The second option was to be part of Ukraine. It was supported by 2-3% of voters with 80% turnout. I dont see a meaningful distinction between this and the previous status quo.
Even Kiev doesnt believe a vote without the troops would have had a markedly different result, which is why it rejects the idea of holding a vote at all on constitutional grounds.
Many in the USSR rejected the idea of Ukrainian independence based upon a similar principle of the inviolability of Soviet borders.
I think if the second option was status quo and Russian military weren't occupying the area, and the "stay with Ukraine" side had been allowed to campaign, I think the vote share for stay would have been much higher. Even ignoring the potential of voter fraud due to Russia not allowing real third party observers.
I don't know exactly what it would be or if it would be over 50%, but we should reject the obvious sham that Russia carried out.
Even Kiev doesnt believe a vote without the troops would have had a markedly different result, which is why it rejects the idea of holding a vote at all on constitutional grounds.
Many in the USSR rejected the idea of Ukrainian independence based upon a similar principle of the inviolability of Soviet borders.