Kiev

[BWFC_Insane]

I think this legal vs not legal is a strange argument.

The bottom line is that under no circumstances can we have one country taking over other countries or regions simply because they managed to achieve a "majority vote" in an election that they themselves created.

It simply cannot and should not be allowed.

[bobo the clown]

So ... in a couple of sentences ... what woukd you support "the West" doing about it ??


... and, in another couple, what would you say to Argentina or Spain when they use these arguments against us ?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I think this legal vs not legal is a strange argument.

The bottom line is that under no circumstances can we have one country taking over other countries or regions simply because they managed to achieve a "majority vote" in an election that they themselves created.

It simply cannot and should not be allowed.

What are you on about?
You quite clearly did not read a single thing in the 'debate' about legal v illegal, not a fecking thing, otherwise you'd quite clearly see you are talking utter tripe.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Not sure we're a million miles adrift, and I'm certainly no apologist for the US and its foreign policy, and your "note with interest" is a pertinent one, because I agree largely with self determination.

Where I'm at on this, is that two wrongs clearly don't make a right and I don't believe Crimean self determination has been undertaken without interference from a third party.

On 1. If I nick you car but no one has found it's me what did it yet, it's illegal. I'm still de facto innocent until proven guilty, but an illegal act has taken place - it's just that they haven't caught me nor tested it in court yet. the point I make about the higher external authority is that neither what Ukraine did not what the President did, not what Crimea have done has been tested anywhere. There's just a lot of finger pointing, and I suspect that neither side is entirely legal as I'll explain. As far as I'm aware, no higher court has proven that replacing the existing parliamentarians is illegal yet either (but I could've missed that bit.

On 2. I think we're both agreed on - I did think they'd impeached him, but hadn't completed that process

3. I missed that bit - I thought it was the elected body that had impeached him.

4. Here's where it starts to get a lot more murky for me. I'm not sure the elected President has the right under the Constitution to change the Constitution without the mandate of the parliament - which he hasn't got. I know the 1992 Constitution allowed for this, but a later agreed Constitution did not. The Ukrainian Constitution talks lots about unitary state and all-Ukraine referenda (I suspect specifically to cover the possibility that a pro-Russian parliament offered a vote to Crimea to set up the mechanism to move closer to Russia - so I'm not convinced yet what he's done is legal, even though I might be convinced he's one of the people legally elected. So I disagree with 5 on the same basis.

So to self determination, the principle I'm fine with (without the help of outside influence, generally), but I always fall back on how far back to take it. There are bizarre "points in time" created and of course the further you go back, the less accurate the historical recording is likely to be.

Sorry Worthy, I'd composed a nice little reply and then managed to lose it after trying to post it. So:

i agree, we are not a million miles apart.
I don't think Putin acted in a very grown up manner and I'm worried he might be trying to push a further expansionist agenda, but...
I'm encouraged that so far Russia are not being cavalier. Transnistra, for example held a referendum that gave an equally overwhelming vote to join Russia, but it was recognised by all concerned (the west, the UN, Moldova, Russia, and indeed Transnistrans themselves) that the referendum wasn't founded on good legal principles and was therefore ignored.
My line that shouldn't be crossed would be if Putin started making noises about Odessa.
Kharkiv and Donetsk for me are grey areas. They quite clearly lie in the historic Russian sphere rather than the Ukrainian (they were part of the Zaporozhe and not the Hetmanate after all), but unlike Crimea where there was a legal framework in place (specifically the 92 constitution, the 95 illegal abrogation, and the 2014 unconstitutional ousting of the President) the Kievan parliament would have to allow a referendum in the east, which they clearly are not going to. For me I'd like to see the eastas part of Russia, but can see why Ukrain wants to retain the territory. I don't think Russia will interfere further, and in a few years time we will look back and wonder what the fuss was all about - but that is dependent on the tit who is prime minister of Ukraine: he quite clearly has a bag on and wants nothing short of a war.

[BWFC_Insane]

So ... in a couple of sentences ... what woukd you support "the West" doing about it ??


