"There have been widespread reports of significant Russian military activity, including the movement of tanks, troops and helicopters, across the Crimea in recent days. But Russia has insisted that all the movements are allowed within the framework of a 1997 agreement with Ukraine about the use of naval bases."

ok, so that's the first thing. it's not an invasion because the area is already occupied by a substantial russian military presence. the ukrainians are saying they don't like this movement, but the russians are pointing out that it's permitted under the law. the western media seems to have taken this and run with it, not fully aware of the facts.

the second question is who the gunmen are, and the answer is apparently "self-defense squads", which americans should understand as militia groups. this is what is supposed to happen in america under the conditions of a foreign-backed coup.

the third question is what this authorization is about. crimea isn't really a province. it's an autonomous region. that means it has some sovereignty. i don't know what the exact legality of inviting russian troops into the region is, but if the idea of sovereignty means anything it means not having to ask kiev for permission. the legalities aside (they're not that important), moving troops in upon request is not an invasion in the sense it's usually used. and, yes, this guy was elected.

nor does it imply the imminent break up of the area.

so, these are three separate things:

(1) legally allowed movements
(2) militia groups protecting the people from foreign invasion, as they're theoretically supposed to.
(3) russian "peacekeepers" coming in upon request to occupy the region to protect their interests and "maintain order".

a possible (4) is a referendum, but i remain skeptical it will pass.

http://en.ria.ru/world/20140301/187992857/Crimean-Leader-Appeals-to-Putin-for-Help.html