Explanation of advantages— Science Diplomacy

Extension: No Cooperation – Ukraine

Ukraine crisis changes everything – growing tensions undermine cooperation and guarantee escalating territorial claims by Russia in the Arctic

Friedman 14 – Uri Friedman, senior associate editor at The Atlantic, where he oversees the Global Channel, previously the deputy managing editor at Foreign Policy and a staff writer for The Atlantic Wire, 2014 (“The Arctic: Where the U.S. and Russia Could Square Off Next,” The Atlantic, March 28^th, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/the-arctic-where-the-us-and-russia-could-square-off-next/359543/ | ADM)

In mid-March, around the same time that Russia annexed Crimea, Russian officials announced another territorial coup: 52,000 square kilometers in the Sea of Okhotsk, a splotch of Pacific Ocean known as the "Peanut Hole" and believed to be rich in oil and gas. A UN commission had recognized the maritime territory as part of Russia's continental shelf, Russia's minister of natural resources and environment proudly announced, and the decision would only advance the territorial claims in the Arctic that Russia had pending before the same committee.

After a decade and a half of painstaking petitioning, the Peanut Hole was Russia's.

Russian officials were getting a bit ahead of themselves. Technically, the UN commission had approved Russia's recommendations on the outer limits of its continental shelf—and only when Russia acts on these suggestions is its control of the Sea of Okhotsk "final and binding."

Still, these technicalities shouldn't obscure the larger point: Russia isn't only pursuing its territorial ambitions in Ukraine and other former Soviet states. It's particularly active in the Arctic Circle, and, until recently, these efforts engendered international cooperation, not conflict.

But the Crimean crisis has complicated matters. Take Hillary Clinton's call last week for Canada and the United States to form a "united front" in response to Russia "aggressively reopening military bases” in the Arctic. Or the difficulties U.S. officials are having in designing sanctions against Russia that won't harm Western oil companies like Exxon Mobil, which are engaged in oil-and-gas exploration with their Russian counterparts in parts of the Russian Arctic.

In a dispatch from "beneath the Arctic ocean" this week, The Wall Street Journal reported on a U.S. navy exercise, scheduled before the crisis in Ukraine, that included a simulated attack on a Russian submarine. The U.S. has now canceled a joint naval exercise with Russia in the region and put various other partnerships there on hold.

Ukraine wrecks scientific cooperation missions – spills over to heightening political tensions

Rosen 14 – Yereth Rosen, Arctic Editor and Reporter, Alaska Dispatch News, 2014 (“U.S.-Russia tensions create worries for Arctic scientists,” Alaska Dispatch News, May 9^th, http://www.adn.com/node/1587866 | ADM)

For a week in June, about 20 Russian emergency-management experts and scientists and their U.S. counterparts were planning to tour Alaska natural disaster landmarks, sharing information about lessons learned and risks avoided.

They were to have viewed areas of Seward where tsunamis swept in after the 1964 earthquake, toured part of Anchorage rebuilt after that massive quake, inspected the site where the trans-Alaska pipeline was shaken by the magnitude-7.9 Denali Fault earthquake of 2002 and examined other hazard spots before convening in Fairbanks to compare notes on wildfire and flood management.

Now the summit is off. The U.S. State Department pulled the funding, making the Alaska hazards-reduction workshop a casualty of the conflict over Ukraine.

"I'm very disappointed," said geologist and volcano expert John Eichelberger, graduate school dean at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and one of the workshop organizers. Russia and Alaska have similar natural hazards -- earthquakes, erupting volcanoes and spring floods on ice-jammed rivers -- so "it's an ideal area for cooperation," he said.

The June event was one of several multinational Arctic projects that have been damaged -- or are at risk of being damaged -- by political tensions in Ukraine. The head of Russia's emergency services agency was a no-show at an international meeting last month at UAF that focused on emergency response, despite previous plans to attend.

"There wasn't any reason given," Eichelberger said. "It was obvious what was going on."

He worries about other cutbacks, possibly to federal funding that in the past has paid for Alaska students to travel to Russia in a "peer-to-peer" program. "It's incredibly disappointing to see this turn of events," he said.

POLITICAL WINDS CHILL MORE THAN SCIENCE

Continuing important Arctic collaboration while properly responding to Russia's Ukraine activities appears to be a delicate balance, according to a statement emailed Thursday from the State Department.

"Given Russia's ongoing violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, the U.S. government has taken a number of actions, to include curtailing official government-to-government contacts and meetings with the Russian Federation on a case-by-case basis," the statement said. "The Administration is keenly aware of the value of maintaining scientific cooperation on collaborative research projects, especially in the Arctic, and will assess our interactions consistent with that awareness."

Fran Ulmer, chair of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, acknowledged that researchers are worried about new impediments to their work. At an Anchorage energy conference last week, she said she remains hopeful that Arctic issues will be kept separate from wider conflicts, "but obviously, everyday decisions are being made in Moscow and Washington and other capitals that could set us back," she said.

One of those capitals is Ottawa. Canadian officials last month boycotted an Arctic Council working-group meeting in Moscow, a decision intended to show what that nation's environmental minister said is a "principled stand" against Russian actions.

The Ukraine crisis' effects in the Arctic extend beyond the scientific world. In Finland, a country partly dependent on Russian markets and investment, they have cast a pall. Economists at Denmark's Danske Bank in March downgraded forecasts for Finland, slashing the projected growth rate by half.

