Explanation of advantages— Science Diplomacy

Arctic Conflict

S/L Nuke Icebreakers Key

Russia has already initiated commercial nuclear ice-breakers—that grants them the oil rich Arctic territory

Bellona 7

(Independent non-profit organization that aims to meet and fight the climate challenges “Russia to drill Arctic oil with nuclear icebreaker” pg online at http://bellona.org/news/fossil-fuels/oil/2007-08-russia-to-drill-arctic-oil-with-nuclear-icebreaker//sd)

In another grand Russian gesture toward securing oil deposits under the Arctic seabed, the Murmansk Shipping Company has announced it will outfit one of its nuclear powered icebreakers to become the world’s first atomic powered oil drilling vessel, company officials said this week.Officials say they plan to have the 19-year-old Sevmorput icebreaker ready for drilling operations within a year and a half. The project is expected by company officials to catapult the Russian civilian icebreaker fleet onto the cutting edge of oil drilling and speculation in the Arctic. But increased activity of nuclear vessels will put pressure on Russia’s already strained resources to store radioactive waste. This strain on the environment could be compounded by a higher potential for oil spills as the Arctic oil gold rush gains momentum. The announcement of the Sevmorput project comes quickly on the heels of last week’s deep-sea oil speculating journey below the polar icecap led by Russian parliamentarian and Arctic explorer Artur Chlingarov and the nuclear icebreaker Rossiya. The trip, which culminated in Chilingarov descending in a bathyscape to set an aluminum Russian flag on the sea bed below the North Pole, was part of Moscow’s push to lay claim to great swathes of disputed oil rich underwater territories. The United States and Canada oppose Arctic territorial claims Russia has made to the Lomonosov Ridge, which extends into Canadian waters, and both governments have scoffed at Moscow’s exploration of the new Arctic frontier.

Russia is edging ahead of the US in the Arctic race due to insufficient nuclear icebreakers

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.

S/L Russia Mil

Russian nuclear icebreakers demonstrate its forward aggression in the arctic

Kislyakov 13

Andrei Kislyakov, RIA Novosti political commentator, 1/10/13, (“Russia finds new way to break the Arctic ice”, http://rbth.com/articles/2013/01/10/russia_finds_new_way_to_break_the_arctic_ice_21775.html)//AW

Judging by the scale of Russia's icebreaker program, by 2017, the Arctic will be under new management. Under a contract between Russia’s state-owned Atomflot and the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg, construction of the largest and most powerful icebreaker in the world will begin in November 2013. One of the main advantages of the new icebreaker will be its versatility. Despite the huge size (more than 557 feet long and 111 feet wide), the ship will be able to ply the mouths of Siberia's rivers and the Northern Sea Route (NSR) equally well. As the deputy director of Atomflot, Konstantin Knyazevsky, said in a recent interview with Voice of Russia, such capability will come from the new design. “We currently operate two icebreakers with a shallow draft,” Knyazevsky said. “We call them small-draft icebreakers: they are the ‘Taimyr’ and the ‘Vaigach’; plus two-reactor icebreakers that operate along the NSR in open sea, such as the ‘Arctic.’ They have a draft of up to 11 meters [36 feet]. And the versatility of the new vessel will allow it to work as an icebreaker in both shallow and deep waters. Liquid ballast means the draft can be altered within a wide range.” “The icebreaker will be equipped with a RITM-200 reactor unit, which will significantly increase the safety level,” said nuclear scientist Igor Ostretsov. "Russia is essentially a monopoly in the field of nuclear transport systems. The reactors have been improved and employ new technologies; there is no doubt that the reactor unit inside this icebreaker represents a marked improvement in terms of safety,” Ostretsov said. The main task of the icebreaker is to guide large-tonnage vessels along the NSR. Moreover, the vessel will take part in rescue missions in the Arctic basin and assist in making oil production facilities operational. However, according to Ostretsov, there is another important task. “Current research is primarily directed at the Arctic continental shelf. One of the main tasks is to prove Russia's pre-eminence in the region, both scientifically and practically,” he said.

S/L Chinese energy insecurity

Chinese dependence on the Mid-East is increasing – maritime energy transport security is key

Thorp 14

Daniel George Thorp, International Politics graduate of Brunel University, London. He is currently a freelance political writer specializing in Asia-Pacific security and international relations, 5/4/14, (“Fueling the Dragon's Flames: China's Pursuit of Energy Security in the Middle East”, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23475-fueling-the-dragons-flames-chinas-pursuit-of-energy-security-in-the-middle-east)//AW

China's insatiable thirst for energy as it continues along its course toward international hegemony is having a profound effect on the countries that surround it.