... and, in another couple, what would you say to Argentina or Spain when they use these arguments against us ?

I don't know is the simple answer. I mean is there very much the West can do about it anyway? That isn't to say it is right though. Internationally recognised borders surely can't be disregarded so easily?

As for the second point, well the case is different in that Britain has laid claim to the Falkland and the inhabitants British citizens for a long time. I've said before that I don't really think what the people who happen to live on those islands now matters all that much in respect of who rightfully owns the islands.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

So ... in a couple of sentences ... what woukd you support "the West" doing about it ??


... and, in another couple, what would you say to Argentina or Spain when they use these arguments against us ?

I don't know is the simple answer. I mean is there very much the West can do about it anyway? That isn't to say it is right though. Internationally recognised borders surely can't be disregarded so easily?

As for the second point, well the case is different in that Britain has laid claim to the Falkland and the inhabitants British citizens for a long time. I've said before that I don't really think what the people who happen to live on those islands now matters all that much in respect of who rightfully owns the islands.

So the UN stance on self determination means nothing.

Neither does the fact (according to you) that Crimea not only was going to have a referendum in 1995 (legally recognised by the Ukrainian parliament under the then 1992 constitution), and was also going to hold a referendum in May of this year (legally recognised by the Ukrainian parliament & President under the 1998 constitution) - oh no, you who knows it all decide that this doesn't matter in the slightest because you think its a set-up by Russia.

[Worthy4England]

Not sure we're a million miles adrift, and I'm certainly no apologist for the US and its foreign policy, and your "note with interest" is a pertinent one, because I agree largely with self determination.

Where I'm at on this, is that two wrongs clearly don't make a right and I don't believe Crimean self determination has been undertaken without interference from a third party.

On 1. If I nick you car but no one has found it's me what did it yet, it's illegal. I'm still de facto innocent until proven guilty, but an illegal act has taken place - it's just that they haven't caught me nor tested it in court yet. the point I make about the higher external authority is that neither what Ukraine did not what the President did, not what Crimea have done has been tested anywhere. There's just a lot of finger pointing, and I suspect that neither side is entirely legal as I'll explain. As far as I'm aware, no higher court has proven that replacing the existing parliamentarians is illegal yet either (but I could've missed that bit.

On 2. I think we're both agreed on - I did think they'd impeached him, but hadn't completed that process

3. I missed that bit - I thought it was the elected body that had impeached him.

4. Here's where it starts to get a lot more murky for me. I'm not sure the elected President has the right under the Constitution to change the Constitution without the mandate of the parliament - which he hasn't got. I know the 1992 Constitution allowed for this, but a later agreed Constitution did not. The Ukrainian Constitution talks lots about unitary state and all-Ukraine referenda (I suspect specifically to cover the possibility that a pro-Russian parliament offered a vote to Crimea to set up the mechanism to move closer to Russia - so I'm not convinced yet what he's done is legal, even though I might be convinced he's one of the people legally elected. So I disagree with 5 on the same basis.

So to self determination, the principle I'm fine with (without the help of outside influence, generally), but I always fall back on how far back to take it. There are bizarre "points in time" created and of course the further you go back, the less accurate the historical recording is likely to be.

Sorry Worthy, I'd composed a nice little reply and then managed to lose it after trying to post it. So:

i agree, we are not a million miles apart.
I don't think Putin acted in a very grown up manner and I'm worried he might be trying to push a further expansionist agenda, but...
I'm encouraged that so far Russia are not being cavalier. Transnistra, for example held a referendum that gave an equally overwhelming vote to join Russia, but it was recognised by all concerned (the west, the UN, Moldova, Russia, and indeed Transnistrans themselves) that the referendum wasn't founded on good legal principles and was therefore ignored.
My line that shouldn't be crossed would be if Putin started making noises about Odessa.
Kharkiv and Donetsk for me are grey areas. They quite clearly lie in the historic Russian sphere rather than the Ukrainian (they were part of the Zaporozhe and not the Hetmanate after all), but unlike Crimea where there was a legal framework in place (specifically the 92 constitution, the 95 illegal abrogation, and the 2014 unconstitutional ousting of the President) the Kievan parliament would have to allow a referendum in the east, which they clearly are not going to. For me I'd like to see the eastas part of Russia, but can see why Ukrain wants to retain the territory. I don't think Russia will interfere further, and in a few years time we will look back and wonder what the fuss was all about - but that is dependent on the tit who is prime minister of Ukraine: he quite clearly has a bag on and wants nothing short of a war.

