The Instigator
TheRussian
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LaughingRiddle
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Crimea should be Russian

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
LaughingRiddle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,406 times Debate No: 49326
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

TheRussian

Pro

Crimea should be a part of Russia because of past Russian-Crimean history, Russian geo-political and military interests, and Russian ethnic majority.
LaughingRiddle

Con

Whether or not Crimea should be russian is an objective question.

The point should be that Crimea CANNOT be Russian by current events without it being entirely 100% illegal.

Russia has signed 3 binding international treaties that recognizes Crimea as part of Ukraine. Including:

The UN Charter Agreement:
Russia signed the UN Charter and promised to respect the borders and sovereignty of all other nations as recognized by the UN.

Budapest Memorandum:
Russia signed a contractual style agreement with Ukraine to recognize its borders and sovereignty in exchange for its nuclear weapons. Russia signed similar agreements with other post-soviet states and by breaking this agreement questions the viability of all others.

Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet:
Russia signed an agreement to lease bases in Crimea and not unilaterally raise toops numbers. This treaty implicitly recognizes Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea. Russia has also broken this treaty by invading crimea.

Thus Russia CANNOT Annex Ukraine legally no matter what while Ukraine claims sovereignty over it.

Ukrainian sovereignty over ukraine could be dissolved by Crimean independence, but there are strict international protocols for such delicate matters.

Russia"s military intervention(a country not known for fair democracy) in Crimea makes any referendum under a biased military force illegal and impossible to recognize. Ukraine can still claim sovereignty over Ukraine and Russia cannot annex it legally.

Moreover, the recent so called referendum results are clearly false and non binding. Only 60% of Crimea is ethnic Russian, while the 40% minorities of Ukrainians and Tartars boycotted the vote as it was illegal. 40% is a significant blocking minority and raises the questions of russian suppression of this minority.

On a wider historical level, the only reason Crimea is so russian at all is because of Stalin"s cruelty in the 1950s. He exiled the then ethnically dominant tartars to central Asia.

Crimea, not russian.
Debate Round No. 1
TheRussian

Pro

First, I would like to address your last statement.
"On a wider historical level, the only reason Crimea is so russian at all is because of Stalin"s cruelty in the 1950s. He exiled the then ethnically dominant tartars to central Asia."
Much blood was spilled over this territory when fighting Nazi Germany. It so happened that the tartars sided with the Germans, meaning they were traitors which gives Stalin every right to punish them.

Next, I would like to point out that in the Ukrainian Constitution, referendums are "lawful forms of expression of people's will". Also, any change to the territory of Ukraine can only be done by referendum. Therefore, Crimea had the right to decide. (Consider the fact that Crimea is an autonomous republic). Anyone is allowed to come in and vote, and since the Tartars boycotted the referendum, it is their own choice to not vote.

Now that Crimea has chosen to secede from Ukraine, the decision of annexation is up to the Russian parliament.

Although it may be considered "military intervention", Russia has rights to have troops there. An agreement between Russia and Ukraine allows Russia to have up to 25, 000 troops in Crimea.
http://rt.com...

Finally, Russia already had a large amount of troops in Crimea to begin with because Russia legally has a naval base located in Sevastopol.
LaughingRiddle

Con

"It so happened that the tartars sided with the Germans, meaning they were traitors which gives Stalin every right to punish them."

That is a matter of opinion. Some would say Stalin was so bad no one could blame them for siding with someone else. Crimea is also a conquered territory from the ottoman empire, and not a natural part of Russia. There were also russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians who collaborated with the Germans. Only the tartars were exiled. This is not a fair punishment.

"I would like to point out that in the Ukrainian Constitution, referendums are "lawful forms of expression of people's will"

First, one would wonder why Russia chooses to ignore 'expression of the people's will' in Chechnya, or in the soviet times before, and now claims to protect such will in Crimea.

Second, a regional referendum is illegal according to Ukrainian law. Ukrainian law does not say a regional referendum has power over questions of independence either.

