2012-stoa-bb-012-aff-saudiarabia-submitted.docx€¦ · web viewsst sanctions would hurt the u.s....

NEGATIVE: ADD RUSSIA TO THE “STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM” LIST

NEGATIVE BRIEF: ADD RUSSIA TO THE “STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM” LIST

By Rebecca Sumner

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its foreign policy regarding international terrorism.

The Affirmative plan adds Russia to the “State Sponsors of Terrorism” (SST) List. This is an official list maintained by the U.S. State Department that invokes automatic sanctions against any country on the list. Currently, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan are the only ones on the list. Negative will argue that the SST sanctions won’t work, and in fact would be counterproductive.

SST sanctions would hurt the U.S. and Europe more than they would hurt Russia. We also face the disadvantage of Russian retaliation, not only against the U.S., but also against the U.S.’ allies, which would cause the U.S.’ relationship with our allies to become strained. Plus, passing the Affirmative’s plan would lead to an escalated conflict in Ukraine, and Russian refusal to cooperate with the U.S. on different issues, such as sustaining pressure on the nuclear rogue states, supporting coalition military operations in Afghanistan, and ending conflicts in Syria.

Negative: Add Russia to the “State Sponsors of Terrorism” List......................................................................4NEGATIVE PHILOSOPHY / OPENING QUOTES............................................................................................................4

It might sound odd to hope for good relations with Russia—but the most bitter of enemies can become allies..................................4All benefit when there is dialogue between even the most bitter of adversaries...................................................................................4No net benefits: Adding Russia to SST offers little benefit and unnecessarily complicates an already difficult policy.....................5Negative net benefits: U.S. sanctions on Moscow will do more damage to the U.S. and Europe.......................................................5

SIGNIFICANCE....................................................................................................................................................................5

1. Russia isn’t really helping sponsor terrorism.....................................................................................................................5The legal rationale for designating Russia is questionable at best........................................................................................................5Sen. Cory Gardner is wrong: Russia hasn’t done anything to really deserve to be on the list.............................................................6Applying the label to Russia is erroneous.............................................................................................................................................7Russia is an ally against terrorism.........................................................................................................................................................7

SOLVENCY...........................................................................................................................................................................7

1. Sanctions won’t work.........................................................................................................................................................7Russia is resilient, they can endure hardship and resist sanctions.........................................................................................................7Russia is the cockroach of economies—it can survive just about anything..........................................................................................8Even if sanctions harm Russia’s economy, it will not cause Russia to back down..............................................................................8Russians will simply endure the sanctions even if they are costly........................................................................................................8Effectiveness versus impact. Sanctions can be effective at causing harm, but if Russia doesn’t change then they have no impact.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

2. SST sanctions alone wouldn’t be enough..........................................................................................................................9SST sanctions alone would only escalate tension without adding pressure..........................................................................................9The only kind of sanctions on Russia that would work are ones we would never implement..............................................................9

3. A/T: “Consistency in policy”—Adding Russia won’t solve for “consistency” on the SST list......................................10There are far more inconsistencies than just Russia............................................................................................................................10Adding Russia will only make the list even more inconsistent...........................................................................................................10Example: Sudan. Sudan is on the list despite having stopped its terrorism........................................................................................10Example: Pakistan. Pakistan is not on the list despite being a clear sponsor of terrorism..................................................................11The current list is far from being consistent in policy.........................................................................................................................11

COPYRIGHT © MONUMENT PUBLISHING PAGE 1 OF 28 MONUMENTMEMBERS.COM

This release was published as part of Season 19 (2018-2019) school year for member debaters. See the member landing page for official release date and any notifications. This is proprietary intellectual content and may not be used without proper ownership.


DISADVANTAGES............................................................................................................................................................11

1. Russian Retaliation against U.S. Businesses....................................................................................................................11Link: Russia doesn’t hesitate to retaliate.............................................................................................................................................11Putin says: If the U.S. sanctions Russia, Russia will retaliate.............................................................................................................12Link & Brink: Russian officials have already started listing ways they could retaliate......................................................................12Link: Russia has a history of taking retaliatory measures against countries.......................................................................................12Impact: Businesses shut down. Example: Four McDonald’s were shut down in response to American criticism...........................13Impact: Businesses shut down. There are several American-based restaurant chains with stores in Russia...................................13

2. Lose Russian space flight cooperation...........................................................................................................................13Link: Russia will retaliate....................................................................................................................................................................13Link & Brink: Moscow controls the U.S. access to the International Space Station (ISS)................................................................13No other options: The U.S. exclusively relies on Russia for transportation to and from the Space Station......................................14Impact: US national security and US and world economies collapse without space capabilities......................................................14

3. Lost US influence with our allies...................................................................................................................................14Link: Energy gives Russia considerable influence over countries dependent on their exports..........................................................14Brink: A lot of the European countries are dependent on Russian energy supplies............................................................................15Example: Germany. Germany is an outspoken critic of U.S. sanctions on Russia because of its dependence on Russian energy............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15Link: Russia could influence U.S. allies to move away from the United States.................................................................................15Link: Sanctions would benefit Russia by fostering a point of contention between the U.S. and its European allies........................16Impact: World peace & prosperity at risk without US influence. US hegemony is key to global peace & prosperity....................16

4. European Union retaliation against the US.....................................................................................................................16Link: The EU will retaliate against the U.S. if our sanctions hurt EU companies.............................................................................16Impact: US economic harm. European economic problems will harm the U.S................................................................................16

5. Rise of China....................................................................................................................................................................17Link 1: China is becoming more powerful and prosperous................................................................................................................17Link 2: Sanctioning Russia will push them to aid China....................................................................................................................17Backup Link: Sanctions motivate Russia to partner with China........................................................................................................17Link & Brink: A rising China is the true threat to America’s national interest..................................................................................18Backup Link: Russia and the U.S. need to work together to contain Beijing’s future aspirations.....................................................18Backup Link: China aspires to be the dominant power in East and Southeast Asia..........................................................................18Impact: Less democracy, more authoritarianism. China’s rulers want prestige to build their power and resist democracy............19

6. Lost Russian cooperation on terrorism............................................................................................................................19Link: Russia will retaliate...................................................................................................................................................................19Link: The U.S. needs Russia to cooperate on critical international issues..........................................................................................19Backup Link: There are shared areas of interest that the U.S. and Russia should work on...............................................................20Backup Link: Even Putin admits that the U.S. and Russia could help each other solve policy issues..............................................20Backup Link: Sanctions will reinforce Russia’s view that cooperation is a display of weakness......................................................20Impact: Can’t fight terrorism. Adding Russia to the SST list would interfere with the U.S. efforts to combat terrorism with Moscow............................................................................................................................................................................................... 21

7. Lost Russian cooperation on nuclear proliferation.........................................................................................................21Link: Russia retaliates if we sanction.................................................................................................................................................21Link: We could benefit from Russian cooperation for nuclear non-proliferation..............................................................................21Link & Brink: Russian cooperation is critical to achieving policy goals on nuclear rogue states.....................................................21Impact: Huge risks to humanity if nuclear weapons spread...............................................................................................................22

8. Escalated conflict in Ukraine...........................................................................................................................................22Link: Sanctions might prompt Russia to escalate the conflict in Ukraine..........................................................................................22Russia has the ability to make the situation extremely difficult..........................................................................................................22Brink: More than 10,000 Ukrainians have already died in the war and more than 1.7 million have been displaced.........................23Impact: Angering Russia will only make things worse because Russia has the ability to escalate the situation................................23

9. Russian behavior gets worse..........................................................................................................................................23Link: Sanctions lead to greater control by Putin and weaken the possibility of reform inside Russia...............................................23




Impact: Russian behavior gets worse under sanctions & isolation. Impact is to turn all the harms of the AFF case, they get worse after an AFF ballot....................................................................................................................................................................23

Works Cited............................................................................................................................................................24





NEGATIVE PHILOSOPHY / OPENING QUOTES

It might sound odd to hope for good relations with Russia—but the most bitter of enemies can become allies

Harry J. Kazianis 2018 (Director of Defense Studies at the Center for the National Interest, founded by former President Nixon; holds a graduate degree focusing on international relations from Harvard University. He’s a recognized expert on national security issues involving North Korea, China, the Asia-Pacific; Fellow for National Security Affairs at the Potomac Foundation and a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Univ of Nottingham, England), 15 July 2018“Trump-Putin summit could improve US-Russia relations -- And yes, that is a good thing,” http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/15/trump-putin-summit-could-improve-us-russia-relations-and-yes-that-is-good-thing.html

It may sound foolish today to hope for good relations between the U.S. and Russia. But history tells us that the most bitter of enemies can become allies in a fairly short amount of time. Our friends and foes change with the years. Look back to World War II – just a blink of the eye in the timeline of history. Germany, Italy and Japan were America’s mortal enemies – and the Soviet Union was our ally. No one knows the exact number of people who died in that horrible conflict, but estimates are that over 60 million people lost their lives. Yet today, German, Italy and Japan are our allies – while Russia is our adversary. And right now we seem destined to repeat a dangerous cycle of U.S.-Russia tensions reminiscent of the darkest days of the Cold War.