Nearly there I think. So when you're referring to the 95 illegal abrogation, you're talking the Crimean Constitution ratified by both Crimea and Ukraine in 1998? What was illegal about it? (That is a genuinely don't know, rather than asking a pointed question)

On the basis of self determination, do you think the Ukrainian population and the Tartars in Crimea, should be able to run their own legally binding referendum?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Nearly there I think. So when you're referring to the 95 illegal abrogation, you're talking the Crimean Constitution ratified by both Crimea and Ukraine in 1998? What was illegal about it? (That is a genuinely don't know, rather than asking a pointed question)

On the basis of self determination, do you think the Ukrainian population and the Tartars in Crimea, should be able to run their own legally binding referendum?

The constitution of 1992 when Ukraine was first erected as an independent state post Soviet era acknowledged that some areas were of an indeterminate status. Crimea had, alongside Ukraine, declared itself independent of the Soviet Union. Both Crimea and Ukraine belonged for a short period to the CIS federation - not as one nation but as two seperate nations. Crimea opted to join Ukraine under the 1992 constitution provided autonomy was guaranteed, a President was to be elected and a referendum was to be allowed. Two weeks before the referendum the Presidency of Crimea was abolished and the referendum cancelled - this was clearly an abrogation of the 1992 terms that Crimea agreed to join Ukraine. It was done, clearly, because the overwhelming majority were going to vote for Union with Russia (I believe the Ukrainians expected the Crimeans to opt for Independence and would have lived with that). The 1998 Constitution was voted for (in the Crimea) by a prime minister who was appointed by Kiev and was a stooge of the government. The parliament of Crimea is voted for by the people of Crimea, but as you know the pm is appointed by central government. Even that failed to stop the parliament of Crimea for pushing for a referendum again, and eventually Yanukovich agreed to one, which was due in May this year.


As for the tatars - they have an assembly, but there are no defined areas where they live, so a referendum would be pointless. Self determination needs aterritorial aspect for it to work. Self determination also needs am historic background of association with the territory in question also.
Harsh as it may seem, but the tatars lost that tie in to the territory. They were an invasive force to begin with, and the Cossacks were set up precisely to combat the tatars. When Russia finally took over (1780s? I can't remember exactly) a lot of them fled to the Kuban and Russian settlers took their land) Even at this point we are talking more in common with Argentina and the native Indians and who constitute the legal owners of a land, than we do modern Crimea and the Russians. But then 1954 and the mass deportation took place. This was done by a dictator, but it did happen and the present day Crimean tatars have returned in the full knowledge that the land is back under the ownership of its original (Russian) occupiers. So for me, autonomy with an assembly (as is already in place), but no referendum on a division of land.

[BWFC_Insane]

So ... in a couple of sentences ... what woukd you support "the West" doing about it ??


... and, in another couple, what would you say to Argentina or Spain when they use these arguments against us ?

I don't know is the simple answer. I mean is there very much the West can do about it anyway? That isn't to say it is right though. Internationally recognised borders surely can't be disregarded so easily?

As for the second point, well the case is different in that Britain has laid claim to the Falkland and the inhabitants British citizens for a long time. I've said before that I don't really think what the people who happen to live on those islands now matters all that much in respect of who rightfully owns the islands.

So the UN stance on self determination means nothing.