Extension: Non-Unique – Ukraine

There are tensions-Putin is angry at the US

Zhongxi, 7/2

(Ren Zhongxi, Xinhua writer, “Putin slams Western containment policies, hails Russia-China ties,” 7/2/2014, http://english.cntv.cn/2014/07/02/ARTI1404255942811604.shtml, Accessed: 7/24/14, RH)

MOSCOW, July 1 (Xinhua) -- President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday developments of the Ukrainian crisis testified to Western countries' lasting attempts to contain Moscow, and hailed Russia- China ties as a paragon of international relations.

"We must understand clearly that the developments provoked in Ukraine are a concentrated manifestation of the notorious policy of containment," Putin told Russian ambassadors and permanent envoys.

"Obviously, that policy has never been interrupted even after the end of the Cold War," RIA Novosti news agency quoted him as saying.

His remarks came hours after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko declared to terminate the ceasefire in southeastern regions.

Putin said Poroshenko "has had nothing to do with orders to start military operations, but now he has assumed the responsibility in full - not only military but also political, which is much more important."

Noting Russia as well as some European countries had tried to convince Poroshenko to drop military options, Putin blamed the decision by the newly-elected president on outside pressure.

Meanwhile, he said, events happening around the world have shown that the unipolar model based on western domination as well as double standards toward Russia were "no longer operational."

"I hope pragmatism will triumph after all," said the president. "The West will rid itself of the ambitions and desire to put ' world barracks' in place, to line all up by ranks and to force uniform rules of conduct and living on society."

Russia was not interested in a bystander's role in international affairs, he added.

"If we are given the role of bystanders, who do not have a final say on key issues, which are of vital interest for us, then these formats are not interesting for us," Putin said.

Noting Moscow has always strived to be "predictable," the strongman said "in return, our legitimate interests were often ignored."

The Russia-China friendship, however, is an example of how international relations should look like, Putin noted.

"It is principally important that the Russia-China friendship is not targeting against any other country. On the contrary, it has been an example of equal, respectful and fruitful cooperation between the countries in the 21st century," Interfax news agency quoted him as saying.

Putin attributed the successful bilateral cooperation to the common approach taken by Moscow and Beijing toward global and regional issues.

Firm guarantees of undivided security, stability, respect for sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs must be the norm of all international affairs, he added.

On Russia-U.S. ties, Putin said the bilateral relations were not as good as they might be.

Meanwhile, he said Russia had no intention to curtail relations with the United States, but to be ready for "a constructive dialogue ... only on an equal basis."

Ukraine incident put us on the brink-they are tensions

Baker, 4/19

(Peter Baker, American political writer and newspaper reporter who is the White House correspondent for the New York Times, reported for The Washington Post for 20 years under the presidencies of Clinton and George W. Bush, “In Cold War Echo, Obama Strategy Writes off Putin,” April 19, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/world/europe/in-cold-war-echo-obama-strategy-writes-off-putin.html?_r=0, Accessed: 7/23/14, RH)

WASHINGTON — Even as the crisis in Ukraine continues to defy easy resolution, President Obama and his national security team are looking beyond the immediate conflict to forge a new long-term approach to Russia that applies an updated version of the Cold War strategy of containment.

Just as the United States resolved in the aftermath of World War II to counter the Soviet Union and its global ambitions, Mr. Obama is focused on isolating President Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia by cutting off its economic and political ties to the outside world, limiting its expansionist ambitions in its own neighborhood and effectively making it a pariah state.

An Orthodox priest blessed pro-Russian activists on Saturday in Donetsk, Ukraine, in an area under pro-Russian militant control.Pro-Russian Forces Work on Consolidating PowerAPRIL 19, 2014

Mr. Obama has concluded that even if there is a resolution to the current standoff over Crimea and eastern Ukraine, he will never have a constructive relationship with Mr. Putin, aides said. As a result, Mr. Obama will spend his final two and a half years in office trying to minimize the disruption Mr. Putin can cause, preserve whatever marginal cooperation can be saved and otherwise ignore the master of the Kremlin in favor of other foreign policy areas where progress remains possible.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia met Saturday with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Credit Alexei Druzhinin/RIA Novosti Kremlin, via Associated Press

“That is the strategy we ought to be pursuing,” said Ivo H. Daalder, formerly Mr. Obama’s ambassador to NATO and now president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. “If you just stand there, be confident and raise the cost gradually and increasingly to Russia, that doesn’t solve your Crimea problem and it probably doesn’t solve your eastern Ukraine problem. But it may solve your Russia problem.”

The manifestation of this thinking can be seen in Mr. Obama’s pending choice for the next ambassador to Moscow. While not officially final, the White House is preparing to nominate John F. Tefft, a career diplomat who previously served as ambassador to Ukraine, Georgia and Lithuania.

When the search began months ago, administration officials were leery of sending Mr. Tefft because of concern that his experience in former Soviet republics that have flouted Moscow’s influence would irritate Russia. Now, officials said, there is no reluctance to offend the Kremlin.

In effect, Mr. Obama is retrofitting for a new age the approach to Moscow that was first set out by the diplomat George F. Kennan in 1947 and that dominated American strategy through the fall of the Soviet Union. The administration’s priority is to hold together an international consensus against Russia, including even China, its longtime supporter on the United Nations Security Council.

While Mr. Obama’s long-term approach takes shape, though, a quiet debate has roiled his administration over how far to go in the short term. So far, economic advisers and White House aides urging a measured approach have won out, prevailing upon a cautious president to take one incremental step at a time out of fear of getting too far ahead of skittish Europeans and risking damage to still-fragile economies on both sides of the Atlantic.

The White House has prepared another list of Russian figures and institutions to sanction in the next few days if Moscow does not follow through on an agreement sealed in Geneva on Thursday to defuse the crisis, as Obama aides anticipate. But the president will not extend the punitive measures to whole sectors of the Russian economy, as some administration officials prefer, absent a dramatic escalation.

