Talk:Eurasian Economic Union/Archives/2014

Eurasian Union = Soviet Union?

This has to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Putin had said that it would not be the Soviet Union re-made but an international organization like the European Union.72.27.59.88 (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

From The Simpsons - "I thought you guys broke up!" .... Lugnuts (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, more should be written to disnguish thos from the USSR beyondthe intially smaller geographic scope. --Belg4mit (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no Eurasian Union!!! It is Eurasian ECONOMIC Union (Please change the title of the article). Russia and Kazakhstan will never be united politically. Kazakhstan is one of the NATO partners in the region. Kazakhstan will never support Russia in such political issues as Abhasian and South Osetian conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.227.184.78 (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The wording "Eurasian Union" does not exist juridically. It is not present in any international treaty signed by Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia. Eurasian ECONOMIC Union (economic organization) will be formed in 2015. Kazakhstan and Russia have and will always have borders with passport control, separaite armies and currencies. Some russian politicians have no right to enter Kazakshtan (i.e. Vladimir Zhirinovsky - vice-speaker of russian parliament) In view of the above we can conclude that Russia and Kazakhstan cannot be parts of any POLITICAL union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.8.234.14 (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The title of the article properly reflects the full name of the economic entity. In the text of the article, if appropriate, the short form of the name can be used, such as European Community for the European Economic Community. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Russian/European viewpoints

A recent edit added Crimea to the union. As this is not the worldwide view (unresolved conflict) what would the best course of action be? Tomato 33 (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki links?

Hi! I think the interwiki is a bit off here. Articles primarily related to EEaU number 10, articles related to EaU number 31. Only Kazakh, Polish and Russian Wikipedias have both articles, as the remaining 35 Wikipedias have only one of them. Can anyone make heads or tails out of this? I.e. is this one subject or two? --Paracel63 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! The German WP also just had an EaU article until recently. There was some confusion if there was a plan to have both a EaU and a EaEU was somehow a different entity, but after Putin used both EaEU, EaU and even Union in his speech on May 29th it was pretty clear that EaEU would be the prevailing name. It got then moved to EaEU despite we found that historically EaU was used more often instead of EaEU. But since EaU sounds little more like EU and is shorter I guess it will still be used here and there interchangably. Just my 2c. I guess there is nothing we can do but wait until the other WP decide similarly. --Aeroid (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Typo in File:Gdp, ppp world economy 2012.png

Says "Costumes Union" - should say "Customs Union".

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

- the pie chart is now wrng anyways, WB released new data--Crossswords (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The link to the Russian page is incorrect

The link to the Russian page points to Eurasian Union (Евразийский Союз - http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%95%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7), it should point to Eurasian Economic Union (Евразийский экономический союз - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%95%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7).

I wasn't able to fix it. Whenever I try to edit the link it says the item is already in use.

Eurasian Union and Eurasian Economic Union are two different things though closely related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardzt (talk • contribs) 06:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that, but happy to change my mind. Would be great if you could provide references/proof! --Aeroid (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Map

South Sudan and Kosovo are not on the map. Also, Crimea and Sevastopol should be part of Russia. And maybe we could get rid of the international borders between Belarus, Russia, and Kazakhstan. It looks good like that on the Union State page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.159.164 (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I updated the map to include Crimea. Crimea is depicted as a disputed territory just like on the map of Russia.Keverich2 (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Please change the "map" of the Eurasian Economic Union. Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan should'nt be in one colour since these are 3 different states. If you try to cross the border between Russia and Kazakhstan in a wrong place (not at border control point) you will get killed. See politically (as well as economically) Russia and Kazakhstan are separate states and always will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.8.234.10 (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev: "Kazakhstan may leave EEU if its interests are infringed"

A few days ago President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev stated: "Kazakhstan may leave EEU if its interests are infringed". I lack background info if this is a sign of tension between EEU members or a rather normal answer to a reporters question (if Angela Merkel would be asked "Can Germany leave the EU?" she also would answer "Germany may leave EU if its interests are infringed" (I suppose)). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