Neither does the fact (according to you) that Crimea not only was going to have a referendum in 1995 (legally recognised by the Ukrainian parliament under the then 1992 constitution), and was also going to hold a referendum in May of this year (legally recognised by the Ukrainian parliament & President under the 1998 constitution) - oh no, you who knows it all decide that this doesn't matter in the slightest because you think its a set-up by Russia.

Why send troops in then? Why arrange a hasty referendum? And why no voter privacy?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

So ... in a couple of sentences ... what woukd you support "the West" doing about it ??


... and, in another couple, what would you say to Argentina or Spain when they use these arguments against us ?

I don't know is the simple answer. I mean is there very much the West can do about it anyway? That isn't to say it is right though. Internationally recognised borders surely can't be disregarded so easily?

As for the second point, well the case is different in that Britain has laid claim to the Falkland and the inhabitants British citizens for a long time. I've said before that I don't really think what the people who happen to live on those islands now matters all that much in respect of who rightfully owns the islands.

So the UN stance on self determination means nothing.

Neither does the fact (according to you) that Crimea not only was going to have a referendum in 1995 (legally recognised by the Ukrainian parliament under the then 1992 constitution), and was also going to hold a referendum in May of this year (legally recognised by the Ukrainian parliament & President under the 1998 constitution) - oh no, you who knows it all decide that this doesn't matter in the slightest because you think its a set-up by Russia.

Why send troops in then? Why arrange a hasty referendum? And why no voter privacy?

The troops for the major part aren't [sent in] - they are locals. The troops that are [sent in] are doing two fecking obvious things 1. protecting the resources belonging to the Russians (which are there legitimately) from the fecking mobs that overthrew Yanukovich - or hadn't you noticed the choas that started in Kiev? 2. Stopping the Kievans moving in and doing exactly what they did in 1995
The referendum was brought forward. It was hardly hasty. If you read up there ^ you'll see it's actually been in progress since 1992, was cancelled (illegally) in 1995 and was finally due in May. I don't blame the Crimeans for getting it over and done with sooner.
What are you blethering on about with no voter privacy? It ws held in accordance with the usual methods in both Russia and Ukraine. Nobody, not even the Ukrainians, are saying it was rigged. Obama, Kerry and Hague are banging on about it being held under armed force - utter bollocks, none of the poll stations had armed soldiers overseeeing the poll itself, nobody was marched to th poll at gun point, and despite that shite spouted by the west the choice on the ballot ws not union with Russia now, or union with Russia later, either.

[BWFC_Insane]

So ... in a couple of sentences ... what woukd you support "the West" doing about it ??


... and, in another couple, what would you say to Argentina or Spain when they use these arguments against us ?

I don't know is the simple answer. I mean is there very much the West can do about it anyway? That isn't to say it is right though. Internationally recognised borders surely can't be disregarded so easily?

As for the second point, well the case is different in that Britain has laid claim to the Falkland and the inhabitants British citizens for a long time. I've said before that I don't really think what the people who happen to live on those islands now matters all that much in respect of who rightfully owns the islands.

So the UN stance on self determination means nothing.

Neither does the fact (according to you) that Crimea not only was going to have a referendum in 1995 (legally recognised by the Ukrainian parliament under the then 1992 constitution), and was also going to hold a referendum in May of this year (legally recognised by the Ukrainian parliament & President under the 1998 constitution) - oh no, you who knows it all decide that this doesn't matter in the slightest because you think its a set-up by Russia.

Why send troops in then? Why arrange a hasty referendum? And why no voter privacy?

The troops for the major part aren't [sent in] - they are locals. The troops that are [sent in] are doing two fecking obvious things 1. protecting the resources belonging to the Russians (which are there legitimately) from the fecking mobs that overthrew Yanukovich - or hadn't you noticed the choas that started in Kiev? 2. Stopping the Kievans moving in and doing exactly what they did in 1995
The referendum was brought forward. It was hardly hasty. If you read up there ^ you'll see it's actually been in progress since 1992, was cancelled (illegally) in 1995 and was finally due in May. I don't blame the Crimeans for getting it over and done with sooner.
What are you blethering on about with no voter privacy? It ws held in accordance with the usual methods in both Russia and Ukraine. Nobody, not even the Ukrainians, are saying it was rigged. Obama, Kerry and Hague are banging on about it being held under armed force - utter bollocks, none of the poll stations had armed soldiers overseeeing the poll itself, nobody was marched to th poll at gun point, and despite that shite spouted by the west the choice on the ballot ws not union with Russia now, or union with Russia later, either.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here....

[Worthy4England]

Nearly there I think. So when you're referring to the 95 illegal abrogation, you're talking the Crimean Constitution ratified by both Crimea and Ukraine in 1998? What was illegal about it? (That is a genuinely don't know, rather than asking a pointed question)

On the basis of self determination, do you think the Ukrainian population and the Tartars in Crimea, should be able to run their own legally binding referendum?

The constitution of 1992 when Ukraine was first erected as an independent state post Soviet era acknowledged that some areas were of an indeterminate status. Crimea had, alongside Ukraine, declared itself independent of the Soviet Union. Both Crimea and Ukraine belonged for a short period to the CIS federation - not as one nation but as two seperate nations. Crimea opted to join Ukraine under the 1992 constitution provided autonomy was guaranteed, a President was to be elected and a referendum was to be allowed. Two weeks before the referendum the Presidency of Crimea was abolished and the referendum cancelled - this was clearly an abrogation of the 1992 terms that Crimea agreed to join Ukraine. It was done, clearly, because the overwhelming majority were going to vote for Union with Russia (I believe the Ukrainians expected the Crimeans to opt for Independence and would have lived with that). The 1998 Constitution was voted for (in the Crimea) by a prime minister who was appointed by Kiev and was a stooge of the government. The parliament of Crimea is voted for by the people of Crimea, but as you know the pm is appointed by central government. Even that failed to stop the parliament of Crimea for pushing for a referendum again, and eventually Yanukovich agreed to one, which was due in May this year.


As for the tatars - they have an assembly, but there are no defined areas where they live, so a referendum would be pointless. Self determination needs aterritorial aspect for it to work. Self determination also needs am historic background of association with the territory in question also.
Harsh as it may seem, but the tatars lost that tie in to the territory. They were an invasive force to begin with, and the Cossacks were set up precisely to combat the tatars. When Russia finally took over (1780s? I can't remember exactly) a lot of them fled to the Kuban and Russian settlers took their land) Even at this point we are talking more in common with Argentina and the native Indians and who constitute the legal owners of a land, than we do modern Crimea and the Russians. But then 1954 and the mass deportation took place. This was done by a dictator, but it did happen and the present day Crimean tatars have returned in the full knowledge that the land is back under the ownership of its original (Russian) occupiers. So for me, autonomy with an assembly (as is already in place), but no referendum on a division of land.

That's where I have the two problems, I'm still not clear about.

The 1998 Crimean Constitution as far as I'm aware was voted for by the parliament (even if the PM was a stooge to Kiev) - if he hadn't been, he'd have been a stooge to Russia more'n' likely and the vote might have gone a different way. But being a stooge to Kiev, doesn't make it illegal? (as much as a different PM being a stooge to Russia wouldn't have made it illegal. What made it illegal (rather than "of dubious morals")?

I'm still not convinced either by tie's (thought I'd put a grocers in, to spice up the dialogue ) to territory. At some point in the past, a group of people called Tartars formed and must've occupied some territory, albeit some if not all of it fairly nomadically. So there must be a tie somewhere, even if it's not Crimea, maybe to the Mongol Empire (which should be able to assert it's rights if it so wishes) - I know you've done this dialogue with Monty, I might go and have a re-read.

I think there's a lot of complexity in all of these arguments around self determination. And often little "right" and "wrong" from either the East or West, but occasionally some concensus that both are happy to advocate.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Nearly there I think. So when you're referring to the 95 illegal abrogation, you're talking the Crimean Constitution ratified by both Crimea and Ukraine in 1998? What was illegal about it? (That is a genuinely don't know, rather than asking a pointed question)

On the basis of self determination, do you think the Ukrainian population and the Tartars in Crimea, should be able to run their own legally binding referendum?

The constitution of 1992 when Ukraine was first erected as an independent state post Soviet era acknowledged that some areas were of an indeterminate status. Crimea had, alongside Ukraine, declared itself independent of the Soviet Union. Both Crimea and Ukraine belonged for a short period to the CIS federation - not as one nation but as two seperate nations. Crimea opted to join Ukraine under the 1992 constitution provided autonomy was guaranteed, a President was to be elected and a referendum was to be allowed. Two weeks before the referendum the Presidency of Crimea was abolished and the referendum cancelled - this was clearly an abrogation of the 1992 terms that Crimea agreed to join Ukraine. It was done, clearly, because the overwhelming majority were going to vote for Union with Russia (I believe the Ukrainians expected the Crimeans to opt for Independence and would have lived with that). The 1998 Constitution was voted for (in the Crimea) by a prime minister who was appointed by Kiev and was a stooge of the government. The parliament of Crimea is voted for by the people of Crimea, but as you know the pm is appointed by central government. Even that failed to stop the parliament of Crimea for pushing for a referendum again, and eventually Yanukovich agreed to one, which was due in May this year.


As for the tatars - they have an assembly, but there are no defined areas where they live, so a referendum would be pointless. Self determination needs aterritorial aspect for it to work. Self determination also needs am historic background of association with the territory in question also.
Harsh as it may seem, but the tatars lost that tie in to the territory. They were an invasive force to begin with, and the Cossacks were set up precisely to combat the tatars. When Russia finally took over (1780s? I can't remember exactly) a lot of them fled to the Kuban and Russian settlers took their land) Even at this point we are talking more in common with Argentina and the native Indians and who constitute the legal owners of a land, than we do modern Crimea and the Russians. But then 1954 and the mass deportation took place. This was done by a dictator, but it did happen and the present day Crimean tatars have returned in the full knowledge that the land is back under the ownership of its original (Russian) occupiers. So for me, autonomy with an assembly (as is already in place), but no referendum on a division of land.

That's where I have the two problems, I'm still not clear about.

The 1998 Crimean Constitution as far as I'm aware was voted for by the parliament (even if the PM was a stooge to Kiev) - if he hadn't been, he'd have been a stooge to Russia more'n' likely and the vote might have gone a different way. But being a stooge to Kiev, doesn't make it illegal? (as much as a different PM being a stooge to Russia wouldn't have made it illegal. What made it illegal (rather than "of dubious morals")?

I'm still not convinced either by tie's (thought I'd put a grocers in, to spice up the dialogue ) to territory. At some point in the past, a group of people called Tartars formed and must've occupied some territory, albeit some if not all of it fairly nomadically. So there must be a tie somewhere, even if it's not Crimea, maybe to the Mongol Empire (which should be able to assert it's rights if it so wishes) - I know you've done this dialogue with Monty, I might go and have a re-read.

I think there's a lot of complexity in all of these arguments around self determination. And often little "right" and "wrong" from either the East or West, but occasionally some concensus that both are happy to advocate.

I agree there is some ambiguity at which point self determination becomes operative, and just when does the historicity of occupation become relevant.

The 1998 Constitution is where I have no such ambiguity. The 1998 Constitution was imposed on Crimea by a parliament that was Ukrainian and ignored the negotiated rights of the Crimea. The 98 constitution was set up to replace the 92 constitution with a primary objective to negate the possibility that Crimea (and other autonomous parts) might secede from the nation - those rights were in the 92 constitution. the Crimean pm, who had been appointed by the Ukrainian President after he'd abolished the post of Crimean President acceded to the 98 Constitution. But, the abolition of the post of Crimean President was unilateral on the part of the Ukranian President and went against the 92 constitution, and was done wholly in order to negate the then upcoming referendum - which was an unlawful abrogation in anyone's book. You cannot just remove a President and terminate a referendum and impose a Constitution which then outlaws the very thing the President and referendum and constitution were all leading to, not in such an undemocratic way, without expecting consequences further down the line. TBF I think the Crimeans have behaved rather well in all of this & have been very patient - it is after all, twenty two years since they wished to express their self determination and had their rights trampled on by a dictatorship (Ukrainian Presidency) every bit as undemocratic as the dictatorship (the Ukrainian called Khruschev) who gifted them to a foreign nation in the first place.