All benefit when there is dialogue between even the most bitter of adversaries


Finally, no matter what happens at the Trump-Putin summit Monday, all Americans should be rooting for President Trump. All of us benefit when there is dialogue between even the most bitter of adversaries – especially ones that have thousands of nuclear warheads that could turn our planet into atomic ash. We should recall how the left cheered when President Obama tried to reset U.S.-Russia ties. They should, at the very least, give President Trump the space to see what is possible. But we know they won’t. And that is a real shame.



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/15/trump-putin-summit-could-improve-us-russia-relations-and-yes-that-is-good-thing.html





No net benefits: Adding Russia to SST offers little benefit and unnecessarily complicates an already difficult policy

Daniel L. Byman 2018 (Senior fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings; senior associate dean for undergraduate affairs at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service and a professor in its Security Studies Program. Previously served as a staff member with the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States (“The 9/11 Commission”) and the Joint 9/11 Inquiry Staff of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) 30 Apr 2018, “Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism—But don’t treat it that way,” https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/04/30/russia-is-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism-but-dont-treat-it-that-way/

Complicating the bilateral relationship is particularly dangerous and troubling with a major power like Russia, which has interests and influence in many parts of the world critical to the United States—Libya and Sudan can be shunned, Russia cannot. The U.S. should be more confrontational toward Russia. This might include cyber measures, more economic pressure such as what U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley proposed and then Trump walked back, or increasing support for groups fighting the Assad regime in Syria, Russia’s ally. At the very least, the United States should strengthen ties to states like Ukraine and the Baltics that Russia is threatening. But adding Russia to the state sponsor list, however, offers little and risks unnecessarily complicating an already difficult policy challenge.

Negative net benefits: U.S. sanctions on Moscow will do more damage to the U.S. and Europe

Reuters news service 2018 (world’s largest international multimedia news provider, reaching more than one billion people every day; journalist Jack Stubbs; Editing by Kevin Liffey) 15 Apr 2018 “New U.S. sanctions will hurt Washington and Europe more than Russia: lawmaker,” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-sanctions-russia/new-u-s-sanctions-will-hurt-washington-and-europe-more-than-russia-lawmaker-idUSKBN1HM0UQ

New U.S. sanctions against Moscow will be hard for Russia but do more damage to the United States and Europe, RIA news agency cited a senior Russian lawmaker as saying on Sunday. U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said earlier on Sunday that Washington was preparing new sanctions against Russia over its support for Syrian President Bashar-al Assad. Evgeny Serebrennikov, deputy head of the defense committee of Russia’s upper house of parliament, said Moscow was ready for the new penalties. “They are hard for us, but will do more damage to the USA and Europe,” RIA quoted Serebrennikov as saying.

SIGNIFICANCE

1. Russia isn’t really helping sponsor terrorism

The legal rationale for designating Russia is questionable at best

Dr. Stephen Tankel 2018 (PhD; Assistant professor at American Univ., adjunct senior fellow at Center for a New America Security, non-resident scholar in the South Asia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) 30 Apr 2018 “Beyond The State Sponsors List: Finding The Right Tools To Counter Russia,” https://warontherocks.com/2018/04/beyond-the-state-sponsors-list-finding-the-right-tools-to-counter-russia/

State sponsor of terrorism: It’s a toxic label that signals to the international community that the state in question should be treated as a pariah. Designation also carries with it a wide range of sanctions, including a ban on arms-related exports and sales, prohibitions on economic assistance, and the imposition of other financial restrictions. Currently, the secretary of state has determined that four countries have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism: Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Sudan. Writing in the New York Times, Sen. Cory Gardner recently announced he is planning to introduce legislation that would require the State Department to determine whether the Russian Federation meets the criteria to be added to the list. Whatever becomes of this legislation, the legal rationale for designating Russia is questionable, at best. But the policy impetus is clear. Gardner states he is pushing for designation in order to “take every diplomatic step necessary to protect our allies and our democracy, and to deter a revanchist Russia that is intent on rewriting history and threatening our way of life.” In other words, the senator has identified an instrument of statecraft that could be used to punish Russia for all manner of sins, and he is looking to use it even if not for its intended purpose. This is a bad idea.



https://warontherocks.com/2018/04/beyond-the-state-sponsors-list-finding-the-right-tools-to-counter-russia/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-sanctions-russia/new-u-s-sanctions-will-hurt-washington-and-europe-more-than-russia-lawmaker-idUSKBN1HM0UQ



https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/04/30/russia-is-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism-but-dont-treat-it-that-way/



Sen. Cory Gardner is wrong: Russia hasn’t done anything to really deserve to be on the list

Dr. Stephen Tankel 2018 (PhD; Assistant professor at American Univ., adjunct senior fellow at Center for a New America Security, non-resident scholar in the South Asia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) 30 Apr 2018 “Beyond The State Sponsors List: Finding The Right Tools To Counter Russia,” https://warontherocks.com/2018/04/beyond-the-state-sponsors-list-finding-the-right-tools-to-counter-russia/ [brackets added]

[Sen. Cory] Gardner tries to buttress his case for designation by citing some of Russia’s recent outrages: invading Georgia and Ukraine, supporting the Syrian regime, engaging in active information warfare against the United States and other Western democracies, providing limited material support to the Taliban, and conducing a campaign of international assassinations against “enemies of the state.” But the last two items on that list are the only ones that might make Russia eligible for designation, and neither of them is a slam-dunk. Russian support to the Taliban is relatively recent and pales in comparison what Pakistan provides. As for its assassination campaign, experts generally view terrorism as the province of non-state actors. States may sponsor terrorist groups, but they are not themselves terrorists. The U.S. government includes international attacks against civilian targets by clandestine agents of a state in its definition of terrorism, thereby widening the aperture to include attacks like the bombing of Pan Am 103 believed to have been conducted by Libyan intelligence. This provides a potential legal rationale for designating Russia, but political assassination, although heinous, is not what Congress had in mind when it authorized the State Department to designate governments that provided support for international terrorism.





Applying the label to Russia is erroneous

Dr. Daniel Larison 2018 (Senior editor at The American Conservative. He’s a columnist for The Week. PhD in history from Univ of Chicago) 23 Apr 2018 “The Ridiculous Proposal to Label Russia a State Sponsor of Terrorism,” http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-ridiculous-proposal-to-label-russia-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism/

Sen. Cory Gardner made a bizarre proposal last week:

The State Department should consider adding the country to its list of state sponsors of terrorism, alongside its close allies Iran and Syria. The moral case for such a designation is sound. Russia has invaded its neighbors Georgia and Ukraine, it supports the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad and our enemies in Afghanistan, and it is engaged in active information warfare against Western democracies, including meddling in the 2016 United States elections.

While applying this label to Russia might make some hawks feel better, it is just as erroneous as Trump’s decision to relabel North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. Unless a government is arming or funding or otherwise lending aid to a group that is engaged in international terrorism, it should not be labeled a state sponsor and should not be sanctioned as one. None of the things Gardner lists here makes Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, unless we are redefining terrorism to include all policies and actions that Washington doesn’t like.

Russia is an ally against terrorism

Sebastian Rotella, 2018. (senior reporter at ProPublica; award-winning foreign correspondent and investigative reporter) “The U.S. Considered Declaring Russia a State Sponsor of Terror, Then Dropped It” May 21, 2018. https://www.propublica.org/article/united-states-considered-declaring-russia-a-state-sponsor-of-terror

Russian leaders have bristled at the idea that they might qualify for inclusion on the terror-sponsors list. Particularly since the 9/11 attacks, the Putin government has cast Russia as a Christian bulwark against the threat of Islamist militancy. Putin was the first foreign leader to call President George W. Bush to express his sympathies after the attacks. As the Bush Administration scrambled to strike back against al-Qaida, the Kremlin provided diplomatic and logistical support for the U.S. military’s operations in Afghanistan.

