Resolved: The West should recognize Crimea as under Russian Sovereignty

Thanks, BraxtonC. In this round I will rebut your constructive case and I will defend & strengthen my own in the following round. Rebuttals 1. Demographics My opponent states that Crimea should be recognized as Russian territory because of its mostly Russian population. I find this justification completely inadequate. Firstly, country borders are not necessarily representative of the demographic situation and there is no reason to re-adjust these borders due to demographic reasons, especially if such adjustment goes against the interests of one of the parties involved. Secondly, many of the countries that border Russia have regions where the majority of population consists of Russians. An example of this would be the Ida-Viru Country in Estonia, which borders Russia and which has a 73% Russian population. [1] Yet if Russia induced and supported a seccecionist movement in Ida-Viru and then annexed the region, I would hardly believe that anyone would say that Russia is in the right. Such actions should never be supported, even if Estonia was not part of NATO, as such actions go against the International Law. 2. Representative Democracy My opponent brings up the 2014 Gallup Poll, yet he fails to mention that it only questioned 500 Crimeans. [2] This is not nearly adequate enough to make generalizations about the whole Crimean population. A simple poll is not enough to determine the majority opinion. For this, a large-scale referendum would be needed, which would be sanctioned by the official government of the state. Russia has conducted a referendum in Crimea, yet it is internationally agreed to be flawed and void. [3] My opponent also mentions the Crimean parliament, although it was instated by the Russian Government and it does not represent a legitimate form of Government, representative of the Crimean population. [4] 3. Regional Conflict My opponent classifies the Crimean conflict as a regional conflict, stating that it was the will of the Crimean population to secceed from Ukraine and join Russia. Yet he provides no evidence for this claim. In reality, the Crimean conflict falls under annexation, rather than seccession, as it was conducted by the Russian government and military against the will of Ukraine, breaking International Law and violating former agreements with Ukraine. The Crimean coflict does not fall under national self-determination and seccession, because that would require no involvement from outside parties. Since Russia is the initial and only belligerent in Crimea, it falls under annexation, which is illegal. Thus, this is not a good justification at all. 4. Human Life This is, perhaps, the only argument by my opponent that I would see as plausible. However, it still requires further proof and argumentation. We do not know whether the Russian-Ukrainian conflict would stop if Crimea was recognized as under Russian sovereignty. In fact, there is no reason to believe that it would. My opponent believes that no war crimes occured in Crimea, however, there is evidence of human rights abuses in Crimea, and there are many reports about tortured military personell in Crimea, such as in the report by the Polish Parliament. [5] While you may believe that these atrocities would end if the West recognized Crimea as a Russian territory, such a decision would completely ignore the role of the Russian government in the conflict. The Russian government has broken International Law and bilateral agreements, it has conducted human rights violations and war crimes, and it is likely that it would continue to support the pro-Russian militants in the war in Ukraine. Should Russia be rewarded for this by giving them Crimea, a strategically important region of Ukraine? I think not. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.bbg.gov... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://euromaidanpress.com...