Ukraine Diplomatic Capital Disadvantage UIL State

1NC Russia RelationsThe Ukraine crisis can still be resolved peacefully but effective diplomatic dialogue over the Crimean referendum is critical to avoid conflict escalationKCRA News 3/13 (KCRA News Source, a national organization affiliated with CNN’s political and economic correspondents, “Ukraine leader: Peace still possible”, 03/13/14, AD: 03/13/14, http://www.kcra.com/national/Ukraine-leader-Peace-still-possible/24952330 | Kushal)

(CNN) —Moments after blasting what he called Russia's illegal "military aggression" of his nation, Ukraine's interim leader insisted Thursday that a peaceful resolution that ends with Kiev and Moscow becoming "real partners" is still possible. " We still believe that we have a chance to resolve these conflicts in a peaceful manner," interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk told the U.N. Security Council. Yatsenyuk's remarks come as thousands of Russian troops began staging military exercises not far from his nation's border. And they are entirely new, given that Ukrainian officials have previously called for talks and slammed what they say is Russia's military invasion of their country, something that Russian President Vladimir Putin has denied. Still, the stage -- addressing representatives of the world's most powerful nations, Russia among them -- makes the assertions more salient, as does the fast approaching referendum in which residents of the Crimean Peninsula will vote whether to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. Ukraine has been simmering since last November, when protesters angry at the sitting government -- in part for its president's move toward Russia and away from the European Union -- began hitting the streets. In February, after deadly clashes between government forces and demonstrators, President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted (he soon took refuge in Russia). With that, the focus moved from Ukraine's west, which tends to lean more European, to its south and east, where ties to Russia are stronger. Rising tensions have centered on Crimea, where local officials have declared their autonomy from Ukraine and alliance with Russia, as armed men have blockaded and taken other actions against Ukrainian military and other posts. Tensions also have spilled over into other parts of eastern Ukraine, such as Donetsk, where the regional health authority said a 22-year-old man was stabbed to death and at least 10 others were injured in clashes Thursday between pro-Ukraine and pro-Russian protesters. While the bloodshed has been limited so far, fears are percolating that this crisis could turn into a full-scale military conflict. "We are looking for an answer to the question of whether the Russians want war," Yatsenyuk said Thursday in Russian. "I am sure that, as the prime minister of Ukraine, (which) for decades had warm and friendly relations with Russia, I am convinced that Russians do not want war. Russia kicks off military drill On Thursday, Putin reiterated his longstanding stance: Ukraine's crisis was caused by internal factors, not by Russia. And if people in Crimea -- including ethnic Russians -- want to be part of Russia, that's their right and likewise Moscow's right to protect them. Speaking after Yatsenyuk at the United Nations, Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin accused the West of having "fanned the flames of unrest" in Ukraine by their officials' "blatant interference," which he said contributed to Yanukovych's "illegal" ouster. Since then, the Ukraine's pro-western government has exacerbated the crisis by clamping down on opposition and effectively "splitting this country (into) two parts," Churkin said. As to Sunday's referendum, the ambassador said citizens there deserve the same right to self-determination as anyone: "Why should the Crimeans be the exception?" Even as Moscow hasn't said it wants to takeover Ukraine, its military has become noticeably active in the region of late -- and not just its thousands of troops stationed in Crimea. Its most recent such action was starting military drills Thursday involving about 8,500 troops in the southern part of the country bordering Ukraine, according to Russia's defense ministry. These exercises -- which include rocket launchers, howitzers and anti-tank cannons -- aim to "improve the cooperation between artillery (units) and motorized rifle forces, tank forces, air cavalry and the marines," the ministry said. The Southern Military District borders Ukraine and includes the North Caucasian Military District, the Black Sea Fleet and the Caspian flotilla, the ministry said. One of its four bases is in the Ukrainian city of Sevastopol. Not far away, U.S. President Barack Obama's administration is expected to announce plans to keep the aircraft carrier USS George H. W. Bush in the Mediterranean Sea longer than planned to reassure NATO allies who may be feeling insecure after Russia's moves in Crimea, CNN has learned. Asked about the decision to keep the aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean, a senior administration official said not to expect much more muscle-flexing, or additional military steps, before Sunday. Russia's military activities within Ukraine itself -- including whether its troops are among the men, whose uniforms did not have insignias, who have seemingly marooned Ukraine's military there -- are a matter of intense scrutiny and debate. Yatsenyuk stated Thursday he has no doubt Russian troops have intervened, despite having "no grounds" to do so. He said Russia's military presence "is clearly identified ," pointing out that vehicles used by some armed men have Russian license plates. "This is absolutely and entirely unacceptable in the 21st century to resolve any kind of (conflict) with boots on the ground ," the interim prime minister said. Western officials warn Moscow Western officials, meanwhile, warned Thursday that Russia will face significant consequences unless it changes course in Crimea, with U.S. President Barack Obama pledging to "stand with Ukraine." In a speech to the German parliament, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Sunday's secession referendum is unconstitutional and Russia's presence in the Black Sea peninsula violates

Ukraine's territorial integrity. She warned Putin that his actions would lead to "catastrophe" for Ukraine. "It would also change Russia economically and politically," she said. In a phone call, French President Francois Hollande told Putin the referendum "has no legal basis," urging the Russian leader to "do everything to prevent the annexation of Crimea to Russia." At a Senate committee hearing in Washington, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry -- who is set to mee t Friday with his Russian counterpart -- predicted that the upcoming vote would favor Crimea rejoining Russia. But he warned that, absent movement by Russia toward negotiating with Ukraine on the crisis, "there will be a very serious series of steps Monday in Europe and here ."

Diplomatic resources are finite – the affirmative’s engagement diverts policy focusAnderson and Grewell 2 (Terry Anderson is a professor of economics at Montana State University and J. Bishop Grewell is a Research Associate and Political Economics Researcher, 2002, AD: 03/13/14, http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps20.pdf | Kushal)

Greater international environmental regulation can increase international tension. Foreign policy is a bag of goods that includes issues from free trade to arms trading to human rights. Each new issue in the bag weighs it down, lessening the focus on other issues and even creating conflicts between issues. Increased environmental regulations could cause countries to lessen their focus on international threats of violence such as the sale of ballistic missiles or border conflicts between nations. As countries must watch over more and more issues aris ing in the international policy arena, they will stretch the resources necessary to deal with traditional international issues. As Schaefer (2000, 46) writes, “Because diplomatic currency is finite . . . it is critically important that the United States focus its diplomatic efforts on issues of paramount importance to the nation . Traditionally, these priorities have been opposing hostile domination of key geographic regions, supporting our allies, securing vital resources, and ensuring access to foreign economies.”

