The first speaker to take the podium was a representative of one of the major industrial districts of the east.
He spent several moments going through the papers lying before him before raising his eyes toward the hall.
—"Comrades, before we begin discussing the future structure of power, we must determine why this congress was necessary in the first place."
The hall grew quieter.
—"Over the past several months, we have repeatedly tried to achieve a coordinated policy through the existing institutions. We approached them with demands, sent representatives, and attempted to secure recognition of the soviets as an independent political force. But instead of resolving the issue, we received constant delays and new conditions."
He paused.
—"Now we are being asked to believe that after everything that has happened, we should simply wait again."
Approving voices came from several parts of the hall.
—"I am not suggesting that we make a decision merely because negotiations have failed. I am suggesting that we recognize the obvious: there is a fundamental disagreement between us and the Central Rada over who should hold power."
One of the delegates rose from his seat.
—"What exactly do you see as the nature of this disagreement?"
—"The principle itself."
The speaker turned toward him.
—"The Central Rada claims to represent Ukraine as a single political entity. We, on the other hand, believe that power should rest upon workers' and soldiers' soviets. These two systems cannot exist side by side indefinitely if each considers itself the source of legitimate authority."
—"But the soviets do not represent all of Ukraine either."
—"Then why are we being prevented from creating a system that will represent them?"
—"Because you want to declare it the state authority."
—"And should state authority really be inaccessible to those who represent workers and soldiers?"
Movement spread through the hall again.
The chairman allowed the discussion to continue.
Another delegate rose from the opposite side of the hall.
—"I would like to warn the comrades against too simple a solution. We can say as much as we want that the Central Rada has lost its authority, but that does not mean that once it is removed, power will automatically pass to us."
—"No one is saying that power will be transferred automatically."
—"Then what exactly are we going to do?"
This time the question sounded less like an objection and more like a demand for a concrete answer.
—"Create our own institutions."
—"Which ones?"
—"A Central Executive Committee. An executive government. The local soviets must have a single coordinating center."
—"And who will obey this center?"
—"Those soviets that recognize its authority."
—"And the others?"
The speaker fell silent for a moment.
—"Then we will have to convince them."
A subdued murmur passed through the hall.
Everyone understood that under the present circumstances, the word "convince" could mean far more than a political argument.
The chairman intervened again.
—"Please maintain order. We are discussing a political decision, not the methods by which it will be enforced."
But that very question was already becoming the most important one.
A political decision without the ability to enforce it would remain merely a declaration.
Soon another representative took the podium.
He spoke more calmly than those who had preceded him.
—"Comrades, I propose that we separate two questions. The first is who should hold power. The second is how that power will be established. If we mix them together, the discussion will turn into an argument about something that has not yet happened."
Several delegates reacted approvingly.
—"First, we must determine the political line. After that, we can decide which institutions are necessary to carry it out."
—"But time is working against us."
—"Why?"
—"Because the situation changes every day. Troops are moving. New armed formations are appearing in the localities. Political organizations are trying to establish their own control over railways, enterprises, and garrisons. If we wait to create organs of power until the entire situation becomes clear, there may be nothing left to create."
His words produced a noticeable reaction.
The question of armed forces was returning to the discussion with increasing frequency.
The chairman looked down at the list of speakers.
—"Next speaker."
A representative of a soldiers' organization stepped onto the podium.
Before beginning, he looked at the hall for several seconds.
—"I want to speak not about political slogans, but about what we are seeing in the army."
He placed several sheets of paper in front of him.
—"After the collapse of the old army, every political center is trying to gain influence over the garrisons. Some units declare their allegiance to local soviets, others to the Central Rada, while still others refuse to obey anyone at all."
He raised one of the documents.
—"This means that state authority is gradually losing its unified system of command."
—"And what do you propose?"
—"Create such a system."
—"Under whom?"
—"Under the authority recognized by this congress."
The question came almost immediately.
—"So you are already assuming what decision the congress will make?"
—"No. I am saying that we must have an armed force regardless of what decision is ultimately made."
The hall grew quiet.
—"If we create a new authority, it must be capable of defending itself. If we do not create one, the question will still be decided for us by armed men."
For several seconds, no one answered.
Finally, one of the delegates spoke.
—"So you believe the military question is more important than the political one?"
—"I believe the two are already connected."