Third, a referendum against the backdrop of Russia Military Intervention cannot be considered an unbiased affair. From the first day of the Crimea events there were gunmen establishing strict military control of Crimea and surrounding Ukrainian military bases. This makes the current referendum illegal. Russia must withdraw and allow a UN monitored and run election to take place. If Ukrainian law even would allow it is a different question.


"Now that Crimea has chosen to secede from Ukraine"

As stated, Russia is not known for fair democracy, and has a history of staging elections in places it occupies.

This is not a valid or recognized secession anywhere in the world and will be seen as a hostile annexation. Something not seen on this scale since the 1950s.

"Although it may be considered "military intervention", Russia has rights to have troops there. An agreement between Russia and Ukraine allows Russia to have up to 25, 000 troops in Crimea."

Russia does not have right to impose its own military control, or to raise troop numbers, or to leave the areas assigned to them. Russia has done all of these things in violation of the treaty. Russia has basically staged a bloodless military invasion and occupation of Crimea.

The referendum under such an occupation to join the occupying country is understandably met with considerable Skepticism everywhere else in the world. If what you say is true Russia should withdraw and allow the UN to go in, establish facts, and mediate an internationally agreeable solution.

For Russia to act as it has has been criminal, unjustified, and filled with false claims and black flags.

Russia's annexation of Crimea is similar to Nazi Germany's annexation of the Sudentland, both russia and germany claim to do so for 'ethnic' reasons.

Debate Round No. 2
TheRussian

Pro

"There were also russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians who collaborated with the Germans. Only the tartars were exiled. This is not a fair punishment"
I agree, there were others who collaborated, but most of them were dealt with and executed. This is not part of the argument so let us continue no further on this subject.

"First, one would wonder why Russia chooses to ignore 'expression of the people's will' in Chechnya, or in the soviet times before, and now claims to protect such will in Crimea. "
Russia and Ukraine do not have the same constitution and you cannot apply laws from Ukraine to Russia.

"As stated, Russia is not known for fair democracy, and has a history of staging elections in places it occupies."
Such as?

"For Russia to act as it has has been criminal, unjustified, and filled with false claims"
Criminal? Technically, Russia has done nothing wrong. As you mentioned, no blood has been shed. Unjustified? That is an opinion depending on perspective. False claims? I would appreciate some examples.

I will remind you that Crimea is an autonomous republic and has a constitution allowing Crimea to manage its own property. A referendum has been held and the people have made their choice. Neither the Ukrainian, nor the Crimean constitution has been violated.
LaughingRiddle

Con


"I agree, there were others who collaborated, but most of them were dealt with and executed."

But only the Tartars were exiled and persecuted as a group afterwards. Crimea being 59-60% Russian is due to Jospeh Stalin's crimes in the past.

"First, one would wonder why Russia chooses to ignore 'expression of the people's will' in Chechnya, or in the soviet times before, and now claims to protect such will in Crimea. "

Whether they have the same constitution or not irrelevant. Russia has oppressed and killed people who tried to do exactly what russians are doing in Crimea. Get independence.

"Such as?"

There are wide allegations of Putin's elections being subject to voter fraud and intimidation.

For 50 years Russia staged FAKE elections behind what was known as the Iron Curtain. When people tried to rebel and express themselves they would send in the red army and crush rebels. Notable examples are in the Polish and Hungarian revolts. Russia with its history does not have the right to conveniently invade again now under the pretense of safe guarding rights when it has spent most of its time doing the opposite..


"Criminal? Technically, Russia has done nothing wrong. As you mentioned, no blood has been shed."

Russia has violated Ukraine's border and sovereignty, that is illegal according to UN charter russia has signed. Russia could technically invade and occupy ANY territory and claim to have a fake election. Obviously, this is not legal. Russia is breaking the BASIC LAW that underwrites EVERY modern state in the world.

Russia has unilaterally increased troop numbers and invaded crimea, against the treaty it agreed to with Ukraine where it would lease bases on Ukrainian soil. Russia's occupation is illegal, thus the referendum taking place under illegal occupation is also illegal. It lacks every sort of legitimacy.

