Resolved: The West should recognize Crimea as under Russian Sovereignty

Thank you for the articulate response. I will address Con's arguments and then cross-apply my own. Responses: Argument A: My opponent points to international law as a guiding principle for the modification of borders between sovereign states. I believe that international law provides a fantastic tool for adequately handling this matters as well. When examining the Crimean situation, it is key to note that the Crimean parliament voted for succession prior to Russian annexation. Whether Russian troops entered Crimea prior to the vote or not is besides the point and if necessary should be evaluated as a separate violation of international treaties. However, Crimea did vote for succession. This succession vote is representative of the demographics of the region as I previously addressed in Justification 1. In a nation that is ravaged by civil war and a government (which at the time) was in complete turmoil, Crimea's succession vote should be respected as a form of democracy in a nation that was lacking it. In fact, by recognizing the legitimacy of the Crimean succession vote, we uphold certain standards of democratic representation within the region. They successfully left a country in turmoil, whose government did not represent them and joined a nation in which they have deep ethnic and linguistic ties. Argument B: Con attempts to link the Ukrainian conflict to Crimea's annexation. I believe this to be a wrong approach. Both should be viewed as separate. Crimea did not encounter a violent phase of succession. Crimea also had a semi-autonomous parliament and was capable of voting democratically for that succession. Eastern Ukraine is not like that. Instead, the Russian nationals in Eastern Ukraine has opted for war, which Russia has backed and supported. Yes, Russia's involvement in Ukraine is a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and international law. An issue which should be handled. But that issue is separate from Crimea, in which these specific violations did not occur. Instead, the West should use the recognition of Crimea as a tool for the removal of Russian hard power in Ukraine. In addition, cross-apply Justification 3 here in response to War Crimes. Those pertain to the Ukrainian conflict, not Crimean annexation. Argument C: This is a very good argument on side Con, but has some flaws. Yes, Russia is expansionist and should be kept in check. As Con points out, NATO and the United States both work to achieve this. I would say that supporting the Ukrainian government against the rebels is also a counter to Russian expansion. However, attempts to prevent Russian influence from spreading should not impede core values. Those values being human life, law, and democracy. Cross-apply my Justification 4 here to outweigh on human life. There is a chance that Russia may be fueled by the recognition of Crimea and there is a chance that the revolutionary fervor may die down due to it. Either way, the values that the West must uphold in recognizing this as a regional issue of succession that involves no human rights violations and was performed in a democratic way outweigh. Besides outweighing this point, it is also mitigated. Con agreed that NATO acts as a "balancing force" against Russia and a safeguard. The recognition of Crimea's right to succeed democratically is more than offset by the ability of NATO to counter Russian expansion elsewhere. Overall, Con mutes his own point. Cross-Apply: Several key Justifications were brought up in the opening arguments that when combined outweigh any disadvantages mentioned by side Con. 1: Crimea's parliament was and is representative of the demographics of the region. Being annexed to Russia furthers this representation. 2: Crimeans wanted succession and annexation. The Parliament voted. Therefore democracy was upheld and should be recognized. Especially at a time when war-torn nations lack such democratic proceedings. 3: There are no international human rights abuses that classify Crimea as an international imperative for intervention. 4: Human life is upheld through side Pro by mitigating the tensions and calming the overall situation. Ultimately, not only do Con's arguments have flaws and self-mitigate, but Pro outweighs any disadvantages.