Perception of containment now because of Ukraine-Putin’s already upset

Nechepurenko, 7/1

(Ivan Nechepurenko, Russian writer and journalist, Deputy News Editor and Senior Correspondent of the Moscow Times, his writings have been published in The Aspen Institute, closely worked with The Carnegie Moscow Center, The International Crisis Group, appeared on BBC, CBC, France 24, earned Bachelor’s Degree from the University of Calgary, and Master’s from the London School of Economics and Political Science, “Putin Lashes Out Against Cold War-Style Containment of Russia,” July 1, 2014, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/putin-lashes-out-against-cold-war-style-containment-of-russia/502817.html, Accessed: 7/23/14, RH)

Kremlin

During his speech before a conference on Russia's foreign policy objectives Tuesday, Putin emphasized that Russia must continue to assert its role as a global superpower, despite pressure from the West.

President Vladimir Putin accused the U.S. on Tuesday of having revived the Cold War policy of containment.

"The events in Ukraine are the concentrated expression of the policy of containing Russia. The roots of this policy go deep into history, it is clear that this policy, unfortunately, did not end with the Cold War," Putin said in a speech before a crowd of top Russian diplomats from around the globe.

The containment policy, rooted in the theory that strategically rebuffing Soviet initiatives on the global stage would eventually bring about the U.S.S.R.'s demise, formed the basis of the U.S.' Cold War strategy.

During his speech before a conference on Russia's foreign policy objectives Tuesday, Putin emphasized that Russia must continue to assert its role as a global superpower, despite pressure from the West.

"Our country will continue to defend vigorously the rights of Russians, our compatriots, around the world and will do so by any means necessary — from political and economic to the right of self-defense enshrined in international humanitarian law," he said, referring to Russia's annexation of Crimea in March.

Putin reiterated his steadfast criticism of U.S. unilateralism in international affairs, blaming it for having provoked and perpetuated the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, and for having transformed the world into a "global barracks."

He listed the Ukraine crisis alongside the conflicts in Syria, Libya and Iraq, which he asserted had been the direct result of "unconstitutional coups."

Russia is being pressured by the U.S. over its "independent position" on these matters, he said. "We are aware of the pressure that our American partners put on France with an aim to halt deliveries of Mistral ships to Russia. We know that the U.S. hinted that if the French do not deliver the Mistrals, then sanctions will be gradually lifted from the banks, or at least reduced to minimum. If this is not blackmail then what is it?"

He was apparently referring to the French bank BNP Paribas, which pleaded guilty to money-laundering charges in the U.S. after having helped its clients dodge sanctions on Iran, Sudan and other countries. The bank agreed to pay out of $8.9 billion for its indiscretions.

Putin hinted that aligning Russian and Chinese interests could serve to counterbalance U.S. efforts to dominate the international arena. "Today we can say that a solid Russia-China alignment has been formed in the international arena, operating on the basis of common views on global processes and key regional problems," he said.

United States already committed to containment strategy against Russia

Killebrew, 3/27

(Colonel Bob Killebrew, writes and consults on national defense issues as a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, served for thirty tears in a variety of Species Forces, infantry, and staff duties, “CONTAINING RUSSIA AND RESTORING AMERICAN POWER,” March 27, 2014,

http://warontherocks.com/2014/03/containing-russia-and-restoring-american-power, Accessed: 7/24/14, RH)

Russia’s actions in Crimea and Ukraine are ringing alarm bells in Europe and United States. For the first time since World War II, European national boundaries are being changed by force, and, in an eerie echo of 1938, by an authoritarian leader who claims the right of intervention on behalf of ethnic kin in other countries.

Is this a temporary setback in relations that can be smoothed over by diplomacy? Or is this the beginning of Cold War II, a reprise of the old days that will be with us as long as Russia continues its bellicosity?

While the returns are still coming in, it’s increasingly clear that Russian President Vladimir Putin intends to set Russia on a long-term course to restore Russian greatness and its influence over the states that used to fall within the Soviet empire. His speech of March 19 deserves careful reading. Although the former Soviet Union based its legitimacy and its right to empire on an ideology, Putin’s new Russia is based on his view of former Soviet glory, strident Russian nationalism and opposition to the West. Whether that view will survive him – whether there will be a similarly motivated line of succession as there was from Stalin to Malenkov to Khrushchev and so forth – is unknown. But Putin is a serious man, and his intentions should be taken seriously.

By now it should be clear that the “American moment” at the end of the Cold War – or, more precisely, of Cold War I – is over, and our security policies must be realigned. During the decade that coincided with the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton and the incompetent incumbency of Boris Yeltsin, the post-Cold War era appeared to be the age of democracy, led by a prosperous and militarily untouchable United States. Those days are long gone. From an explosion of post-Cold War optimism, the number of democratic states in the world is declining from its high water mark in the 1990s, and authoritarianism of the “one man, one vote, one time” type is spreading.

Containment now

Mankoff, 7/15

(Jeffrey Mankoff, deputy director and fellow with the CSIS Russia and Eurasia Program, “Is it Time to Bring Containment Back?,” July 15, 2014, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/it-time-bring-containment-back-10881?page=2, Accessed: 7/24/14, RH)

Since Russian forces first moved into Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in February, the United States’ approach has emphasized threatening Russia with diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions. Due to a combination of disagreements with European allies and a desire within the Obama Administration to avoid provocation, these threats have borne limited fruit, as Russia continues arming the separatists and threatening military intervention, even as Ukraine’s military has recently succeeded in dislodging the rebels from Slavyansk and some of their other strongholds.

