We are having a serious discussiontm here, quote butchery will be intense!
Anyway.
The USSR referendum. I would say that the biased wording of the question affected the results, but it didn't prevent the populace of the Baltic states and all other peoples who (or, more likely, whose governments) didn't want to be a part of the USSR from refusing to conduct the referendum outright and instead simply declaring that they want independence. Thus, I think it's unlikely that Dagestan's overwhelmingly pro-Soviet vote was affected by the loaded question, as otherwise it would've done what Georgia, for example, has done and "not supported the referendum", especially if we consider that Dagestan was already pro-Russian during the Caucasus war. Also, Ukraine really did vote for the preservation of USSR, but it is not surprising in the slightest if we remember that Ukrainians and Russians considered themselves to be brotherly nations until very recently and freely intermingled and intermarried, leading to extremely blurred language and ethnic distinctions. Back then, Ukrainians had no anti-Russian sentiments and no desire to be independent, the independence was pretty much forced on them in what we call "the great politics mess-up". In fact, anti-Soviet sentiments were extremely rare back then, the current thrend of pouring mud over everything Soviet and glorifying the Russian Empire instead was born in the 90s from the state-funded propaganda campaigns that Yeltsin tried to use to justify his predecessor's dissolution of the Union and the resulting spiked anal dildo fuckfest in its former components.
Kadyrov. There are two different theories going around about him: one says that Ramzan is a pro-Russian philantropist who wants peace and prosperity for his lands, another is that he is an ordinary local warlord who was willing to collaborate with Putin in exchange for tons of money and a chance of running his own personal fiefdom. Neither of the theories explains everything: if Kadyrov is a common thug, how did he achieve the current peace and prosperity in Chechnya, and if he is such a noble and benevolent leader, why are there so many news of his golden pistols and car collections, of shady dealings and questionable circumstances going on in his domain? I am of opinion that Kadyrov may as well be both at the same time: a ruthless but generally benevolent warlord who spends the majority of Russian support money on schools and hospitals and the rest on extravagant parties in his palace, where he makes sure that all the opposition to his rule enjoys an extra helping of supersonic lead to the brain.
Dudaev election. The thing about it is that the aforementioned Soviet dissolution referendum and this election are not related in the slightest. Elections were indeed routinely falsified throughout the nineties, as evidenced by Yeltsin's party retaining its position despite its support being in single digits, but I do not see how the de facto illegitimacy of Yeltsin's government cancels out the de facto illegitimacy of Dudaev's government. I am not arguing about moral superiority here, just about the facts.
Chechen deportation: I believe we are going into semantics here and trying to argue about the definition of colonialism instead of what happened to the poor Chechens.