Status quo Latin American engagement is a benchmark – future focus on plan solvency drains KerryValencia 13 (Robert, a research fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “Diplomatic efforts in Latin America require fresh faces”, 02/11/13, AD: 03/13/14 http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2013/02/11/diplomatic-efforts-latin-america-require-fresh-faces | Kushal)

While the global press largely focused on Iran, China, and the Middle East during the lead-up to the appointment of John Kerry as the new secretary of state, Kerry's comments revealed the possibility of a revamped American diplomatic approach to Latin America. With Latin America in a transitional moment , stronger U.S engagement is critical. To reenergize the effort, Kerry will need a new, knowledgeable team in Washington as well as diplomats on the ground. Most importantly, the role of the U.S. assistant secretary must be given enough power that the person can be recognized and respected among Latin America’s diplomatic entourage. ¶ Kerry will embark on, what is sure to be, a rugged road toward re-establishing friendlier relations with Latin America. He has already experienced a bit of an introduction to this struggle in the form of harsh criticism in Caracas after commenting that the situation in Venezuela was uncertain due to Hugo Chavez’s illness. A stated commitment toward Latin America will be refreshing to a waning U.S. presence in the region, but in order to accomplish anything there, Washington needs fresh faces associated with this region. In the last three decades, many of the ambassadors have been mired in turbulent relationships. One clear example was Myles Frechette, the U.S. ambassador to Colombia in the mid-1990s, who strongly criticized then-Colombian President Ernesto Samper’s connections with the Cali Cartel, which financed his 1994 presidential campaign. Frechette’s position against Samper, as well as his disavowing of Colombia’s fight against narco-trafficking, earned him numerous rebukes from then-Interior Minister Horacio Serpa who called him a “gringo maluco (disagreeable)." WikiLeaks cables, for better or worse, revealed the adversity several U.S. ambassadors have faced in dealing with Latin American affairs. For instance, in 2011 U.S. ambassador to Mexico, Carlos Pascual, questioned the Mexican Army’s effectiveness in tackling drug cartels. Mexican President Felipe Calderon expressed his discomfort regarding these comments, which led to Pascual’s resignation in order to assuage U.S. Mexican relations.¶ In the last two years, hemispheric affairs have deteriorated because of a lack of an active, knowledgeable diplomatic corps.

Failure of diplomacy to resolve the crisis in Ukraine would cause nuclear conflict to erupt through a failure of US-Russia Relations—Russia has already conducted war games with 60,000 soldiers, prefer the recency of the Russian crisis.Baum 3/7 (Seth Baum is Executive Director of the think tank Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. He recently completed a Ph.D. in Geography at Pennsylvania State University and a Post-Doctoral Fellowship with the Columbia University Center for Research on Environmental Decisions. Based in New York City, Baum's research covers a variety of topics including ethics, economics, climate change, nuclear war, and life in the universe, “Best And Worst Case Scenarios for Ukraine Crisis: World Peace And Nuclear War”, 03/07/14, AD: 03/13/14, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-baum/best-and-worst-case-scena_b_4915315.html | Kushal)

No one yet knows how the Ukraine crisis will play out. Indeed, the whole story is a lesson in the perils of prediction. Already we have a classic: "Putin's Bluff? U.S. Spies Say Russia Won't Invade Ukraine," published February 27, just as Russian troops were entering Crimea. But considering the best and worst cases highlights some important opportunities to make the most of the situation. Here's the short version: The best case scenario has the Ukraine crisis being resolved diplomatically through increased Russia-Europe cooperation, which would be a big step towards world peace. The worst case scenario has the crisis escalating into nuclear war between the United States and Russia, causing human extinction. Let's start with the worst case scenario, nuclear war involving the American and Russian arsenals. How bad would that be? Put it this way: Recent analysis finds that a "limited" India-Pakistan nuclear war could kill two billion people via agricultural declines from nuclear winter. This "limited" war involves just 100 nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Russia combine to possess about 16,700 nuclear weapons. Humanity may not survive the aftermath of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war.

Collapse of US-Russian relations results in extinctionAllison 11 (Graham, 10/30, Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, “10 reasons why Russia still matters,” http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=161EF282-72F9-4D48-8B9C-C5B3396CA0E6)

That central point is that Russia matters a great deal to a U.S. government seeking to defend and advance its national interests.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s decision to return next year as president makes it all the more critical for Washington to manage its relationship with Russia through coherent, realistic policies. No one denies that Russia is a dangerous, difficult, often disappointing state to do business with. We should not overlook its many human rights and legal

failures. Nonetheless, Russia is a player whose choices affect our vital interests in nuclear security and energy. It is key to supplying 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Ten realities require U.S.

policymakers to advance our nation’s interests by engaging and working with Moscow. First, Russia remains the only nation that can erase the United States from the map in 30 minutes . As every president since John F.

Kennedy has recognized, Russia’s cooperation is critical to averting nuclear war . Second, Russia is our most consequential partner in preventing nuclear terrorism . Through a combination of

more than $11 billion in U.S. aid, provided through the Nunn-Lugar [CTR] Cooperative Threat Reduction program, and

impressive Russian professionalism, two decades after the collapse of the “evil empire,” not one nuclear weapon has been found loose. Third, Russia plays an essential role in preventing the proliferation of nuclear

weapons and missile-delivery systems. As Washington seeks to stop Iran’s drive toward nuclear weapons, Russian choices to sell or withhold sensitive technologies are the difference between failure and the possibility of

success. Fourth, Russian support in sharing intelligence and cooperating in operations remains essential to the U.S. war to destroy Al Qaeda and combat other transnational terrorist groups. Fifth, Russia provides a vital supply line to 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan. As U.S. relations with Pakistan have deteriorated, the Russian lifeline has grown ever more important and now accounts for half all daily deliveries. Sixth, Russia is the world’s largest oil producer and second largest gas producer. Over the past decade, Russia has added more oil and gas exports to world energy markets than any other nation. Most major energy transport routes from Eurasia start in Russia or cross its nine time zones. As citizens of a country that imports