Not only has the threat of sanctions been undermined by a lack of follow-through, it was always a dubious proposition whether economic pressure alone could change Russian calculations about Ukraine. Instead of concentrating on sanctions whose imposition looks increasingly unlikely, Washington should also develop a strategic response to the crisis, one centered on preventing the expansion of Russian influence in its neighborhood by bolstering the political and economic resiliency of vulnerable states, and providing them the military resources they need to resist Russian intervention. In addition to Ukraine, the highest priorities are Moldova and Georgia, though with a commitment to greater political reform in the future, this approach could also be relevant to states like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, or even Uzbekistan that seek to bolster their sovereignty against Russia.

This approach, whose broad outlines are similar to the containment policy Washington pursued against the USSR for much of the Cold War, has the advantage of costing the U.S. comparatively little, and of avoiding the need to gain consensus among Washington’s European allies, who remain deeply divided on handling Russia.

The U.S., as well as its European allies, has already taken some steps to help these states address their political and economic vulnerability. Ukraine has received billions of dollars in aid, much conditioned on steps to tackle the corruption and market distortions at the source of its weakness. Similarly, the association agreements Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine have negotiated with the EU provide for significant reforms to improve governance that will in the long run also strengthen the legitimacy of their governments.

AT: Squo Diplomacy Solves

Status quo diplomacy fails in the context of sovereignty disputes – these disputes engender opposition and justify militarization

Friedman 14 – Uri Friedman, senior associate editor at The Atlantic, where he oversees the Global Channel, previously the deputy managing editor at Foreign Policy and a staff writer for The Atlantic Wire, 2014 (“The Arctic: Where the U.S. and Russia Could Square Off Next,” The Atlantic, March 28^th, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/the-arctic-where-the-us-and-russia-could-square-off-next/359543/ | ADM)

This week, the Council on Foreign Relations published a very helpful guide on the jostling among countries to capitalize on the shipping routes and energy resources that could be unlocked as the Arctic melts. The main players are the countries with Arctic Ocean coastlines: Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Russia, the United States (Alaska)—and, to a lesser extent, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden. These nations have generally agreed to work together to resolve territorial and environmental issues. But some sovereignty disputes persist, including American opposition to Russia's claims to parts of the Northern Sea Route above Siberia.

Here's CFR's infographic on where the Arctic's shipping and natural-resource potential is, and where the "Arctic Five" are most at odds with each other (you can even layer summer sea ice onto the map!):

"Few countries have been as keen to invest in the Arctic as Russia, whose economy and federal budget rely heavily on hydrocarbons," CFR writes. "Of the nearly sixty large oil and natural-gas fields discovered in the Arctic, there are forty-three in Russia, eleven in Canada, six in Alaska, and one in Norway, according to a 2009 U.S. Department of Energy report."

"Russia, the only non-NATO littoral Arctic state, has made a military buildup in the Arctic a strategic priority, restoring Soviet-era airfields and ports and marshaling naval assets," the guide adds. "In late 2013, President Vladimir Putin instructed his military leadership to pay particular attention to the Arctic, saying Russia needed 'every lever for the protection of its security and national interests there.' He also ordered the creation of a new strategic military command in the Russian Arctic by the end of 2014."

Russian tensions hamper scientific research and diplomacy

ADN 14 – Yereth Rosen is a staff for Alaska Dispatch News and Reuters, 2014 (“U.S.-Russia tensions create worries for Arctic scientists,” May 9^th, Available Online at http://www.adn.com/article/20140509/us-russia-tensions-create-worries-arctic-scientists, Accessed 07-31-2014) LB

An Alaska hazard-reduction workshop planned between U.S. and Russian scientists and emergency management experts has been canceled after the U.S. State Department pulled funding as a result of conflict in the Ukraine.

For a week in June, about 20 Russian emergency-management experts and scientists and their U.S. counterparts were planning to tour Alaska natural disaster landmarks, sharing information about lessons learned and risks avoided.

They were to have viewed areas of Seward where tsunamis swept in after the 1964 earthquake, toured part of Anchorage rebuilt after that massive quake, inspected the site where the trans-Alaska pipeline was shaken by the magnitude-7.9 Denali Fault earthquake of 2002 and examined other hazard spots before convening in Fairbanks to compare notes on wildfire and flood management.

Now the summit is off. The U.S. State Department pulled the funding, making the Alaska hazards-reduction workshop a casualty of the conflict over Ukraine.

“I’m very disappointed,” said geologist and volcano expert John Eichelberger, graduate school dean at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and one of the workshop organizers. Russia and Alaska have similar natural hazards -- like earthquakes, erupting volcanoes and spring floods on ice-jammed rivers -- so “it’s an ideal area for cooperation,” he said.

The June event was one of several multinational Arctic projects that have been damaged -- or are at risk of being damaged -- by political tensions in Ukraine. The head of Russia’s emergency services agency was a no-show at an international meeting last month at UAF that focused on emergency response, despite previous plans to attend.

“There wasn’t any reason given,” Eichelberger said. “It was obvious what was going on.”

He worries about other cutbacks, possibly to federal funding that in the past has paid for Alaska students to travel to Russia in a “peer-to-peer” program. “It’s incredibly disappointing to see this turn of events,” he said.

Political winds chill more than science

Continuing important Arctic collaboration while properly responding to Russia’s Ukraine activities appears to be a delicate balance, according to a statement emailed on Thursday from the State Department.

