Resolved: The West should recognize Crimea as under Russian Sovereignty

I will be defending Pro arguments since that is what was responded to. 1. Demographics To respond to Con's arguments regarding the justification of demographics. Justification 1 supports the idea of representative democracy in action in Crimea. The demographics of the peninsula provide credence to the idea that the Crimean parliament was acting in a way that adequately represented the interests and desires of the Crimean people, which it did. No where is the argument made that borders should be readjusted solely by the demographic nature of a territory or region. 2. Representative democracy Con claims that only 500 Crimeans were polled regarding independence and eventual annexation by Russia. In the 2014 Gallap poll that may be the case, however, there were dozens of polls conducted during this time and they all reached the same conclusion. However, what is most telling is the second response... My opponent claims that to truly understand the interests of Crimeans, a large-scale referendum would have been needed. There was in fact a massive referendum conducted not by Russia, as my opponent alleges, but by the Crimean parliament. In this referendum, over 1.4 million Crimeans voted in favor of Russian annexation. (80% in favor) Again, this number is logically sound considering the uncontested demographic representation discussed in Justification 1. There is in fact a Russian majority in Crimea that has interest in joining Russia. The numbers as well as logic flow to the Pro side on this point. Therefore, being that the majority did in fact want to reunify with Russia, the actions of the Crimean parliament were in fact in the interests of representative democracy. Not upholding this core value, the West is undermining its very nature by not recognizing Russian sovereignty in Crimea. 3. Regional Conflict Con operates under the premise that Crimea was legally part of Ukraine during the event of Russian annexation. As proved by a combination of Justification 1 & 2, showing the legitimacy of Crimean succession, Crimea was not part of Ukraine at this time. In fact, for this brief period, Crimea was a sovereign state recognized by several nations globally. Therefore, when the Russian government officially annexed the Crimean peninsula, they were not absorbing a piece of Ukraine, but instead the nation of Crimea, which also voted for the same annexation. Therefore, the argumentation linking this to a violation of international law and therefore an international conflict falls. 4. Human Lilfe Con lumps war crimes in with human rights while discussing this point. First of all, the distinction needs to be made between war crimes and human rights violations. Since there has been no war in Crimea, only in mainland Ukraine, it is impossible for war crimes to take place. Ignore this statement. I will now address the rest of the argument pertaining to human rights violations. Pro can bite the argument of HR violations. They take place constantly around the world and in far greater numbers. In fact, even NATO and the U.S. have been investigated for war crimes in connection to Libya and Syria. NATO in particular for its intervention in the Balkans. Human rights violations does not have the quantification to outweigh other points. So even there are violations, Pro can accept this argument. In addition, much of the Ukrainian conflict is fueled by Russia's annexation of Crimea. Ukraine still views Crimea as sovereign and has Western support for this point. While I do not believe the recognition of Russia's Crimean sovereignty would end the conflict, I do believe it would mitigate the determination of Ukraine through a decrease in Western support for its cause. Either way, Pro wins this argument by accepting whatever small amount of HR violations may have occurred in Crimea coupled with the possibility of saving thousands in Ukraine. (Sorry for the lack of proper formatting. I have to fit in these responses during my short breaks at work!)