two of every three of the 20 million barrels of oil that fuel U.S. cars daily, Americans feel Russia’s impact at our gas pumps. Seventh, Moscow is an important player in today’s international system. It is no accident that Russia is one of the five veto-wielding, permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, as

well as a member of the G-8 and G-20. A Moscow more closely aligned with U.S. goals would be significant in the balance of power to shape an environment in which China can emerge as a global power without overturning the existing order. Eighth, Russia is the largest country on Earth by land area, abutting China on the East, Poland in the West and the United States across the Arctic. This territory

provides transit corridors for supplies to global markets whose stability is vital to the U.S. economy . Ninth, Russia’s brainpower is reflected in the fact that it has won more Nobel Prizes for science than all of Asia, places first in most math competitions and dominates the world chess masters list. The only way U.S. astronauts can now travel to and from the International Space Station is to hitch a ride on Russian rockets. The co-founder of the most advanced digital company in the world, Google, is Russian-

born Sergei Brin. Tenth, Russia’s potential as a spoiler is difficult to exaggerate . Consider what a Russian president intent on frustrating U.S. international objectives could do — from stopping the supply flow to Afghanistan to selling S-300 air defense missiles to Tehran to joining China in preventing U.N. Security Council resolutions .

2NC Blocks

Impact Overview: US-Russian nuclear war outweighs and turns case –

A) It’s more probable – our evidence is from YESTERDAY and highlights the Crimean crisis as the global hotspot – Ukraine collapse would devastate US-Russian relations which outweighs the risk of <contextualize>

B) Ukraine is on the brink – tensions are at an all-time high with the US, Europe, NATO, and Russia increasing aggression – biggest existential risk that escalates faster than <contextualize>

C) Turns case - <contextualize>

Link OverviewDiplomacy is zero sum – our Anderson evidence cites empirical examples that foreign policy ventures are insulated issues that cannot occur concurrently – the aff specifically drains Kerry per our Valencia evidence because the status quo requires substantial diplomatic capital to resuscitate Latin American relations.

UniquenessDiplomatic capital in the status quo is sufficient to deter Crimean escalationWitcover 3/7 (Jules Witcover, tenured correspondent and writer for the Baltimore Sun, “Obama's cool-headedness is diplomacy, not appeasement”, 03/07/14, AD: 03/13/14, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-03-07/news/bal-obamas-coolheadedness-is-diplomacy-not-appeasement-commentary-20140306_1_president-obama-diplomacy-russian-economy | Kushal)

To hear some American hawks talk about President Obama's reaction to the Russian move into Crimea, you'd think he's grabbed Neville Chamberlain's umbrella of appeasement and rushed off to Munich. But Mr. Obama's response to Russian President Vladimir Putin's power move in Crimea can hardly be compared to the British prime minister's fateful surrender to Adolf Hitler's blatant theft of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia in 1938. Chamberlain was an open advocate of appeasement before it became a dirty word. He thus was easy prey for Hitler in what already was emerging as the Nazi strongman's determination to achieve German domination of Europe. The worst that can reasonably be said of Mr. Putin at this stage is a dream to restore some semblance of Russia's old power as the center of the old Soviet Union. Mr. Obama, in calling on Mr. Putin to return his military forces to their established bases in Crimea, is following his own established foreign-policy reliance on collective action within the Western community. It includes employing NATO and UN economic entities to pressure the Russian boss to back off. Instead of repeating his careless talk toward Iran and Syria of setting red lines not to be crossed, the president so far remains committed to the diplomatic course , as he should. It is clearly within the interest of the United States to work for a resolution of the current crisis as a concerned party, not as a breast-beating adventurer, as was the case in Iraq in 2002-03. We're still paying the price of that misguided run-up to the American invasion based on flawed assumptions and intelligence. Perhaps President Obama can be faulted for again substituting talk rather than immediately imposing tough sanctions against the Russian economy for the Crimean caper. But there is no stomach at home, either, for any U.S. military involvement in what obviously is Russia's area of influence. The swift dispatch of Secretary of State John Kerry to Kiev, and the prospect of early congressional action on more economic aid to the new regime there, have already underscored the Obama administration's focus on hewing to diplomacy in the crisis. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in the Jimmy Carter administration, has written in the Washington Post that that Obama should reaffirm "the West's desire for a peaceful accommodation with Russia regarding a joint effort to help Ukraine recover economically and stabilize politically." Specifically, Mr. Brzezinski writes, "the West should reassure Russia that it is not seeking to draw Ukraine into NATO or to turn it against Russia." Such a declaration would be a step in returning to the administration's earlier aspirations to "resettle" relations with Moscow that have gone off track during the Putin regime. At the same time, if only for personal political reasons, Obama cannot afford to be painted by his partisan foes at home as a Chamberlain clone. He already is being criticized for the slow pace of Syria's pledged dismemberment of its chemical weapons. But it should be remembered that it was Obama's threat to take military action against Syria to get rid of those weapons that brought about that pledge, and a start to the process. Still, the American president fuels the Republican allegation that he's a paper tiger in not attacking Syria anyway, in response to Bashar al-Assad's wholesale slaughter of his own people. In a real sense, the crisis in Crimea has generated another opportunity for the unrelenting GOP campaign to stymie Barack Obama's presidency and discredit him as a capable and competent leader. But his notable unflappability serves him well in the current international flare-up, at least among Americans not itching for a return to the Cold War of yesteryear, let alone the dark days of Munich, 1938. The pact of appeasement that Chamberlain waved failed to deliver his promised "peace in our time." What Mr. Obama is doing now is firmly following Theodore Roosevelt's admonition to "speak softly and carry a big stick," with a better prospect of averting another international catastrophe through level-headed diplomacy.

