Crimea - Rightfully Russian (Crimean Crisis)

UKRAINIAN AUTONOMYMy opponent opens with a sarcastic parody regarding one of my arguments, saying that since the USSR was so dictatorial and suppressive, Ukraine didn't really count as its own republic. I don't see how this matters, because when Ukraine did gain full independence, it took the land that was allotted to it, much like a seceding state would.1954 TRANSFERMy opponent said this last round: "He believes it was absolutely justifiable that the home of more than 1,000,000 people was changed to another country.."Even though I said this in the round directly prior: "I will accept that many people within Crimea did not want to be transferred from Russia to Ukraine.."Anyways. Clearly, my opponent and I agree: a country's actions are not justified if they ignore their citizens' wishes. I admitted that in the last quote, and my opponent admits it in this one: ".. without consulting the inhabitants of the area due to the fact that their opinion did not matter what so ever. I do not believe we should support a transfer conducted by a suppressing country (USSR) more than five decades ago."We agree that it was illegitimate transfer, because of the public disapproval. So, now we need to look at the recent annexation. Based on the criteria of public support, this action is not not legitimate either. As I stated in the previous round, of the people who did vote, annexation was barely approved. When you couple this with the fact that many of the people who did not support annexation did not vote, and that those who did vote were harassed by Russian soldiers Pro-Russian militia, it is unlikely annexation had approval. My opponent never rebutted these facts, he merely re-sourced his Washington Post article. I read it, and found that the article did not tell us where it got its declaration that, "Most people in Crimea wanted to break away from Ukraine and join Russia." My articles reference a Russian Civil Rights Agency's findings. You choose which you think is more refutable.So the question is, do two wrongs make a right? People did not support the 1954 Transfer, and my opponent has not proven that people supported the 2014 annexation. Instead of one incident where people were wronged, now we've got two. If there were a majority of supporters in Crimea, or better yet a majority of Crimeans from the 1954 Transfer, this would qualify as a right, as it'd be in accordance with the people's wishes. But, this is not the case. What is the case is that Russia doesn't have a right to Crimea because there isn't majority support, in the same way there wasn't majority support for the 1954 Transfer.POLAND/RWANDAMy opponent doesn't explain his statement behind the Rwandan Civil War, and so I don't think I really need to defend against it. He does give some for Poland, so let's take a look at that. My opponent seems to be bringing up Poland to counter one of my points about how supporting governments that act without the consent of the people can be dangerous. The problem with this is that I never said governments were justified in acting against the will of their people. All I did say was that even if Crimea was given away against the will of the people, that doesn't mean Russia is justified in running and killing people over what we call Crimea.IN CONCLUSIONTwo wrongs do make a right. The 1954 Transfer was against the will of the people, and the recent annexation is against the will of the people. Not only is Russia's military action illegitimate, but their very claim to Crimea is illegitimate, as the popular support is no longer there.