Talk:Commonwealth of Independent States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Georgia & Ukraine

Well, a statement by the president of Georgia was loud and clear. I don't think we should "wait and see". Also, Ukraine is not a member because it never ratified the agreements - it may only be considered associate member at most. By the way, turkmenistan is not a member either.-Andriy155

Somebody check Georgian civil war

People, somebody check the statement concerning Russia's direct involvment in Georgian Civil War of 1993. Of course, Russia did interfere with every each conflict in the FSU, but not always directly. The contributor could mistakingly write about Russia's involvement on the side of Abkhaz separatists. However, Moscow did support the Shevardnadze's coup in both political and financial means.AlexPU 05:48, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Copyright problem with last "CIS Crisis" section

I just discovered that User:Rydel in his contribution seems to have essentially copy-pasted several sentences from http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2005/apr/04/yehey/opinion/20050404opi6.html This is *BAD*. Frankly even the copy-pasted sentences were bad Wikipedia material and POVed, but that they were copy-pasted from an article makes this extra-extra bad.

Always, always, rewrite in your own words the information you find elsewhere -- and for that matter, it's good practice to cite your sources as well. I'll be now removing the offending sentences as soon as I can find a way to rewrite them. Aris Katsaris 06:53, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

My bad. Sorry! I was too lazy to make a good addition. I first stumbled upon this article a couple weeks ago, and I was totally shocked by its POV (I am still). If a person reads this article, he might think CIS is some really cool organization like EU. In reality, there is almost NOTHING working in CIS now. It's falling apart. Nobody wants to meet anyobdy, and when they finally meet and sign something, nobody follows those aggreements. It's dying (which I think is the natural way of development for this strange "union"). I think the article should be rewritten, and this information should also be included in the opening paragraph. Just search news.google.com for "CIS", "Lukashenka(o)", "Putin", etc. to get an understanding on how this article fails to reflect the real situation with CIS. --rydel 08:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

.

. there i s12 countries in CIS

list

There should be a list of countries here Theanthrope

Also, the map does not agree with the first paragraph. Georgia is the same color with the CIS states. I know the creator of the map is busy for the next year but does anyone know which of the two is correct? Ulixes 18:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Flag question

Can anyone tell if the difference between Image:CIS.gif and Image:Flag of the CIS.svg is significant, or is it a different representation of a same flag? Conscious 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing [1], I see no evidence for the flag change. I am therefore removing the reference to the "original flag" from the article and deleting the GIF image. Conscious 17:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Membership list

I think might be helpful to categorize the membership list. (i.e. full members, associate members, members outside the military treaties, etc).Joshua Friel 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

I don't know enough about this subject to say, but is that second paragraph NPOV? "Signed an illegal agreement"? "Ignoring the referendum results (...) in fact, without disclosing the referendum results"? -Rwv37 05:19, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

This is english wiki. You have to expect russophobic articles. It's their cold war mentality.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Georgia

Georgia, for now at least, is still officially a member of the CIS, regardless of anything else. A statement by anybody, even the president, doesn't make it law or policy. In order for this to happen, the parliament has to ratify withdrawal from the CIS. We cnanot make prophecies at this point - what if Saakashvili isn't president soon? What if Russia gives in to Georgian demands and Georgia no longer has a reason to leave CIS? Neither of these scenarios will probably happen, but in any case, Wikipedia can't and shouldn't tell the future. Until it is official (passe dby Georgian parliament at least), the country is still a member of CIS. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.23.172 (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Moldova

Moldova is associate member because it has never ratified the CIS treaty in its parliament (just like Ukraine). The official CIS site may say whatver they want, but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine made a clear statement yesterday: http://novynar.com.ua/politics/34641 (article is in Ukrainian) -Andriy155 —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

why is Moldova an assosicate member? and no need to hav a fromer members catagory, as turkminestan joined as assosicate member, unless add the baltics as former members, which isnt accurate snice they never joined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia will be able to leave the CIS only in 12 months

According to a news article Russian ambassador to Azerbaijan said Georgia will be able to leave the CIS only in 12 months. Baku87 (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia has already left that organization [ http://www.civilgeorgia.ge/eng/article.php?id=19064]Iberieli (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Устав СНГ any country can leave the organization only in 12 months (раздел 1, статья 9).--Переход Артур (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually Iberieli, the article says Georgia would, not Georgia has. This indicates that Georgia intends to leave. I don't see what the big deal is anyway whether Georgia can officially leave now or 12 months from now or could have left yesterday. One would think people expected legal changes to happen as fast as wiki-edits. We should all remember that legal process are very slow unfortunately.72.27.24.167 (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Well nobody in Georgia cares for "Ustav" the parliament just now voted and annulled all CIS agreements and membership itself. Iberieli (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, and if the parliament voted to annex the moon or the president simply said Georgia has left the OSCE, it would mean that the moon was now Georgian (despite international agreements regarding space) or that Georgia had immediately left the OSCE without following the procedures in the protocols to which it originally signed and was legally bound to right?72.27.24.167 (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Nobody really cares for your sarcasm here. Anon vandalism will be followed by protection request of this article. Iberieli (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
In other words, the answer to those questions is "yes"? I just love how myopic nationalism on wikipedia is studiously defended by invocation of the rules that are supposed to prevent chaotic additions to wikipedia (such as wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and so forth) as long as it suits some. You assume I will vandalize the page, probably because your outlook is limited to some conspiracy theory in your life (I feel sorry for you). However, ask yourself, why would anyone want to "vandalize" a page so that page the keeps in order of actual procedures in the real world? As it is, half the links on this page are practically useless to non-Ukrainians and non-Russians and for an English wikipedia are inappropriate as citable proof butnow you have provided a link that Georgia's parliament has annulled all CIS agreements and membership itself, which is very good for the article and wikipedia as a whole because it constitutes a proper reference. However it appears to conflict with another link cited by another user above. But instead of being rational and perhaps including both in the article to further inform people, you simply change the article and declare that "Anon vandalism" will be followed by a protection request for the article with the obvious undertone that any change you don't like constitutes "vandalism". Perhaps it is you who are vandalizing the page when you knowingly submit only one reference and refuse to coutenance the possibility of another reference which conflicts with your own and your favoured sequence of events? As it is I don't give a damn whether Georgia leaves or stays in the CIS, in fact I don't give a damn if the tomorrow Canada dissolved itself and it's provinces applied for admission to the US or if tomorrow 90% of all astronomers started claiming the world had become flat or was becoming flat and the sun started to orbit it - as long as someone can cite it, then it should be able to go in wikipedia. But if someone can also cite references that refute either event as having never taken place or not occurring then that too should be able to go in wikipedia, whether by an anon or a regular user. What is really sad is that you seem to be able to communicate well enough in English but when someone points out the simple difference between future tense (subject would do something) and past tense (subject has done something) in one of your articles you get all defensive and talk about "nobody in Georgia cares....". Maybe nobody in Georgia does care (although I don't know how one person can speak for an entire country especially in a non-official capacity), but it is evident that you don't care for correction.72.27.24.167 (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Andriy, don't bring your Ukrainian nationalism to forum okay, and be logical. Ukraine is a full-member of CIS. They, among Russia and Belarus founded the CIS. Check your history before right crap on the board. Even if you Yuschenko wanted to leave the CIS, the people of Ukraine won't allow it. Especially in the East. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.59 (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