President Nursultan Nazarbayev indeed stated that the country may leave the union should it be against the country's interest. However this is more of an answer to a reporter's question as of now. The president of Kazakhstan was the one that proposed the idea in 1994 and continued to push for the creation of the trading bloc during the 2000s. Kazakhstan's politicians have continuously stated that the union is not a threat to the country's independence, because many Kazakhs do not want to lose their sovereignty and be re-absorbed into a new "Soviet Union". The president is mostly reassuring his people that this is not the case (at this point and time at least).

Note that during the video on the ceremonial signing of the treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union (which can be viewed on the wikipedia article), the president also stated that the way should always be "forward", implying that member states should stay in the union and integrate and resolve their differences rather than leaving.

Another important thing to consider is the issues some states have when contemplating to leave the European Union. Many politicians (in Britain, France and elsewhere) don't contemplate leaving the union because of the ENORMOUS costs of re-establishing borders and customs, leaving the single market, leaving the common currency and abandoning the free movement of peoples, goods, services and capital. Basically, the more integration, the harder it is to leave (due to costs and huge consequences to the economy). —— Mentoroso (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Has this happened yet?

The article seems a bit out of date, and lists planned events that should have already happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.45.113 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Armenia

Armenia needs to be added to the membership map. They just joined the Eurasian Union in early October (as per the article itself). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Russia, Switzerland, Belarus Tripartite agreement.

Devious and scheming, West sanctions to have no effect on EU-Eurasian Union cooperation. It seems here to me that Belarus and Switzerland are cooperating extensively to help their eastern neighbors weather the sanctions imposed by their western neighbors.

From the first article; “This (sanctions) will not somehow influence our relations to worsen them. We are at the beginning of the way of such tripartite cooperation,” he told reporters during a ceremony of opening of a new plant, Stadler Minsk, of the Swiss company Stadler Rail AG. “We will come to peace in Ukraine, and the sanction process will end sooner or later,” Lukashenko said. “It is impossible to stifle business. It is difficult to isolate one person today, and such giant regions as the EEU and the EU will never be isolated,” Lukashenko said, noting they had firm mutual ties. The influence of sanctions will be overcome with the help of businessmen who will never want to lose own investments, he said. “Nobody will make them leave own invested funds. No politician would dare to do it. Otherwise, the one would not be a politician in Switzerland. It is not much, but it is something I thought it best to make known, as not many main-stream media sources are reporting on it. --98.65.200.2 (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czech Republic

Let's be serious: political speculation and provocation are not facts. Those Countries did not even consider the accession to such a Union. The fact that a Russian political leader said something about it in a clear provocative way does not mean those Countries are going to join. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt hg (talk • contribs) 13:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree... To include that kind of speculation in the lede is silly. I'm not an expert on the foreign relations of Eastern Europe and I can see the likelihood of any of those nations joining is pretty remote. They wouldn't want anything to do with the "Eurasian Union" because:

• Finland- The Winter War and longstanding issues having to do with Karelia.
• Hungary- Hungarian Revolution of 1956
• Czech Republic- Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia
• Bulgaria- Has already cast their lot with NATO & the EU in spite of their linguistic and cultural closeness with Russia. Why would they risk that to join a (potentially) Russian-dominated Union?

Sure, Russia and Russian experts can speculate all they want about those nations being part of the "Eurasian Union", but that ain't gonna happen. Russia probably has hopes for the Baltic States as well, but that's an even more remote possibility. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 19:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Putin brought it up is worth keeping here. Also, this article could use some work on keeping a neutral point of view, as it refers to the plan as "sketchy" and has a skeptical tone throughout. These kind of amateur speculations need to be cut if they're not sourced. It's like saying, "Germany would never join NATO, they fought two world wars against the other members, Poland would never join NATO, the West sold them out to the Soviet Union, Turkey would never join NATO, it's got too many issues with Greece." 165.134.208.174 (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No, really you have to be serious now. This is not RT. They did not even express ... whatever nothing!!! possibly those Countries do not even know that such a new Union has been signed and you push them as condidates just becouse someone "push-candidated them". It's an obvious provocation and it has to be treated like that. A provocation. Nothing less nothing more. If we want to take those sentence seriously then, please, go to the EU and NATO articles and add Russia as a possibile candidate in the summary sections since Berlusconi "push-candidated" Russia several times.[1]