Russia has claimed its move was to protect ethnic Russians, but there is absolutely no evidence of the russian majority being in any danger at all. Russia's claims appear to the world to be a lie, especially since it will not let international observers verify. Rather than protecting russians, it looks more like russia is oppressing tartars and Ukrainians judging buy how they surround bases and base russian gunmen on every corner. Essentially a threat to every non russian.

Russia's moves is 100% like Nazi Germany's occupation of the sudentland. Both claimed to move in to 'protect' their ethnic minority, and both staged fake votes AFTER they occupy the territory and make everyone do what they want. Russia should not be allowed to act like Nazi Germany.


"I will remind you that Crimea is an autonomous republic and has a constitution allowing Crimea to manage its own property."

Autonomy does not mean the legal right to unilateral secession. Even if it did have the right, it would be invalid under russian occupation. Once Russia staged a military invasion, everything was illegal. And it will never be legal until Russia withdraws. Russia will face consequences from the entire world.

There is no proof to anyone that Russia did no invade and stage at gun point the referendum. And considering Russia's history, no one in the world will be willing to take your word for it.
Debate Round No. 3
TheRussian

Pro

"Crimea being 59-60% Russian is due to Jospeh Stalin's crimes in the past."
That may be, but that doesn't change the fact that the ethnic majority of Crimea is Russian.

"russia has oppressed and killed people who tried to do exactly what russians are doing in Crimea. Get independence."
Previously, you used Chechnya as an example. If that is what you are referring to, I will have to disagree. Chechens led armed rebellions, which is the reason behind the use of military force.

"Autonomy does not mean the legal right to unilateral secession. Even if it did have the right, it would be invalid under russian occupation. Once Russia staged a military invasion, everything was illegal. And it will never be legal until Russia withdraws. Russia will face consequences from the entire world."
I agree with your first sentence, BUT because Crimea is an autonomous republic, it has a constitution. This Crimean Constitution allows Crimea to manage its territory. Crimea votes to join Russia? It has full right. And yes, the world will try to punish Russia, but their attempts most likely won't be very successful. (Consider that Russia has more than enough natural resources to sustain itself and sanctions are just...petty).

"There is no proof to anyone"
No proof? How about the crowds of people in the streets and squares, joyfully waving a Russian flag? Also take into consideration how willingly Crimea is adopting Russian currency and such.

"Russia's moves is 100% like Nazi Germany's"
Very interesting that you mention that. Search up Godwin's Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_law

You say that there is no risk to ethnic Russians, and I disagree. Ukraine's government was overthrown by US-backed (listen to the so-called: F*** the EU tape), armed individuals. Not only is that in itself a threat, but also that those individuals happen to be Ukrainian nationalists. Ukrainian nationalists do NOT favor Russians.

You say it was an invasion, to a certain degree, yes. But as Putin said, the soldiers were already there. They were already in the naval base and no "new" troops were introduced to the area.

Also, I would like to point out that you have no evidence to support your claims of the invalidity of the Crimean vote.

In conclusion, I believe that Russia's actions in the midst of chaos and rebellion in Ukraine were justified and valid.
Thank you very much for the good argument.
LaughingRiddle

Con

"That may be, but that doesn't change the fact that the ethnic majority of Crimea is Russian"

Only 59%, the fact it is already a part of Ukraine, and became russian through horrendous ways should seem enough to make it wrong for it to become Russian. It would be unjust for russia to reap a benefit now in 2014 from Stalin's evil in the 1950s.

"Previously, you used Chechnya as an example. If that is what you are referring to, I will have to disagree. Chechens led armed rebellions, which is the reason behind the use of military force"

That is not what history says. Chechnya declared its independence in either 1991 or 1993 depending on which declaration you consider more official.

There was no military conflict. Until Russia invaded at the end of 1994 during the first Chechen.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Russia would invade AGAIN in 1999 during the second Chechen war. The insurgency phase of this ended only in 2009. It seem Russia has been busy finished oppressing others in Chechnya and Georgia since 1990 and has only recently finished. And is already moving on Ukraine, the trend must be put to a stop.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"I agree with your first sentence, BUT because Crimea is an autonomous republic,. This Crimean Constitution allows Crimea to manage its territory. Crimea votes to join Russia? It has full right. "

Autonomy does not in any way mean it is a sovereign independent nation. According to Ukraine's constitution, which Crimea is subject to, the central government has a veto power on regional parliaments.

