While the affirmative claim that foreign aid from the United States will aid Russia in it's confrontation of various political and economic problems, there are several facts that are overlooked:  Aid from the United States has empirically failed in Russia and the world over.  Aid from the United States actually ends up worsening the very conditions it aims to solve, while fostering dependency, waste and other inefficiencies.
 
(does not help Russia)

(1.) U.S. foreign aid empirically cannot solve the true sources of Russia's economic or political crisises.
Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow of the CATO Institute, May 15, 1995 (Policy Analysis  No. 226 , "A NEW AID POLICY FOR A NEW WORLD",  source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa226.html , p. online)

Western aid has had virtually no effect on either Russia's staggering steps toward a free market or byzantine political struggles.  American officials tend to overrate their influence: economic programs have come and gone and Boris Yeltsin has variously leaned toward democrats and authoritarians with little regard to U.S. promises of assistance.

(2.) Numerous studies prove U.S. foreign aid impedes economic growth.
Bryan Johnson & Brett Schaefer, April 27, 1998 (J = Policy Analyst in International Economic Affairs & S = Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs, at The Heritage Foundation, CLINTON'S FOREIGN ASSISTANCE BUDGET: OVER THE TOP AND DOWN THE DRAIN, No. 525, source: http://www.heritage.org/heritage/library/execmemo/em525.html, p. online)

Numerous studies of the economies of countries that received U.S. economic aid for the past 35 years consistently demonstrate that economic assistance impedes economic growth. It neither advances U.S. foreign policy objectives nor encourages countries to reduce their trade barriers or increase their imports of U.S. goods and services. Appropriating more money for such an unproductive effort would be a serious mistake.

No matter how much the affirmative claims that "our plan changes the status quo", their foreign aid program is bound for failure...
(3.) Real problem is that the inherent design of government foreign aid will fail.
Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow of the CATO Institute, May 15, 1995 (Policy Analysis  No. 226 , "A NEW AID POLICY FOR A NEW WORLD",  source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa226.html , p. online)

The point is, foreign assistance has proved to be a waste not because U.S. AID is overly bureaucratic, nor because Congress imposes too many mandates on the agency, nor because Washington is not concentrating its money on governments following more free market economic policies, but because, in the end, it is not "aid."  Government to government transfers inevitably reward the wrong people and policies; international aid programs simply cannot be reinvented.

(wasted money)

(4.) Foreign Aid fosters dependency - like a drug addiction for Russia.
Paul Bedard, June 5, 1998 ("Foreign aid to Russia likened to drug 'fix' Funds misused, Kremlin auditor says", THE WASHINGTON TIMES, p. Westlaw)

  "Russia's chief financial auditor delivered a potential killer blow yesterday to President Clinton's efforts to give an additional $10 billion to the cash strapped nation, accusing Boris Yeltsin's government of misusing the money.
  "There must be a stop to the huge foreign loans which are like a fix for a dope addict," said Venianin Sokolov, head of the Chamber of Accounts, an office similar to the U.S. General Accounting Office."

(5.) Over 1/6 of Russia's budget is misspent: Aid will be wasted.
Stephen Fidler,  June 9, 1998 ('GBP 6bn of Russia's budget misspent', Financial Times, p. Westlaw)

 "At least one sixth of Russia's federal budget was misspent last year, according to a senior auditor who is also a critic of President Boris Yeltsin's reformist government.
  Venyamin Sokolov, head of the Chamber of Accounts of the Russian Federation, indicated that the equivalent of at least GBP 6bn had gone astray through mismanagement and corruption and for other reasons.
  In an interview in Washington, he said Russia's finance ministry had no systematic way of accounting for income and expenditure and had resisted attempts to persuade it to put a transparent accounting system in place."

(Aid Not Needed)

(6.) Countries are better off on their own: U.S. foreign aid will do more harm than good.
Ian Vasquez,  May 18, 1998 (director; Project on Global Economic Liberty at the Cato Institute, "56. Foreign Aid and Current Lending Fads", CATO HANDBOOK FOR CONGRESS, source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb10556.html, p. online)

In the end, a country's progress depends almost entirely on its domestic policies and institutions, not on outside factors such as foreign aid. Congress should recognize that foreign aid has not caused the worldwide shift to the free market and that appeals for more foreign aid, even when intended to promote the market, will continue to do more harm than good.

(impact turns)

(7.) TURN: IMF experience proves foreign aid increases nationalist power in Russia.
Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow of the CATO Institute, May 15, 1995 (Policy Analysis  No. 226 , "A NEW AID POLICY FOR A NEW WORLD",  source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa226.html , p. online)

Since then, of course, the flow of IMF money to Russia has resumed.  Yet billions in promised aid did not yield Yeltsin a legislative majority in the December 1993 elections.  To the contrary, resentment of foreign interference in Russia's affairs helped fuel the vote for strongly nationalist parties.  The influential traditionalists now predominant around Yeltsin are creating, not removing, obstacles to reform, yet the IMF is advancing more money.

(8.) Foreign Aid is one of the most unpopular programs in the U.S.
Ian Vasquez,  May 18, 1998 (director; Project on Global Economic Liberty at the Cato Institute, "56. Foreign Aid and Current Lending Fads", CATO HANDBOOK FOR CONGRESS, source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb10556.html, p. online)

Foreign aid is among the most unpopular of all government programs with the American public. Although the public continues to place the alleviation of world poverty and the promotion of development in poor countries as priorities on its list of foreign policy concerns a view  consistent with the American tradition of generosity it has lost confidence that the U.S. government is well suited to achieve those goals.