Ukraine is the only item on the diplomatic agenda – focus is crucial to preventing the next Cold WarLally and Morello 3/13 (Kathy Lally and Carol Morello, political correspondents for the Boston Globe, “Russian troops gather at Ukraine border”, 03/13/14, AD: 03/13/14, http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/03/13/russian-troops-gather-ukraine-border/xeAw3VPIeYdyxUOmGwtJ6O/story.html | Kushal)

The crisis over Crimea, a region with strong ties to Russia , has developed into perhaps the worst standoff between Russia and the West since the end of the Cold War . It began last month when the pro-Russian Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych was toppled after mass protests, and a new leadership took power with the blessing of European nations and the United States. Russia promptly moved troops into Crimea and is hosting the deposed president, who has vowed to reclaim power. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is scheduled to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in London on Friday to seek a diplomatic resolution. Kerry appealed to Congress on Thursday to back International Monetary Fund reforms that are required for delivery of some of the proposed financial aid to Ukraine. Kerry told the Senate Appropriations subcommitte e on foreign operations tha t he does not know whether Russian annexation is a foregone conclusion, but he acknowledged ‘‘strong indications’’ that former defense secretary Robert Gates is right in saying that Crimea is now lost to Ukraine. ‘‘There are other . . . thoughts out there that suggest that something short of a full annexation might also be achievable,’’ Kerry told the panel. Obama met with Ukraine’s interim prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, at the White House on Wednesday and said the United States and its allies would ‘‘apply a cost’’ to Russia if it tries to divide the Crimean region from the rest of Ukraine. German Chancellor Angela Merkel emphasized the point in a speech Thursday to the German parliament that recalled Europe’s centuries of strife over ‘‘spheres of influence and territorial claims,’’ news services reported from Berlin. ‘‘I’m afraid we have to dig in for the long haul to solve this conflict,’’ she said, with sanctions against Russia expected early next week if the Sunday secession vote proceeds. ‘‘If Russia continues on the course of the last weeks, it won’t just be a catastrophe for Ukraine,’’ Merkel said. ‘‘It would also cause massive economic and political harm to Russia.’’ Pro-Russia forces continued to expand onto Ukrainian military facilities in Crimea on Thursday. About 100 armed militiamen from self-defense units came by bus to an oil warehouse on a base near the train station in the Crimean regional capital, Simferopol, said Vladislav Seleznyov, a spokesman for the Ukrainian military. He said the Ukrainian troops on the base are unarmed, and as of midday Thursday the base commander was still negotiating with the militia. In a separate incident, he said a Russian navy ship was scuttled at the entrance to the bay at Donuzlav in northern Crimea, blocking Ukrainian navy ships from leaving. It is the third ship deliberately sunk to impede naval traffic, he said. As Russia’s grip in Crimea tightened, European nations and the United States have been discussing a variety of responses, including visa restrictions and economic sanctions .

Collapse of peace talks obstructs Russian relationsRTE News 3/9 (An international political news source, “John Kerry reiterates warnings over Russian actions in Ukraine”, 03/09/14, AD: 03/13/14, http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0308/600902-ukraine/ | Kushal)

US Secretary of State John Kerry has told Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that any Russian steps to annex Crimea would close the door to international diplomacy. Mr Kerry also urged Mr Lavrov to ensure that Russia acts with the "utmost restraint" in Ukraine . It follows warnings from French President Francois Hollande and US President Barack Obama that "new measures" would be implemented against Russia if it fails to move on defusing the crisis in Ukraine. The two leaders insisted on the "need for Russia to withdraw forces sent to Crimea since the end of February and to do everything to allow the deployment of international observers". "If there's a lack progress in this direction, new measures will be taken which would noticeably affect relations between the international community and Russia, which is in no-one's interest," the French presidency said. Mr Obama also spoke with British Prime Minister David Cameron and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi in relation to Ukraine. He also reaffirmed Washington's "unwavering commitment" to its NATO defence commitments in a conference call with Baltic leaders. The crisis in Ukraine, which resulted in the ouster last month of pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych, has worsened since the Crimean parliament's decision to secede from Ukraine. It plans to stage a referendum on joining Russia on 16 March. Ukraine said there are now 30,000 Russian soldiers in Crimea - 5,000 more than the contingent allowed under an existing agreement with Kiev. Russia said it has stepped up protection of its naval base in Crimea and is working together with local self-defence units but refuses to acknowledge deploying extra troops. "In the current grave circumstances," Mr Hollande and Mr Obama "stressed the importance for Russia to agree rapidly to the formation of a contact group allowing for Ukraine and Russia to engage in dialogue, with a view to favouring a peaceful exit to the crisis and restoring fully Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity," a statement from the French presidency said. "They recalled the absence of any legal basis to the planned referendum in Crimea on March 16," it added. The two leaders also agreed to continue their support for the new pro-western authorities in Ukraine as well as for the preparation for presidential elections on 25 May, "under international control and in the greatest transparency". The US has already imposed visa bans and set the stage for wider

sanctions against Russia over the seizure of the Ukrainian region of Crimea by pro-Russia forces.

Ukraine is the litmus test for the West – effective action is keyAtlas 3/3 (Terry Atlas, Bloomberg Foreign News expert correspondent, “Kerry’s Kiev Trip Puts Him on Diplomatic Front Lines”, 03/3/14, AD: 03/13/14, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-03/kerry-s-kiev-trip-puts-him-on-diplomatic-frontline.html | Kushal)

Secretary of State John Kerry is due to arrive tomorrow in Kiev, as the U.S. and its European allies seek ways to increase economic and diplomatic pressure to deter Russian military escalation in Ukraine’s Crimea region. Kerry’s stop in the Ukrainian capital will raise the stakes by putting him on the diplomatic front lines in the increasingly tense standoff . Ukraine’s acting President Oleksandr Turchynov said today in televised remarks that Russia threatened to seize Ukrainian warships if they don’t surrender, and there were reports of more Russian troops moving into Crimea. Earlier, Russia denied a report that it had given the ships, located near the port of Sevastopol, a deadline to capitulate. A Russian ultimatum to Ukraine “would constitute a dangerous escalation of the situation for which we would hold Russia directly responsible,” U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters today. Ukraine is becoming a test of whether Western economic and diplomatic weapons -- including sanctions -- can have much impact on Russia President Vladimir Putin, who’s sent military forces into Crimea and threatened to intervene elsewhere in Ukraine in the name of protecting ethnic Russians. In doing so, U.S. and European officials said, Putin has violated several treaties, as well as the United Nations Charter, which undergird security and stability in Europe.