SOLVENCY

1. Sanctions won’t work

Russia is resilient, they can endure hardship and resist sanctions

Clifford G. Gaddy and Barry W. Ickes 2014 (Gaddy—Economist specializing in Russia. He was a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy program’s Center on the U.S. and Europe.; Ickes—was a nonresident senior fellow with the Center on the U.S. and Europe at Brookings and is a professor of economics at Penn. State Univ. and financial director at The New Economic School in Moscow; previously served as a chair on the board of directors of the National Council for Eurasian and East European Research) 3 June 2014, “Can Sanctions Stop Putin?” https://www.brookings.edu/articles/can-sanctions-stop-putin/

A RESILIENT RUSSIA The motivation for sanctions is to impose hardship in order to change behavior. But the likelihood that this would apply to Russia is very weak. History tells us that Russians can endure enormous hardship. Coping and survival are part of Russian history and the Russian national identity. We do not need to go back to dramatic events like the Siege of Leningrad in World War II to understand that Russians can survive difficult situations. Less than two decades ago, during the 1990s, Russia suffered one of the biggest negative economic shocks ever by a country in peacetime. National and household incomes dropped by at least 40 percent. That experience shows that Russia’s households and enterprises can endure significant dislocation thanks to bottom-up, informal mechanisms of mutual help and self-survival.



https://www.brookings.edu/articles/can-sanctions-stop-putin/

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-ridiculous-proposal-to-label-russia-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism/

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-ridiculous-proposal-to-label-russia-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism/


Russia is the cockroach of economies—it can survive just about anything


Were it not so likely to be considered disrespectful, we might describe Russia as the cockroach of economies — primitive and inelegant in many respects but possessing a remarkable ability to survive in the most adverse and varying conditions. Perhaps a more appropriate metaphor is Russia’s own Kalashnikov automatic rifle — low-tech and cheap but almost indestructible.

Even if sanctions harm Russia’s economy, it will not cause Russia to back down


There is no doubt that the West can take actions that harm the Russian economy. We can weaken Russian state finances and make Russian citizens poorer. Neither effect will cause Putin to back down. Putin is not going to be deterred from aggressive behavior by economic weakness, whether caused by the global economy, his own policy, or sanctions. Russia can weather all those. And even though the economy can become smaller and poorer, Russia will still have its financial independence and freedom of action.

Russians will simply endure the sanctions even if they are costly


Our sanctions will be costly to Russia; there is no disputing that. If the primary goal of Putin and Russian decision makers were to maximize Russian economic welfare, then the costs would, at some point, become unacceptable. But if the motivation is defense of vital national interests and survival, Russia — like any state — will resort to import substitution and even more radical sorts of interventions to defend itself, no matter what the cost.







Effectiveness versus impact. Sanctions can be effective at causing harm, but if Russia doesn’t change then they have no impact


But the question that still hasn’t been answered is, do sanctions work? For some, the question seems unnecessary. Clearly, sanctions work. Capital is flowing out of Russia, the ruble is losing value, Russian companies have less access to foreign credits, and the country’s GDP is falling. The problem is that such facts — even if they could all be attributed to the sanctions — still don’t tell us whether sanctions are working. We need to distinguish between effectiveness and impact. Figures about economic negatives such as reduced trade, foreign investment, credit flows, technology transfer, GDP growth, incomes, and so on — these measure impact. They do not, however, tell us how likely the sanctions are to cause Russia to change its behavior — that is, how effective they will be. To put it another way, impact tells us how much pain we can cause. Effectiveness depends also on how able and willing Russians are to endure the pain.

2. SST sanctions alone wouldn’t be enough

SST sanctions alone would only escalate tension without adding pressure

Daniel L. Byman 2018 (Senior fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings; senior associate dean for undergraduate affairs at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service and a professor in its Security Studies Program. Previously, he served as a staff member with the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States) 30 Apr 2018, “Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism—But don’t treat it that way,” https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/04/30/russia-is-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism-but-dont-treat-it-that-way/

Nor are the punishments associated with state sponsorship likely to work with Moscow. In the past, for a weak state like Libya, outside pressure in the form of economic sanctions, travel bans, and other means might sway its decision making, moving it away from terrorism. For Russia, the United States—let alone U.S. allies—are not likely to put significant economic pressure on Russia simply because Russia can bite back, in contrast to weaker powers like Sudan or even mid-level ones like Iran. So a U.S. listing by itself—unless it came with a suite of sanctions and other pressure—would escalate tension without adding any real pressure. Russia might increase support to anti-U.S. regimes and groups, use its supply of gas to disrupt the economies of pro-U.S. neighbors, and otherwise make a bad situation worse.

The only kind of sanctions on Russia that would work are ones we would never implement

Clifford G. Gaddy and Prof. Barry W. Ickes 2014 (Gaddy—Economist specializing in Russia. He was a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy program’s Center on the U.S. and Europe. He’s the author and co-author of several books; Ickes— was a nonresident senior fellow with the Center on the U.S. and Europe at Brookings and is a professor of economics at Pennsylvania State University and financial director at The New Economic School in Moscow) 3 June 2014, “Can Sanctions Stop Putin?” https://www.brookings.edu/articles/can-sanctions-stop-putin/ (brackets added)

Russia’s net exports are over 7 mbd [million barrels per day]. When the Soviet Union collapsed and Russian oil production fell by 5 mbd, OPEC production expanded to offset the loss. Today, by contrast, there is no spare capacity to absorb such a shock. How would the world economy replace 7.2 mbd? Prices would have to rise significantly to balance supply and demand, perhaps by as much as $80 per barrel. And this calculation ignores any impact of a cutoff of Russian gas. Of course, such a shock would no doubt cause a severe global recession that would cut oil demand, thereby reducing the pressure on prices. But it is not much of an argument to say we can absorb the oil price shock that sanctions will impose by creating a world economic crisis to absorb the cut in supply. In short, the only kind of sanctions that might have a deep enough impact to force Russia to abandon its strategic objectives are ones that we would never implement.









3. A/T: “Consistency in policy”—Adding Russia won’t solve for “consistency” on the SST list

There are far more inconsistencies than just Russia

Daniel L. Byman 2018 (Senior fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings; senior associate dean for undergraduate affairs at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service and a professor in its Security Studies Program; served as a staff member with the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States (“The 9/11 Commission”)) 30 Apr 2018, “Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism—But don’t treat it that way,” https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/04/30/russia-is-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism-but-dont-treat-it-that-way/

Yet for now at least, adding Russia to the list would be a mistake. Although a case could be made for being consistent, the United States is never consistent when it comes to state sponsorship—excluding known sponsors and including nauseating regimes that nevertheless do little terrorism. Sudan remains on the list despite being noted as a counterterrorism “partner” for the United States, largely because of Khartoum’s atrocious human rights record. Conversely, Pakistan, which has long supported an array of nasty groups, never was added to the list.

Adding Russia will only make the list even more inconsistent


To be clear: Russia behaves like an enemy of the United States, which should use all appropriate instruments of national power to impose sufficient costs on the Kremlin. But designating it a state sponsor of terrorism is not one of them. The U.S. government is already inconsistent in its approach toward state sponsorship, which reduces the relevance of designation when it actually comes to combating terrorism. Listing Russia risks rendering designation even more irrelevant, while simultaneously failing to change the Russian behavior most alarming to the United States.

Example: Sudan. Sudan is on the list despite having stopped its terrorism


Sudan, which previously provided safe haven to al-Qaeda and numerous other terrorist organizations, was added in 1993. In response to international pressure, the Sudanese government evicted these organizations over the next several years. Today, it no longer provides sanctuary or other support to terrorist groups. Indeed, the State Department officially recognizes that counterterrorism is a national security priority for Sudan, which has evinced willingness to cooperate with the United States in this area. And yet, Sudan is still on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List. Why? Because, as other counterterrorism experts have observed, its government is guilty of gross human rights violations. Again, the behavior the United States is trying to change is abhorrent, but violating human rights and sponsoring terrorism or supporting terrorist groups are not the same thing.








Example: Pakistan. Pakistan is not on the list despite being a clear sponsor of terrorism


Pakistan is a clear-cut state sponsor of terrorism, and has been for decades. It is the strongest backer by far of the Taliban and Haqqani Network in Afghanistan and still supports Lashkar-e-Taiba, which executed the 2008 Mumbai attacks and countless more international terrorist attacks over the years. As I’ve written on in detail elsewhere, Pakistan has not been designated for several reasons. First, it’s questionable whether doing so would actually chance the Pakistani security establishment’s calculus when it comes to supporting terrorist organizations. Second, because of the punitive measures associated with designation, the U.S. government is concerned Pakistan might retaliate by closing access to supply lines and airspace necessary to support the war effort in Afghanistan. Third, U.S. officials worry — rightly or wrongly — about losing influence with Pakistani decision-makers given the country’s rapid development of nuclear weapons and the potential for conflict with India.

The current list is far from being consistent in policy


Thus, the current list includes two states that fit the state sponsorship definition (Iran and Syria), and two that do not really clear the bar (North Korea and Sudan) but are engaging in other bad behavior. It simultaneously excludes another state (Pakistan) that actively supports terrorism, but which consecutive administrations have deemed a critical, if highly problematic, counterterrorism partner since 9/11.

