9 per cent). That is a big shock after a decade of high growth, driven by high oil and gas prices. The stock market lost two thirds of its value in the five months to November 2008. Unemployment could now rise to 13 per cent and poverty to 17.4 per cent by the end of the year, the bank warned, noting that the middle class would also shrink by a tenth, or more than six million people, to just over half the population. However, the bank, which called the Government’s response “swift, co-ordinated, and comprehensive”, noted that Russia’s leaders had moved quickly to cut spending as the oil price fell (including pushing through an aggressive rethinking of the military). They had arranged a large stimulus, and had responded to the plunge in foreign reserves (figures yesterday showed a net capital inflow of $7.2 billion in the second quarter of 2009, after $35 billion flowed out in the first quarter). The worst effects of the crisis were perhaps past, the bank suggested. If — a huge if — Russia took the chance to reform old industries, and made them more competitive, then it could come out of the crisis with a more modern, diversified economy. There are a few slight signs that Russia’s leaders might seize that chance, such as the overhaul of the military (arms, and rules for conscription). Alternatively, they will persist with their technique of blaming others for their problems, and focusing on external threats, not obstacles at home. President Obama’s quest of trying to find a new deal to cut stockpiles of nuclear missiles is an honourable one. But its success will depend on whether Russia can be persuaded out of the mindset in which the expansion and success of the European Union and Nato are a threat. The US has had much less success with Russia than with China in persuading it of the value of becoming part of international organisations and laws. Not much in Putin’s or Medvedev’s recent behaviour suggests that they are that way inclined. All the same, the weakness of modern Russia, clutching the few great prizes of its recent past, in the form of missiles and oil wells while the rest lies in tatters, is one point of leverage. So is the Russian leaders’ astute reaction to the crisis, which they dubbed the failure of capitalism. That shows that they can set ideology aside and take quick steps in the country’s interest. That can only be a hopeful sign for Russia’s chances of becoming a less fearful and more modern state.

Impacts- Econ Good- A2: Russia Build Up

Concerns about arms sales to Russia are silly- stabilizes the region
Gorenburg 10 (Dmitry, Executive Director, American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Russian Military Forum, 5.12.10, http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/russian-foreign-arms-purchases-are-good-for-regional-stability/ ) ET

A great deal of ink has been spilled recently about how terrible it is that a number of European NATO members are considering selling arms and military equipment to Russia. Many commentators vehemently argue against such arms sales. The reasons for the opposition are rarely stated openly, but when they are they tend to focus on the fear that such deals would tie West European states more closely to Russia, preventing them from standing firm against Russian policies that the commentators oppose. A secondary reason is that these deals would improve Russian military capabilities.Both of these reasons are fundamentally misguided. First of all, countless studies have shown that greater ties between states reduce the likelihood of conflict between them.
Russia buying more arms good- makes them dependent on NATO
Gorenburg 10 (Dmitry, Executive Director, American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Russian Military Forum, 5.12.10, http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/russian-foreign-arms-purchases-are-good-for-regional-stability/ ) ET

If France or Germany sell military equipment to Russia, they not only establish closer ties between their militaries, but they also make the Russian military more dependent on NATO military equipment. Cold warriors seem to think that the dependency argument only runs in one direction — Western states who sell to Russia wouldn’t want to lose sales, so they’ll do whatever Russia wants. But the road of mutual dependence is a two way street. If Russia starts buying certain categories of military equipment from abroad, its domestic defense industry will likely lose whatever capability it still has to produce that category of equipment. Russia will then depend on NATO states for the procurement (and perhaps maintenance) of its military equipment.
Russia arm buying increases Western control over Russia- it’s good
Gorenburg 10 (Dmitry, Executive Director, American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Russian Military Forum, 5.12.10, http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/russian-foreign-arms-purchases-are-good-for-regional-stability/ ) ET

In that situation, Russian leaders will have to think twice before undertaking any actions towards NATO that are sufficiently hostile as to result in it being cut off from access to such equipment. This form of dependence is much more serious. After all, if Russia gets upset with France and stops buying its military equipment, French arms manufacturers will lose some money and perhaps some French people will lose their jobs. But if France cuts off military sales to Russia in a situation where Russia is dependent on France for certain types of equipment, Russian security will suffer.

Impacts- Econ Good- A2: Russia Build Up

And Russian arm buying doesn’t make conflict worse- Georgia proves
Gorenburg 10 (Dmitry, Executive Director, American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Russian Military Forum, 5.12.10, http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/russian-foreign-arms-purchases-are-good-for-regional-stability/ ) ET

Some analysts fear that Russia could use equipment purchased from NATO, such as the Mistral ships, to attack its neighbors. The 2008 Georgia war showed that even without NATO equipment the Russian military is plenty strong enough to defeat a small and weak army of the kind that just about all of its immediate neighbors possess. Western arms sales are not necessary for Russia to be able to successfully undertake hostile action against a country like Georgia. But again, if NATO arms sales to Russia become ubiquitous, Russia may well become more hesitant to undertake actions that could potentially result in the cut-off of such arms sales. In other words, Western leverage over Russian actions will actually increase.

Russia buying arms improves US security
Gorenburg 10 (Dmitry, Executive Director, American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Russian Military Forum, 5.12.10, http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/russian-foreign-arms-purchases-are-good-for-regional-stability/ ) ET

Second, if Russia starts using NATO equipment, this will improve interoperability between Russian and NATO military forces, making their efforts at military cooperation more effective. Since the two sides are much more likely to work together on potential issues such piracy, smuggling and counter-terrorism than they are to actually fight each other, it seems to me that selling NATO equipment to Russia can only lead to improvements in security for NATO states.

Russian leaders don’t trust their own arms- shows they need international community
Gorenburg 10 (Dmitry, Executive Director, American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Russian Military Forum, 5.12.10, http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/russian-foreign-arms-purchases-are-good-for-regional-stability/ ) ET

Russian leaders have recently contemplated a large number of potential arms purchases from abroad, including both basic equipment, such as uniforms, weaponry, such as sniper rifles, and major platforms, such as amphibious assault ships and armored vehicles. This shows that these leaders no longer trust the capabilities of Russia’s domestic defense industry to rebuild the Russian army, which is equipped almost entirely with aging Soviet-era technology. They have come to understand that foreign ties are only way to rebuild their military capabilities in a reasonable time frame.
Russia Arms sales are in interest of US security paradigm
Gorenburg 10 (Dmitry, Executive Director, American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Russian Military Forum, 5.12.10, http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/russian-foreign-arms-purchases-are-good-for-regional-stability/ ) ET

Western leaders should encourage this trend, because it will only enhance regional and global security. Rather than “eroding the effectiveness of NATO policies toward Russia and in NATO’s own eastern neighborhood,” extensive arms sales by NATO states to Russia will increase Russian dependence on the West, decreasing the likelihood that Russia would take unilateral military action contrary to Western interests, while enhancing regional security by improving the ability of Russian forces to cooperate with NATO forces against threats to their mutual security.