The fact that Putin proposed it is relevant information: it shows that he is interested in expanding it beyond the former Soviet borders. I'm not saying they should be listed as proposed candidates, just that there needs to be a neutral POV when the article mentions Putin proposing them. Seeing as there's been no official response from any of these countries, or at least none sourced, whoever's personal speculations they are need to go. Wikipedia doesn't take the opinions of contributors as fact. 165.134.208.174 (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No really, you need to be serious here. No B*S* allowed. First go to the EU and NATO articles and try to put Russia as a possible candidate since Berlusconi said it several times. At that point come back and you can even put the United States. The missing response is obvious... Such a provocation would not be commented (just like Russia never commented joining the EU). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt hg (talk • contribs) 10:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Simple as this: go to the EU page and watch it. Russia is not a "possible candidate" evenif called in by Mr Berlusconi when he was in office. That's a fact. So leave the sentence in the text with the proper comment below and remove the flags from the list. YOURS is a political point of view before than mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.235.17 (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This is your page. Future enlargement of the European Union do you see Russia included? I don't, even if a member state speculated on its integration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.235.17 (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You have to recognize that was a person’s speculation, not an official statement. Adding here the names of those Countries is just trying to mislead the readers with a political project that does not exist. They are definitively not possible candidates. Just as Russia is not in the EU even if a member state’s Prime Minister (at the time) speculated on Russia accession to the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.235.17 (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way your statements are even an offense to most of those Countries' citizens who fought wars against Russia/USSR. The way you are setting up this article about them is offensive and it sells Putin's provokation like a fact. If it was not a provokatin today you'd get a lot of comments about it in the newspapers. Again leave the names in the text with the comment, but don't put those flags under the candidate list, simply becouse they aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.235.17 (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the back and forth argument in this section seems to based solely on what one guy (Dmitry Orlov), who does NOT seem to be affiliated with the Russian (or any other) government, said. Why all this argument over the comments of someone who could well be the equivalent of a Fox News type commentator in the US?208.131.184.247 (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the PRC would want to be involved, as they're becoming a great power themselves, greater, if anything, than Russia itself, and there's no way they'd want to be part of a project that basically amounts to little more than a Russian sphere of influence. I honestly think it's less likely that they'd join than any of the countries you mentioned. The Mongolians, also, I doubt would be keen on the whole project. The only reason they might join is out of fear of the PRC.108.131.4.90 (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV [Existing integration projects]

Removed the following biased passage introduced by user: GH342

Armenia, whose economy has been crippled by a blockade imposed by arch-enemy Turkey, has been a staunch Russian ally. It has depended on Russian loans and hosted a major Russian military base.[2] Kyrgyzstan's U.S. air base, - a key for supporting operations in nearby Afghanistan, - is now being shut down under Russian pressure. Kyrgyzstan also hosts a Russian air base, which is set to expand.[3] Tajikistan, one of the poorest ex-Soviet nations on Afghanistan's northern frontier, hosts an estimated 5,000 Russian troops and depends on Russian economic aid and remittances from migrants working in Russia.[4]

GeorgeDorgan (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Eurasian Union vs. Eurasian Economic Union

On Wikidata, there are two separate pages: Eurasian Union and Eurasian Economique Union (economique is French for economic—not sure why that's the English title for the wikidata page, but never mind). I went to merge them, but found that there are several wikis with a separate article for both.