Furthermore, the circumstances of Crimea's supposed vote to join Russia should be scrutinized.
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org...

On Feb 27:
  • A group of unidentified armed men entered Crimea's parliament building, hoisting a Russian flag on the roof and Council of Ministers building. The gunmen were said to be professionals and armed with rifles.[128] While the gunmen occupied the building, the parliament held an emergency session. It voted to dismiss the government, terminate its powers, and replace Prime Minister Anatolii Mohyliov with Sergey Aksyonov.
  • Aksyonov belonged to the Russian Unity party, which received 4% of the vote in the last election.[59] The gunmen had cut all of the building's communications and took MPs' phones as they entered the building.
  • No independent journalists were allowed inside the building while the votes were taking place.[59] Some MPs claimed that votes were cast for them and other MPs, even though they were not in the chamber.[59]
On Feb 28: A group of 50–119[4] soldiers in military uniform without insignia of identification moved in on Simferopol International Airport. (most likely russian soldiers)

It was not until March 1 Aksyonov officially asked Russia for intervention.

Clearly, the way these events transpired and the fact russians were moving before any official request is not only suspicious, but serious grounds for Russian implication in this Coup d'etat of Crimea.

"the world will try to punish Russia, but their attempts most likely won't be very successful. (Consider that Russia has more than enough natural resources to sustain itself and sanctions are just...petty)."

Maybe not.

59% of Russia trade is with the EU. With the US, Japan, and other allies included, 70% of russia's trade can be targeted by coordinated allied sanctions.

Most of this is in natural gas. But russia in no longer the #1 producer of natural gas; that title now belongs to the US. http://en.wikipedia.org...

You will notice the EU itself it also the 3rd largest producer of gas. Algeria, Egypt, Qatar, UAE, Mexico, Canada are also available major suppliers who already do business in Europe.

Only 20 years ago the world lived perfectly fine without Russian gas imports, it is easy to see why. Russia has a lot of gas, but so does the rest of the world. Arguably, it was harder to replace Iranian oil that it might be Russian gas. The only issue is tranportation really.

Also, the EU is capable of boosting its own gas production and minimizing consumption. In fact the EU is on average consuming 6% less gas every year as it is. And Norway is the #1 supplier of European gas, not Russia.

With sanctions, Russia's new business and blooming middle class and small business will wither without develop markets to trade with. (I can think of a russian video game that will have no more customers for example)

Most of the worlds wealthiest investors will not invest in Russia, because of sanctions, and because of the bad image this whole thing is giving Russia. This will lead to loss of growth and potential.

Russia's elite will not be able to travel to manner places or invest in many places and will have a hard time moving finances around.

Russia will be more isolated, and lose prestige, while it suffers economically. Russia is not invulnerable, only 20 years ago Russia collapsed because of its isolation from the EU, US and developed world.

"No proof? How about the crowds of people in the streets and squares, joyfully waving a Russian flag? "

You are only talking about maybe 60% of the population, and oppressing the other 40%. The only reason you might not see people waving Crimea flags is because they don't want to be shot by russian soldiers. This does not make russia or right or make this proof.

Russia should withdraw, and if you really believe all of Crimea wants to be Russian then the international observers will find out and maybe you will get what you want. But not this way. If you were telling the truth, you should be willing to do this.

The fact Russia is not willing is suspicious to say the least. Russia seems desperate.

"Russia's moves is 100% like Nazi Germany's"
Very interesting that you mention that. Search up Godwin's Law."

That does not at all suggest Putin is unlike Hitler in this example. Both are claiming to intervene and annex another country's territory on the basis of protecting a 50-60% ethnic demographic from clearly FAKE imaginary threats as a pretext to a LAND GRAB.