DISADVANTAGES

1. Russian Retaliation against U.S. Businesses

Link: Russia doesn’t hesitate to retaliate

Mike Eckel 2018 (Senior correspondent for RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty (RFE/RL) based in Washington) 11 Apr 2018 “What, U.S. Worry? Russia Threatens Retaliation For Latest Sanctions,” https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-us-threats-retaliation-latest-sanctions/29159065.html

In the past, Moscow has shown no hesitation to punching back hard and fast. Russia has kicked out U.S. diplomats in response to similar U.S. measures, including the closure or seizure of U.S. properties. In March, Russia kicked out the British Council, a government-backed cultural organization, after London expelled dozens of diplomats following the nerve-agent poisoning of a Russian former double agent in England. When the United States showed its solidarity with Great Britain by expelling 60 Russian diplomats and closing Russia's consulate in Seattle, Russia kicked out an equal number of U.S. diplomats and ordered the closure of the U.S. Consulate in St. Petersburg.



https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-us-threats-retaliation-latest-sanctions/29159065.html




Putin says: If the U.S. sanctions Russia, Russia will retaliate

Rebecca Savransky 2017 (Journalist. She previously worked as a breaking news reporter and social media curator at The Hill in D.C., where she covered a variety of different topics including the Russia investigation; graduated from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern Univ.) 27 July 2017, “Putin breaks silence on US sanctions: ‘At some moment we'll have to retaliate’,”http://thehill.com/policy/international/344144-putin-at-some-moment-well-have-to-retaliate-against-us-sanctions

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that Russia would have to retaliate against the U.S. if new sanctions are imposed on Moscow. His comments are the first since a bipartisan bill that places new sanctions on Russia and restricts President Trump's ability to lift sanctions passed the House earlier this week. “As you know, we are exercising restraint and patience, but at some moment we'll have to retaliate. It's impossible to endlessly tolerate this boorishness towards our country,” Putin said a joint news conference with the president of Finland, according to Reuters.

Link & Brink: Russian officials have already started listing ways they could retaliate

Bloomberg news 2018 (journalist Ilya Arkhipov; written with assistance by Evgenia Pismennaya) 9 Apr 2018 updated 10 Apr 2018, “Russia Retaliation for Sanctions Could Hit U.S. Companies,” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-09/russia-retaliation-for-sanctions-could-hit-u-s-companies

Here are some of the possible steps Russian officials have mentioned as possible retaliation:

Target U.S. businesses in Russia: In 2014, McDonald’s outlets were closed by health inspectors for months in cases seen as linked to the first wave of U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia. Among other major investors are Citigroup, Ford Motor Co. and Pepsico.

Limit key trade areas: Russia is a major global supplier of titanium, used in aerospace, and could restrict those sales to U.S. companies like Boeing Corp. That could hurt export revenue, however.

Restrict cooperation in space launches or nuclear-fuel trade

Shift to a more confrontational stance on key foreign policy issues like Syria, North Korea or Ukraine

Link: Russia has a history of taking retaliatory measures against countries

Michelle Lodge 2017 (journalist; Senior Editor for the Street, Inc) updated 7 Apr 2017, “Russia Could Blast America's Very Own McDonald's, Again - Here's How They Would Do It,” https://www.thestreet.com/story/14078127/1/will-mcdonald-s-and-others-in-fast-food-in-putin-s-russia-fall-victim-to-retaliatory-measures.html

Russia has a history of taking retaliatory measures against countries and regions that disagree with its politics. It has restricted the importation of wine from Georgia and dairy products from Belarus after those countries began warming up to the West. And in 2014, President Vladimir Putin ordered an embargo, responding to economic sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine crisis, of meat, poultry, fish, dairy and produce from the U.S., Canada, Australia, Norway and the European Union.



http://thehill.com/policy/international/344144-putin-at-some-moment-well-have-to-retaliate-against-us-sanctions



Impact: Businesses shut down. Example: Four McDonald’s were shut down in response to American criticism


McDonald’s (MDM) is strongly identified as American, Russo added. And among all American fast-food companies, it by far has the strongest presence in Russia—601 stores at the end of 2016, about double the number from 2011. However, Russia has taken action against McDonald's in recent years. Three years ago, just as the U.S. criticized Russia for its Ukraine invasion, a Russian agency shut down four McDonald's in Moscow citing health violations.

Impact: Businesses shut down. There are several American-based restaurant chains with stores in Russia


Other America-based restaurant chains with stores in Russia are: Starbucks (SBUX - Get Report), Dunkin' Brands (DNKN - Get Report), Wendy's (WEN - Get Report) and Yum! Brands (YUM - Get Report), which owns KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut.

END QUOTE. THE ARTICLE GOES ON TO SAY IN THE SAME CONTEXT, QUOTE:

Dominos opened its first store in Russia in 1999 and currently has 78 there—63 of which debuted in the last five years. All are owned by local franchisees. Dunkin' Brands' Dunkin' Donuts entered Russia in 2010, and its Baskin-Robbins, in 1988. The company has 38 Dunkin' Donuts restaurants and 266 Baskin-Robbins shops in Russia, which are owned and operated by its local licensees.

2. Lose Russian space flight cooperation

Link: Russia will retaliate

Cross apply the links in DA 1.

Link & Brink: Moscow controls the U.S. access to the International Space Station (ISS)

Jeffrey Kluger 2014 (Editor at large, he oversees TIME’s science, health and technology reporting; former staff writer for Discover magazine; also an attorney, and has taught science journalism at New York Univ) 25 Mar 2014, “Space: Where America and Russia Are Stuck With Each Other,” http://time.com/37671/space-cooperation-america-russia/

The U.S., meantime, has to tolerate Russia and pay its extortionate ticket prices simply because that’s the only lift around. When you’re hitching a ride to spring break, you’d better be ready to pay for the gas and the Red Bull and put up with whatever’s on the radio. The ISS (despite that International in the moniker) is almost entirely a NASA-built, U.S.-paid-for station, and the hard fact is, Moscow controls our access to it.



http://time.com/37671/space-cooperation-america-russia/

http://time.com/37671/space-cooperation-america-russia/


No other options: The U.S. exclusively relies on Russia for transportation to and from the Space Station

Hanna Krueger 2017 (Contributor to NBC News, which is the news division of the American broadcast television network NBC) 30 Sept 2017, “In Space, U.S. and Russia Friendship Untethered,” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/space-u-s-russia-friendship-untethered-n806101

Today, the United States exclusively relies on Russian Soyuz capsules for transportation to and from the station. At $81 million a seat, this agreement doesn’t come cheap. In a speech at the Commercial Space Transportation Conference in February, Trump’s pick to head NASA, Jim Bridenstine, told attendees that America was being “gouged” by such prices. Until the U.S. develops a reliable space shuttle system of its own or finds a commercial operator, it is bound to Russian prices, experts say. President Bush announced the Space Shuttle fleet’s retirement in 2004 and Obama canceled plans for a new program in 2010.

Impact: US national security and US and world economies collapse without space capabilities

Prof. Everett C. Dolman 2006 (associate prof. of Comparative Military Studies at US Air Force School of Advanced Air and Space Studie ) SAIS Review vol. XXVI no. 1 (Winter-Spring 2006) US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/sais_review/v026/26.1dolman.html

3. Lost US influence with our allies

Link: Energy gives Russia considerable influence over countries dependent on their exports

Dr. George Friedman, Xander Snyder, and Ekaterina Zolotova 2017 (Friedman—PhD in government from Cornell Univ.; regularly briefed senior commanders in the US armed services; founder and chairman of the geopolitical forecasting service, Geopolitical Futures. Snyder—analyst at Geopolitical Futures. He has a diverse theoretical and practical background in economics; bachelor’s degree, in economics and classical music composition from Cornell Univ. Zolotova—analyst for Geopolitical Futures. Prior to that, she participated in several research projects devoted to problems and prospects of Russia’s integration into the world economy; specialist degree in international economic relations from Plekhanov Russian University of Economics) 4 Aug 2017 “4 Maps That Show How Russia Could Strike Back Against US Sanctions,” https://www.newsmax.com/finance/georgefriedman/russia-us-sanctions-strike/2017/08/04/id/805945/

Energy sales are an important source of revenue in Russia. But it’s more than that. For Russia, energy is also an instrument of geopolitical power. They give Moscow considerable influence over the countries dependent on Russian energy exports. If Russia retaliates further against the US, its energy supplies—especially those it sends to Europe—may be its best option to do so.



https://www.newsmax.com/finance/georgefriedman/russia-us-sanctions-strike/2017/08/04/id/805945/

https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/sais_review/v026/26.1dolman.html

https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/sais_review/v026/26.1dolman.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/space-u-s-russia-friendship-untethered-n806101


Brink: A lot of the European countries are dependent on Russian energy supplies


Most European countries import more than 30% of the energy they consume. Norway provides roughly 35% of these imports, while Russia provides roughly 40%. Germany, which boasts the largest economy in the EU, imports more than 60% of the energy it consumes, and France, which boasts the third-largest economy, imports about 45%. Some Eastern European countries are even more dependent on foreign energy. Hungary, Austria, and Slovakia import approximately 60–65% of their energy needs. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Romania, however, import less (37%, 32%, and 17%, respectively). In the Baltics, Lithuania imports roughly 75% of the energy it consumes. Latvia imports 45% and Estonia imports 9%. Most of this energy comes from Russia. In fact, Russia provides more than 70% of the oil and natural gas used in Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Finland. It provides 62% of the natural gas and 56% of the oil used in the Czech Republic, and 53% of the natural gas and 90% of the oil used in Poland.