That idea was considerably closer to the mood of the hall than many of the previous speeches.
Gradually, the discussion turned to the events of recent days.
The chairman read several reports that had arrived from Soviet organizations.
They described the situation in the localities, the political struggle, and the actions of supporters of Soviet power.
After that, another document was placed on the presidium's table.
The chairman read it carefully.
—"Comrades, we have received a document that directly concerns today's discussion."
The hall fell silent.
—"It concerns the appeal of the Council of People's Commissars to the Central Rada."
Several delegates immediately began whispering among themselves.
The chairman continued:
—"The document demands that the Central Rada define its position toward Soviet power, cease supporting anti-Bolshevik forces, and clarify its further course in the political conflict."
Someone called out:
—"And what did the Rada answer?"
—"It refused to accept the demands."
Voices rose throughout the hall.
The chairman raised his hand.
—"Please allow me to finish."
He looked down at the document again.
—"In effect, Kyiv has refused to recognize the demands presented to it and has rejected any change in its policy."
This time the reaction was considerably stronger.
For many present, the message meant more than another exchange of political statements.
It meant that a compromise was becoming increasingly unlikely.
One of the delegates rose.
—"Then we must say it openly: if Kyiv has refused to comply with the demands of Soviet power, the question can no longer be resolved through negotiations alone."
—"Wait."
Another representative rose immediately afterward.
—"A refusal does not mean that we must immediately declare war."
—"And who is talking about an immediate war?"
—"You just said that the political path has been exhausted."
—"I said that Kyiv itself has refused to change its policy."
—"But that still does not answer the question of what we should do."
A representative of the eastern soviets intervened.
—"We must create our own center of power."
—"And what will that change?"
—"Everything."
—"Why?"
—"Because until now, the Soviet organizations have been forced to argue with Kyiv without having a single body capable of speaking on their behalf. Once such a body exists, the situation will change."
—"Politically only."
—"We must begin with politics."
—"And if Kyiv refuses to recognize this body?"
The answer came briefly:
—"Then it will have to confront not individual soviets, but a unified system of power."
The tension in the hall became noticeably stronger.
The chairman announced another recess.
The delegates rose from their seats.
But the conversations in the corridors were now completely different.
They were no longer discussing the composition of committees or the order of the sessions.
They were discussing the possibility of creating a new government.
Near one of the doors, several representatives from the eastern districts stopped separately from the others.
—"If the decision is made, we need to understand what we can count on."
—"In what sense?"
—"Militarily."
—"Do we have information about Antonov's forces?"
—"Yes. According to the information we have, his units are continuing their advance toward Ukraine."
—"Their strength?"
—"Around fifteen thousand."
One of the men frowned.
—"Fifteen thousand is not enough to settle everything."
—"That is why we are not relying on them alone."
—"What else do we have?"
—"We are forming our own Ukrainian socialist armed units. For now, the estimate is between five and eight thousand men."
—"If we actually manage to gather that many, the situation will be different."
—"Exactly."
They fell silent for several seconds.
—"But even that is not enough for all of Ukraine."
—"We are not talking about all of Ukraine yet. First, we need to create an authority capable of relying on these forces."
—"And after that?"
—"Then we will see."
The conversation ended when other delegates passed by.
Soon the recess was over, and the participants returned to their places.
A new speaker took the podium.
He did not speak about specific military forces.
—"Comrades, we have spent too long discussing whether we are ready to create a government. I propose that we put the question differently: can we afford not to create one?"
The hall fell silent.
—"If we leave here without a single body capable of speaking on behalf of the soviets of Ukraine, then tomorrow every local soviet will have to decide for itself whom to obey. Some will seek agreements with Kyiv. Others with Petrograd. Still others will begin acting independently. And instead of a unified policy, we will get disintegration."
He spoke with increasing confidence.
—"We have already seen what the absence of a single center leads to. We must not repeat the same mistake."
One of the delegates rose.
—"But creating a separate authority also means division."
—"Division already exists."
—"You are proposing to make it permanent."
—"No. I am proposing that we stop pretending it does not exist."
After those words, complete silence filled the hall for several seconds.
The chairman looked across the delegates.
The question was no longer whether the soviets needed their own political structure.
The question was what exactly that structure should become.
And from this moment onward, the discussion at the congress began to move from general criticism of the existing authority toward a concrete project for replacing it.