Wiki	Eurasian Union (Q474548)	Eurasian Economique Union (Q4173083)
Spanish	es:Unión Euroasiática	es:Unión Económica Euroasiática
Kazakh	kk:Еуразиялық Одақ	kk:Еуразиялық Экономикалық Одақ
Latin	la:Unio Eurasiatica	la:Unio oeconomica Eurasiatica
Polish	pl:Unia Eurazjatycka	pl:Euroazjatycka Unia Gospodarcza
Russian	ru:Евразийский Союз	ru:Евразийский экономический союз
Ukranian	uk:Євразійський Союз	uk:Євразійський економічний союз

On the Spanish page Unión Euroasiática, it says No debe confundirse con Unión Económica Euroasiática (Not to be confused with Eurasian Economic Union), and yet the English page (linked to Q4173083) begins by saying "The Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), also known as the Eurasian Union", and the French page (linked to Q474548) begins by saying L’Union eurasiatique, Union eurasienne ou encore Union économique eurasienne (The Eurasiatique union, Eurasian union, or Eurasian economic union). Are they two distint unions? Ollieinc (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question, no they're not two distinct unions and they're not even two different organisations. Basically, the "Eurasian Economic Union" IS the "Eurasian Union". The adjective "Economic" is used to refer to the stage of integration of the Eurasian Union. The vision of Vladimir Putin, Nursultan Nazarbayev and Alexander Lukashenko was initially to create a Eurasian Union, not purely economic but whose final vision is a political, economic, military, customs, humanitarian and cultural union.,[5][6][7] In 2012, negotations occured in which Russia tried to create a Eurasian Parliament and to have a union which was not only economic but political..[8][http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/russian-backed-eurasian-parliament-planned/][9] Resistance from officials from Kazakhstan and Belarus delayed the "political" components. (Although many critics from the West, and government officials from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan state that there is no such thing as a purely economic union, because creating a single market always means harmonization of laws and policies, and allows Russia to impose its power through the back door). Due to Belarus and Kazakhstan being afraid of losing their sovereignty, the media in those countries and Russia always add the "economic".[10][11][12] However, almost every article published elsewhere in the world, the media shorten it to "Eurasian Union". The difference between the two articles you give for each language is that one article talks about the integration of the Eurasian Union at the present stage (economic integration). Whereas the other article refers to the final vision of Eurasian integration: a political, economic, military, customs, humanitarian and cultural union. In order to avoid confusion, the lead of the english article states that both terms are used interchangeably, and it says that the final vision proposed by Nursultan Nazarbayev, is to add political and other components to it later.

So to summarise "economic" is used in Russia to underline the stage of integration at which the union is at, however most english speaking users will be searching for "Eurasian Union" (which is why having 2 articles is very misleading). (I think the solution would be to merge both articles and have a section called "Future of Eurasian Integration"). ---Mentoroso (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan

Kyrgyzstan signed an accession agreement to join the Eurasian Union today and will officially join the union on 9 May 2015. [13] [14] [15] [16] Although it is not a full member yet we should still note it as more than just a candidate state as its accession treaty has already been sign≈ed just not ratified. I suggest creating a new category for Kyrgyzstan separate from Tajikistan as Kyrgyzstan's member status is already certain. I can also make Kyrgyzstan a different colour on the maps to depict its current status. --Leftcry (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Tensions have made the process disorganized.

According to sources raitification is mostly a formality therefore its redundant information and shouldn't be added: [17] [18] [19]

I propose we should make Kyrgyzstan's status as an acceding state, and its population, language, gdp, should be included in the infobox. However in the membership section of the infobox we make it an "acceding member". In the lead and other sections of the article we should state that treaties to enlarge the EEU to Kyrgyzstan have been signed but also add that Kyrgyzstan is acceding and will become a full member by May 9 2015.

We should give it maybe a lighter green color on the map, because legally Kyrgyzstan is now a member of the union, the following sources state that it is only implementing and finishing the integration process by May 9:[20] [21]

However these sources consider Kyrgyzstan already a member:[22] [23] [24]

Hope this is suits everyone.—Mentoroso (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My only concern is that if we make Kyrgyzstan a lighter green then it will be confused with the disputed Crimea which is already a part of the Union as a de facto part of the Russian Federation. --Leftcry (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you use different shades of greens? Maybe making Kyrgyzstan Lime (color).—Mentoroso (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

How's that? Is it too similar to Crimea? --Leftcry (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fine. The lime green shines a bit too much though. Can you make change Kyrgyzstan to the color of Tajikistan on this map?:

Thanks—Mentoroso (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"legally Kyrgyzstan is now a member of the union"

"will become a full member by May"

You see the contradiction in your own words, don't you ?

"raitification is mostly a formality therefore its redundant information"

The countries concerned may be a little less democratic - still they've got their rules they stick to. Ratification is necessary for the agreement to come into force.

"full member"

There is no full membership - a country is either a member or a non-member.Knisfo (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Kyrgyzstan is definitely not a full member of the Eurasian Union and a ratification of the treaty is a very important process, however I like the idea of calling it an "acceding member" since it did sign the treaty of accession. --Leftcry (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No. There isn't a single proposition submitted to parliament by the presidents of Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan and other states that isn't ratified. Don't misinform.—Mentoroso (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is an acceeding state from the day the ratification process has been finalised to the day it joins. For now it's a candidate (with a signed accession treaty). A candidate to an international organisation that doesn't even exist yet.Knisfo (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"acceeding" is spelt acceding. As sources already clarify, ratification is a question of formality in those countries. It was a candidate. It's now officially considered as a member that is taking the time to integrate. The international organisation does exist: Eurasian Economic Community, it's being expanded and upgraded. All the facts you presented are biased and violate WP:NPOV. Also, if Kyrgyzstan isn't considered member of the union because it didn't ratify and implement all agreements, then the United Kingdom should not be included the EU because it is not obligated to use the euro and isn't in the schengen area and refused to implement those agreements.

This is about the treaty that is about to make Kyrgyzstan a member state. It's about membership itself - not about some further legislation it could ratify if it wanted to.

This is not about all agreements a member is allowed to cherry-pick.

The UK is a member of the EU because its very accession, its membership, was ratified.

The euro and Schengen were established after the UK joined - as a member state the UK had the right to opt-out. Then there's the concept of "enhanced cooperation" etc etc etc

In the case of Kyrgyzstan we are talking about its very membership.

Just signing a treaty doesn't make that treaty take effect. There might be a clause in the treaty dealing with its provisional application until ratification is complete - I haven't read anything about such a clause though.

It is highly unlikely the parliaments of the countries involved will reject the accession treaty - but the possibility exists. What if ... what if one country fails to ratify the accession treaty ? Then you will say Kyrgyzstan was kicked out of the union ?!?

and I'd like to remind you again of that source you told me to read - a source you haven't read yourself - otherwise you wouldn't use it to defend your claim - your source states: "[...] вступит в силу после реализации этих документов и ратификации самого договора. Как ожидается, это может произойти к маю 2015 года."

Neither the treaty itself nor all necessary legislation in order that Kyrgyzstan's obligations as a member state would be fully implementable have been enacted yet.

"Eurasian Economic Community, it's being expanded and upgraded"

No, it's not.

The Eurasian Economic Community will cease to exist next week.Knisfo (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Your wrecked EU-UK example ...

Did Croatia become a member state of the EU on 9 December 2011 (when it signed its accession treaty) - or did it become a member state on 1 July 2013 (only after its accession treaty had been ratified by all contracting parties) ?!?

Norway signed an accession treaty in January 1972 and that treaty failed to be ratififed in September 1972.

Norway signed a further accession treaty in June 1994 and that treaty failed to be ratified in November 1994.

Has Norway been a member state of the EU twice ?!? It joined, left, joined again, left again ?!?

Have you read Kyrgyzstan's accession treaty ? What does the treaty itself say about its coming into force ?

Something like:

"This Treaty shall enter into force on this-and-that-date, provided that all the instruments of ratification have been deposited, or, failing that, on the first day of the month following the deposit of the instrument of ratification by the last signatory state to take this step."Knisfo (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

If the UK didn't integrate fully and implement all treaties, then according to what you weresaying it shouldn't be an EU member state. This is totally wrong.

Croatia is considered member of the EU yet hasn't fulfilled all treaty obligations and isn't on the same level as other countries in the EU, yet it's still part of it.

No. The Community is being expand and upgraded into the union. Like the European Economic Community was upgraded to the European Union

Btw, Norway is a Unitary parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy, meaning ratification is not a question of formality but is a necessity.

Also, what about ASEAN? Because Myanmar hasn't abided by all the treaty obligations, should it not be considered a member?

What about the GCC? Because the single market is not working and has a lot of issues, with member states not implementing the treaties correctly, should they not be members of the single market?

Multiple treaties were signed by Kyrgyzstan, not one. Its accession was signed 23 December. The obligations for reduced custom tariffs, the free movement of people, etc. need to be implemented by May 9th. This is like Croatia which is in the union but hasn't fully finished the integration process. Consult the russian wikipedia, it has been perfectly agreed by all the editors that Kyrgyzstan is a member. —Mentoroso (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

"didn't integrate fully [...], then [...] it shouldn't be an EU member state"

That's not what i said - ...quite the opposite...

I talked about "opt-out", about "enhanced cooperation"...

I wasn't talking about full integration - i was talking about membership itself.

"Croatia is considered member of the EU yet hasn't fulfilled all treaty obligations"

Croatia does comply with the provisions of its accession treaty and its obligations as a member state.

A country joining the EU is not obliged to be ready for schengen and the euro the very day of its accession to the EU. It is obliged to work towards meeting the requirements to join those areas - and obliged to eventually join once it does fullfill those requirements.

btw:

You haven't answered:

Have you read Kyrgyzstan's accession treaty ?

What does the treaty itself say about its coming into force ?

Read it - and you'll know !Knisfo (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan will participate in supranational organisations such as the Eurasian Supreme Council, Eurasian Interstate Council, Eurasian Economic Commission, Eurasian Development Bank and the Eurasian Economic Court starting January 1. A country joining the EEU is not obliged to be ready for all economic laws and border rules the very day of its accession to the EEU. Croatia is a member although it isn't a full member of all of the EU's supranational, integration processes. Same thing with some members of ASEAN, GCC, UNASUR, CARICOM... Why should it be any different for the EEU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentoroso (talk • contribs) 23:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you just read what i wrote (already twice)

It's about membership itself - not about some further legislation [...]

There is no "full" membership. A country is either a member or a non-member. A country cannot be half-a-member, quarter-a-member...

Not participating in each and every programme doesn't make a country less a member. It is just a member that does not participate in each and every progamme.

When it comes to Kyrgyzstan - it is not about participation in all progammes - it is about membership itself.

Your: "a very highly reliable source, the Financial Times, recently stated that the country IS a member now although its treaty comes fully into force in May"

1. That's contradictory again.

When a treaty is not in force its provisions are not in force = Kyrgyzstan is not a member (yet).

2. Where does FT say "is a member now" ?

3. FT doesn't say "fully into force in May" - it says "into force in May"

The FT article doesn't say Kyrgyzstan is a member state. It says:

"Kyrgyzstan [...] signed a treaty to join [...]." "Kyrgyzstan’s treaty is due to come into force in May."Knisfo (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

btw...

That same FT article says that the union will come into existence on 1 January "with Armenia set to join a day later" - thus on 2 January. And, as said, "Kyrgyzstan’s treaty is due to come into force in May."

So...

1 January - Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia

2 January - Armenia

May - Kyrgyzstan

Thus...

...what i wrote in the article's infobox complies perfectly with the source that YOU linked.

Again you made use of a source (to defend your statements) that contradicts your statements.

Again you linked a source that supports my statements - not yours.Knisfo (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't comply at all. If it's about membership then it is a member because it will participate in supranational organisations such as the Eurasian Supreme Council, Eurasian Interstate Council, Eurasian Economic Commission, Eurasian Development Bank and the Eurasian Economic Court starting January 1. Its complete accession is in May. But a country doesn't have to apply all laws and treaty provisions to be a member, as with the ASEAN, GCC, UNASUR, CARICOM, SAARC, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentoroso (talk • contribs) 12:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan signed its accession treaty (its membership treaty) only a couple of days ago. That treaty, of course, has to be ratified. Ratification is expected to be finalised in time to make Kyrgyzstan a member state by May 2015.

I already said somewhere above: Maybe that treaty includes a clause to have it applied provisionally until ratification is complete.

But the treaty applying provisionally (Kyrgyzstan participating in the EEU's activities) would still not make Kyrgyzstan a member state. It would only be a state participating in the EEU's activities provisionally.

Kyrgyzstan will not be a member when "[...] it will participate in supranational organisations such as [...]". Kyrgyzstan will be a member when it is a member. And to become a member state - its accession treaty has to come into force.

And you still haven't answered:

What does the treaty itself say about its coming into force ?

As said - something like: "This Treaty shall enter into force on this-and-that-date, provided that all the instruments of ratification have been deposited, or, failing that, on the first day of the month following the deposit of the instrument of ratification by the last signatory state to take this step."Knisfo (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"It doesn't comply at all."

Your source says the founding treaty, concluded by Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, will enter into force on 1 January 2015. I wrote in the infobox that Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia will be members from 1 January 2015 - it DOES comply.

Your source says that Armenia is "set to join a day later". I wrote in the infobox that Armenia will be a member from 2 January 2015 - it DOES comply.

That other source says Tajikistan is negotiating its membership conditions - i wrote in the infobox that Tajikistan is negotiating its entry conditions - it DOES comply.

and so on

I edited the article based on facts - according to the sources. You edit it according to your own wishes.Knisfo (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to like comparisons, so:

Bulgaria and Romania signed up to the treaty on the European Economic Area in 2007 and that treaty came into force in 2011. From 2007 the provisions of that treaty applied to Bulgaria and Romania - but they were not considered members of the EEA. They were signatory states to the EEA agreement - with the treaty from the day of signature on provisionally applying. But they've been members since 2011 only - when the treaty was ratified by all signatory states and officially entered into force.

The treaty on Croatia's accession to the EEA was signed in April this year. The treaty is being provisionally applied now. Croatia is participating in the EEA's activities. But it is not a member state until its accession treaty is ratified and in force.

Same goes (more or less) for the association agreements the EU negoatiated with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

Cite Kyrgyzstan's accession treaty or find a reliable source that says something about Kyrgyzstan's treaty being provisionally applied - if that's the case at all. Then change the infobox to something like "Kyrgyzstan - Accession treaty with provisional application - Membership pending ratification" - but don't give Kyrgyzstan as a member state when it isn't.Knisfo (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mentoroso

Kyrgyzstan's accession:

A treaty has to be signed.

That treaty has to be approved by:

...the lower house of Russia's parliament

...the upper house of Russia's parliament

...the lower house of Belarus' parliament

...the upper house of Belarus' parliament

...the lower house of Kazakhstan's parliament

...the upper house of Kazakhstan's parliament

...the parliament of Kyrgyzstan

Russia's ratification bill has to be signed into law by Russia's president.

Belarus' ratification bill has to be signed into law by Belarus' president.

Kazakhstan's ratification bill has to be signed into law by Kazakhstan's president.

Kyrgyzstan's ratification bill has to be signed into law by Kyrgyzstan's president.

Russia's ratification document has to be deposited.

Belarus' ratification document has to be deposited.

Kazakhstan's ratification document has to be deposited.

Kyrgyzstan's ratification document has to be deposited.

All of that happened today ?!? Kyrgyzstan is a member state ?!?Knisfo (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

by the way:

Telling me to read the sources - (to see that the treaty has been ratified ... that Kyrgyzstan is a member state) ...

... is not very smart - when YOUR source, too - says that it still has to be ratified and that ratification is expected to be finalised in time to make Kyrgyzstan a member state by May 2015.

Before telling others to read the sources you link ... you should read them yourself.Knisfo (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Knisfo!

Perhaps you want to read wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. Watch your tone and words. Don't harass and lash out at others WP:HARASS. Be polite WP:GOODFAITH. Wikipedia clearly states that users must follow proper etiquette WP:ETIQ. If you continue I will see that these guidelines are upheld.—Mentoroso (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Asking you to to read the sources you use to defend your edits - BEFORE you tell others to read them ... - that's not harassment - that's a good advice (not to embarrass yourself)Knisfo (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - acceding state sounds like a good descriptor to me. However, I disagree with including them in the area/population until they are actually members. Yes only formalities remain, but they are not members as of yet. On January 1 the area and population of the union will not include Kyrgyzstan, so it is misleading to suggest otherwise. There is no need to jump the gun and prematurely update it. TDL (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Area

The union is part of the Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Area, along with Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Moldova. Could do with mention under Eurasian Economic Union#Free trade agreements. Rob984 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Y Support —Mentoroso (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The union's member states are part of that free trade area. But the union itself ?

Will the union itself have the capacity to enter into treaties with other entities - treaties that would apply to its member states without those member states having to agree to those treaties ?

Does the union itself negotiate, sign, ratify agreements ?

Or is it its member states only that negotiate, sign and ratify those agreements ?Knisfo (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

recent edit

This one: [25]. "with the EU supporting premature overthrow of the elected president", aside from not making sense (what about a "timely overthrow"?) is just plain POV pushing. Der Spiegel is indeed a reliable source, but it is not being used to source this claim. In fact, the link to the relevant article doesn't work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I would also like other editors' comments on this. I believe that my version is the more neutral and accurate description of the events. Germany's Der Spiegel says that both the EU and Russia forced Ukraine into making a mutually exclusive choice. The link works perfectly well. Here is one of the quotes I am referring to:

The choice between West and East, which both Brussels and Moscow have forced Kiev to make, has had devastating consequences for the fragile country. But the impact of that fateful evening in Vilnius goes far beyond Ukraine's borders.Some 25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and almost 70 years after the end of World War II, Europe is once again divided.

By "premature overthrow" I mean that it happened before the end of his term, and in contravention of the previously signed agreement between the government and opposition, and it was supported by the EU nonetheless. I did not want to use the word "coup" because that word would be looked at as POV-pushing, even though it's an objectively accurate description.

Esn (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Does the source say "premature overthrow"? No? Then it's original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

But it does say that Ukraine was torn apart because both Russia and the EU forced Ukraine into making a choice, rather than just Russia alone. That's the important part. As for the rest, what wording would you prefer? It's a fact that Yanukovich left before his term was up, the he himself called his ouster a 'bandit coup', as reported by The Guardian, and that the EU supported the regime change while Russia responded by annexing Crimea and supporting Eastern Ukraine separatists. Which part of my version of events is untrue and POV-pushing? Esn (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to "unwilling departure of the elected president". How's that? I believe that this source clearly supports that wording. Esn (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The "with the EU supporting premature overthrow of the elected president" part. The "tore Ukraine apart" is also POV and doesn't quite reflect the source either. Making Ukraine make a choice is not the same thing as "tearing it apart". Seizing its territory and orchestrating and funding an insurgency within it, is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, "unwilling departure" is better. Now, need to reword the "tore Ukraine into two" part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that what happened? I think this is a neutral description. Whoever you think is responsible, I think everyone would agree that Ukraine has been torn in two. No? Esn (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)