Example: Germany. Germany is an outspoken critic of U.S. sanctions on Russia because of its dependence on Russian energy


Not so with Germany, which receives 57% of its natural gas and 35% of its crude oil from Russia. Berlin must therefore tread lightly between its primary security benefactor, the US, and its primary source of energy, Russia. This is one reason Germany has been such an outspoken critic of the recent US sanctions, which penalizes businesses in any country that collaborate or participate in joint ventures with Russian energy firms.






Link: Russia could influence U.S. allies to move away from the United States


But Washington wouldn’t want Moscow to halt energy flows through Ukraine at its leisure. The US needs to try to manage the Ukraine situation in a way that prevents a greater general German-Russian alignment. Plus, Russia cannot bully the United States with its energy exports. Washington doesn’t need them. But Russia could influence US allies if it chose to retaliate more than it already has. Since the US is far more powerful than Russia, divide and conquer may be Moscow’s best bet.

Link: Sanctions would benefit Russia by fostering a point of contention between the U.S. and its European allies

Yasmeen Serhan 2017 (London-based assistant editor at The Atlantic. She has a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Southern California. Previously, she was the Managing Editor for the Daily Trojan) 2 Aug 2017, “Why Europe Opposes America's New Russia Sanctions,” https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/why-europe-opposes-the-uss-new-russia-sanctions/535722/

Ironically, however, the sanctions do benefit Russia in one way—by fostering a potential point of contention between the U.S. and its European allies. As my colleague Julia Ioffe noted, Russian President Vladimir Putin “has long sought to peel off the EU, or at least some of its member countries, and thus undermine the effect of the 2014 sanctions.”

Impact: World peace & prosperity at risk without US influence. US hegemony is key to global peace & prosperity

Capt. M. V. Prato 2009 (United States Marine Corps,Command and Staff College, Marine Corps Combat Development Command,Marine Corps University) “The Need for American Hegemony” http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a508040.pdf

The world witnessed a vast shift in the polarity of geopolitics after the Cold War. The United States became the world’s greatest hegemon with an unequalled ability to globally project cultural, political, economic, and military power in a manner not seen since the days of the Roman Empire. Coined the “unipolar moment” by syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, the disparity of power between the U.S. and all other nations allows the U.S. to influence the world for the mutual benefit of all responsible states. Unfortunately, the United States is increasingly forced to act unilaterally as a result of both foreign and domestic resentment to U.S. dominance and the rise of liberal internationalism. The United States must exercise benevolent global hegemony, unilaterally if necessary, to ensure its security and maintain global peace and prosperity.



https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/why-europe-opposes-the-uss-new-russia-sanctions/535722/




4. European Union retaliation against the US

Link: The EU will retaliate against the U.S. if our sanctions hurt EU companies

Yasmeen Serhan 2017 (London-based assistant editor at The Atlantic. She has a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Southern California. Previously, she was the Managing Editor for the Daily Trojan) 2 Aug 2017, “Why Europe Opposes America's New Russia Sanctions,” https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/why-europe-opposes-the-uss-new-russia-sanctions/535722/ [brackets added for clarification]

[EU chief executive Jean-Claude Juncker] He added, however, that the EU would reserve the right to retaliate if the U.S. sanctions disadvantaged EU companies involved with Russia’s energy sector. “We must defend our economic interests vis-a-vis the United States,” he said. “And we will do that.” As Reuters reported, retaliation could include applying an EU regulation to shield itself from U.S. measures, or even filing a complaint at the World Trade Organization.

Impact: US economic harm. European economic problems will harm the U.S.

NEW YORK TIMES 2018. (journalist Jack Ewing) 2 Aug 2018 “Europe Feels the Squeeze of the Trump Trade Tariffs” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/business/economy/europe-trade-trump-tariffs.html

Gauges of the mood among European businesses, however, show a clear negative trend, one that could have an outsize impact on the regional economy. And if Europe’s economy suffers, so will that of the United States. Despite all the hostile rhetoric, the European Union and United States remain each other’s biggest trading partner.

5. Rise of China

Link 1: China is becoming more powerful and prosperous

Harry J. Kazianis 2018 (Director of Defense Studies at the Center for the National Interest, founded by former President Nixon; graduate degree focusing on international relations from Harvard; recognized expert on national security issues involving North Korea, China, the Asia-Pacific; Fellow for National Security Affairs at the Potomac Foundation; non-resident Senior Fellow at the Univ of Nottingham, England), 15 July 2018“Trump-Putin summit could improve US-Russia relations -- And yes, that is a good thing,” http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/15/trump-putin-summit-could-improve-us-russia-relations-and-yes-that-is-good-thing.html

As China become more powerful and prosperous, it has sought to undo the post-World War II order in Asia. China feels that arrangement is outdated because it was crafted when China was weak and broken, part of a century of humiliation that must be atoned for. From claiming parts of the sea as its own “blue-water territory,” trying to subjugate and diminish Taiwan’s democracy, and using its newfound economic military muscle to dominate Asia, Beijing seeks to turn the vast Indo-Pacific region into its own sphere of influence.








Link 2: Sanctioning Russia will push them to aid China

Henry Meyer 2014 (Politics Reporter for Bloomberg News) 19 Oct 2014, “Western sanctions force Russia to aid China’s rise; Beijing may acquire advanced weapons,” https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/10/19/world/western-sanctions-force-russia-to-aid-chinas-rise-beijing-may-acquire-advanced-weapons/#.W09_mjOZOV4

Defying his former enemies in the United States and Europe may force Russian President Vladimir Putin to aid the ascent of his biggest rival in the east. Isolated over Ukraine, Russia is relying on China for the investment it needs to avert a recession, three people involved in policy planning said. This means caving in to pressure to grant China privileged access to the two things it wants most: raw materials and advanced weapons. Russia’s growing dependence on China, which it battled for decades for control over global communism, may end up strengthening its neighbor’s position in the Pacific while hastening its own economic decline. With the ruble near a record low and foreign investment disappearing, luring Chinese cash may deepen Russia’s reliance on natural resources and derail government efforts to diversify the economy. “Now that Putin has turned away from the West and toward the East, China is drawing maximum profit from Russian necessity,” said Masha Lipman, an independent political analyst in Moscow who co-authored a study on Putin with former U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul.

Backup Link: Sanctions motivate Russia to partner with China

Henry Meyer 2014 (Politics Reporter for Bloomberg News. His work has appeared in Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek, The Independent, Chicago Tribune, The Globe and Mail, Yahoo, Toronto Star, Seattle Times, Star Tribune, The Sacramento Bee, and Time Magazine) 19 Oct 2014, “Western sanctions force Russia to aid China’s rise; Beijing may acquire advanced weapons,” https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/10/19/world/western-sanctions-force-russia-to-aid-chinas-rise-beijing-may-acquire-advanced-weapons/#.W09_mjOZOV4

Russia has long been reluctant to further empower a neighbor that already has four times the economic output and almost 10 times the population. Sanctions changed all that, and Putin now risks becoming the junior partner, a role he is not used to, said Fyodor Lukyanov, head of the Moscow-based Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, an adviser to the government.

Link & Brink: A rising China is the true threat to America’s national interest


Fifth, Washington must view the U.S.-Russia relationship in the context of a rising China – the true threat to America’s national interest for decades to come. Moscow and Beijing share strong ties now. But over the long term, Russia is surely concerned about the future, as China grows ever stronger on its doorstep.





https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/10/19/world/western-sanctions-force-russia-to-aid-chinas-rise-beijing-may-acquire-advanced-weapons/#.W09_mjOZOV4





Backup Link: Russia and the U.S. need to work together to contain Beijing’s future aspirations


China, at some point, could turn its attention to the nearly empty stretches of land in Russia’s Far East, some of which were part of Chinese empires of the past. With vast tracts of land filled with nearly limitless natural resources on Beijing’s doorstep, Moscow would be wise to be wary – and consider stronger ties with America as an insurance policy of sorts. As China and America buried decades of strife to take on the Soviet Union, we may someday see Moscow and Washington work together in the same way to contain Beijing’s future aspirations.