Generic LinksThe plan trades off – Obama empirically cannot multitaskSharpe 13 (Patricia Lee Sharpe, US based journalist and Foreign Service officer, “The Asian Pivot and Obama’s Gum-Chewing Problem”, 05/22/13, AD: 03/13/14, http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2013/05/the-pivot-and-obamas-gum-chewing-problem.html | Kushal)

The President, it seems, can’t walk and chew gum. The so-called Asian pivot is a case in point, but not the only one. Is it really possible that a great power with the formal institutional resources available to the U.S. can’t keep an eye on the Middle East and China at the same time? Especially since the China issue massively involves the Navy and the Middle East far less so? Or is this really just a presidential problem? Does Barack Obama lack the smarts to juggle a complex agend a or, to use the current jargon, to multitask? Or is he a colossally bad manager? Or lazy? Or more in love with the image than the obligations of being president? Or, truly frightening to contemplate, is the obviously troubled U.S. system we used to admire rotten and corrupted to the point of irremediability? No Lack of People Look at it this way. There are thousands of thoughtful, well-informed people within the State Department, the National Security Council, the many-pronged intelligence apparatus and the Pentagon to gather information, assess its implications, draw up policy and/or action plans and send them up the hierarchy to be dealt with—collated, evaluated, weighed, tweaked, given relative priorities with appropriate resources—and, passing muster, implemented. Could we possibly be reduced to this: able to activate only one department of one branch of government at one time? Seems to me that a well-managed country that pretends to super power status should be able to deal with the Middle East and with China simultaneously—and also, at the same time, with Latin America and Africa as well as all the global issues that affect the welfare of this and other countries. If not, the Republicans are right. Thousands of people should be out of a job because they are redundant, which is a polite way of calling them useless. A Definite Lack of Deft PD Actually, the apparent inability to multi-task isn’t my only perplexity on the “pivot” fron t , and I’d like to exhaust those concerns before I return to the question of whether this government can simultaneously walk and check gum (and, one would hope, also be able to blow big beautiful bubbles—excluding the financial sort, of course). As an old hand at public diplomacy, I deeply do not understand why the administration so blatantly announced that it was shifting its attention, i.e., executing a pivot, to the East, thus implying that the U.S. lacks the resources to handle a full plate of global issues . Maybe the U.S. isn’t equipped these days to wage a two-front war, but any world power worth the name must have the resources to carry out effective diplomacy on a global scale. Otherwise, it’s not a middling power, much less a super power.

Resource crunch – diplomatic efforts are zero-sum – issue selection is vital Kelemen, ‘11 – Michelle, Writer @ NPR, “Hillary Clinton: U.S. Diplomacy Is Stretched Thin,” 8-16, http://www.npr.org/2011/08/16/139678323/hillary-clinton-u-s-diplomacy-is-stretched-thin.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the bruising budget battles in Washington are "casting a pall" over U.S. diplomacy abroad and may hurt America's ability to influence events at a crucial moment in the Middle East. Clinton joined Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at the National Defense University in Washington on Tuesday to appeal to Congress to come up with a budget deal that doesn't undercut U.S. national security interests. Speaking to a packed auditorium, Clinton said that one of her favorite predecessors as secretary of state was George Marshall. After World War II, he led the aid program to rebuild the countries America had defeated and promote stable democracies. Clinton said she would like to do the same today. "We have an opportunity right now in the Middle East and North Africa that I'm not sure we are going to be able to meet, because we don't have the resources to invest in the new democracies in Egypt and Tunisia, to help the transition in Libya, to see what happens in Syria and so much else," she said. A lack of resources is just one of her problems. Clinton said the budget battles in Washington, or, as she put it, "the sausage making," has hurt America's global image. In her remarks, Clinton also talked about the need to look holistically at national security spending. She and Panetta seemed in sync on many of these issues. That pleased one audience member, former Republican Sen. John Warner. "We are fortunate to have these two individuals," he said. "Historically, the secretaries of state and defense have boxed each other on many issues and have been contentious." For his part, Panetta also warned that major budget cuts could inflict great damage on the military. The Pentagon is already facing one round of cuts that would amount to several hundred billion dollars over the next decade. "If they go beyond that ... that would have devastating effects on our national defense," Panetta said. The defense secretary added that such reductions would "terribly weaken our ability to respond to the threats in the world." Anne Marie Slaughter, Clinton's former policy planning director, said the U.S. was "not helping ourselves in the world at the moment." "What's been on display is the dysfunction of our political system and that really hurts us at a time when the Arab world is calling for democracy," she said. "We should be advancing our values more strongly than before and instead you have the Chinese chiding us on our inability to get problems solved." Slaughter, now back at Princeton University, calls this a bumpy time for Clinton to be

representing the United States. Some of the administration's signature aid programs are under threat and so is the effort to beef up America's diplomatic presence as troops withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. "Peace programs," she said, "are so much cheaper than military programs, but politically it is very hard to sell." Jane Harman, a former Democratic congresswoman who attended Tuesday's discussion, said she was concerned about the ability of Congress to resolve the budget battles without further hurting America's image abroad. "I think we have to be very careful," said Harman, who is now the president of the Woodrow

Wilson International Center for Scholars. " We can't do everything. This is a zero sum game . We have a limited number of human resources, financial resources and brain cells and we are going to have to choose very wisely where we intervene and what we do."

Obama’s indecisiveness is the key internal linkBolton 9 (Senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute [John R. Bolton (Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations) “Bolton on Obama's Afghanistan Decision: 'This Is Like a Slow-Motion Trainwreck',” Fox News, Friday, November 13, 2009, Pg. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,574349,00.html)

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Right. Well, this is like a slow-motion train wreck, watching this decision-making process , and it is really is having a debilitating effect, I think, on troop morale in Afghanistan. And globally, it's having a debilitating effect on America's reputation. It's not just t he president's indecisiveness in Afghanistan, but his weakness and indecisiveness in other areas , as well, that gives the reputation that he's got a problem making hard decisions decision .

Cuba LinksCuba engagement would cost diplomatic capitalAP 13 (“Cuba, US try talking, but face many obstacles”, By PAUL HAVEN. Associated Press. Friday, June 21, 2013 http://www.kansas.com/2013/06/21/2857399/cuba-us-try-talking-but-face-many.html) KH

