West Coast Publishing Ocean 2014 affirmative page

US Russia Yes Conflict

Conflict Now - Ukraine

US will get drawn into Ukraine conflict because of NATO commitments

Peter Weber, Senior editor at TheWeek.com, March 5, 2014, "What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?" https://theweek.com/article/index/257406/what-would-a-us-russia-war-look-like, accessed 5/4/14

The chances that the U.S. and Russia will clash militarily over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine are very, very slim. Ukraine isn't a member of NATO, and President Obama isn't likely to volunteer for another war. But many of Ukraine's neighbors are NATO members, including Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Hungary. And so are the the Baltic states — Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia — further north and right on Russia's border. If any of those countries come to Ukraine's aid and find themselves in a war with Russia, NATO is obliged to intervene. That's also true if Russia comes up with some pretext to invade any of those countries, unlikely as that seems. If we learned anything from World War I, it's that huge, bloody conflicts can start with tiny skirmishes, especially in Eastern Europe.

Ukrainian naval conflict ensures US/Russia escalation

Steve Rothwell and Lara Jakes, Associated Press, March 3, 2014, "U.S. calls any threat to Ukraine Navy 'dangerous'," www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/3/3/ukraine_us_stocks.html, accessed 5/1/14

The Obama administration said Monday that any Russian threat to Ukraine's navy would be a "dangerous escalation" of an extremely tense situation . The State Department said that Washington would hold Moscow directly accountable for such an escalation but did not elaborate on potential consequences. Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, however, that she could not confirm if Russia had in fact made such threats. Earlier Monday, a Ukrainian military spokesman said Russia had issued an ultimatum to the crews of two Ukrainian warships in Crimea, demanding that they immediately surrender or be stormed and seized.

Ukraine crisis causes widespread US/Russian conflict.

Ian Black, Middle East editor of the Guardian, March 17^th, 2014, “Ukraine: a local crisis with global repercussions”, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/17/ukraine-crisis-repercussions-crimea-russia, accessed 4/17/14

If international relations are a seamless web, then the crisis over Russia's actions in Ukraine risks entangling other knotty current issues – from efforts to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, through the continuing carnage in Syria to wider disarmament ambitions. For all the echoes of cold war days in the standoff over Crimea, its repercussions could affect some of the toughest problems of today's multipolar world, in which US power is perceived as being in retreat and Barack Obama has been criticised at home and abroad for a reluctance to use force and failure to act decisively. Given the current tensions, it seems highly likely that wider US-Russian co-operation will become harder. That matters: without agreement between Moscow and Washington, a deal would not have been possible after last year's Syrian chemical weapons crisis, which briefly threatened a dangerous escalation of the war. And Syria's agony is still far from over.

Conflict Now – Arctic

Diplomatic ambiguity ensures US/Russia maritime conflict in the Arctic

Wesley Aerandir, Naval Postgraduate School, December 2012, "BREAKING THE ICE: POTENTIAL U.S.-RUSSIAN MARITIME CONFLICT IN THE ARCTIC," www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a573497.pdf, accessed 5/4/14

The circular geography of the Arctic leaves these five nations arrayed such that multiple disputes remain unsettled to this day. If left unresolved, the risk of low intensity, militarized interstate disputes could increase—especially where Russia is concerned. While Russia has signed, and thus far observed, accords with both the United States and Norway to delimit overlapping exclusive economic zones (EEZ), the former agreement has yet to be ratified by the Russian legislature. Such diplomatic ambiguity can, and indeed, does, often result in militarized disputes involving economic actors as much as— or more than—military units. This is discussed in greater detail in Chapter II, but suffice it to say that the need to adequately enforce and defend the boundaries established in these accords is highlighted by the historical propensity of both Russia and the United States to seize, sink, and/or otherwise harass maritime vessels operating in what they unilaterally recognizes as their EEZ. A primary example is the on-going dispute between Russia and Japan over contested EEZ boundaries and fishing rights in the Sea of Japan. The U.S. Coast Guard, meanwhile, has been involved in several altercations involving Russian commercial fishing vessels poaching in the U.S.-claimed waters of the Bering Sea.