Backup Link: China aspires to be the dominant power in East and Southeast Asia

Ian Buruma 2017 (journalist, Contributor to the New Yorker) 19 June 2017, “Are China and the United States Headed for War?” https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/19/are-china-and-the-united-states-headed-for-war

Still, China plainly aspires to be the dominant power in East and Southeast Asia, and this is making the United States and its allies increasingly nervous. Southeast Asians are spooked by Chinese claims of sovereignty over the South China Sea, bolstered by the construction of artificial islands with landing grounds. Japan, although it has a substantial military force, is saddled with a pacifist constitution. South Korea doesn’t quite know whether to resist Chinese domination or cozy up to it.

Impact: Less democracy, more authoritarianism. China’s rulers want prestige to build their power and resist democracy

Robert Kagan 2008 (senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former presidential foreign policy advisor)23 Mar 2008 WASHINGTON POST http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102552.html

China, after all, is not the only country dealing with restless, independence-minded peoples. In Europe, all kinds of subnational movements aspire to greater autonomy or even independence from their national governments, and with less justification than Tibet or Taiwan: the Catalans in Spain, for instance, or the Flemish in Belgium, or even the Scots in the United Kingdom. Yet no war threatens in Barcelona, no troops are sent to Antwerp and no one clears the international press out of Edinburgh. But that is the difference between a 21st-century postmodern mentality and a nation still fighting battles for empire and prestige left over from a distant past. These days, China watchers talk about it becoming a "responsible stakeholder" in the international system. But perhaps we should not expect too much. The interests of the world's autocracies are not the same as those of the democracies. We want to make the world safe for democracy. They want to make the world safe, if not for all autocracies at least for their own. People talk about how pragmatic Chinese rulers are, but like all autocrats what they are most pragmatic about is keeping themselves in power. We may want to keep that in mind as we try to bring them into our liberal international order.

6. Lost Russian cooperation on terrorism

Link: Russia will retaliate

Cross apply the links in DA 1. Russia gets mad and retaliates if we sanction them.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102552.html

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/19/are-china-and-the-united-states-headed-for-war

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/19/are-china-and-the-united-states-headed-for-war




Link: The U.S. needs Russia to cooperate on critical international issues

Steven Pifer 2012 (Nonresident senior fellow in the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence, and the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution; graduate of Stanford Univ., bachelor’s in economics; retired Foreign Service officer, 25 years with the State Department focused on U.S. relations with the former Soviet Union and Europe; former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs with responsibilities for Russia and Ukraine, and special assistant to the president and senior director for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia on the National Security Council) 21 Mar 2012, “The Future Course of the U.S.-Russia Relationship,” https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-future-course-of-the-u-s-russia-relationship/

Madame Chairman, the United States should continue to explore ways to work with Russia to advance American interests and to build a more positive, sustainable bilateral relationship. Doing so will increase American influence with and in Russia. It would be unwise for Washington, out of anger over differences over Syria or democratic backsliding within Russia, to hold back on working with Moscow on issues where cooperation can accomplish things of benefit to the United States. The U.S. government should be able to cooperate on issues where interests coincide while confronting Russia on other questions and making clear its democracy and human rights concerns—Washington should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Doing less would mean passing up opportunities to make Americans safer, more secure and more prosperous.

Backup Link: There are shared areas of interest that the U.S. and Russia should work on

Harry J. Kazianis 2018 (Director of Defense Studies at the Center for the National Interest; holds a graduate degree focusing on international relations from Harvard Univ.; recognized expert on national security issues involving North Korea, China, the Asia-Pacific; Fellow for National Security Affairs at the Potomac Foundation and a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Univ of Nottingham, England), 15 July 2018“Trump-Putin summit could improve US-Russia relations -- And yes, that is a good thing,” http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/15/trump-putin-summit-could-improve-us-russia-relations-and-yes-that-is-good-thing.html

Fourth, despite a history of rocky relations with the U.S. going back to the Russian Revolution in 1917, there are areas of shared interest for our two nations to build on. For example, both nations should work to end conflicts in Syria and Ukraine, which have been the cause of recent tensions in the U.S.-Russia relationship. Moscow and Washington also have clear reasons to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which is set to expire in the next few years. Both nations should also work together to establish rules of the road and a clear set of norms in cyberspace. Neither side has any interest in seeing conflicts waged on the Internet break out into a shooting war between nuclear superpowers.

Backup Link: Even Putin admits that the U.S. and Russia could help each other solve policy issues

Rebecca Savransky 2017 (Journalist. She previously worked as a breaking news reporter and social media curator at The Hill in D.C., where she covered a variety of different topics including the Russia investigation; graduated from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern Univ.) 27 July 2017, “Putin breaks silence on US sanctions: ‘At some moment we'll have to retaliate’,”http://thehill.com/policy/international/344144-putin-at-some-moment-well-have-to-retaliate-against-us-sanctions

Putin also expressed sorrow the U.S. and Russia could not move forward to focus on solving issues. “It's very sad that U.S.-Russian relations are being sacrificed to resolve internal policy issues in the U.S,” said Putin. “It’s a pity, because acting together we could be solving jointly the most acute problems that worry the peoples of Russia and the United States much more efficiently.”







https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-future-course-of-the-u-s-russia-relationship/


Backup Link: Sanctions will reinforce Russia’s view that cooperation is a display of weakness

Emily Ferris 2017 (Associate analyst covering Russia for Control Risks, the leading international risk consultancy. Before joining Control Risks, she worked at the Higher School of Economics, Moscow, as a Visiting Researcher working on corruption and editing academic papers, and as a lecturer for the RANEPA Institute. She completed an MSc with distinction in Countering Organized Crime and Terrorism from University College London, specialising in Russian organised crime. She’s previously worked at Chatham House in the Russia and Eurasia programme, where she provided research assistance on projects focusing on political and security issues in Russia. She holds an undergraduate degree in Russian from Cambridge University) 4 Aug 2017, “Why The US Sanctions On Russia Will Create a Deadlock Over Ukraine,” https://www.forbes.com/sites/riskmap/2017/08/04/why-the-us-sanctions-on-russia-will-create-a-deadlock-over-ukraine/#57fdeedb369c

It was with reluctance that US President Donald Trump on August 2 agreed to sign a new bill into law that slaps Russia with wide-ranging sanctions. Passed by overwhelming majorities in Congress, the law mainly targets Russian state-owned assets including intelligence and defense, the railways and metals sectors, and prevents the export or import of any goods, services and technology to support Russia’s deep water, Arctic offshore or shale oil and gas exploration. However, rather than pressuring Russia into political change, it is far more likely these measures will reinforce Russia’s view that any cooperation with the West would be a display of weakness. This has serious and far reaching implications for the West’s ability to curtail Russia’s foreign interventions abroad, particularly in eastern Ukraine.

Impact: Can’t fight terrorism. Adding Russia to the SST list would interfere with the U.S. efforts to combat terrorism with Moscow

Greg Price 2018 (Staff Writer for Newsweek. He is a general assignment reporter/writer covering politics, military, some sports and more. Previously, he worked at International Business Times as a breaking news and sports reporter for four years) 22 May 2018 “Tillerson Considered Making Russia State Sponsor of Terrorism After Spy Poisoning, Report Says,” https://www.newsweek.com/tillerson-russia-terrorism-spy-938965

Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reportedly ordered his department to “outline the case” for naming Russia a state sponsor of terrorism in March, after a former Russian spy and double agent was poisoned in the United Kingdom. The department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism went ahead with Tillerson’s order, but roughly two days afterward the research was halted by Tillerson’s office, according to a ProPublica report Monday, which cited unnamed department officials. “There are a lot of issues that we have to work on together with Russia,” a U.S. official told ProPublica. “Designating them would interfere with our ability to do that.” Officials told ProPublica that labeling Russia a state sponsor of terror would interfere with the U.S.’s efforts to combat terrorism in tandem with Moscow.

7. Lost Russian cooperation on nuclear proliferation

Link: Russia retaliates if we sanction

Cross apply links in DA 1.