To be sure, there is still far more that separates the long-time antagonists than unites them. The State Department has kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and another that calls into question Havana's commitment to fighting human trafficking. The Obama administration continues to demand democratic change on an island ruled for more than a half century by Castro and his brother Fidel. For its part, Cuba continues to denounce Washington's 51-year-old economic embargo . And then there is Gross, the 64-year-old Maryland native who was arrested in 2009 and is serving a 15-year jail sentence for bringing communications equipment to the island illegally. His case has scuttled efforts at engagement in the past, and could do so again, U.S. officials say privately. Cuba has indicated it wants to trade Gross for four Cuban agents serving long jail terms in the United States, something Washington has said it won't consider. Ted Henken, a professor of Latin American studies at Baruch College in New York who helped organize a recent U.S. tour by Cuban dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez, said the Obama administration is too concerned with upsetting Cuban-American politicians and has missed opportunities to engage with Cuba at a crucial time in its history . "I think that a lot more would have to happen for this to amount to momentum leading to any kind of major diplomatic breakthrough," he said. "Obama should be bolder and more audacious." Even these limited moves have sparked fierce criticism by those long opposed to engagement. Cuban-American congressman Mario Diaz Balart, a Florida Republican, called the recent overtures "disturbing." "Rather than attempting to legitimize the Cuban people's oppressors, the administration should demand that the regime stop harboring fugitives from U.S. justice, release all political prisoners and American humanitarian aid worker Alan Gross, end the brutal, escalating repression against the Cuban people, and respect basic human rights," he said. Another Cuban-American politician from Florida, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, scolded Obama for seeking "dialogue with the dictatorship." Despite that rhetoric, many experts think Obama would face less political fallout at home if he chose engagement because younger Cuban-Americans seem more open to improved ties than those who fled immediately after the 1959 revolution. Of 10 Cuban-Americans interview by The Associated Press on Thursday at the popular Miami restaurant Versailles, a de facto headquarters of the exile community, only two said they were opposed to the U.S. holding migration talks. Several said they hoped for much more movement. Jose Gonzalez, 55, a shipping industry supervisor who was born in Cuba and came to the U.S. at age 12, said he now favors an end to the embargo and the resumption of formal diplomatic ties. "There was a reason that existed but it doesn't anymore," he said. Santiago Portal, a 65-year-old engineer who moved to the U.S. 45 years ago, said more dialogue would be good. "The more exchange of all types the closer Cuba will be to democracy," he said. Those opinions dovetail with a 2011 poll by Florida International University of 648 randomly selected Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade County that said 58 percent favored re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. That was a considerable increase from a survey in 1993, when 80 percent of people polled said they did not support trade or diplomatic relations with Cuba. "In general, there is an open attitude, certainly toward re-establishing diplomatic relations," said Jorge Duany, director of the Cuban Research Institute at Florida International University. "Short of perhaps lifting the embargo ... there seems to be increasing support for some sort of understanding with the Cuban government."

Changing Cuba policy would sap Kerry’s capitalMiroff 13 (Nick, 1-2-13, “Can Kerry make friends with Cuba?” Global Post) http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/cuba/121231/kerry-cuba-secretary-of-state-obama)

HAVANA, Cuba — At the last Summit of the Americas, held in Colombia in April, Washington’s rivals in Latin America and its political allies had the same piece of advice for better US diplomacy in the region: get over your Cuba fixation. Now, with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) likely to be confirmed as the next secretary of

state, the United States will have a top diplomat who has been a frequent critic of America’s 50-year-old effort to force regime change in Havana . In recent years, Kerry has been the Senate’s most prominent skeptic of US-funded pro-democracy efforts that give financial backing to dissident groups in Cuba and beam anti-Castro programming to the island through radio and television programs based in Miami. Kerry has also favored lifting curbs on US travel to the island, and opening up American tourism to the only country in the world the US government restricts its own citizens from visiting. For the rest of Latin America, where leaders say they're eager for Washington to modernize its view of the region and engage in new ways, Cuba remains “a litmus test” for the Obama presidency, according to Julia Sweig, director of Latin American Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The strategic benefits of getting Cuba right would reverberate throughout the Americas,” said Sweig, calling Kerry “ideally suited to the task.” “Kerry's instincts and experience in Latin America are to see past lingering and often toxic ideology in the US Congress and bureaucracy in favor of pragmatism and problem solving,” she said. Regardless of Kerry’s record on Cuba policy in the Senate, analysts say he will face several obstacles to major change, not least of which will be the man likely to replace him as chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey), a Cuban American. If Menendez becomes chairman, then the committee responsible for shaping US foreign policy in the upper house will be led by a hardliner who wants to ratchet up — not dial back — the US squeeze on Havana. So while Kerry may have some latitude to adjust Cuba policy from inside the White House, Latin America experts don’t expect sweeping change — like an end to the Cuba Embargo — which requires Congressional action. “On Latin America, in general, I think Kerry has a longer and broader vision,” said Robert Pastor, professor of international relations at American University. But when it comes to Cuba, he cautioned, “Kerry i s also a political realist.” “Changing US policy is not a high priority for him, but not changing US policy is the only priority for Bob Menendez,” Pastor said. In 2011, Kerry delayed the release of nearly $20 million in federal funds for pro-democracy Cuba projects run by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), questioning their effectiveness and insisting on greater oversight. “There is no evidence that the ‘democracy promotion’ programs, which have cost the US taxpayer more than $150 million so far, are helping the Cuban people,” Kerry said at the time. “Nor have they achieved much more than provoking the Cuban government to arrest a US government contractor.” The US government contractor is Alan Gross, jailed on the island since December 2009. Cuban authorities arrested Gross while he worked on a USAID project to set up satellite communications gear that would allow members of Cuba’s Jewish community to connect to the internet without going through government servers. Cuba sentenced him to 15 years in prison, but now says its willing to work out a prisoner swap for the “Cuban Five,” a group of intelligence agents who have been serving time in a US federal prison. The Obama administration has refused to negotiate, calling on Havana to release Gross unconditionally, and even US lawmakers who advocate greater engagement with Cuba say no change will be possible as long as he’s in jail. The Castro government insists it’s not willing to give up Gross for nothing. Carlos Alzugaray, a former Cuban diplomat and scholar of US-Cuba relations at the University of Havana, said a resolution to the Gross case and other significant changes in US policy would “require a big investment of political capital” by Kerry and Obama.