The rise of The Peoples Republic of China (PRC) on the international stage in recent years has caused increasing competition over natural resources across the globe, with energy in the Middle East being no exception.

The Middle East is an area of the globe that contains 48.4% of known oil reserves and 43% of known natural gas reserves. Since becoming a net oil importer in 1993, Beijing has considered developing diplomatic and trade relations with Middle Eastern states to be of very high priority. In 2011 China imported nearly 3 million barrels of oil from the Middle East per day, accounting for 60% of its total oil imports, and in September 2013 became the largest importer of oil in the world, surpassing the US.

It is clear then to see that with China's ever-increasing thirst for energy to fuel its rapidly expanding economy and dreams of becoming a world superpower it is no surprise that Beijing is increasingly focusing on securing energy deals with states across this resource-rich expanse. Yet, this pursuit is far from straightforward. The current situation in Syria and the ongoing turbulence within a multitude of states across the Middle East has demonstrated to Beijing its need to secure its energy imports from this potentially volatile region.

One of the principle relationships Beijing is attempting to nourish is with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran possesses the largest known reserves of natural gas on the planet along with the fourth largest known reserves of oil, making it a hugely attractive trade partner for China. This relationship is already very well established, with Iran being China's third largest supplier of oil. Contributing factors for this, beyond China's unquenchable need for energy, are the economic sanctions placed upon Tehran by the US and other Western nations. These sanctions can be chiefly attributed to Iran's ongoing nuclear program and have facilitated the Sino-Iranian bilateral relationship through the denial to Iran of alternative economic partners, enabling Beijing to fill the vacuum. This has resulted in bilateral trade reaching $45 billion in recent years.

In terms of energy trade, China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), China's largest oil company, is in the process of developing three oil fields in Iran along with the recently announced deal for Beijing to invest $20 billion in energy development programs. Complementing direct investment in energy projects, the PRC has additionally taken to investment in transport infrastructural ventures in Iran linking to existing or ongoing projects in neighboring states. Such endeavours include the approved joint construction of a high-speed railway and reports of an extension that would create a direct rail link to Xinjiang Province. Linking ground transportation systems like these to existing networks in Pakistan could provide quicker and potentially more reliable routes for transportation of goods, being less susceptible to prospective maritime interference from malcontent states.

Beijing has also placed assiduous focus upon developing relations with the House of Saud. China and Saudi Arabia have been strategic partners since 2006 and relations since that time, especially in the energy field, have burgeoned. Saudi Arabia has been China's largest supplier of crude oil for the past decade and looks to remain a focal point for Beijing's efforts to secure its ongoing desire for oil - not just for the fact that the Saudi Arabian geographical expanses encompass the second largest known oil reserves on the planet but the fact that Riyadh has been extremely reliable in its ongoing supply, with numerous official reassurances that this stance will continue. Bilateral agreements in the energy field include the $8.5 billion joint endeavour between Sinopec and Aramco to develop a key refinery in the Red Sea port city of Yanbu. The refinery will produce 400,000 barrels of heavy crude oil each day, scheduled to become operational in 2014.

Iraq is the third state where Beijing has heavily focused its attentions in recent years. With the world's fifth largest known oil reserves and an industry ripe for investment following the surge in production in the years preceding the Allied invasion, Iraq represents a key market for China's energy ambitions. Beijing has invested heavily and Baghdad has received this welcomingly. Amongst various agreements, the most prominent is the $15 billion deal inked between Iraq, CNPC and British Petroleum (BP) in 2009 to develop the gigantic Rumaila oilfield, which in 2012 accounted for one third of all Iraqi oil production and was dubbed by ministry spokesman Asim Jihad as a "milestone" in renewing Iraq's oil industry. This 20-year contract will provide CNPC with a 37% share in oil production, helping to make the CNPC the largest foreign company in terms of production operating in post-war Iraq.