Link: We could benefit from Russian cooperation for nuclear non-proliferation

Matthew Wallin 2017 (Fellow for Public Diplomacy at American Security Project, and currently leads ASP’s program on the U.S.-Russia Relationship. His other research has focused on military history, nuclear security, and international conflict;Master’s in Public Diplomacy from University of Southern California and is a member of the Public Diplomacy Council) “U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Russia An Overview of Strategy and Considerations “ Nov 2017 https://www.americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Ref-0207-US-Foreign-Policy-Toward-Russia.pdf

There are tangible benefits to U.S. cooperation with Russia in a variety of areas—benefits which go beyond simply improving relations. They include (but are not limited to) benefits gained through work in physics, space exploration, bio-medical research, and nuclear non-proliferation.



https://www.newsweek.com/tillerson-russia-terrorism-spy-938965

https://www.forbes.com/sites/riskmap/2017/08/04/why-the-us-sanctions-on-russia-will-create-a-deadlock-over-ukraine/#57fdeedb369c



Link & Brink: Russian cooperation is critical to achieving policy goals on nuclear rogue states

Steven Pifer 2012 (Nonresident senior fellow in the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence, and the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution. He’s a 1976 graduate of Stanford University with a bachelor’s in economics; retired Foreign Service officer, his 25 years with the State Department focused on U.S. relations with the former Soviet Union and Europe; former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs with responsibilities for Russia and Ukraine, and special assistant to the president and senior director for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia on the National Security Council) 21 Mar 2012, “The Future Course of the U.S.-Russia Relationship,” https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-future-course-of-the-u-s-russia-relationship/

Looking forward, a positive relationship with Russia can advance U.S. interests, even if Washington and Moscow differ on some issues and if the United States is frustrated about corruption and the democracy and human rights situation in Russia. Russian support remains critical to achieving key Washington policy goals such as sustaining pressure on the nuclear rogue states and supporting coalition military operations in Afghanistan. There are a number of issues on which Moscow can play a spoiler role if it believes the United States is not paying due regard to Russian interests.

Impact: Huge risks to humanity if nuclear weapons spread

Wolfgang Panofsky 2003 (director emeritus of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center at Stanford Univ. ) “Nuclear Proliferation Risks New and Old” ISSUES IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Summer 2003https://issues.org/panofsky/

During the past decade, the United States and Russia have joined in a number of efforts to reduce the danger posed by the enormous quantity of weapons-usable material withdrawn from nuclear weapons. Other countries and various private groups have assisted in this task. But many impediments have prevented effective results, and most of the dangers still remain. Even more troubling, this threat is only one of several risks imposed on humanity by the existence of nuclear weapons. These risks fall into three classes: the risk that some fraction, be it large or small, of the inventories of nuclear weapons held by eight countries will be detonated either by accident or deliberately; the risk that nuclear weapons technology will diffuse to additional nations; and the risk that nuclear weapons will reach the hands of terrorist individuals or groups.

8. Escalated conflict in Ukraine

Link: Sanctions might prompt Russia to escalate the conflict in Ukraine

Emily Ferris 2017 (Associate analyst covering Russia for Control Risks, the leading international risk consultancy; formerly worked at the Higher School of Economics, Moscow, as a Visiting Researcher working on corruption and editing academic papers, and as a lecturer for the RANEPA Institute;MSc with distinction in Countering Organized Crime and Terrorism from University College London, specialising in Russian organised crime; undergraduate degree in Russian from Cambridge University) 4 Aug 2017, “Why The US Sanctions On Russia Will Create a Deadlock Over Ukraine,” https://www.forbes.com/sites/riskmap/2017/08/04/why-the-us-sanctions-on-russia-will-create-a-deadlock-over-ukraine/#57fdeedb369c

This would jeopardize progress on brokering a peace deal and, more alarmingly for Ukraine, might prompt Russia to escalate the conflict. This, alongside the US special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker’s comments in recent days that the US should supply ‘defensive arms’ to Ukraine, has the potential to make the conflict far hotter than before. Yet a more likely scenario is that, barring occasional upticks of violence, the new sanctions will ensure a prolonged freezing of the conflict with no progress on a diplomatic solution in sight.





https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-future-course-of-the-u-s-russia-relationship/


Russia has the ability to make the situation extremely difficult

UNIAN 2018 (Ukrainian Independent Information Agency of News, (UNIAN) is a Kiev-based Ukrainian news agency) 12 Feb 2018 “Russia can escalate situation in Ukraine at any moment – Poroshenko,” https://www.unian.info/politics/2392159-poroshenko-russia-can-escalate-situation-in-ukraine-at-any-moment.html

The president emphasized that the most difficult period was in February 2015 when almost 25 Ukrainian soldiers were being killed daily by Russian regular troops. “We spent 19 hours in Minsk without sleep, without food. Then, the agreement was reached, and this wouldn't have happened without the support of Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel,” he stressed. “We, Ukrainians, are grateful to her for that, as the situation was extremely difficult at the time," he noted. At the same time, Poroshenko added: “However, as the whole world knows: president of Russia doesn't keep the undertaken promises. He always facilitates another escalation when he wants to.”

Brink: More than 10,000 Ukrainians have already died in the war and more than 1.7 million have been displaced

Cory Gardner 2018 (Republican Senator from Colorado; member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), 19 Apr 2018, “Is Russia Sponsoring Terrorism?” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/opinion/russia-sponsoring-terrorism.html

Moreover, Russia’s illegal and immoral war against Ukraine shows no signs of ending. Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and subsequent support for Russian-controlled proxies in the Donbas region, the international community has failed to adequately respond to continued Russian aggression — and there has been a devastating price to pay. More than 10,000 Ukrainians have died in the war and more than 1.7 million have been displaced. On July 17, 2014, Russian proxies shot down a civilian airliner, killing all 298 onboard — including an American.

Impact: Angering Russia will only make things worse because Russia has the ability to escalate the situation

UNIAN 2018 (Ukrainian Independent Information Agency of News, (UNIAN) is a Kiev-based Ukrainian news agency) 12 Feb 2018 “Russia can escalate situation in Ukraine at any moment – Poroshenko,” https://www.unian.info/politics/2392159-poroshenko-russia-can-escalate-situation-in-ukraine-at-any-moment.html

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko says Russia might try to escalate the situation in the country at any moment. "Putin has so many troops in Ukraine that he can contribute to the escalation of the situation at any moment. I have told Chancellor Merkel once: Can you imagine that there are more tanks in the east of Ukraine now than the Bundeswehr has? Over 600 tanks are deployed within this small territory," Poroshenko said in an interview with Bild, according to the president's press service.

9. Russian behavior gets worse

Link: Sanctions lead to greater control by Putin and weaken the possibility of reform inside Russia


Sanctions thus lead to greater control by Putin over the economy. They weaken the relatively independent and modern part of Russia’s economy. They also reinforce Putin’s political power. They rally the public around Putin. Indeed, it is hard to see how sanctions do anything but weaken the liberals as a political force in Russia.




https://www.unian.info/politics/2392159-poroshenko-russia-can-escalate-situation-in-ukraine-at-any-moment.html


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/opinion/russia-sponsoring-terrorism.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/opinion/russia-sponsoring-terrorism.html




Impact: Russian behavior gets worse under sanctions & isolation. Impact is to turn all the harms of the AFF case, they get worse after an AFF ballot


This means that our current approach of dealing with Russia by sanctions and isolation will not only fail to accomplish its immediate goal of stopping Putin in Ukraine, but it will also be counterproductive to the more important, long-term objective of Russia’s evolution as a normal, modern, globally integrated country. With the approach we now have, not only do we lose the battle. We make it harder to win the war.





WORKS CITED

1. Harry J. Kazianis 2018 (Director of Defense Studies at the Center for the National Interest, founded by former President Nixon; holds a graduate degree focusing on international relations from Harvard University. He’s a recognized expert on national security issues involving North Korea, China, the Asia-Pacific; Fellow for National Security Affairs at the Potomac Foundation and a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Univ of Nottingham, England), 15 July 2018“Trump-Putin summit could improve US-Russia relations -- And yes, that is a good thing,” http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/15/trump-putin-summit-could-improve-us-russia-relations-and-yes-that-is-good-thing.html

2. Daniel L. Byman 2018 (Senior fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings; senior associate dean for undergraduate affairs at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service and a professor in its Security Studies Program. Previously served as a staff member with the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States (“The 9/11 Commission”) and the Joint 9/11 Inquiry Staff of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) 30 Apr 2018, “Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism—But don’t treat it that way,” https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/04/30/russia-is-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism-but-dont-treat-it-that-way/

3. Reuters news service 2018 (world’s largest international multimedia news provider, reaching more than one billion people every day; journalist Jack Stubbs; Editing by Kevin Liffey) 15 Apr 2018 “New U.S. sanctions will hurt Washington and Europe more than Russia: lawmaker,” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-sanctions-russia/new-u-s-sanctions-will-hurt-washington-and-europe-more-than-russia-lawmaker-idUSKBN1HM0UQ

4. Dr. Stephen Tankel 2018 (PhD; Assistant professor at American Univ., adjunct senior fellow at Center for a New America Security, non-resident scholar in the South Asia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) 30 Apr 2018 “Beyond The State Sponsors List: Finding The Right Tools To Counter Russia,” https://warontherocks.com/2018/04/beyond-the-state-sponsors-list-finding-the-right-tools-to-counter-russia/

5. Sebastian Rotella, 2018. (senior reporter at ProPublica; award-winning foreign correspondent and investigative reporter) “The U.S. Considered Declaring Russia a State Sponsor of Terror, Then Dropped It” May 21, 2018. https://www.propublica.org/article/united-states-considered-declaring-russia-a-state-sponsor-of-terror

6. Clifford G. Gaddy and Barry W. Ickes 2014 ( Gaddy —Economist specializing in Russia. He was a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy program’s Center on the U.S. and Europe.; Ickes —was a nonresident senior fellow with the Center on the U.S. and Europe at Brookings and is a professor of economics at Penn. State Univ. and financial director at The New Economic School in Moscow; previously served as a chair on the board of directors of the National Council for Eurasian and East European Research) 3 June 2014, “Can Sanctions Stop Putin?” https://www.brookings.edu/articles/can-sanctions-stop-putin/

7. Mike Eckel 2018 (Senior correspondent for RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty (RFE/RL) based in Washington) 11 Apr 2018 “What, U.S. Worry? Russia Threatens Retaliation For Latest Sanctions,” https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-us-threats-retaliation-latest-sanctions/29159065.html

8. Rebecca Savransky 2017 (Journalist. She previously worked as a breaking news reporter and social media curator at The Hill in D.C., where she covered a variety of different topics including the Russia investigation; graduated from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern Univ.) 27 July 2017, “Putin breaks silence on




US sanctions: ‘At some moment we'll have to retaliate’,”http://thehill.com/policy/international/344144-putin-at-some-moment-well-have-to-retaliate-against-us-sanctions

9. Bloomberg news 2018 (journalist Ilya Arkhipov; written with assistance by Evgenia Pismennaya) 9 Apr 2018 updated 10 Apr 2018, “Russia Retaliation for Sanctions Could Hit U.S. Companies,” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-09/russia-retaliation-for-sanctions-could-hit-u-s-companies

10. Michelle Lodge 2017 (journalist; Senior Editor for the Street, Inc) updated 7 Apr 2017, “Russia Could Blast America's Very Own McDonald's, Again - Here's How They Would Do It,” https://www.thestreet.com/story/14078127/1/will-mcdonald-s-and-others-in-fast-food-in-putin-s-russia-fall-victim-to-retaliatory-measures.html

11. Jeffrey Kluger 2014 (Editor at large, he oversees TIME’s science, health and technology reporting; former staff writer for Discover magazine; also an attorney, and has taught science journalism at New York Univ) 25 Mar 2014, “Space: Where America and Russia Are Stuck With Each Other,” http://time.com/37671/space-cooperation-america-russia/

12. Hanna Krueger 2017 (Contributor to NBC News, which is the news division of the American broadcast television network NBC) 30 Sept 2017, “In Space, U.S. and Russia Friendship Untethered,” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/space-u-s-russia-friendship-untethered-n806101

13. Prof. Everett C. Dolman 2006 (associate prof. of Comparative Military Studies at US Air Force School of Advanced Air and Space Studie ) SAIS Review vol. XXVI no. 1 (Winter-Spring 2006) US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/sais_review/v026/26.1dolman.html

14. Dr. George Friedman, Xander Snyder, and Ekaterina Zolotova 2017 ( Friedman —PhD in government from Cornell Univ.; regularly briefed senior commanders in the US armed services; founder and chairman of the geopolitical forecasting service, Geopolitical Futures. Snyder —analyst at Geopolitical Futures. He has a diverse theoretical and practical background in economics; bachelor’s degree, in economics and classical music composition from Cornell Univ. Zolotova —analyst for Geopolitical Futures. Prior to that, she participated in several research projects devoted to problems and prospects of Russia’s integration into the world economy; specialist degree in international economic relations from Plekhanov Russian University of Economics) 4 Aug 2017 “4 Maps That Show How Russia Could Strike Back Against US Sanctions,” https://www.newsmax.com/finance/georgefriedman/russia-us-sanctions-strike/2017/08/04/id/805945/

15. Yasmeen Serhan 2017 (London-based assistant editor at The Atlantic. She has a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Southern California. Previously, she was the Managing Editor for the Daily Trojan) 2 Aug 2017, “Why Europe Opposes America's New Russia Sanctions,” https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/why-europe-opposes-the-uss-new-russia-sanctions/535722/

16. Capt. M. V. Prato 2009 (United States Marine Corps,Command and Staff College, Marine Corps Combat Development Command,Marine Corps University) “The Need for American Hegemony” http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a508040.pdf

17. NEW YORK TIMES 2018. (journalist Jack Ewing) 2 Aug 2018 “Europe Feels the Squeeze of the Trump Trade Tariffs” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/business/economy/europe-trade-trump-tariffs.html




18. Harry J. Kazianis 2018 (Director of Defense Studies at the Center for the National Interest, founded by former President Nixon; graduate degree focusing on international relations from Harvard; recognized expert on national security issues involving North Korea, China, the Asia-Pacific; Fellow for National Security Affairs at the Potomac Foundation; non-resident Senior Fellow at the Univ of Nottingham, England), 15 July 2018“Trump-Putin summit could improve US-Russia relations -- And yes, that is a good thing,” http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/15/trump-putin-summit-could-improve-us-russia-relations-and-yes-that-is-good-thing.html

19. Henry Meyer 2014 (Politics Reporter for Bloomberg News. His work has appeared in Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek, The Independent, Chicago Tribune, The Globe and Mail, Yahoo, Toronto Star, Seattle Times, Star Tribune, The Sacramento Bee, and Time Magazine) 19 Oct 2014, “Western sanctions force Russia to aid China’s rise; Beijing may acquire advanced weapons,” https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/10/19/world/western-sanctions-force-russia-to-aid-chinas-rise-beijing-may-acquire-advanced-weapons/#.W09_mjOZOV4

20. Ian Buruma 2017 (journalist, Contributor to the New Yorker) 19 June 2017, “Are China and the United States Headed for War?” https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/19/are-china-and-the-united-states-headed-for-war

21. Robert Kagan 2008 (senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former presidential foreign policy advisor)23 Mar 2008 WASHINGTON POST http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102552.html

22. Steven Pifer 2012 (Nonresident senior fellow in the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence, and the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution; graduate of Stanford Univ., bachelor’s in economics; retired Foreign Service officer, 25 years with the State Department focused on U.S. relations with the former Soviet Union and Europe; former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs with responsibilities for Russia and Ukraine, and special assistant to the president and senior director for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia on the National Security Council) 21 Mar 2012, “The Future Course of the U.S.-Russia Relationship,” https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-future-course-of-the-u-s-russia-relationship/

23. Emily Ferris 2017 (Associate analyst covering Russia for Control Risks, the leading international risk consultancy. Before joining Control Risks, she worked at the Higher School of Economics, Moscow, as a Visiting Researcher working on corruption and editing academic papers, and as a lecturer for the RANEPA Institute. She completed an MSc with distinction in Countering Organized Crime and Terrorism from University College London, specialising in Russian organised crime. She’s previously worked at Chatham House in the Russia and Eurasia programme, where she provided research assistance on projects focusing on political and security issues in Russia. She holds an undergraduate degree in Russian from Cambridge University) 4 Aug 2017, “Why The US Sanctions On Russia Will Create a Deadlock Over Ukraine,” https://www.forbes.com/sites/riskmap/2017/08/04/why-the-us-sanctions-on-russia-will-create-a-deadlock-over-ukraine/#57fdeedb369c

24. Greg Price 2018 (Staff Writer for Newsweek. He is a general assignment reporter/writer covering politics, military, some sports and more. Previously, he worked at International Business Times as a breaking news and sports reporter for four years) 22 May 2018 “Tillerson Considered Making Russia State Sponsor of Terrorism After Spy Poisoning, Report Says,” https://www.newsweek.com/tillerson-russia-terrorism-spy-938965




25. Matthew Wallin 2017 (Fellow for Public Diplomacy at American Security Project, and currently leads ASP’s program on the U.S.-Russia Relationship. His other research has focused on military history, nuclear security, and international conflict;Master’s in Public Diplomacy from University of Southern California and is a member of the Public Diplomacy Council) “U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Russia An Overview of Strategy and Considerations “ Nov 2017 https://www.americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Ref-0207-US-Foreign-Policy-Toward-Russia.pdf

26. Wolfgang Panofsky 2003 ( director emeritus of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center at Stanford Univ. ) “Nuclear Proliferation Risks New and Old” ISSUES IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Summer 2003https://issues.org/panofsky/

27. UNIAN 2018 (Ukrainian Independent Information Agency of News, (UNIAN) is a Kiev-based Ukrainian news agency) 12 Feb 2018 “Russia can escalate situation in Ukraine at any moment – Poroshenko,” https://www.unian.info/politics/2392159-poroshenko-russia-can-escalate-situation-in-ukraine-at-any-moment.html

28. Cory Gardner 2018 (Republican Senator from Colorado; member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), 19 Apr 2018, “Is Russia Sponsoring Terrorism?” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/opinion/russia-sponsoring-terrorism.html



2012-stoa-bb-012-aff-saudiarabia-submitted.docx€¦ · web viewsst sanctions would hurt the u.s....

Documents