Mexico Links

Engagement with Mexico is empirically zero-sum with other priorities – status quo talks focus on drug-trafficking and not relation-building like the Aff Lanham 10 Kipp Lanham is a political communications strategist who has worked on Capitol Hill and K Street as an intern and communications professional. Kipp has been published in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, and The Hill. “U.S.-Mexico relations: No spring break,” The Daily Caller, 3-23, http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/23/u-s-mexico-relations-no-spring-break/

The timing of the meeting in Merida comes at a tenuous time for foreign policy in the United States. Relations with Israel and Russia have been rough due to settlement and nuclear issues. President Barack Obama had to delay his trip to Indonesia and Australia due to health care legislation on the verge of potential passage in Congress. The State Department emphasized in a press release that the meeting had been previously planned over many months. Relations with Mexico only add to the difficulties as both sides try to overcome the shadow cast from the violence in Ciudad Juarez. Espinosa and Clinton plan to discuss the “shared goals of breaking the power of drug trafficking organizations; strengthening the rule of law, democratic institutions and respect for human rights; creating a 21st century border; and building strong and resilient communities.” Excluded from these shared goals is resumption of the Cross-Border Trucking Services Demonstration Program as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Last year, the U.S. suspended this program unilaterally. In response, Mexico suspended trade benefits for a number of U.S. products. Mexico seeks that the U.S. comply with NAFTA and resume the Cross-Border Trucking Services Demonstration Program. Is unilateralism the “smart power” enacted by the State Department under Secretary Clinton and President Obama? Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, commented in his recent column that the Obama Administration “has worse relations overall with American allies than George W. Bush did in his second term.” Kagan stated that U.S. foreign policy is becoming more neutrality rather than multilateralism. The results of this U.S. foreign policy with Russia, Iran, or Israel do smart. The new START treaty has yet to be signed. Iran continues on its path toward nuclear weapons without new sanctions from the United Nations. Secretary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden chastised for building homes in Jerusalem. What can be expected from the Merida meeting? The focus of the meeting will most likely be on stopping the violence and drug trafficking rather than resetting trade

relations . President Obama already appears confident in Mexican President Felipe Calderón’s efforts as he has been invited to a state dinner in May. Meanwhile, Congressmen from near the Texas-Mexico border have already been involved in talks with Mexico as they met with Arturo Sarukhan, Mexican Ambassador to the U.S. Congressman including Solomon P. Ortiz, Harry Teague, Silvestre Reyes, Ciro Rodriguez, Henry Cuellar and Ruben Hinojosa expressed their commitment to assisting Mexico with drug-related violence on the U.S.-Mexico border. The U.S. has also pledged around $1.4 billion in aid to Mexico to fight drug trafficking.

Engaging with Mexico requires diplomatic capitalAyala 09 (Elaine, president of the San Antonio Association of Hispanic Journalists, 1-19-09, “Obama will have to ‘invest’ diplomatically in Latin America” My San Antonio) http://blog.mysanantonio.com/latinlife/2009/01/obama-will-have-to-invest-diplomatically-in-latin-america/)The Washington Post writes a tough editorial about President-elect Obama’s Latin America agenda. While President Bush faced many democratic-leaning countries when he entered office, Obama faces more anti-American-leaning ones, and not just Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The editorial also says Mexico may be Obama’s more pressing Latin American issue . Mexican President Felix Calderon’s war against drug cartels “threaten to destroy Mexico’s relatively fragile institutions . “By the president’s own account, some 6,000 persons were killed in drug-related violence during 2008, a level of bloodshed exceeding that of Iraq. The Bush administration initiated

a $1.4 billion aid program to help Mexican security forces, and Congress has appropriated the first $400 million. But little has been done to stop the massive flow of weapons — not just guns but grenade launchers, night vision equipment and high explosives — from the United States.” In April, President Obama will attend a summit of the Americas, as good as any opportunity to address those issues, the Post editorial says. Unlike Bush, the new president “has an objective and urgent interest in investing some of his diplomatic capital in Latin America.”

US- Mexico engagement low now.The Chicago Council on Global Affairs 2013[Dina Smeltz, senior fellow of public opinion and foreign policy at the Chicago Council, Craig Kafura, senior program officer at the Chicago Council, “As Presidend Obama Heads to Mexico, Americans Have Mixed Views of Neighbor across the Border”, April 29 2013, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/chicago_mexico_survey.pdf]Favorable Ratings of Mexico at a New Low¶ Despite majority affirmation of positive ties between ¶ the United States and Mexico, American feelings ¶ toward Mexico are now at the lowest level since the ¶ question was first posed in Chicago Council online ¶ surveys in 2002. Mexico receives a mean rating of 43 ¶ on a thermometer scale of how Americans feel ¶ towards other nations (with 0 meaning a very cold, ¶ unfavorable feeling; 100 meaning a very warm, ¶ favorable feeling; and 50 being neutral). From 1994 ¶ to 2002 the question was also asked in telephone ¶ surveys; the mean rating of the telephone surveys in ¶ 1994 and 1998 was 57 and in 2002 was 60. The ¶ current mean rating is higher than that given to China ¶ (39), but lower than that for Brazil (53) and Canada ¶ (78) (Figure 3).¶ The low rating appears to be linked at least in part to ¶ the perception that the two nations are not working ¶ together on key bilateral issues (see Figure 9, page 6). ¶ Negative views of Mexican immigrants may also play ¶ some role (a separate report on attitudes toward immigration is forthcoming).

Venezuela LinksRestoring ties with Venezuela will require significant time and effort by KerryMeacham 13 (Carl, director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 6-21-13, "The Kerry-Jaua Meeting: Resetting U.S.-Venezuela Relations?" csis.org/publication/kerry-jaua-meeting-resetting-us-venezuela-relationsOn June 5, Secretary of State John Kerry raised eyebrows when he met with his Venezuelan counterpart, Foreign Minister Elías Jaua. Both were in Guatemala to attend the recent General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS). The pair’s meeting was the first high-level public meeting between the two countries since U.S. president Barack Obama and former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez shook hands and had a brief exchange at the fifth Summit of the Americas in 2009. The Venezuelan government requested the meeting, which lasted 40 minutes and was followed by the announcement that the governments would embark on high-level talks aimed at improving bilateral relations. Of particular note, both sides expressed hope that the reciprocal appointment of ambassadors would take place in short order; Chávez expelled the U.S. ambassador in 2008 and the United States retaliated in kind. All of this is complicated by the outcome of the Venezuelan presidential election on April 14. The official results have named Nicolás Maduro the winner, having beaten opposition leader Henrique Capriles by a slim 1.5 percentage points—though the opposition continues to contest both the results and the audit. While much of the region moved quickly to recognize Maduro as the victor, the United States has yet to formally recognize the outcome and is waiting for the results of an audit that is satisfactory to all parties. So, given these developments, should the United States be resetting its relationship with Venezuela? Q1: Where do U.S.-Venezuelan relations stand? A1: Despite many fits and starts to advance relations in recent years, genuine improvements in the relationship have been hard to come by. Various U.S. government agencies hold sanctions against elements of the Venezuelan government, including on state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) for trading with Iran; on a former Iran-Venezuela Bank (IVB) for handling money transfers with a Chinese bank on behalf of the Export Development Bank of Iran (EDBI); and on the state-owned Venezuelan Military Industry Company after it traded with Iran, North Korea, and Syria. The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), over the past five years, has also designated more than half a dozen Venezuelan government officials for acting for, or on behalf of, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), designated a narco-terrorist organization by the U.S. agency. And, let’s not forget that the reason there are no ambassadors in Caracas or D.C. was Chávez’s refusal in 2010 to accept Obama’s nominee for the post in Venezuela. Similarly, Venezuela severed ties with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 2005. On the day Chávez’s death was announced, Maduro , as caretaker, expelled two U.S. air force attachés based in the Caracas embassy, accusing them of espionage . The United States retaliated in kind. The Maduro government also arrested U.S. filmmaker Tim Tracy for allegedly instigating postelection violence, though many pointed out he was simply in Venezuela to film a documentary on politics in the country. (Tracy was released without further explanation the same morning Kerry and Jaua met.) Suggestions by members of the Venezuelan government that the United States may have given Chávez the cancer that caused his death have certainly not helped relations either, neither have repeated accusations targeted at former officials and U.S. military and intelligence involvement in countless evidence-free plots. Given the complex reality of the bilateral relationship, it looks like both sides have a long road ahead of them if they seek to enact positive changes.