“Given Russia's ongoing violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, the U.S. government has taken a number of actions, to include curtailing official government-to-government contacts and meetings with the Russian Federation on a case-by-case basis,” the statement said. “The Administration is keenly aware of the value of maintaining scientific cooperation on collaborative research projects, especially in the Arctic, and will assess our interactions consistent with that awareness.”

Fran Ulmer, chair of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, acknowledged that researchers are worried about new impediments to their work. At an Anchorage energy conference last week, she said she remains hopeful that Arctic issues will be kept separate from wider conflicts, “but obviously, everyday decisions are being made in Moscow and Washington and other capitals that could set us back,” she said.

One of those capitals is Ottawa. Canadian officials last month boycotted an Arctic Council working-group meeting in Moscow, a decision intended to show what that nation’s environmental minister said is a “principled stand” against Russian actions.

The Ukraine crisis’ effects in the Arctic extend beyond the scientific world. In Finland, a country partly dependent on Russian markets and investment, they have cast a pall. Economists at Denmark’s Danske Bank in March downgraded forecasts for Finland, slashing the projected growth rate by half.

Nevertheless, some international Arctic activities are more buffered from U.S.-Russia conflicts, Eichelberger said. An example is the University of the Arctic, a consortium of 150 universities and research institutes for which he serves as academic vice president. UArctic gets much of its financial support from Scandinavia, so cutbacks from the U.S. government, if they occur, would have only muted effects, he said.

That sets up uniqueness for the link turn – icebreaking capacity in the Arctic allows increased diplomacy. Next year is key because the US will chair the Arctic Council

Borgerson 14 – Scott Borgerson, former fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a senior research scholar at Columbia University, served military tours of duty as a ship navigator, a patrol boat captain, an assistant professor at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, Ph.D. degrees from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, CEO at CargoMetrics, interviewed by Robin Young on Boston’s NPR station, 2014 (“Melting Arctic Opens New Frontier, Challenges,” Here & Now, March 31^st, http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/03/31/melting-arctic-resources | ADM)

BORGERSON: For sure, and there are different attitudes about how the Arctic might be developed. In fact, if you remember the headlines of the Greenpeace activists who were actually seized by Russian border patrol, the Arctic is a vast and beautiful frontier but also one that's lacking in infrastructure. And as activity is increasing, it's very important we put in place sort of the foundations now so that we can develop it responsibly.

YOUNG: Well, and as we said, right now the U.S. a little bit behind as far as signing treaties but also behind as far as being prepared to operate in the Arctic. Russia has the biggest presence there. It controls the northern sea route. If tensions escalate between the two countries, it could increase fees to ships wanting to access the route. Russia has the world's only nuclear icebreakers, the U.S. a bit behind in icebreakers?

BORGERSON: For sure. So Russia has the largest fleet, and in fact even non-Arctic countries like China and South Korea are building icebreakers faster than we are. And so we're way behind in having the capability to operate there, and the U.S. Coast Guard is in need of a budget to actually build new vessels.

There's actually five things, I think, that the United States can do to try and increase our position in the Arctic, because next year we assume the chair of the Arctic Council, and we have an opportunity to provide some leadership there. But frankly we've been a laggard on Arctic issues relative to others. So first as mentioned, we need to join the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. That's urgent, not just for the Arctic but for global issues.

Second, we need recapitalize our icebreaker fleet. The United States needs infrastructure there: ports, roads, air fields, et cetera. We need to revitalize our diplomacy in the Arctic and perhaps have an Arctic ambassador like other Arctic nations.

And lastly, and this is less specific but perhaps the most important, America needs to sort of wake up to the Arctic and needs to change its attitude about the Arctic's new centrality to international relations.

AT: No Russian Militarization

Arctic militarization now – one of Putin’s top priorities

Diplomat 14 – Zachary Keck is the managing editor of The Diplomat, 2014. (“Russia to Establish Arctic Military Command,” February 21^st, Available Online at http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/russia-to-establish-arctic-military-command/, Accessed 08-02-2014) LB

Russia will establish a new strategic military command in the Arctic by the end of the year, according to local news reports.

RIA Novosti, citing a high ranking official in Russia’s General Staff, said the new force would be called the Northern Fleet-Unified Strategic Command. The news agency quoted the source as saying: “The new command will comprise the Northern Fleet, Arctic warfare brigades, air force and air defense units as well as additional administrative structures.”

The report went on to say that the Northern Fleet-Unified Strategic Command “will be responsible for protecting Russia’s Arctic shipping and fishing, oil and gas fields on the Arctic shelf, and the country’s national borders in the north.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made boosting Russia’s military presence in the Arctic an important priority during his third term in office. At a meeting of the Russian Defense Ministry Board last December, Putin said: “I request that you pay special attention to the deployment of infrastructure and military units in the Arctic.”

Other Russian officials have said that Moscow will reopen at least seven airfields as well as a number of ports on the New Siberian Islands and the Franz Josef Land archipelago in the Arctic. Moscow has also begun enhancing its aerospace defense and early warning radars in the Arctic region. Last November the commander of Russia’s Aerospace Defense Command stated: “The expansion of [missile early warning] radar coverage is one of the key areas of our work, especially when it comes to [Russia’s] extreme north – we have already started the deployment of electronic warfare units in the Arctic.”

The Russian Navy has also made boosting its presence in the Arctic a key priority for 2014. In December of last year RIA Novosti paraphrased a Russian military spokesperson as saying that in 2014 “The Northern Fleet will conduct sailing and diving expeditions in the Arctic and develop a series of ice-class patrol ships to protect the country’s interest in the region.”

The Northern Fleet-Unified Strategic Command is aimed at bringing the disparate efforts of Russia’s different military services—as well as its coast guard presumably—together in a coherent manner.

