Crimea - Rightfully Russian (Crimean Crisis)

In his opening argument my opponent states that Ukraine was in fact an independent nation during the time of the USSR, as opposed to being a mere region of a greater country, namely the Soviet Union (USSR). It is indeed correct that according to article 76 of the Constitution of the USSR all republics in the Soviet Union were "sovereign Soviet socialist states that had united with other Soviet Republics in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" [1] " I am afraid I made a wrong assumption; as my opponent mentions, all republics in the Soviet Union were obviously 100% independent and had the opportunity to leave the Union if they had the intention to do so at any time " naturally " considering how they were absolutely sovereign throughout the history of the USSR. I guess I should have paid more attention to the Soviet propaganda stating just that. Wrong! If my opponent legitimately believes that the name of an organization such as the USSR changes its meaning he is not only gullible but also completely incorrect. The difference between "republic" and "republics" does not change the fact that the Soviet Union suppressed all individuals who expressed a wish to abandon the Union; this was considered treachery. If single individuals could barely leave the country [2] how on Earth should local politicians be allowed to promote a policy of "let"s leave this godforsaken place and be independent"? Believing these republics of the USSR were truly independent is absolutely nonsense and is exactly what the government of the Soviet Union would have wanted you to think " I personally refuse to buy into such brainwashing propaganda! He also mentions that when Ukraine gained independence from the USSR the nation left with what belonged to it, e.g. the Crimean Oblast. He believes it was absolutely justifiable that the home of more than 1,000,000 people was changed to another country as opposed to Russia where it originally belonged because some old, delusional president of a suppressing Union Government transferred the oblast from one region to another more than a quarter of a century before; this was 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. My opponent states that due to the fact that the transfer took place more than fifty years ago it is less relevant since a lot has changed. However, the most important factor has not: the majority of Crimea wants to join Russia [3], regardless of the lies told by the Russian government; I personally condemn this governmental dishonesty as well. My opponent also raises a moral question based on my analogy: "Should people in Crimea be killed, because of who Crimeans want to live under?" " obviously not! It is not, and never has been, my intention to defend the USSR, the lies of the government of the Russian Federation, or Putin"s invasion of Ukraine (although, as previously mentioned, I do approve of his interest in supporting the Russian majority and their wish to rejoin Russia). My analogy merely symbolizes what has happened and not what I personally would have wanted. I simply believe that Crimea rightfully belongs to the Russian Federation because that is what the majority of the inhabitants of the area want. I condemn the fact that so many nations today support such a dishonest, dirty transfer issued by a downright suppressing, dictatorial country with a delusional leader. We have seen examples of what happens when we respect such agreements that in no way have consulted the local population, e.g. the German invasion of Poland (this can obviously be discussed for hours; my main point is the fact that after World War 1 a relatively large German area (and with ethnic Germans of German culture in it) was given to Poland) or the Rwandan Civil War. My opponent is completely right in saying that it is about international stability. I just personally do not believe we should allow such stability if it is based on suppressing decrees - it is about justice (obviously the invasion does not provide for such but then again I am not here to defend it), not mere stability. 1) http://www.departments.bucknell.edu... 2) http://clarissasblog.com... 3) http://www.washingtonpost.com...