While securing long-term energy deals with various states across the Middle East has been of vital importance to China to assist in sustaining its current high growth levels, the safe transportation of these resources is just as crucial. For if the situation were to arise of a prolonged US blockade in the Strait of Hormuz in a dispute with Tehran, this could have potentially devastating effects on China's ability to transport its energy imports from Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula. There is also the ongoing issue of pirates operating off the coast of Somalia along with the future potential scenario of a reduced US presence in the Middle East. A recent BP report reveals its projections of the US becoming "entirely self sufficient in energy by 2030." With this consideration, Beijing has taken numerous steps to ensure the safe transit of its essential energy imports and to diversify its transportation options. As mentioned above, the PRC has begun to put measures in place to increase overland transportation from Iran, through Pakistan and on to Xinjiang Province. However, such measures are so far limited and face many issues themselves due to expense, time and ongoing relations between the different states within the Middle East. Thus, maritime transportation will remain the most employed vehicle for transportation in the short to medium term.

2ac N/UQ

Non-unique – Russia is already militarizing and the US needs a stronger presence

Cohen 11 – (Ariel, “RUSSIA IN THE ARCTIC: CHALLENGES TO U.S. ENERGY AND GEOPOLITICS IN THE HIGH NORTH” , http://kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/131237/ichaptersection_singledocument/a3117751-e209-4924-83f8-327f50e32a78/en/Chap1.pdf)//js

As part of its effort to create a comprehensive pres- ence in the Arctic, Russia has been steadily expand- ing its military component there since 2007. In August 2007, shortly after sending the scientific expedition to the Arctic ridge, then Russian President Putin ordered the resumption of regular air patrols over the Arctic Ocean. Strategic bombers, including the turboprop Tupolev Tu-95, supersonic bombers Tu-160 (Blackjack/ White Swan) and Tu-22M3 (Backfire), and the long- range anti-submarine warfare patrol aircraft Tu-142 have flown patrols since then.68 According to the Rus- sian Air Force, the Tu-95 bombers refueled in flight to extend their operational patrol area.69 During 2007 alone, Russian bombers penetrated the North Ameri- can Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) 12-mile air defense identification zone surrounding Alaska 18 times.70 Since August 2007, the Russian Air Force has flown more than 90 missions over the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans.71 On the strategic level, the Russian Navy is expand- ing its presence in the Arctic for the first time since the end of the Cold War.72 Lieutenant General Vladi- mir Shamanov, head of the Defense Ministry’s combat training department, said that the Russian Navy is in- creasing the operational radius of the Northern Fleet’s submarines and that Russia’s military strategy might be reoriented to meet threats to the country’s interests in the Arctic, particularly with regard to its continen- tal shelf. Shamanov said that “we have a number of highly professional military units in the Leningrad, Siberian and Far Eastern military districts, which are specifically trained for combat in Arctic regions.”73 On July 14, 2008, the Russian Navy announced that its fleet had “resumed a warship presence in the Arctic.” These Arctic naval patrols include the area of the Spitsbergen archipelago that belongs to Norway, a NATO member. Russia refuses to recognize Norway’s right to a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone around Spitsbergen. Russia deployed an anti-subma- rine warfare (ASW) destroyer followed by a guided- missile cruiser armed with 16 long-range anti-ship cruise missiles designed to destroy aircraft carriers.74 The resumption of Cold War–style patrols and in- creased naval presence in the Arctic is in keeping with Moscow’s more forward posture and is intended to increase its leverage vis-à-vis territorial claims. Mos- cow is taking the dual approach of projecting military power while invoking international law. Regarding the naval deployments near Spitsbergen, the Russian Navy stated: “Sorties of warships of the Northern Fleet will be made periodically with a necessary regu- larity. All actions of the Russian warships are fulfilled strictly in accordance with the international maritime law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.”75 At a meeting of the Russian government’s Mari- time Board in April 2008, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov backed a policy of settling territorial disputes in the region with the countries bordering the Arctic through cooperation. Then-First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov stressed in his remarks that Russia observes international law on the matter through adherence to two international conventions: the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf, signed by Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States; and the 1982 UNCLOS.76 While paying lip service to international law, Rus- sian’s ambitious actions hearken back to 19th century statecraft rather than the 21st century law-based policy. They appear to indicate that the Kremlin believes that credible displays of power will settle the conflicting territorial claims. By comparison, the West’s posture toward the Arctic has been irresolute and inadequate. During 2008 and 2009, Russian icebreakers were constantly patrolling in the Arctic. Russia has the larg- est such flotilla in the world: 18 operational icebreak- ers.77 Seven of these are nuclear, including the 50 Years of Victory, the largest icebreaker in the world.78 Russia is modernizing its Northern Fleet and hopes to expand funding for more nuclear icebreakers. Indeed, Russia plans to build new nuclear-pow- ered icebreakers starting in 2015. In April 2009, Segey Kirienko, director of Rosatom State Corporation, an- nounced that government funding for new nuclear icebreakers in the federal budget would total U.S. $57 million; and another U.S. $150 million for 2010-11. Ex- perts estimate that Russia will need to build six to 10 nuclear icebreakers over the next 20 years to maintain and expand its current level of operations.79