Internal LinkThe Crimean crisis ignites an array of geopolitical hotspotsAtlas 3/2 (Terry Atlas, Bloomberg News Correspondent, “Ukraine Crisis May Thwart Obama Plans From Iran to China”, 03/02/14, AD: 03/13/14, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-03/ukraine-crisis-may-thwart-obama-plans-from-iran-to-china.html | Kushal)

The Ukraine crisis jeopardizes President Barack Obama’s efforts to enlist Russia’s cooperation on a range of issues, including seeking an end to Syria’s civil war, halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions and facilitating the withdrawal of U.S. and allied forces from Afghanistan. Obama’s handling of Ukraine may affect issues from the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, North Korea’s nuclear weapons advances and China’s increasingly aggressive regional posture as the president's critics raise doubts about his toughness in addressing foreign challenges. The tense situation in Ukraine, with its echoes of the Cold War, has put Obama at the forefront of the conflict as European leaders pressure Russia to drop military threats and withdraw forces from Ukraine’s Crimea region. “President Obama faces the most difficult international crisis of his presidency,” former U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said in a conference call with reporters yesterday organized by the Atlantic Council, a foreign-policy research organization based in Washington. What Caused Ukraine's Crisis? In addition to a growing confrontation with Russia, Obama faces an increasingly assertive China that is pressing territorial disputes and stirring rising nationalism in Japan and South Korea; resurgent Islamic extremism in Syria, Iraq, and northern Africa; the nuclear negotiations with Iran and unrest in nations such as Egypt, Venezuela and Thailand.

ImpactCollapse of US-Russian relations results in extinctionAllison 11 (Graham, 10/30, Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, “10 reasons why Russia still matters,” http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=161EF282-72F9-4D48-8B9C-C5B3396CA0E6)

That central point is that Russia matters a great deal to a U.S. government seeking to defend and advance its national interests.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s decision to return next year as president makes it all the more critical for Washington to manage its relationship with Russia through coherent, realistic policies. No one denies that Russia is a dangerous, difficult, often disappointing state to do business with. We should not overlook its many human rights and legal

failures. Nonetheless, Russia is a player whose choices affect our vital interests in nuclear security and energy. It is key to supplying 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Ten realities require U.S.

policymakers to advance our nation’s interests by engaging and working with Moscow. First, Russia remains the only nation that can erase the United States from the map in 30 minutes . As every president since John F.

Kennedy has recognized, Russia’s cooperation is critical to averting nuclear war . Second, Russia is our most consequential partner in preventing nuclear terrorism . Through a combination of

more than $11 billion in U.S. aid, provided through the Nunn-Lugar [CTR] Cooperative Threat Reduction program, and

impressive Russian professionalism, two decades after the collapse of the “evil empire,” not one nuclear weapon has been found loose. Third, Russia plays an essential role in preventing the proliferation of nuclear

weapons and missile-delivery systems. As Washington seeks to stop Iran’s drive toward nuclear weapons, Russian choices to sell or withhold sensitive technologies are the difference between failure and the possibility of

success. Fourth, Russian support in sharing intelligence and cooperating in operations remains essential to the U.S. war to destroy Al Qaeda and combat other transnational terrorist groups. Fifth, Russia provides a vital supply line to 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan. As U.S. relations with Pakistan have deteriorated, the Russian lifeline has grown ever more important and now accounts for half all daily deliveries. Sixth, Russia is the world’s largest oil producer and second largest gas producer. Over the past decade, Russia has added more oil and gas exports to world energy markets than any other nation. Most major energy transport routes from Eurasia start in Russia or cross its nine time zones. As citizens of a country that imports

two of every three of the 20 million barrels of oil that fuel U.S. cars daily, Americans feel Russia’s impact at our gas pumps. Seventh, Moscow is an important player in today’s international system. It is no accident that Russia is one of the five veto-wielding, permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, as

well as a member of the G-8 and G-20. A Moscow more closely aligned with U.S. goals would be significant in the balance of power to shape an environment in which China can emerge as a global power without overturning the existing order. Eighth, Russia is the largest country on Earth by land area, abutting China on the East, Poland in the West and the United States across the Arctic. This territory

provides transit corridors for supplies to global markets whose stability is vital to the U.S. economy . Ninth, Russia’s brainpower is reflected in the fact that it has won more Nobel Prizes for science than all of Asia, places first in most math competitions and dominates the world chess masters list. The only way U.S. astronauts can now travel to and from the International Space Station is to hitch a ride on Russian rockets. The co-founder of the most advanced digital company in the world, Google, is Russian-

born Sergei Brin. Tenth, Russia’s potential as a spoiler is difficult to exaggerate . Consider what a Russian president intent on frustrating U.S. international objectives could do — from stopping the supply flow to Afghanistan to selling S-300 air defense missiles to Tehran to joining China in preventing U.N. Security Council resolutions .

Russian war is the biggest existential riskBostrom 2 (Nick, Professor of Philosophy – Oxford Unviersity, “Existential risk”, Journal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 9, March, http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.pdf)

A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy

human civilization . Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently.