Considering that Yanukovych was largely forced from power due to street protests and the occupation of public buildings the current government is in a difficult position arguing that similar protests in other areas are not legitimate. It's a pretty awful situation for all involved.
I don't claim to know all the background, and I also don't mean to deny that the rest may well be a mess at some level. I do think there should be more discussion about what exactly were the status or issues of ethnic Russians likely to be in the "new" Ukraine after Yanukovich. That is, if and when anyone got that far.
Still... With all that being said, I feel like people are sometimes trying to draw a direct comparison between 1) very
lengthy, huge street protests in Kiev with a lot of public discussion and 2) a situation in Crimea or Donetsk where a small number of armed people stormed government buildings either at nearly the same time as or after
Russia invaded one and put troops on the border of the other. I don't think these are very comparable situations.
It could be true not everyone in Kiev are angels, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the best thing for all involved is obviously for Russia to intervene and start setting up annexations or Abkhazia-style protectorates. Doing that also happens to mean taking away whole chunks of the Ukrainian economy from everyone
in Ukraine, making naval bases free for Russia rather than leased from Kiev per those agreements Putin fought so hard for and protestors were not so happy he won with such generous terms, and taking responsibility for (or is that capture of) other groups such as the pro-unity factions and the Tartars. It isn't as if the only thing at stake is how well integrated the ethnic Russians in these regions feel.
And Russia with its Duma changing laws right on the eve of a military invasion, has seemed very keen on intervening and pushing things along. They have also told their people (or perhaps I should say, many of Putin's vocal supporters online somehow seem to believe?) that the US has spies and gunmen running all over the region rocking Kiev something along the lines of 2011 Afghanistan, when all the Western press mentions is a few bureaucrats trying to negotiate trade deals and offering loans. Now someone has to be wrong there. Putin's supporters claim the West is lying about his troops on the border (with their hidden license plates and all the reports about them) in the same way that Bush Jr. lied about WMD "found" in Iraq. Well, I'd like to see some proof they haven't manufactured
the whole notion of Blackwater mercenaries, a CIA "army" of paramilitary invaders, or whoever they think it really was, taking over Kiev --- that is, rather than a popular rebellion.
The fact that some of the leaders of the rebellion or the aftermath of it might be messy, doesn't mean it wasn't understandable that it happened. And now we see Putin forcefully taking some of the things the rebellion intended to protest or perhaps undo. Surprise, surprise?