You say that there is no risk to ethnic Russians, and I disagree. Ukraine's government was overthrown by US-backed, armed individuals. Not only is that in itself a threat, but also that those individuals happen to be Ukrainian nationalists. Ukrainian nationalists do NOT favor Russians.

By your logic, the Russian nationalist are then going to do TERRIBLE things to the Ukrainians and tartars in Crimea. Who probably belong there more than the Russians historically speaking.

But in reality, Ukrainian nationalist have never threatened russians so long as russians don't try and make Ukraine a satellite of Russia. Despite MONTHS of protest, the attacks on ethnic russian was very minimal. While the protests were aimed AT RUSSIA and the government Russia supported, they were not aimed at Russians.

Ukrainians had the RIGHT to protest against Russia, because Russia was influencing the Ukrainian leaders to do things the Ukrainian people did not want. Ukraine did not want to be a satellite of Russia, and Ukraine has the right not to be.

Russia even pressured the Ukrainian government to crush the protest movement. It was Russia acting against Ukrainians and Ukraine first by trying to subjugate them. And now Russia has invaded Crimea illegally just because it lost to Ukrainian popular opinion. That is reality.

Ukrainians did not act because they were backed y the US or EU, they acted because they disagreed with Putin and Russia.


"But as Putin said, the soldiers were already there. They were already in the naval base and no "new" troops were introduced to the area."

It is known Russia has brought many more soldiers, and moved its soldiers without agreement from Kiev. Both are illegal according to the treaty, that states Russia must agree with Kiev before it acts in Crimea and cannot raise troop numbers.

Due to the circumstances and Russia's poor reputation and known history the Crimea referendum cannot be recognized.





Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Zebdemption 2 years ago
Zebdemption
Aw! I wish i had seen this debate before it ended! such a good debate and needed more votes in it
definitely would of voted for TheRussian though, such good arguments on both sides
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
My friend, I am not tyrant. I am a person who is a fierce patriot and enjoy defending my patriotism against anyone who challenges it. I think I do a pretty good job, esp. since I'm usually outnumbered.
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
No one has a problem with it except the West. Why does the West have a problem? Because Russia having Crimea means no NATO bases in Ukraine.
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
It is not their land. It was always ours. It was Ukrainian for less than 30 years. It was Russian for more than 6 centuries.
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
You must understand that I, like you, am a patriot and sometimes turn away from my own country's faults. Now, in regards to Crimea. Let me sum up to you why I have no problem with it:
1. There is a Russian naval base in Crimea, we need to protect it.
2. There is a Russian majority in Crimea.
3. The people of Ukraine voted to join Russia, this is legal by Ukranian and Crimean Constitutions.
4. Crimea is an autonomy.
5. Crimea was always Russian. In WW2, we defended it. In the 400 years of Russian-Turkish conflicts, we defended it.
6. Crimea always was Russian, and now, it has decided to join Russia once more.
7. Not a single shot was fired by a soldier against anyone. This is completely bloodless.
8. Now, more people want to join Russia, as seen in Ukraine.
Posted by USN276 3 years ago
USN276
How can you possibly justify Russia to invade Ukraine and take their land? TheRussian, you are the epitome of a tyrant. And what astonishes me is that people bash the U.S for their actions but won't dare bat an eye towards Russia.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
TheRussianLaughingRiddleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate hinged to the fact of crimea becoming part of Russia, Any attempts to divert crimea as a lone state or a pro-US Ukraine, Nullifies the resolution. Con laid the foundation that Russia violates every single international law upon intervening and his contention directly challenges the resolution. Pro laid out his arguments on Crimean Constitutions, Ethnic Majority Considerations, Already Stationed troops and Con rightfully dismantles each with legal seccession rights regardless of reasserted claims of Pro based on autonomy. Pro concedes this as he agreed with Con that Stalin expelled tartars rendering the argument of ethnic majority useless. The issue of stationed troops, as Pro compared it with Chech Rebellions but was refuted immediatly by Con's argument(backed by source). Much of Con's contention that attempts to disapprove the resolution was untouched(including R1 international treaties). Pro did make point by point analysis but not as comprehensive as Con.Hence 3 points.