This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: RUSSIA WAR KEY TO HEGEMONY 1). A war with Russia is inevitablewinning is essential for US dominance Telegraph, 07 [Adrian Blomfield, Retired generals predict US-Russia war] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557726/Retired-generals-predict-US-Russia-war.html] Capitalising on the increasingly bellicose rhetoric in Moscow, a group of influential retired generals yesterday said the United States was preparing to invade Russia within a decade. Interviewed by Komsomolskaya Pravda, Russia's biggest circulation newspaper, the four senior generals - who now direct influential military think tanks - said the United States had hatched a secret plan to seize the country's vast energy resources by force. "The US is both laying the ground and preparing its military potential for a war with Russia," said Gen Leonid Ivashov, a former joint chief of staff. "Anti-Russian sentiment is being fostered in the public opinion. The US is desperate to implement its century-old dream of world hegemony and the elimination of Russia as its principal obstacle to the full control of Eurasia." 2). American primacy is vital to accessing every major impactthe only threat to world peace is if we allow it to collapse Thayer, 6 - professor of security studies at Missouri State (Bradley, The National Interest, In Defense of Primacy, November/December, p. 32-37) A grand strategy based on American primacy means ensuring the United States stays the world's number one power-the diplomatic, economic and military leader. Those arguing against primacy claim that the United States should retrench, either because the United States lacks the power to maintain its primacy and should withdraw from its global commitments, or because the maintenance of primacy will lead the United States into the trap of "imperial overstretch." In the previous issue of The National Interest, Christopher Layne warned of these dangers of primacy and called for retrenchment.1 Those arguing for a grand strategy of retrenchment are a diverse lot. They include isolationists, who want no foreign military commitments; selective engagers, who want U.S. military commitments to centers of economic might; and offshore balancers, who want a modified form of selective engagement that would have the United States abandon its landpower presence abroad in favor of relying on airpower and seapower to defend its interests. But retrenchment , in any of its guises, must be avoided. If the United States adopted such a strategy, it would be a profound strategic mistake that would lead to far greater instability and war in the world...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/23/2012 for the course DEBATE 101 taught by Professor None during the Spring '12 term at University of California, Berkeley.
- Spring '12