Arctic conflict risk high now – trade, resources, and sovereignty disputes

Uri Friedman, Staff Writer, March 28, 2014, “The Arctic: Where the U.S. and Russia Could Square Off Next”, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/the-arctic-where-the-us-and-russia-could-square-off-next/359543/, accessed 4/15/14

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.

Arctic tensions rising – military exercises and Ukraine prove.

Julian E. Barnes, Staff Writer at Wall Street Journal, “Cold War Echoes Under the Arctic Ice”, March 25, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304679404579461630946609454, accessed 4/25/14

Five hundred feet below the Arctic ice cap, the USS New Mexico's crew filled two torpedo tubes. "Match sonar bearings and shoot," ordered the skipper, Cmdr. Todd Moore. The air pressure rose sharply as a simulated torpedo headed toward its simulated target: a Russian Akula-class submarine.The Arctic exercise, one of two over this past weekend, was intended as a show of U.S. force for the benefit of America's allies, defense officials said. The drills were arranged before Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea province, these people said, but have taken on new geopolitical significance as tensions soar between East and West.The simulated attack came amid a new era of increasingly cold U.S. relations with Moscow. U.S.-Russian cooperation in the Arctic came to a sudden halt after the U.S. recently canceled a joint naval exercise in the northern waters and a bilateral meeting on Coast Guard Arctic operations. The U.S. also put on hold work on an Arctic submarine rescue partnership. "This trip had a slightly different cast to it because hunting mythical submarines took on more urgency," said Sen. Angus King (I., Maine), who came as an observer. "This is the only ocean where we confront each other."

Conflict Now – Missile Defense

New missile defense plans put us on the brink of nuclear conflict with Russia.

William Engdahl, geopolitical analyst and strategic risk consultant, December 26, 2013, “Washington plays Russian roulette with missile defense“, http://rt.com/op-edge/washington-russian-roulette-missile-defense-831/, accessed 4/26/14

He stated that US missile defense remains a threat to Russian national security and that Russia has the right to place Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, but claimed that that step had not yet been taken. Putin added however that putting Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad would be a logical response to American plans to build a missile defense system in Europe. What few in the West, outside a handful of military experts grasp, however, is that the US project to install so-called Ballistic Missile Defense missiles and special radar in Poland, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Bulgaria is the highly provocative act by Washington against Russia and risks putting the world on a hair-trigger to a nuclear war. Putin’s remarks followed a report in the ardently-pro US German daily, Bild Zeitung. Several days before Putin’s remarks, Bild newspaper reported that secret satellite imagery showed Iskander-M missiles stationed near the Polish border. Both Bild and mainstream US and European media portrayed the Kaliningrad report as a confirmation of Russian aggression, and a return to the Cold War. In point of fact, for Washington and the US military, the Cold War never ended. Washington's Missile Defense is the most extreme provocation imaginable in a nuclear era. It is an atomic version of Russian Roulette that makes the likelihood of a preemptive reaction by Moscow against Polish missiles or Czech AMD radar highly logical. A bit of background is useful.

Russia will respond militarily to the missile defense shield

India Today, April 18, 2014, “Putin says annexation Of Crimea a reaction to US missile defense plans” http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/vladimir-putin-annexation-of-crimea-reaction-to-nato-us-missile-defence-plans/1/356336.html, accessed 4/22/14

Putin said Moscow will respond if the United States moves ahead with plans to base elements of a missile defence shield in eastern Europe, accusing Washington of fuelling a Cold War-style arms race. "When the infrastructure of a military bloc is moving toward our borders, it causes us some concerns and questions. We need to take some steps in response," Putin said in a televised call-in with the nation. "Our decision on Crimea was partly due to ... considerations that if we do nothing, then at some point, guided by the same principles, NATO will drag Ukraine in and they will say: 'It doesn't have anything to do with you.'" Putin accused the military bloc of 28 nations of seeking to squeeze Russia out of its historic stomping ground in the Black Sea region, where Russian warships are based in the Tsarist-era city of Sevastopol. "NATO ships would have ended up in the city of Russian navy glory, Sevastopol," Putin said. Putin said Moscow wants to continue talks with Washington over its objections to U.S. missile defence plans, but would take all steps necessary to ensure its security.