[Worthy4England]

So the 1998 Constitution wasn't voted upon by the elected body? Or was it voted on by an elected body that was rigged?

I agree entirely the 1998 Constitution was designed precisely to stop Crimea getting a pick

[Lost Leopard Spot]

So the 1998 Constitution wasn't voted upon by the elected body? Or was it voted on by an elected body that was rigged?

I agree entirely the 1998 Constitution was designed precisely to stop Crimea getting a pick

Yep it was voted on by an elected body. I have no doubt the 98 Constitution is legal. It was enacted in a way that stopped the Crimea getting to run the refendum without the Prsident allowing it, and even then, the Ukrainian parliament could have, legally, vetoed the outcome. The illegal bit was the abrogation of the referendum in 1995, which I agree, Crimea could do feck all about.
But the stupid Ukrainians then went and spoilt it all for themselves by a) illegally ousting their own Prseident - who then retaliated by allowing the Crimeans to return to the 92 Constitution (my argument about the status quo ante etc), and b) compounding the illegality by appointing half the parliament in Kiev, and not waiting for elections as per the constitution. That Parliament can hardly then argue against an unconstitutional act on the part of Crimea when Crimea can point out that the proper legal authority (Yanukovich) has allowed them to act against an unconstitutional body (the parliament in Kiev).

[Worthy4England]

So on that basis, I get to where I started nearly (sorta)

1) The Ukrainian President is still the President
2) After the events of 1995 a subsequent legal Constitution was signed for Crimea.
3) The Ukrainian President (probably) got impeached - but *update* by a parliament that wasn't elected and couldn't impeach him. which is why he's still President.
4) That doesn't give the President the right under the two "legal" Constitutions, to offer Crimea a referendum, without a vote of the Ukrainian parliament, which hasn't occurred (even though I recognise it couldn't). The President under the two Constitutions doesn't have the proper legal authority, without the validation from the Parliament, as I'm almost certain it would require a 2/3rds vote and a change to both Constitutions.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

So on that basis, I get to where I started nearly (sorta)

1) The Ukrainian President is still the President
2) After the events of 1995 a subsequent legal Constitution was signed for Crimea.
3) The Ukrainian President (probably) got impeached - but *update* by a parliament that wasn't elected and couldn't impeach him. which is why he's still President.
4) That doesn't give the President the right under the two "legal" Constitutions, to offer Crimea a referendum, without a vote of the Ukrainian parliament, which hasn't occurred (even though I recognise it couldn't). The President under the two Constitutions doesn't have the proper legal authority, without the validation from the Parliament, as I'm almost certain it would require a 2/3rds vote and a change to both Constitutions.

Ok, I see. 1,2,3 tick tick tick, we are all agreed.
4. The first point to note is that he does. The President of the Ukraine is the only person under both the 92 and 98 Constitutions who can allow a parliament (whether in Kiev or Simferopol or anywhere else within Ukraine) to hold a referendum.
The right of enactment of any outcome to those referendums is held by the parliament in Kiev (under the 98 constitution, but lies with the Crimean parliament under the 92 Constitution).
The referendum that has been held had already been given the go ahead last year, by the President - it was supposed to be held in May, but they (Crimean pm & Parliament) brought it forward.
The person who changed the wording of the referendum is the present PM of Crimea (Aksyonov). The PM has the power to select the questions once the general form of the referendum has been approved by the President.
Aksyonov was appointed by the Crimean parliament, which is the only slightly dodgy act they've done, because the Crimean PM is supposed to be appointed by the Ukrainian President in consultation with the Crimean parliament (the Ukrainian Parliament has no role in the appointment of the Crimean PM under either the 92 or 98 constitutions, so even though it was a slightly dodgy thing to do, Yanukovich has shown by accepting Aksyonov that he is not opposed to the move and therefore it can be argued to be a legitimate appointment).
This is where Yanukovich's decree that the 92 constitution can be used as status quo ante comes in - because he's given the legislative power that the President of Crimea held to the PM of Crimea. Again, that is within the remit of the Ukrainian President.
So everything is above board and hunky dory (given the fact that whoever it is looking at the sequence of events is satisfied that Yanukovich is the legal President of Ukraine).

