Crimea - Rightfully Russian (Crimean Crisis)

*bold represents the general beginning of a new segment/topicMy opponent provided further explanation of how Crimea came to be a part of Ukraine, but that doesn't really help him. The basic argument is this:Russia gave Crimea to Ukraine when Ukraine and Russia were a part of the USSR. When Ukraine split up, they took Crimea with them. My opponent seems to think this 'doesn't count', because the people in Crimea, "were suddenly strangers in another country." With that statement, he calls the USSR a country, as the only other organization Ukraine (and by default Crimea) was a party to directly prior to independence was the USSR.Both the concept of what the USSR was and its acronymal definition contradict this view. USSR stands for United Soviet Socialist Republics. Not country, or Republic--Republics. This obviously makes Ukraine a Republic, not under Russia's control (as Russia was just another Republic), but under the control of the USSR.So when the USSR is splitting apart and Ukraine becomes independent, they're only leaving with what's theirs. Crimea was a part of Ukraine and the USSR, not Russia. Once Ukraine became independent of the USSR (with USSR acceptance[1]), only they had territorial claim to Crimea. "..I would say that moving the home of more than 1,000,000 people from one republic to another without informing or in any way consulting them about the matter is, in fact, quite "dirty", if not the "very dirtiest"."I will accept that many people within Crimea did not want to be transferred from Russia to Ukraine. However, that was 50 years ago, and much has changed. In 1989, 67% of the Crimean population was composed of ethnic Russians. The rest was composed of ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars (both groups that would oppose rejoining Russia). In 2001, the Russian population had dropped to 58% of the Crimean population, with Ukrainians and Tatars filling the gap[2]. In 12 years, the Russian population shrunk by 9%. Isn't is reasonable to assume that another 9% could be lost in 13 more years? Especially when the Tatars have a much higher fertility rate than the Russians?[2]This changing population composition throws into doubt the willingness of the Crimean population to favor rejoining Russia. This doubt is not alleviated when one examines the shadiness of the recent referendum in Crimea regarding the question of rejoining Russia. Most importantly is the fact that the Russian government flat out lied about how many people voted for Crimea to rejoin Russia. The Russian claim is 96% of voters in favor, while the real number is somewhere between 50-60% of voters in favor[3]. This alone proves that Russian claims cannot be trusted.Secondly, large portions of the Crimean population boycotted the vote, some out of fear, others out of principle[2]. When you couple this information with the fact that there is evidence that Russian soldiers Pro-Russian rebels used violence and intimidation to skew the vote[4], it is suddenly very unlikely that Russia is justified in annexing Ukraine even under my opponent's criteria of popular support.And you only need these facts if you think popular support justifies killing people. When we're talking about that, we need to look at my opponent's analogy. "[T]hree brothers live in a house. One day the middle brother takes his younger brother"s TV and gives it to you without permission from his brother. Then, later, the oldest brother goes to your house, punches you in the face and takes back the TV that rightfully belongs to his little brother"."Ok so let me ask you voters something. Should I be punched in the face over a TV? Should people in Crimea be killed, because of who Crimeans want to live under? Should the world allow military action anytime you've got a certain region with ethnics from your country in it?In my previous round, I gave an example of what sort of things this criteria might justifiy, my example being of Texas/California, and their high levels of ethnic Mexicans. My opponent barely addressed this, saying, "This has no relevance to my perception of why Crimea belongs to Russia. It is not the history, it is the current state of the area.." The problem with this response is that in my California/Texas example, it wasn't the history either, it was the current state of the areas, which, under my opponent's criteria, justified military aggression and annexation of said areas. I'll restate: we can see how such a criteria as justification for military action would justify a lot more military action than respecting governmental rights does.Bottom line:Even if you support the idea that majority justifies killing, there is unlikely to be an actual majority, making Russia in the wrong in this regard.If you realize that the aforestated reasoning promotes international instability, you can see how Russia is in the wrong in this regard.Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://nationalinterest.org...[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[4] http://www.newyorker.com...