US rejected Moscow’s proposals

Bill Gertz, Editor of the Washington Times, May 1, 2014, “U.S. Rejects Latest Russian Proposal to Restrict U.S. Missile Defenses” http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-rejects-latest-russian-proposal-to-restrict-u-s-missile-defenses/, accessed 5/3/14

The United States has rejected Moscow’s latest proposal for an agreement that would include legally binding curbs on U.S. missile defenses in Europe, the State Department said. Russia in December offered the most recent plan aimed at resolving differences with the United States during talks in New York City. A State Department official told the Washington Free Beacon the proposal was rejected based on opposition to Moscow’s demand that the United States agree to legal limits on missile defenses in Europe, including restrictions on the deployment of Aegis missile defense ships in European waters. Russia for the past decade has insisted that U.S. missile defenses in Europe were covertly designed to counter Moscow’s strategic offensive missiles, a charge the United States has repeatedly denied. “Russia continues to insist that the United States provide it with legally binding guarantees that would create limitations on our ability to develop and deploy future missile defense systems against regional ballistic missile threats such as those from Iran and North Korea,” the official said. “We have repeatedly made clear that the United States cannot and will not accept any obligations that limit our ability to defend ourselves, our allies, and our partners, including where we deploy our [ballistic missile defense] capable Aegis ships,” the official said.

Conflict Now - Syria

Syria causes U.S.-Russian conflict, proxy wars, and destroys relations

Graham Westbrook, Hudson Institute Center for Political-Military Analysis, January 16, 2014, Russia Direct, “How the US and Russia should approach Syrian peace talks”, http://www.russia-direct.org/content/how-us-and-russia-should-approach-syrian-peace-talks, accessed 4/28/14

The Syrian civil war, in addition to being an extremely bloody, sectarian dispute, has become an equally important microcosm of U.S.-Russian relations. The proxy war has marginalized U.S.-Russian relations and has created further confusion about an unpredictable Syria. Indirectly, the contrasting U.S. and Russian approaches may be threatening both Russian and U.S. national security. In an effort to stanch the bloodshed and improve ties prior to the Jan. 22 Geneva II Conference hosted by the U.S., Russia, and the UN, thinking about the causes of peace rather than the causes of war can lead to a breakthrough in the Syrian crisis. The Jan. 22 start date for the Geneva II peace convention in Switzerland looms ominously. The convention intends to bring together representatives from the Syrian government, opposition groups, and even some independence-seeking Kurdish organizations in order to find some semblance of peace amidst the exceedingly deadly war. The Geneva II meeting will try to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid, end the fighting, outline a political transition for Syria,as well as discuss the acceleration of the destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal. However, the opposition groups that have only just met as a “unified” National Coalition have yet to formally accept the invitation to Geneva II, and seek a transitional government solution “in which Assad plays no role.” In contrast, of course, the Assad government sees no future without Assad. All the while, the United States is providing $250 million worth of non-lethal aid to the Syrian opposition – not including reported CIA arms shipments and covert rebel training. At the same time, Russia is “increasing its weapons shipments” to al-Assad’s Syrian government and providing “military aid that is likely ‘more significant’ than Iranian arms supplies to Damascus,” reports a Russian news agency RIA Novosti. Despite the Kerry-Lavrov agreement effectively eliminating Assad’s acknowledged chemical weapons supply, tangible signs of Russia and U.S. working together on a solution have been virtually nonexistent. The conflicting U.S. and Russian approaches not only perpetuate an unwanted proxy dispute between the U.S. and Russia but also, wittingly or unwittingly, threaten both Russian and U.S. national security.

Syrian tensions rising now – humanitarian disagreements

Atul Aneja, Staff Writer at The Hindu International News, February 15, 2014, “Russia, U.S. blame game heightens tensions in Syria”, http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/russia-us-blame-game-heightens-tensions-in-syria/article5693781.ece, accessed 4/29/14

The hardening position of the United States and its allies is driving ties with Russia to a new low, and raising fresh tensions in strife-torn Syria. The gloves are off as U.S. President Barack Obama has launched an unvarnished verbal assault against Moscow for blocking a western-backed United Nations Security Council resolution for establishing "humanitarian corridors" in Syria. Addressing U.S. and French journalists accompanying visiting French President Francois Hollande, last Tuesday, Mr. Obama said: "There is great unanimity among most of the Security Council on this resolution [to provide greater aid]. Russia is a holdout". The U.S. President bluntly asserted that John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, and others "have delivered a very direct message to the Russians that they cannot say they are concerned about the well-being of the Syrian people when there are starving civilians. ... [I]t is not just the Syrians that are responsible; the Russians, as well, if they are blocking this kind of resolution". But the Russians, fully alive to the use of humanitarian intervention by the West for engineering "regime change" in Libya earlier, seemed hardly impressed by the presidential diatribe. In his spirited riposte, Russian deputy foreign minister Gennady Gatilov pointed out that any resolution at the UN must also take into account the threat posed by al-Qaeda and affiliated organisations in Syria. "It is necessary to deal both with the terrorist threat and the humanitarian disaster in a comprehensive manner," he observed. On Friday, President Obama had warned that fresh pressure would be mounted on the government of Syrian President, Bashar Al Assad. Accompanied by Jordan's King Abdullah II, he stressed that "there are going to be some immediate steps that we have to take to help the humanitarian assistance there (in Syria)".

Conflict Now - Syria

Diplomatic tensions in Syria are high – Russia is openly challenging the U.S.

M K Bhadrakumar, Staff Writer at Rediff, January 17, 2014, “US-Russia tensions froth in Middle East”, http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2014/01/17/us-russia-tensions-frothin-middle-east/, accessed 5/1/14

With less than a week to go for the Geneva 2 conference on Syria, the moderate opposition group Syrian National Coalition [SNC] is yet to take a decision whether to participate. The Kurdish representatives have dissociated; the opposition within Syria demands separate representation; the rebel groups who do the fighting inside Syria are disinterested. It’s a dismal picture. Meanwhile, the two key promoters of Geneva 2 — Moscow and Washington — also have hardened their stance. Russia’s ‘trilateral’ with Iran and Syria at foreign-minister level in Moscow on Thursday carries much political symbolism and will be seen in Washington as a defiant show, no matter the disclaimers. Israels DebkaFile, which has links to security agencies, has gone to town (here) that there is an Iranian master plan. There is even speculation about a Russian-Iranian-Syrian axis (which of course is a dramatic twist to the tale). Indeed, the important thing is that the US secretary of state John Kerry has been quick with a response. In a hard-hitting statement at a hastily convened briefing in the state department in Washington, John Kerry made a thinly-veiled reference to Russia’s “recent revisionism” regarding Geneva 2. Kerry asserted that the “sole purpose” of Geneva 2 will be to implement the 2012 [US-Russia] Geneva communique. He warned against “anyone seeking to rewrite history or muddy the waters” at this point, because, as he put it: “[Geneva 2] is about establishing a process essential to the formation of a transition government body - governing body with full executive powers established by mutual consent… And any names put forward for leadership of Syria’s transition must, according to the terms of Geneva 1 and every one of the reiterations of that being the heart and soul of Geneva 2, those names must be agreed to by both the opposition and the regime. That is the very definition of mutual consent. This means that any figure that is deemed unacceptable by either side, whether President Assad or a member of the opposition, cannot be a part of the future.”