PS - I've just seen where we might be agreeing whilst disagreeing.
My contention is that the Crimean parliament and PM have done everything legally and above board.
We both agree that the Ukrainian parliament is contrary to the constitution that they themselves recognise.
We both agree that th proper legal President is (technically at the very least) Yanukovich.
If it is your contention, that his decree for Crimea to use the 92 constitution is not a constitutional act within his power, then yes - I would tend to agree, because he probably needs the parliament in Kiev to enact his decree even though he has the constitutional power to issue decrees. But the Crimean parliament and PM are probably on a sound footing when they've taken his word on this over the definitely illegal position held by the Ukrainian Parliament.

[Worthy4England]

I'm still not there on 4)

The President can, but as I understand it, only with agreement from the Ukrainian Parliament. There are provisions for an "All-Ukrainian" referendum in the Constitution but not one for partial referenda as far as I can tell - this is precisely I suspect to prevent the Crimea doing it's own thang. Issues of altering the territory of the Ukraine - which includes the Crimea are subject to an "All-Ukrainian" referendum. So unless he got the go-ahead to change his own (Ukrainian) Constitution, then I think he's "illegal" too.

I'm struggling to find where the parliamentary "go ahead" that was given last year is actually recorded or anything that altered the Ukrainian Constitution to allow it to constitutionally occur. The President does not have legislative power in that sense, as far as I can tell?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'm still not there on 4)

The President can, but as I understand it, only with agreement from the Ukrainian Parliament. There are provisions for an "All-Ukrainian" referendum in the Constitution but not one for partial referenda as far as I can tell - this is precisely I suspect to prevent the Crimea doing it's own thang. Issues of altering the territory of the Ukraine - which includes the Crimea are subject to an "All-Ukrainian" referendum. So unless he got the go-ahead to change his own (Ukrainian) Constitution, then I think he's "illegal" too.

I'm struggling to find where the parliamentary "go ahead" that was given last year is actually recorded or anything that altered the Ukrainian Constitution to allow it to constitutionally occur. The President does not have legislative power in that sense, as far as I can tell?

My source on this point is mainly Izvestia, and therefore may be biased, but last year it was passed in parliament (and remember back then Yanukovich's party did manage to pass legislation) for a referendum on greater Crimean autonomy - in fact a return to the status of the 92 constitution with regard to Crimea alone.
The powers that Yanukovich has are in regard to allowing the referendum, they're in the bit of the constitution regarding executive power. It was assumed at the time that no matter what the outcome, parliament would have vetoed any legislative change. Indeed the Russians expressed surprise that Yanokovich allowed the referendum at all, because if, as expected, it eventually led to Crimea seceding then he would have lost a largish part of his power base.
I believe that the procedure was the President proposed the referendum and a vote was taken in parliament which upheld his decision, I.e. Yes a referendum could be put - this was reported in October so I'm presuming the actual proposal and vote not to veto was in ~ September.
The BBC in one of its online articles, prior to last week's events, did allude to this vote.

[Worthy4England]

Bizzare (not doubting you) there's no reference to it I can see, and I'm struggling to find the executive power that would allow for it.

I suspect the legality on either side probably isn't going to be tested anywhere soon.

Guess we just wait and see if it all settles down.