Sorry for replying late, but I think there is a misinterpretation of terms here stemming from differing definitions of “independent” which I wouldn’t fault you for.
The 17 March 1991 preservation referendum did in fact have an additional question on the Ukrainian SSR ballot about being a sovereign state within the union, which amounted to remaining in the USSR but on the condition that Ukrainian SSR laws would supersede laws of the overall USSR. The voters also overwhelmingly voted yes for it.
The 1 December 1991 referendum, however, was for secession from the union since the declaration of independence in question stated “only the Constitution and laws of Ukraine are valid on the territory of Ukraine.” The secessionist declaration of independence was put forward in response to the attempted August Coup, and had an even larger yes vote percentage than the ballot question I was discussing in the previous paragraph.
As it is, with all this discussion we’re getting into the weeds with legalist proceduralism. Fundamentally, the vestiges of proletarian rule were being destroyed in the member states of the USSR. The successor states were and still are crafted by bourgeois forces overwhelmingly, with their politics primarily being the contest of different bourgeois and petty bourgeois factions. I don’t know enough to say how legitimate the vote counts in 1991 referendums even were really, given the bourgeois banditry that was rotting both the USSR and the CPSU. At this point in time we’re left dealing with the consequences of the international bourgeoisie and those within the USSR who wanted to be bourgeoisie seizing the opportunity they saw, with some help from nationalist discontent along the way. For communists, delving deeper into this question of referendums would just affirm, in potentially different ways, the non-insight that the bourgeoisie are willing to break the law if they think they can get away with it. We’d be better off investigating more systemically the collapse overall rather than over-focusing on the legal maneuvers constructed to veil its bourgeois core, and I think that’s also what you’re getting at with your emphasis on population attitudes, demographics, etc. instead of the legality. I think we’re largely on the same page regarding this.
Sorry for replying late, but I think there is a misinterpretation of terms here stemming from differing definitions of “independent” which I wouldn’t fault you for.
The 17 March 1991 preservation referendum did in fact have an additional question on the Ukrainian SSR ballot about being a sovereign state within the union, which amounted to remaining in the USSR but on the condition that Ukrainian SSR laws would supersede laws of the overall USSR. The voters also overwhelmingly voted yes for it.
The 1 December 1991 referendum, however, was for secession from the union since the declaration of independence in question stated “only the Constitution and laws of Ukraine are valid on the territory of Ukraine.” The secessionist declaration of independence was put forward in response to the attempted August Coup, and had an even larger yes vote percentage than the ballot question I was discussing in the previous paragraph.
As it is, with all this discussion we’re getting into the weeds with legalist proceduralism. Fundamentally, the vestiges of proletarian rule were being destroyed in the member states of the USSR. The successor states were and still are crafted by bourgeois forces overwhelmingly, with their politics primarily being the contest of different bourgeois and petty bourgeois factions. I don’t know enough to say how legitimate the vote counts in 1991 referendums even were really, given the bourgeois banditry that was rotting both the USSR and the CPSU. At this point in time we’re left dealing with the consequences of the international bourgeoisie and those within the USSR who wanted to be bourgeoisie seizing the opportunity they saw, with some help from nationalist discontent along the way. For communists, delving deeper into this question of referendums would just affirm, in potentially different ways, the non-insight that the bourgeoisie are willing to break the law if they think they can get away with it. We’d be better off investigating more systemically the collapse overall rather than over-focusing on the legal maneuvers constructed to veil its bourgeois core, and I think that’s also what you’re getting at with your emphasis on population attitudes, demographics, etc. instead of the legality. I think we’re largely on the same page regarding this.