Increased Arctic militarization now

Mitchell 14 – Jon Mitchell has a Masters in public policy, with a concentration in international affairs, 2014. (“Russia’s Territorial Ambition and Increased Military Presence in the Arctic,” April 23^rd, Available Online at http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/23/russias-territorial-ambition-and-increased-military-presence-in-the-arctic/, Accessed on 08-02-2014) LB

As the U.S. and E.U. keep a very close eye on the situation with Russia and Ukraine, Russia is also increasing its presence and influence elsewhere: the Arctic – a melting region that is opening up prime shipping lanes and real estate with an estimated $1 trillion in hydrocarbons.[1] With the opening of two major shipping routes, the North Sea route and the Northwest Passage, the potential for economic competition is fierce, especially among the eight members of the Arctic council: Canada, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Russia, and the United States.[2]

President Putin made statements this week concerning Russia’s national interests in the Arctic region: chiefly, militarization and the preparation of support elements for commercial shipping routes.[3] The Russian President called for full government funding for “socio-economic development” from 2017-2020, including a system of Russian naval bases that would be home to ships and submarines allocated specifically for the defense of national interests that involve the protection of Russian oil and gas facilities in the Arctic.[4] Russia is also attempting to accelerate the construction of more icebreakers to take part in its Arctic strategy.[5]

The Russian Federation recently staked a territorial claim in the Sea of Okhotsk for 52,000 square kilometers,[6] and is currently preparing an Arctic water claim for 1.2 million square kilometers.[7] The energy giant owns 43 of the approximate 60 hydrocarbon deposits in the Arctic Circle.[8] With Russian energy companies already developing hydrocarbon deposits and expanding border patrols on its Arctic sea shelf (in place by July 1, 2014),[9] Putin is actively pursuing a strong approach to the Arctic region. Russian oil fields, which significantly contribute to the country’s revenue, are in decline – forcing Russian oil companies to actively explore the Arctic region.[10] While the U.S. Defense Secretary called for a peaceful and stable Arctic region with international cooperation, the Arctic has created increased militarization efforts, particularly by Russia.

Already the Arctic has seen powerful warships of Russia’s Northern Fleet, strategic bomber patrols, and airborne troop exercises.[11] In fact, Russian military forces have been permanently stationed in the Arctic since summer 2013.[12] According to a source in the Russian General Staff, a new military command titled Northern Fleet – Joint Strategic Command, will be created and tasked to protect Russian interests in its Arctic territories; a strategy that was approved in 2009.[13] Furthermore, weapons developers are being tasked with creating products that can face the harsh Arctic environment. According to an RT report, “Putin ordered the head of the Russian arms industry, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, to concentrate the efforts on creation of Arctic infrastructure for the soonest deployment of troops. Rogozin reported that all Russian weapons systems can be produced with special features needed in the extreme North and the weapons companies were ready to supply such arms to the Defense Ministry.”[14]

The “Arctic infrastructure” that Rogozin refers to will include Navy and Border Guard Service bases.[15] These bases are part of Putin’s aim to strengthen Russian energy companies and military positions in the Arctic region. In 2013, a formerly closed down base was reopened in the Novosibirsk Islands and is now home to 10 military ships and four icebreakers – a move that Reuters called “a demonstration of force.”[16] The Defense Ministry is also planning on bringing seven airstrips in the Arctic back to life.[17]

Russia militarizing now – nuclear arsenal upgrades and conventional forces

Barbora 12 (Padrtova Barbora, Master degree in Security and Strategic Studies from the Faculty of Social Studies of the Masaryk University in Brno, Centre fo European and North Atlantic Affairs, 2012, da: July 22 2014, Russian Approach Towards the Arctic Region, http://cenaa.org/analysis/russian-approach-towards-the-arctic-region/,PS)

The Arctic has always played a significant role from the perspective of Russian Navy. Although Russia is the only country in the world with a nuclear icebreaker fleet (Rosatomflot), limited maintenance and construction capacity has caused general deterioration since the 1990s. At present, Rosatomflot possesses 18 icebreakers, of which six are active nuclear-powered ones. However, they are aging quickly and will be decommissioned by 2020. Viacheslav Ruksha, head of Atomflot (which operates the fleet), warned that Russia will face a “collapse” of these capacities in 2016-2017 (Kovalenko 2012). Moscow already emphasized the priority of the acquisition of new nuclear-powered icebreakers in Osnovy 2008. In July 2012 Rosatom (state-run corporation) signed a deal to begin construction of a multi-purpose new-generation nuclear icebreaker budgeted at 1.1 billion US dollars. The new icebreaker will be launched in 2017. In addition, in the next few years, Kremlin plans to build another three third-generation icebreakers to maintain the country’s potential in the Arctic (Kovalenko 2012).[7]

The National Security Strategy and Osnovy 2008, include plans to establish special Arctic military formations in order to “protect the county’s national interests and to guarantee military security in different military and political situations.” The future competition for energy near Russian borders “might be resolved by a decision to use military power. The existing balance of forces on the borders can be changed” (Osnovy 2008, Strategia 2009). Russia has the world’s longest Arctic border, which stretches more than 10,000 miles (16,000 kilometres). To protect critical lines of transportation such as the NSR and to secure north borders, Russia already announced plans to create two special army brigades to be based in the Arctic (in the cities Murmansk and Arkhangelsk), as stated by Russian Defence Minister Serdyukov (BBC News 2011).

On the strategic level, the Arctic is particularly important for the maintenance of Russia’s maritime nuclear deterrent forces. The defence significance is underlined by the fact that only through the Arctic, Russia has full open access to the world’s oceans and the possibility of broad operational manoeuvre for the Navy’s submarine forces (unlike the ports on the Black Sea or the Baltic). Russia’s most powerful Northern Fleet with nuclear triad, is based close to Murmansk in the north of the Kola Peninsula at Severomorsk.[8]

The nuclear deterrent has maintained the key role in Russia’s military strategy, highlighted even more by its weakness in conventional forces. Kremlin is hankering to regain status as a world naval power (Strategia 2009). The deterrent’s continued importance has been affirmed by the priority given to modernization of the Russian nuclear arsenals, including the building of Russia’s first multi-purpose nuclear submarine – Yasen class, which will officially start service by the end of 2012, according to Chief Commander Viktor Chirkov. Additional eight fourth-generation ballistic missile submarines – Borei-class are planned to be completed by 2015 (Staalesen 2012).

Canada, Norway, and Russia have conducted military and naval operations in the region to showcase their capabilities and demonstrate their sovereignty. The United States has been more modest in this regard as the Arctic policy is on the third-tier status in the US national priority. Moreover, even though the US Navy is as large as the next 17 navies in the world combined, US Coast Guard owns only three icebreakers (Cohen 2011).

Russia regularly conducts large-scale military training in the region. In parallel with the overall increased training activity of the Russian Armed Forces, July 2007 saw the Northern Fleet exercise on what was described as a larger scale than has been possible for some years, including live firing from major surface vessels, fleet aviation and marine infantry.[9] The intensification of military training in the High Arctic includes the Northern Fleet’s “unique work to restore the skills of navigation tasks in the Arctic” and the particular requirements of missile launches under polar conditions. The under-ice training for submariners is essential for ensuring that “in case of the threat of nuclear conflict, strategic submarines are ready to launch a retaliatory strike with ballistic missiles,” said the then Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy Admiral Masorin (Gavrilenko 2006). According to Northern Fleet commander Admiral Vladimir Vysotskiy “a wide range of threats, which may negatively affect Russian economic interests are concentrated in the Arctic” (RIA Novosti 2011).

AT: Russia Relations Impact

Relations are toxic – only cooperation can solve the backlash from sanctions

Guardian 7/30/2014 – Alec Lunh, correspondant for the Guardian’s Moscow branch, 2014 (“Russia defiant in face of new US and EU sanctions,” July 30^th, Available Online at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/30/russia-defiant-us-eu-sanctions, Accessed 08-02-2014) LB

Moscow was defiant on Wednesday in the face of sweeping US and EU sanctions designed to punish its continued backing of separatists in eastern Ukraine, promising that Russia would localise production and emerge stronger.

However, analysts predicted that the key sectors of finance, defence and energy that have been targeted will suffer in isolation from the west.

The EU agreed on Tuesday evening to cut off Russian state-owned banks from European capital markets. It was joined promptly by the United States, which denied Russia's state-owned banks – VTB Bank OAO, Bank of Moscow and the Russian Agricultural Bank – access to the US economy.

The EU also banned any trade in arms and the US prohibited transactions with Russia's United Shipbuilding Corp, which it classified as a defence company. Both the EU and the United States will ban export of technologies to Russia for deep-water, Arctic or shale oil drilling. The sanctions from the EU, which does far more trade with Russia, will be reviewed in three months. Russia called the new sanctions "destructive and short-sighted".

"Such decisions by Washington can do nothing but further aggravate US-Russian relations and create an utterly unfavourable environment in international affairs, where cooperation between our states often plays a decisive role," Russia's Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Shares in VTB, Russia's second-largest bank, dropped by 3% with the start of trading on Wednesday – losses that were later mostly regained. The Russian stock market on the whole actually grew, with the MICEX and RTS indexes rising by about 2%.

Bank of Moscow said in a statement it was oriented on the domestic market and its business "wouldn't suffer at all from the imposed sanctions". Russia's Central Bank promised to prop up banks hit by sanctions. "If necessary, appropriate measures will be taken to support these organisations in order to protect the interests of their customers, depositors and creditors," it said in a statement.

US-Russia Relations are at the lowest point since the Cold War.

CBC 7/31/2014 – Meagan Fitzpatrick, contributor to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2014. (“Russia-US Relations are chilly, but is this another Cold War?” July 31^st, Available Online at http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-u-s-relations-are-chilly-but-is-this-another-cold-war-1.2723056, Accessed 08-02-2014) LB

Relations between Russia and the U.S. would almost certainly be described as chilly at the moment, but are they cold — as in Cold War?

It's a question that's being asked more frequently in recent weeks as the U.S., Canada and Europe pile up sanctions on Russia over its role in the Ukraine crisis, and as Russia pushes back and defies their demands.

The answer, though, depends on who you ask.

"No, it's not a new Cold War," President Barack Obama responded when asked for his opinion Tuesday after just announcing more sanctions. "What it is, is a very specific issue related to Russia’s unwillingness to recognize that Ukraine can chart its own path."

It's not the first time Obama has dismissed the notion of a new Cold War underway. During a speech in Brussels in March the president spoke at length about the situation in Ukraine and Russia-U.S. relations.

He accused Russia of violating international law by annexing Crimea in eastern Ukraine, and said that the U.S. isolated Russia as a result by excluding it from the G8 group of industrialized nations and downgrading Washington's bilateral ties with Moscow.

At that point, the U.S. had already applied some sanctions and Obama pledged more unless Russia changed course.

But, he said, "this is not another Cold War that we're entering into. After all, unlike the Soviet Union, Russia leads no bloc of nations, no global ideology."

Obama, of course, can deny that Russia and the U.S. are headed for another Cold War-like standoff, but scholars and pundits have their own theories and are carefully making comparisons.

Among that group, there seems to be a consensus that the ground has shifted, and that relations have soured. But what to call it and whether to apply the Cold War label is a matter of debate.

In this scenario, the ideological battle that defined the Cold War era doesn't exist, David Kramer, a former top official at the U.S. State Department during the earlier part of the Obama years, said in an interview with CBC News.

"But we certainly are in the lowest period since the end of the Cold War, there's no doubt about it," said Kramer, now head of Freedom House, a non-government organization.

"It is now Russia against the West and my money is on the West in that kind of battle."

Renewed rivalry

What Russia did in Crimea is "the stuff of the Cold War," Charles Kupchan, a professor at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in a call with reporters back in March.

"It's possible that what is going on now in the invasion of Crimea by Russia means that great power rivalry is back with us," he said. But "I don't think we're there yet."

Obama-Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin walks past U.S. President Barack Obama during a group photo at the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg in September of 2013. Russia and the U.S. are at odds over Ukraine and other issues and questions have been raised recently about whether a new Cold War is underway or on the horizon. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters )

Obama hesitates to use the Cold War label because it could then lay the groundwork for certain policy decisions, says Robert Legvold, a professor emeritus at Columbia University and a specialist in Russia and post-Soviet states.

He disagrees with other observers who say this isn't a new Cold War, and in a recent essay in the journal Foreign Affairs he laid out the case for why the collapse in relations between Russia and the West deserves the description.

In an interview with CBC News Legvold said the Ukraine crisis was "the tipping point" that pushed already tense relations over the edge.

One of the big irritants leading up to that was Russia providing asylum to Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency whistleblower wanted in the U.S. on charges of espionage and stealing government property.

"It's to underscore the significance of what's happened that I would use a phrase as strong as Cold War," Legvold explained.

Russia and U.S. view each other as enemies

For some observers, the absence of an arms race or ideological competition are reasons for believing this is not a new Cold War. Poor relations don't necessarily equal a Cold War-like antagonism in other words.

For Legvold, the basis of his position is that the U.S. and Russia are now treating each other as enemies, whereas in recent years they were neither friend nor foe, he said.

"These are major players in international politics, and when they define their relationship as fundamentally adversarial that becomes the starting point for thinking of a Cold War," he argues.

In his Brussels speech, Obama said that the U.S. is not seeking a conflict with Russia and that it is in America's interest for Russia to be a strong state, not a weak one. But Legvold doesn't see many actions to match those words.

"We're not spending very much time thinking about what might possibly be common ground. We're thinking about all the ways in which we need to simply defeat the other side. That's very characteristic of the original Cold War," he said.

The New York Times reported in April, right after Russia's annexation of Crimea, that Obama has essentially written off Putin, and is looking to apply an updated version of the Cold War strategy of containment.

That would involve restricting Russia's political and economic ties to the international community and isolating it as much as possible, while maintaining a minimal relationship that would allow the two countries to still work together on, for example, negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, or disarming Syria.

For its part, the Obama administration insists its current sanctions and hard line against Moscow is only in reaction to a specific incident — Russia’s involvement in Ukraine.

But that is not how at least some in Russia see it. Several media outlets reported Wednesday that senior parliamentarian Alexei Pushkov, chair of the foreign relations committee, wrote on Twitter: "Obama won't go into history as a peacemaker — everyone has already forgotten about his Nobel Peace Prize — but as the U.S. president who started a new Cold War."

Relations are already low

Baker, 4/19

(Peter Baker, American political writer and newspaper reporter who is the White House correspondent for the New York Times, reported for The Washington Post for 20 years under the presidencies of Clinton and George W. Bush, “In Cold War Echo, Obama Strategy Writes off Putin,” April 19, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/world/europe/in-cold-war-echo-obama-strategy-writes-off-putin.html?_r=0, Accessed: 7/23/14, RH)

Reporters asked about Ukraine anyway, as he knew they would, and he expressed skepticism about the prospects of the Geneva accord that his secretary of state, John Kerry, had just brokered. But when a reporter turned the subject back to health care, Mr. Obama happily exclaimed, “Yeah, let’s talk about that.”

That represents a remarkable turnaround from the start of Mr. Obama’s presidency, when he nursed dreams of forging a new partnership with Russia. Now the question is how much of the relationship can be saved. Mr. Obama helped Russia gain admission to the World Trade Organization; now he is working to limit its access to external financial markets.

But the two sides have not completely cut off ties. American troops and equipment are still traveling through Russian territory en route to and from Afghanistan. Astronauts from the two countries are currently in orbit together at the International Space Station, supplied by Russian rockets. A joint program decommissioning old Russian weapons systems has not been curtailed.

Nuclear inspections under the New Start arms control treaty Mr. Obama signed in his first term continue. The Air Force still relies on rockets with Russian-made engines to launch military satellites into space, although it is reviewing that. The United States has not moved to try to push Russia out of the W.T.O. And the Obama administration is still working with Russia on disarming Syria’s chemical weapons and negotiating a deal with Iran to curtail its nuclear program.

“You can’t isolate everything from a general worsening of the relationship and the rhetoric,” said Graham Allison, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University and an adviser to multiple administrations on Russia and defense policy. “But there’s still very high priority business that we have to try to do with Russia.”

Still, the relationship cannot return to normal either, even if the Ukraine situation is settled soon, specialists said. “There’s really been a sea change not only here but in much of Europe about Russia,” said Robert Nurick, a Russia expert at the Atlantic Council. “A lot of the old assumptions about what we were doing and where we were going and what was possible are gone, and will stay that way as long as Putin’s there.”