site

I'm not convinced about the credibility of http://www.cis.minsk.by/, as the site failed to list Turkmenistan as a member state(!), but I listed the link to it, since it has some good info. -Guppie It takes 12months to withdraw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.37.30 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

CIS membership: text from other encyclopedias

For general information, I reproduce the text from Encyclopedia Britannica Online, because access requires subscription:

Commonwealth of Independent States (Russian Sodruzhestvo Nezavisimykh Gosudarstv), free association of sovereign states formed in 1991, and comprising Russia and 11 other republics that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. The Commonwealth had its origins on Dec. 8, 1991, when the elected leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus (Belorussia) signed an agreement forming a new association to replace the crumbling Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.). The three Slavic republics were subsequently joined by the Central Asian republics of Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, by the Transcaucasian republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, and by Moldova. (The remaining former Soviet republics of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia declined to join the new organization.) The Commonwealth formally came into being on Dec. 21, 1991, and began operations the following month with the city of Minsk in Belarus designated as its administrative centre.

Identical information is found in Encarta and The Columbia Encyclopedia.

None of these encyclopedias reflects the latest developments with regard to Georgia (August 2008). Nor is the change in Turkmenistan's status captured (August 2005). This is where Wikipedia has a clear cutting-edge advantage.

However, there seems to be no doubt with regard to Ukraine: it is one of the three founding countries, and it is obviously an integral part of CIS (with possible deviations here and there). There are plenty of documents on the web since 1991 that confirm the inclusion of Ukraine in CIS. I will be pleased to cite these documents separately, if needed. My feeling that there is nothing out of the ordinary in the case of Ukraine and CIS is further strengthened by the recent story of a private bill before the Rada that calls for "denouncing" of Ukraine's CIS membership: if Ukraine's membership has to be denounced by a special, new law, then surely this means that legally Ukraine is now a member.

I strongly recommend that we stop all the trigger-happy editing of Ukraine in CIS, restore the status quo ante for this country (as of August 11, say), and keep only the essential changes for Georgia (as they appear in the latest versions of CIS). We can then continue editing CIS with a cool head, without emotions, with strict observance of NPOV, and always providing verifiable sources (in English, Russian, or Ukrainian) for the new statements. In this way we will uphold Wikipedia's integrity as an encyclopedia, as distinct from a current news medium. --Zlerman (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stuff Zlerman, perhaps you could keep this area updated on the status of the bill denouncing Ukraine's CIS membership? Whether it passes into law (at which point there might be a change with Ukraine's status) or if it doesn't?72.27.175.4 (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • According to Korrespondent.net in Kiev, Rada sessions resume after summer vacation only on September 1, 2008. Nothing will happen before that date. I will certainly follow the parliamentary diary for the developments with this law, but you can easily do it yourself on the Rada site. --Zlerman (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, however I don't read or speak Ukrainian and rely on (very rough) Google translations to get a general idea of what is being said/written. Since you apparently do, it would seem that it would be easier for you to do so and perhaps it would be beneficial for those users who don't know Ukrainian for a brief update(s) where relevant from the parliamentary diary. By the way, perhaps it would be more in keeping with the NPOV if the members, "country-participant(s)", associates and former members were listed in a wikitable to show which aspects of the CIS they do participate in? Rather than just giving special focus to Ukraine alone and the fact that one of many documents hasn't been ratified?72.27.175.4 (talk) 06:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The emphasis on Ukraine is not my doing: the Ukrainian emotions somehow erupted on Wikipedia on August 12, after the Georgian President's call to Ukraine to follow his example of withdrawing from the CIS. I entirely agree with you that we need to review the treatment of all the countries and impose some system and order in the article, without overemphasizing any one country. I have said so on several occasions, but I feel that we have to wait for the emotions to cool down before we attempt any serious NPOV editing of CIS. Hopefully, this will give us an opportunity to organize all the facts and to reflect in an authoritative manner (in English) all the relevant documentation so far available only in Russian and Ukrainian. Your idea of a cross-country summary table is of course one of the tools that can be used in restructuring the presentation. --Zlerman (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine membership

The Foreign Minister of Ukraine stated, that the country is not a member. Russian officials have, as far as i remember, confirmed this. Denouncing this statement as "nonsense" on the basis of a CIS website (!) is absurd. Ukraine claims it is no member, and Russia agrees. What more is there to be said? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorm (talk • contribs) 10:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Could you please oblige me by providing the URL to the statement by the Foreign Minister of Ukraine to which you are referring?

Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-268085.html - It is in the article. The part that was deleted in the undone revision. Glorm (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for repeating the URL for me. If one reads it carefully, then one sees that the wording is not as unambiguous as one would like. Some contributors to the talk page have already commented on this difficulty. In the last sentence the Minister is quoted as saying, "Ukraine is a country-participant, but not a member country". As I have pointed out in a previous comment on this talk page, there is no distinction between "participant country" and "member country" in CIS terminology and practice. In fact, CIS documents use "participant country" much more frequently than "member country". So perhaps the whole argument about membership is really a storm in a teacup. Is there a chance of getting hold of a more authoritative text of the Minister's statements than a news item in English from UNIAN? --Zlerman (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You see, professor Lerman, in my opinion, the distinction exists and is quite clear-cut. A member-state is a country, that ratified the CIS treaty. Ukraine has NOT ratified the treaty, and has no plans to do so in the future. Russian ambassador recognised this fact, and I will provide you the link to his statement - http://novopol.ru/text50391.html As for "CIS terminology" - this is pure bureaucracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorm (talk • contribs) 12:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You write that, in your opinion, "A member-state is a country, that ratified the CIS treaty". Is there any objective source or reference that you can give us with this definition of a "member-state" in the CIS context? If not, then I am afraid we are back to the "CIS bureaucracy" that does not define the difference between participants and members (perhaps intentionally). Thanks for the novopol.ru URL, incidentally. --Zlerman (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
"Раздел II, Статья 7" of the CIS treaty. There are "Государство-учредитель" and "Государство-член" categories described there. Ukraine is, obviously, the first, and not the second. If you wish to rename the status to "Founding member", as I originally proposed, I have no arguments here. Glorm (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Excellent information. I will study Article 7 bye and bye (if I manage to access it). "Государство-учредитель" ("founding state") is of course different from "participating state" ("государство-участник"), which introduces another element into our complicated equation, but hopefully Article 7 will give us a proper definition of the various terms. Am I correct in understanding that you do not object to characterizing Ukraine as a "founding state", a "founding member", or a "founder" of the CIS? Nor I imagine should there be any objection on your part to calling Ukraine a "participating state", right? --Zlerman (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
But all of this revolves around the 1993 document. So can someone outline what in the 1993 document, if anything changed the nature of the CIS? And should it be that Ukraine should be classed as a "founding member and participating state" (rather long but whatever gets the point across accurately) while the rest are classed as "founding member and full member" (e.g. Belarus) or "full member" (e.g. Moldova) or "associate member" (e.g. Turkmenistan)? And as for the map, perhaps the colours could be changed thus:
  • Light Purple or Purple-Pink (probably Purple-Pink as light purple might be confused with hatched purple) - founding member and participating state/"country-participant"
  • Purple - full member (founding or otherwise)
  • Pink - associate member
  • Hatched Purple - former member or member in the process of leaving
Would that work?72.27.175.4 (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Bye and bye?.. Anyhow, as long as Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Georgia all have unique colours, it is fine by me. Glorm (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

CIS membership

I suggest we clear this up a bit, the article is in chaos. 9 republics - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - are members. Turkmenistan is an associate member. So far so good. Ukraine is neither, it never ratified the treaty, but since it participated in the organisation anyway, let's give it a specific colour on the map and call it a "Founding member". As for Georgia - why don't we specify this country as "Downgraded membership", and rename it "Former member" in 12 months, if all goes as it bureaucratically should. Could someone edit the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.117.61.59 (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps exiting member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 07:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Ukraine should be listed as former candidate member on the article and template? 70.51.11.210 (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Article contradicts it's own map

1st pp of article says Ukraine is neither a member nor an associate member of CIS but accompanying map on the same page shows Ukraine as an associate member. Ukraine is the pink area just above the Black sea on the map, including the Crimea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.171.24 (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  • It's not only the map, and we all are sorely aware of this. Hopefully the inconsistencies will get fixed in the near future and the article will stabilize. --Zlerman (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reaching community consensus on CIS

I would like us all to make an effort and reach some sort of a consensus on CIS. I have thoroughly re-written the first two sections of the article – the lead and the list of countries – and you all can read them in my sandbox. Please make your comments directly in my sandbox or in the discussion area at the bottom of this section. Further editing of other sections is of course needed (especially History, the infobox, and the CIS map), but this can come after we have reached a measure of consensus on the two key sections.

I have tried to be as NPOV as possible and to take into consideration as much of the talk page discussion as possible. I have intentionally avoided using the contentious word "member" in most cases, and I hope that at least this obstacle has been removed successfully. I am grateful to Glorm for directing me to Section 2 of the CIS Charter for the definition of membership. I strongly recommend that, at this stage, we keep Georgia in the table with the other 11 countries and rely on the comment column and the text to explain the complexity of the situation. The statement by Georgia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirms that Georgia remains committed to its international obligations, and one of these obligations is Georgia’s accession to the CIS Charter in 1993-94. So we have to accept that Georgia’s withdrawal from the CIS will become final only in 12 months time.

The sandbox text is carefully sourced with both English and Russian references. The official CIS site hosted in Belarus is problematic: it is generally slow and moreover it does not always respond. Be patient: it is there, and I have personally accessed (at different times) all the documents that are cited. In the interim, use the English versions, which are accessible instantaneously.

One last plea: please read carefully the entire text before correcting and editing. Do not make piecemeal changes and edits: always consider these two sections as one interconnected whole. Additional details, if needed, can be added later in the History section. Once the discussion is concluded, I will transfer the final text from the sandbox to the main page. Happy hunting to all. --Zlerman (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (don’t forget to sign your comments with four tilde ~)

I think we should have an 'exiting members' category and also change the map to be more accurate. Phil Ian Manning (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Search for CIS

Can anyone explain why if I search for 'CIS' in Wikipedia, I get a download request for a document with an unknown extension? 204.58.245.247 (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, not anymore. 204.58.245.247 (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I am placing the NPOV tag on this article because I believe that information found here is not correct and is politically motivated. I could change it myself but I am afraid to violate the three revert rule unlike some people who do it all the time.. I believe that political views should have nothing to do with the editing process. --Satt 2 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tag due to nothing specific being raised by yourself. Without specifics, you can't claim NPOV. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 16:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine and the CIS

[2][3] ??? --Bogdan що? 08:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Care to give a link to a google-translated page for the second link so those of us who can't read it can get a rough understanding of what's on the page?72.27.24.167 (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the document says that Ukraine is not even an associate member of CIS. Andriy155 —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bogdan, can you provide a translation of the second link? And whether or not it airbrushes away Kravchuk's signing of the Belavesha Accords and Alam-Ata Protocol in December 1991?72.27.24.167 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I underestand that you need to read the document in English. However, just briefly: in Ukraine all the foreign accords have to be ratified by parliament. If a treaty has been signed by the president, it is not considered valid unless it is ratified by the parliament. The Rada has never ratified the CIS treaty. Hence, Ukraine is not a member. In addition, the second document also states that Ukraine never applied for the associate status in the organisation either. Unfortunately, google translate does not support Ukrainian. Will need to find some other way to translate the article in full or perhaps find some other English-language source to reference on Wikipedia.Andriy155

Except the agreements were signed during the murky legal period of Ukrainian independence (between August and December 1991), so does it fall under current legislative rules or pre-independence legislative rules? Was Ukrainian legislative approval needed for treaties before independence? For instance was Ukraine's signing up to be a UN member in 1945 ratified by the Ukrainian legislature at the time? Did it need to be? And if it needed to be and wasn't does that mean Ukraine isn't a UN member even now? If it can be established that Ukraine never ratified any of the agreements forming the CIS and that such ratification was necessary at the time for Ukraine to join then perhaps a new category is needed under the membership section and for the map - perhaps "Signatory"? With the note that the signatory (with date of signature but not joining) participates in some functions and agreements of the organization (although I don't know how it would work if Ukraine ratified a subsequent agreement concerning the CIS if it hadn't ratified the original agreements for it to officially join the CIS)?72.27.24.167 (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine never signed up as a UN member, Ukrainian SSR did so instead. I am not sure whether the Ukrainian SSR parliament had to ratify this. However, this is irrelevant because Ukrainian SSR and Ukraine are different political entities. I found this English-language source confirming that Ukraine is not a member: [4]. Whoever is responsible for it, please remove the country from the CIS map. Ukraine has indeed ratified certain CIS documents which it deemed necessary. However, it also has ratified some of the EU treaties too (even though it is not an EU member)Andriy155

Okay, but my question was whether the Ukrainian legislature (whatever is what called) had to ratify the CIS accords before 1991/1992 in the same vein as whether or not the Ukrainian legislature (be it the Ukrainian supreme soviet or rada or whatever) had to ratify the UN signature. It isn't irrelevant because the Ukrainian SSR and Ukraine are related politic entities insofar as one succeeded the other. Otherwise it means Ukraine isn't a UN member today if independent Ukraine isn't bound by the agreements made by the Ukrainian SSR and under the Ukrainian SSR constitution. In addition the Ukrainian constitution from what I gather changed in 1995, not 1991/1992 and until 1995 it was the old Ukrainian SSR constitution with amendments that was used. So under the old constitution was Rada ratification required for any accord signed by the executive to go into force? If it didn't, then a change in the constitution is not supposed to affect international agreements. I bring this up because the Ukrainian SSR parliament was the same body as the independent Ukrainian parliament after independence and as the same constitution (with amendments) was in force, then the rules governing ratification of treaties (unless changed by those amendments) should still have been the same before and after independence. That's why I wonder if under the old constitution/pre-independence legislative ratification was strictly necessary.72.27.91.3 (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Some good points here. Unfortunately, I was not able to find any information about whether or not any foreign accords had to be ratified by the parliament of the Ukrainian SSR. My understanding, and I am simply speculating here, is that any foreign accords had to be ratified after Ukraine declared in independence in August (or even earlier when it declared its own sovereignity in 1990). But again, I am neither a lawyer nor a historian. Andriy155 —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Andriy, having been puzzled about this I found two sources which might be helpful. The first is the constitution of the Ukrainian SSR which was in effect from 1978 until 1996 but with some amendments after 1991: http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=888%2D09 . Not sure if it has the amendments noted, but unless the amendments affected the treaty ratification process it would have been the same as from 1978. Of course, this now seems to be irrelevant since Bogdan has a source from the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice stating that the Ukrainian Rada had ratified the original treaty in December 1991. As for the treaty ratification process according to a google preview of the Encyclopedia of Soviet Law [5], "The 1977-1978 USSR and union republic constitutions reserve to their respective jurisdictions the links with 'foreign states and international organizations'. The Supreme Soviets are empowered to decide all questions regulated by their constitutions to their jurisdiction. The presidia of the supreme soviets are expressly empowered to 'ratify and denounce international treaties of the USSR', and the respective council of ministers to 'confirm and denounce intergovernmental international treaties'. The procedures for proposing, negotiating, initialling, signing, ratifying, confirming, or acceding to international treaties are laid down in great detail in the 1978 Law and 1980 Decree on treaties. Certain kinds of international treaties under the 1978 Law must be ratified. These include treaties on friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance, treaties on the mutual renunciation of the use or threat of force, peace treaties, treaties on the territorial delimitation of the USSR with other states, treaties estbalishing rules other than those which are contained in USSR legislative acts, treaties which the parties have stipulated will be subject to ratification, and others which the Presidium may wish to ratify. Ratification edicts of the Presidium do not require subsequent confirmation of the full supreme soviet." Now having found that it brings up a number of questions: 1. If the rules governing Soviet treaty ratification in the USSR constitution were similar as those governing union republic ratification in the union republic constitutions then the presidium of the Ukrainian supreme soviet (rada) could ratify and denounce treaties without having to have the entire soviet/rada vote on it. Was this case in 1991 with the Belavesha Accords and Alma-Ata Protocols? It may have been, but it seems Ukraine had signed and ratified the accords in 1991 according to its own ministry of justice. 2. Were the two initial agreements (Belavesha Accords and Alma-Ata Protocol) which established the CIS and it's founding membership treaties "which the parties have stipulated will be subject to ratification"? If not and they were signed, then according to the constitutional rules at the time, they wouldn't need to be ratified and the signing would thus be a de jure ratification by whoever signed it. Again, though the ministry of justice in Ukraine states that Ukraine signed and ratified it, so whether the CIS treaty needed ratification wouldn't matter since it got ratified anyway apparently.I'm just wondering if some of the sources and claims out there are not basing the claim that Ukraine isn't a member because they are applying post-1996 rules on pre-1996 agreements when they should have been looking at the rules at the time.208.131.184.17 (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


Quote([6]):

8 грудня 1991 року Президентом України підписано Угоду про створення Співдружності Незалежних Держав за якою Україна стала однією із держав-засновниць СНД. Ця Угода ратифікована Верховною Радою України 10 грудня 1991 року.

Translation:

December 8, 1991, the president of Ukraine signed the treaty on creating the Commonwealth of Independent States, with which Ukraine became one of the founders of the CIS. This treaty was ratified by the Rada of Ukraine on December 10, 1991.

--Bogdan що? 11:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that Bogdan has assembled some very important sourced information since the beginning of this section and his information (plus reference [4] in the main CIS article) justifies a thorough rewrite of everything that has been written recently on Ukraine in different places in the CIS article. The rewrite should be done without emotions and with careful attention to NPOV. --Zlerman (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Bogdan's reference from the ministry of justice in Ukraine also matches the reference for Molodova's membership: Сведения о ратификации документов, принятых в рамках СНГ в 1991 – 2008 годах (действующих по состоянию на 15 января 2008 года). - Doing a rough google translation, the first line/block referring to the original treaty establishing the CIS makes reference to Ukraine ratifying it on 10.12.91.208.131.184.17 (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the statement by Ukraine's foreign minister that was released today: [7]. This clearly says that Ukraine is not a member. Furthermore, one of the links provided by Bogdan clearly state (although in Ukrainian) that the country is not an associate member because CIS does not have such a status. Andriy155 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we know that statement, but how does the link saying Ukraine is not even an associate member square with Turkmenistan's publicized discontinuation of full membership and acceptance of associate membership? Obviously there are conflicting sources and a number of sources have been found stating that Ukraine definitely signed at least two documents establishing the CIS (and so at the very least Ukraine is a signatory) and a Ukrainian government website for a branch of government that deals with legal matters states that Ukraine signed and ratified the CIS treaty (treaties) and the date given matches that given for a reference for other CIS treaty ratifications by other former Soviet republics. At this point it would seem that the logical thing to do would be to put Ukraine in under the membership category (with the references that state it is a member) with a special note outlining the statements of the Ukrainian foreign minister and the other link that essentially say that Ukraine is a signatory to the CIS and not a member. Or perhaps have a section in which the Ukrainian foreign minister's statements and that of other links which state Ukraine isn't a member and what reasons are given for those statements.72.27.175.4 (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hang, maybe something is getting lost in translation, but what the hell is the difference between a "country-participant" and a "member"? Isn't a "country-participant" another way of saying "participating country" and what is a member of an international organization if not a participant in the organization in question? The link provided by the Ukrainian foreign minister states: “Ukraine does not recognize the legal personality of this organization, we are not members of the CIS Economic Court, we did not ratify the CIS Statute, thus, we cannot be considered a member of this organization from international legal point of view. Ukraine is a country-participant, but not a member country”, he said. The CIS Statute was made after the CIS was formed, hence unless the CIS went back in time before it was formed, then it must had members before that Statute, one of which is Ukraine. Secondly I can't imagine how participating in CIS Economic Court is a requirement for CIS membership just as how being part of the Collective Security Treaty Organization is not a requirement for all CIS members. If anything all this is saying is that Ukraine isn't pro-active in membership, but I haven't seen anything that proves Ukraine isn't a member from that statement, especially anything that disproves the foreign minister's own government's justice ministry website.72.27.175.4 (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Participant countries" (strany-uchastniki in Russian) and "member countries" (strany-chleny) are used interchangeably and synonymously in all CIS materials in Russian (both on-line and in print). Neither is defined anywhere. The term "participant countries" occurs much more frequently than the term "member countries". Turkmenistan is the only country officially described in CIS documents as being an "associate member". This, of course, has implications for our terminological contortions with respect to Ukraine. Also see new section I am adding at the end with info from other encyclopedias. --Zlerman (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
LOL. I'm sorry, but this is getting more ridiculous by the minute. So first the claim is that Ukraine never signed any treaty, then the claim was Ukraine never ratified any treaty and now the claim is that Ukraine didn't ratify a particular treaty. Well according the source document that outlines which countries signed and ratified what treaties/documents, this is how things stand:
Ukraine ratified the 1991 Accord and Protocol establishing the CIS and the CIS was established in 1991. How is that an organization can have exist and have membership from 1991 if the document on which membership is being denied was only drawn up in 1993? The link given for the Ukrainian foreign minister's statement makes a big deal over an Economic Court and legal personality (neither of which is relevant for membership as a number of international organizations don't have legal personality but still have international membership). The Economic Court can be presumed to stem from the 1992 Agreement on the CIS Economic Court (again how an organization can have an economic court in 1992 without having any members until 1993 is a great mystery). The Agreement on the Economic Court however was never signed by Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan or Georgia either and Armenia apparently withdrew its participation. And apart from the 2 founding documents in 1991, no other document/treaty/agreement has had all the members signing up to it (and there are at least 37 documents), which makes talk about the Economic Court pointless. The only thing on which this idea seems to be based is the 1993 Charter of the CIS which Ukraine didn't sign or ratify, but by then the CIS was indisputably in existence with membership. Does the Ukrainian foreign minister or anyone here even know what that Charter is for and how it is or was supposed to the affect the CIS other than maybe tidying up pre-existing agreements and maybe a bit of window-dressing?72.27.175.4 (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Having pondered the matter, I think the facts are like this:

  • Ukraine participated in the December 8 summit and signed the treaty between Russia, Belarus und Ukraine, announcing the formation of the CIS
  • This treaty was ratified by Ukraine 2 days later
  • Ukraine then attend the Almaty summit and also signed the treaty of December 21
  • For some reason, this treaty (of December 21) was never ratified
  • Ukrainian governments didn't mind this and acted as members of the CIS
  • after the Orange Revolution, governments hold a different view and cite the non-ratification as grounds for not being members.

Or is it, as proposed by the preceding comment, referring to the chater of 1993.

I am sure it must there be two different documents. Which one is it? Str1977 (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, there are two different documents, the Creation Agreement from December 1991 and the CIS Charter from January 1993. See my sandbox. --Zlerman (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kremlin photos now available for use

I have received official authorisation from the Kremlin to use their site materials on Wikimedia projects under CC Attribution Unported 3.0 licence. We are now able to use any materials from the Kremlin website. If used, please upload to Commons, and use Template:Kremlin.ru {{Kremlin.ru}}. This will provide the necessary authorisation on images, and will also place materials automatically in commons:Category:Kremlin.ru. Make use of this great resource. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 12:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Merging of Eurasec and CSTO

The merging of Eurasec and CSTO needs to be undone. They are distinct entities from the CIS; yes they may have evolved out of the CIS, but they are separate entities with different structures and goals. It is fine to mention them in this article, but they need to have their own articles as well. If anything all 3 articles need to be expanded, not merged. --Russavia Dialogue 13:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Confederation

The Commonwealth of Independent States is a confederation...

Does anyone else feel, like me, that "confederation" is too strong a term in respect of the CIS? Wikipedia's own entry on "confederation" states that:

A confederation in modern political terms, is usually limited to a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states

To me, this goes beyond the present reality of a CIS which includes Ukraine (and a number of Central Asian states hosting US military bases). -- Picapica 18:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, Confederation also states that the European Union and United Nations are confederations. If those are confederations, why would the CIS not be one? (Note the presence of U.S. military bases in a number of EU members as well.) PubliusFL 17:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure that most political scientists/ integration theorists would cite the EU as a confederation - nor the united nations. The vision of the EU is certainly controversial - the use Mittrani's functionalism theory was actually an attempt to foster a Federal Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.48.177 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Membership of Georgia

I am tired of people putting Georgia along with the other members of the CIS. Yes, a country has to inform some CIS governing bodies 12 months before they consider it's membership comletely abolished. But it is absurd to claim that there is no change in the status of this country. If someone feels that "former member" is too final a category, rename it to "downgraded membership", as it accurately describes what exactly is the DEAL with GEO and CIS. But PLEASE stop vandalizing the article. Glorm (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the map, instead of simply showing Georgia as another blank country as of August 17, should have it colored in with the new category "Former member" instead of last week's "Leaving member"--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the map is just fine the way it is. If someone wants to know more about the membership history of CIS I suggest they read the text, thats why it is there. This is not a photo album, we cant say everything with images/maps.--Satt 2 (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Georgia is out

Georgia has left the Commonwealth, so I've changed the SVG map so it is now actual. Any feedback? SarRus (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am curious why you had to remove the map. It was already adjusted and Georgia blanked out.You practically replaced it with a completely identical map. I think it would be better if you edited one of the maps down the page, I could not do all of them.--Satt 2 (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mongolia and Afghanistan

Are Mongolia and Afghanistan not observers?UeArtemis (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not. They are observer and guest respectively on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Next time, create new sections at the bottom of discussion pages.Heracletus (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, apparently, Mongolia and Afghanistan are observers in some CIS structures according to the russian wikipedia article.... But, that doesn't sound like really formal... Perhaps, if you get a source, we could add something about it... But, after Afghanistan is under NATO control, i'm not at all sure they are still observers as such...Heracletus (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See that:

Fair enough. So, Afganistan appears to still be an observer in the Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS.Heracletus (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars

CIS. Star Wars. Just saying. ——67.180.86.254 (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

English, please

Can anyone tell me what the following sentences are supposed to mean? -- Development of ideas the Roerich Pact (International Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institution and Historic Monuments initiated by Russian thinker Nicholas Roerich and signed in 1935 by 40 percent of sovereign states in Washington D.C.) into the law of CIS countries and European law. The only from good will of European legal community will depends where the “Legal Europe” will situated in 20–40 years: at the Pacific Ocean or on the western border of Russia.” --Khajidha (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Resource on importance?

CIS summit reflects waning impact on members September 04, 2011 on NHK. 99.119.128.119 (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States be merged into Commonwealth of Independent States. I think that the content in the Member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States is either already included in or can easily be included in Commonwealth of Independent States, and in fact, is better off as such. In fact, I cannot for the life of me think of one purpose of the existence of Member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States as a separate article. This merger will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 74.178.230.234 (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - I don't know if, as the person proposing the merger, I am supposed to add my support here or if that is seen as redundant or what. I just would like anyone who thinks that there is good cause for this listing to exist as a separate article, for someone to explain it here. And I would prefer that the reasons given not be "because it's how we do it with other similar articles". Frankly, there are few truly similar situations to that which surrounds the CIS, a largely vacuous entity whose days are now numbered. 74.178.230.234 (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with nom. The Members section is too small anyway and the content of Member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States perfectly fits there.--♫GoP♫TCN 10:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Total article size isn't even 40kB, and the member states article is probably too small to standalone. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't see any reason for why that article can't be part of this one, especially since the member states article is really quite small. Its content would fit in this article quite well.--Slon02 (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral I am truly fine either way, I personally think having its own article is acceptable, but a merge might be more organized. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done I've completed the merger, set up the redirect, plus, while adding the content I also reorganized the article into a more logical layout. 74.178.230.234 (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Section on Concept of a single legal space for the CIS and Europe

I've tagged the Concept of a single legal space for the CIS and Europe section all across because I find it a mere promotional tool for the two obscure Moscow intellectuals named inside. These two possibly invented a great and wet fantasy possibly groundbreaking concept in international politics which has no practical relevance to the particular CIS organization. Anyone of us could most certainly do the same which won't justify including all millions of our names in this article.

No relevant news articles whatsoever[8], [9]. As for the reality, none of those would-be-merging-with-the-EU CIS countries came close to even removing visa barriers to the European Union:(

The realistic ways of keeping this material in Wikipedia are either finding sourced information on how that great idea is being promoted by the leadership of EU or CIS, or recreating and defending the section as a notable standalone article on the International relations theory. Wishes, Ukrained (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To make the process a little bit funny and decisive, here is the list or organizations that published the only published source for the section:

  • The Friends of Bruges Society
  • The Nicholas Roerich Museum in New York
  • The State Museum of Oriental Art
  • The Moscow Florentine Society (which is "a group of influential Russian public figures, founders of the Florentine Society (Moscow), has been carrying out several cultural projects, intended to better acquaint the people of Russia with Florence and satisfy their growing interest in our city" [10] Ukrained (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Whether the concept is serious or spurious, it doesn't belong in this article. The idea exists independent of the CIS. If it has any merit, let it get its own article, and see if it can withstand AfD. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems undue indeed. CMD (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, here is where it came from. The contributing editor appears to be inactive, but I'll put a note on his talk page before removing the section. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain the bottom grid of the info box. It is puzzling. I have never seen anything like this on an info box. It seems to offer no info on its own and does not link anywhere.1archie99 (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

They're poorly formatted footnotes for membership. I've removed them, as they're better covered in text anyway. CMD (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Back in the USSR? Key Soviet document is missing

Read more:

http://www.ctpost.com/news/world/article/Back-in-the-USSR-Key-Soviet-document-is-missing-4258437.php#ixzz2KGp41JZk

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9854619/Document-proclaiming-death-of-Soviet-Union-missing.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.242.76 (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Currency

In the currency section of the Infobox, 10 currencies are listed under "Ratified" and only 1 under "Non-ratified", despite there being 9 members and 2 non-ratified members. The discrepancy is the Turkmenistani manat which appears in the ratified list even though Turkmenistan is not a ratified member of the CIS. Is this a mistake, or just a strange unexplained situation. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ukraine

Could anyone provide any recent information on what Ukraine will do with the CIS? Heracletus (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've looked for sources in the past few weeks, but have been unable to find any update. The pending election could have delayed things. @Yulia Romero: do you have any idea if the bill to withdraw from CIS was approved, or what the plan is going forward? TDL (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
As I recall it was not put on the parliamentary agenda because it was feared it was not going to get enough votes... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A bill on Ukraine's withdrawal from CIS was submitted to the Verkhovna Rada late March 2014 but No official statement on Ukraine's withdrawal from the CIS was ever made. But Ukraine seems not to (fully?) participate in any CIS activate since (probably) March 2014. Note that Ukraine was only de facto participating anyhow. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, at least three bills were submitted, with two of them being on denouncing the treaty that Ukraine never ratified, which eventually was noted by the Rada's scientific department, and the third one about ceasing participation, but failing to be included in the agenda. Indeed Ukraine has now ceased participating a bit, even degrading its representation to an acting representative, but the whole situation was always a bit weird with Ukraine importing CIS legislation[11] without ever being an actual member.
In general, the legal aspects of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in relation to Ukraine are a mess, as Ukraine does not recognise that Russia is the legitimate legal successor of the USSR (and this is relevant as it is the stated reason why Ukraine never ratified the CIS charter), while the CIS treaty also serves as the treaty ending the USSR (Belavezha Accords) and namely, Ukraine never delimited its exact borders with Russia and Belarus de jure. Heracletus (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
@Heracletus: There has been some update on this in the news recently: [12], [13], [14]. Sounds like this was more public posturing rather than any real intention to withdraw. TDL (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
@Danlaycock: I would not be so sure... First of all, they are not a member, so they cannot/don't have to "withdraw" or "announce a withdrawal" per se. Secondly, Poroshenko did not participate today in the meeting of heads of state. Thirdly, ITAR-TASS is a POV source on the issue and so is Kommersant. Fourthly, the law for stepping out would probably not have passed in the previous/current parliament. I will wait for the elections and then see. On OR, I can hardly see a reason for them staying in, with Crimea annexed and half of Lugansk and Donetsk stolen. The trade issues are also a red herring, most of the Ukraine-CIS trade is with Russia, either way, and I cannot see how this will be harmed more than it has already been. Basically, this is a nice Cold War 2.0, where the Russian news ignore 70% of reality and the Western ones 20%. On top of this, there is an ongoing election campaign in Ukraine, and most sides try to make the other ones look bad, so you cannot even trust what they say... Heracletus (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Well it's true that Ukraine's unique situation means that "withdrawal" is kind of an ambiguous term. But the bills submitted to parliament speak of the the denunciation of the "Agreement Establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States" of 1991 (which Ukraine did ratify), not the Charter of 1993 (which Ukraine never ratified). So they could withdraw from this treaty. Perhaps it is clearer to say exactly that, rather than that they plan to "withdraw". But at the very least it seems that they are at least planning to continue some level of participation going forward (they did have representation at todays meeting, just not the head of state). That could well change post-election or if the conflict is escalates.
Any idea if bills die on the Order Paper in Ukraine? The article should be updated if they do.
On a related note, I've been looking for a source to verify the claim that is in the article, and which you repeated above, that "Ukraine did not choose to ratify the CIS Charter as it disagrees with Russia being the only legal successor of the Soviet Union". Have you seen this elsewhere, or just in the article? It would be nice to have a source for this statement. TDL (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
You are right, the first two bills were on denouncing the 1991 agreement, which would have been weird, as it is the same agreement ending the USSR. I think that the later bill of ending participation is the one that sets the topic properly, so, if they ever go through with it, it will probably be with a similar bill. So, some of their politicians seemed to plan to stop Ukraine's participation in CIS. Ukraine's current participation in CIS is based on acting representation, in the sense of an acting head of delegation and so on. It is rather nominal than actual.
As far as I have got it, bills can always be resurrected and brought forward for discussion at any time within a certain parliamentary session.
Although the claim seems plausible, I am not extremely sure on which reference it may be based. I will look on the Russian and Ukrainian wikipedias on the relevant articles. It is, however, common OR in Ukraine that they never agreed to Russia's succession of the USSR and on property issues, or even on formal demarcation of the borders and so on. Heracletus (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
According to Google Translate, the status of the bill on ending participation in the CIS is listed as "Rejected and withdrawn from consideration" while the other two are described as "Discussion in the Committee", so they seem to be the only ones under active consideration at the moment. TDL (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
It's ten days before elections, half the MP's only vote some times and there's war in the East. I expect things to change after the elections. Heracletus (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yup, as I said above, it's entirely possible that things will change in the future. I'm just trying to make sure that the article is accurate and up to date. Since as far as I can tell the bills on denouncing the 1991 treaty are still formally under debate, while the bill on limiting participation is not, I think the current wording is good. Do you have any objections or suggestions for improvement? TDL (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: A representative from Ukraine was present at the November 21, Ashgabat (Turkmenistan) meeting of the CIS Council of Heads of Government. Ukraine was represented by Ukrainian Ambassador to Turkmenistan Valentyn Shevalev. Other countries were represented by their Prime Minister, not sure if Ukraine send a relatively low civil servant to this meeting must be seen as a political signal or that they have been doing that for years.... It does seem that Ukraine will not abandon CIS "without politicizing this union". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Existence

It seems to me that the CIS never properly came into existence and is now probably defunct. Most current activities relate to states renouncing membership.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Commonwealth of Independent States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine

Someone editing from the following IPs:

has been persistently trying to rewrite this article to list Ukraine as having withdrawn on 29 May 2014. Dispite my request for WP:reliable sources to wp:verify this claim up, the IP has been unable to do so and instead has edit wared to try to force the content in without consensus.

As the article explains, Ukraine did consider withdrawing, but I've seen no evidence that it actually did follow through. And in fact there are many sources which postdate the purported withdrawal date of 29 May 2014 discussing this: [15][16]. If the IP wants to make these changes, the please provide source to substantiate the claim that Ukraine withdrew. TDL (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Same goes for Euromaidan. TDL (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"Russian Commonwealth"??

I saw this in the lead, and I have never, ever heard of the CIS referred to as the "Russian Commonwealth", in either English or Russian. A Google search for that term simply redirects to "Commonwealth of Independent States". Also, I checked the one cited source for the phrase, and it's a single passage in a book that reads: "Examples of the confederate system of modern times include the British Commonwealth and the Russian Commonwealth of Independent Nations." So clearly even this reference does NOT refer to the organization as the "Russian Commonwealth." Unless there is a better source I'd move to delete this passage. Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

See Google News. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Commonwealth of Independent States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Sense and copy edit.

A week after the Ukrainian independence referendum was held, in which kept the chances of the Soviet Union staying together as low, the Commonwealth of Independent States was founded on 8 December 1991 by the Republic of Belarus (Byelorussia), the Russian SFSR, and Ukraine, when the leaders of the three countries met in the Belovezhskaya Pushcha Natural Reserve, about 50 km (31 mi) north of Brest in Belarus and signed the "Agreement Establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States", known as the Creation Agreement (Russian: Соглашение, Soglasheniye), on the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the creation of CIS as a successor entity to it.

The sentence above is IMO over-long. I was going to copy edit it to read better. But the section in italics does not, to me, make sense. I struggle to even guess as to what is meant by it. I would be grateful if someone could explain what is being suggested. (...after which the chances of the Soviet Union staying together were considered to be low...?) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Observers

Boban457 has repeatedly added a list of "observer states" to the infobox. Despite my requests in edit summaries and on the user's talk page, the user keeps restoring the content without any evidence that it is actually true. The user seems to be completely non-communicative. I've searched myself and can find nothing to support the claims. If the content cannot be WP:Verified then it cannot be included in the encyclopedia. If no evidence is forthcoming I will remove the content again. TDL (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Commonwealth of Independent States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Commonwealth of Independent States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"Effective"

What does the "Effective" column mean? Ukraine doesn't take an active part in the CIS since 2014 [17].--Юе Артеміс (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

FSU

There is a Wikipedia site about the FSU: "The post-Soviet states, also known as the former Soviet Union (FSU)...." The relationship of CIS to FSU should be explained. Kdammers (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_of_Independent_States/Archive_1&oldid=1140412500"