2ac – ukraine containment

Containment now – Ukraine

Mohammed and Zengerle 14

Arshad Mohammed and Patricia Zengerle, Reuters, 3/6/14, (“In U.S. strategy on Ukraine, a whiff of Kennan's 'containment'”, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-ukraine-crisis-containment-idUSBREA2600320140307)//AW

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns on Thursday laid out a strategy of patiently trying to counter Russia, including its intervention in Ukraine, reminiscent of legendary American diplomat George Kennan's concept of "containment."

Testifying before Congress, Burns suggested that Russia's seizure of the Ukrainian region of Crimea reflected Moscow's weakness, not its strength, and that a resolution, if one is possible, will take time.

As one of the U.S. government's foremost experts on Russia, where he served twice, including as ambassador, Burns appeared to reach for Kennan's language and thinking as he spoke about the Ukraine crisis and a Russian leader with little apparent appetite for cooperation with the West in what he sees as Russia's traditional sphere of influence.

"We ... need to be mindful of the enduring strengths of the United States and its partners and the very real weaknesses sometimes obscured by Russian bluster," Burns told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"No one should underestimate the power of patient and resolute counter-pressure using all of the non-military means at our disposal, working with our allies, and leaving the door open to de-escalation and diplomacy, if Russia is prepared to play by international rules," he added.

His phrasing contained what seemed a deliberate echo of Kennan, a diplomat and historian widely seen as the intellectual author of Washington's Cold War policy of "containment" against the Soviet Union.

Kennan first spelled out his views in a private, 8,000-word "Long Telegram" from Moscow, where he was charge d'affaires, to State Department headquarters in 1946. They later became public in his anonymous 1947 article "The Sources of Soviet Conduct."

Published as the Soviet Union was cementing its grip on countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland, the essay argued that the United States had to regard the Soviet Union as a rival that sought to undermine any countervailing power.

"Balanced against this are the facts that Russia, as opposed to the western world in general, is still by far the weaker party, that Soviet policy is highly flexible, and that Soviet society may well contain deficiencies which will eventually weaken its own total potential," Kennan wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs under the byline "X."

"This would of itself warrant the United States entering with reasonable confidence upon a policy of firm containment, designed to confront the Russians with unalterable counter-force at every point where they show signs of encroaching upon the interests of a peaceful and stable world," he added.

2ac – russia expansion

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

Salbuchi 13

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

Today’s globalized geopolitical grand chessboard often plays out in interestingly complex and roundabout ways. Such is the case of the on-going tug of war between the US, UK and EU on the one hand, and Russia and its allies on the other.

Pieces are moved; sometimes a pawn from one square to the next, at other times a rook or bishop straight across the chessboard; even a knight in its more crooked way… Such is the game of the looming “Arctic War” which is starting to unfold, in which seemingly unconnected events begin to make sense when we start joining the right dots correctly.

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?

Round Three: Run to the Pole?

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.

10 Russian warships and nuclear powered icebreakers are now operative in that region overseeing key shipping lanes joining the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, including ports like Murmansk (where the “Arctic Sunrise” lies peacefully anchored).

Clearly, the Arctic is very much on the global grand chessboard’s radar screen. What happens there over the next few years will have immense significance considering that the manoeuvring and relative positioning achieved by the powers in conflict will also help to consolidate their respective presences in the region and worldwide.

For when it comes to oil and gas, the US and UK have clearly decided to militarize oil exploration, exploitation and shipping lanes. Just as they have done in the South Atlantic with the UK’s Falkland/Malvinas nuclear military base and the US’s powerful Fourth South Atlantic Fleet with its rosary of military bases discretely spread into Paraguay, Argentina, Chile, Colombia and other countries in the region.

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.