Talk:Eurasian Economic Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


According to "Egypt has established a free trade zone with the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union". It probably ought to be added if/when someone has sufficient understanding of the agreement (I don't know enough about it). Maybe it belongs in Eurasian Economic Union#Foreign affairs under the existing subtitle Economic Partners or maybe it fits even better under Eurasian Economic Union#Free trade agreements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czech Republic[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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:

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." (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. (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 (talkcontribs) 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 (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 (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 (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 (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? (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. (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV [Existing integration projects][edit]

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[edit]

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][9][10] 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".[11][12][13] 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 signed an accession agreement to join the Eurasian Union today and will officially join the union on 9 May 2015. [14] [15] [16] [17] 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: [18] [19] [20]
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:[21] [22]
However these sources consider Kyrgyzstan already a member:[23] [24] [25]
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)

Eurasian Economic Union (orthographic projection) - Crimea disputed.svg

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?:

ЕАЭС 20152258.png 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.
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 (talkcontribs) 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)
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."
1 January - Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia
2 January - Armenia
May - Kyrgyzstan
...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 (talkcontribs) 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)


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[edit]

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)

Green tickY SupportMentoroso (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)

Protected edit request on 25 December 2014[edit]

Flag of Eurasian Economic Union
Emblem of Eurasian Economic Union
Eurasian Economic Union (orthographic projection) - Crimea disputed.svg
Administrative centers
Official languages
Demonym Eurasian
Membership Member states:
(from 2 January 2015)[1][2]
Acceding members
 Tajikistan (negotiating entry conditions)[8]
• Chairman of the Eurasian Commission
Viktor Khristenko
• Original proposala
• Establishment agreed
18 November 2011
10 October 2000
1 January 2010
1 January 2012
• Eurasian Union Treaty (signed)
29 May 2014
• Eurasian Union (established)
1 January 2015
• Total
20,260,431[9] km2 (7,822,596 sq mi)
• 2014 estimate
182,519,270[10][11][12][13][14] (including Crimea and Sevastopol)
• Density
9.01/km2 (23.3/sq mi)
GDP (PPP) 2013 estimate
• Total
US$4.064 trillions[15] (5th)
• Per capita
Currency Armenian dram
Belarusian ruble
Kazakhstani tenge
Kyrgyzstani som
Russian ruble
Time zone (UTC+2 to +12)
Calling code +374 (in Armenia)
+375 (in Belarus)
+996 (in Kyrgyzstan)
+7 (in Kazakhstan and Russia)
Internet TLD

The Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) will be an economic union of states located primarily in northern Eurasia. A treaty aiming for the establishment of the EEU was signed on 29 May 2014 by the leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, and will come into force on 1 January 2015.[16] Treaties aiming for Armenia's and Kyrgyzstan's accession to the Eurasian Economic Union were signed on 9 October 2014 and 23 December respectively. Armenia's accession treaty will come into force on 2 January 2015.[17] Although Kyrgyzstan is an acceding member of the EEU,[3][4][5][6][7] its accession treaty and full fledged membership will come into force by May 2015.[18][19][20][21]


  1. ^ Putin Confirms Armenia’s Entry to Eurasian Union
  2. ^ Putin signs Armenia’s Eurasian Union deal
  3. ^ a b "Kyrgyzstan, Armenia officially enter Eurasian Economic Union". World Bulletin. 24 December 2014. Retrieved 26 December 2014. Signed agreement opens up new possibilities for Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, starting from 1st January 2015 
  4. ^ a b "Putin said the accession of Kyrgyzstan to the EAEC" (in Russian). Life News. 23 December 2014. Retrieved 26 December 2014. Kyrgyzstan is among the member countries of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEC). Kyrgyzstan will participate in the governing bodies of the EAEC since the start of the Union - from 1 January 2015. 
  5. ^ a b "EAEC: stillborn union?" (in Russian). Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 26 December 2014. Eurasian Economic Union added December 23 Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. 
  6. ^ a b Farchy, Jack (23 December 2014). "Eurasian unity under strain even as bloc expands". The Financial Times. Retrieved 26 December 2014. Kyrgyzstan on Tuesday a signed a treaty to join the Eurasian Economic Union, expanding the membership of Moscow-led project to five even as its unity is strained by the market turmoil gripping Russia. 
  7. ^ a b "Eurasian Economic Union to Launch on January 1". The Trumpet. 24 December 2014. Retrieved 26 December 2014. Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan agreed to a January 1 inauguration. 
  8. ^ Russia wants to see Tajikistan in Eurasian Economic Union
  9. ^ a b "Countries by Area". Retrieved 26 August 2014.  External link in |website= (help)
  10. ^
  11. ^ "The World Factbook". 
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^ "GDP, PPP (current international $)". Retrieved 26 August 2014.  External link in |website= (help)
  16. ^ Договор о Евразийском экономическом союзе
  18. ^ Kyrgyzstan Reiterates Support to Regional Integration
  19. ^ Belarus to chair Eurasian Economic Union in 2015
  20. ^ Finalization of ratification procedures on Armenia’s accession to EEU to be declared in Moscow today
  21. ^ Eurasian Economic Union is born burdened by Russian crisis

Reason: Many media outlets state that Kyrgyzstan has already joined the EEU, however other outlets state "full implementation of the accession treaty will happen by May 29". In order to ensure compliance and accuracy with all sources, Kyrgyzstan should be presented as a member but reminders that the full protocols and full implementation will happen by May 2015 should be retained. If this isn't applied, Wikipedia would be conflicting with multiple media outlets.

Krastama (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that would be the most logical and acceptable solution.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
"member" vs. "full fledged membership" ?!? - Either a state is a member or it isn't.
As said above: Maybe that treaty contains a clause about its provisional application. Maybe Kyrgyzstan will participate in the EEU's activities on a provisional basis - but that would still not make it a member state - and the infobox should reflect this.
something like "Kyrgyzstan - Accession treaty with provisional application - Membership pending ratification" (If that's the case at all)Knisfo (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Ummm, well seeing that once a country makes decisions to join a bloc, according to the world trade organisation the state needs to implement trade treaties and rules as if it is in it even before its completely joins. Also the legislation and the market needs to be harmonized beforehand. I understand why this is an issue, but this simply isn't "black or white" "in or out". Decisions can't really be done in the union if Kyrgyzstan disagrees, which is why it participates at every EEU summit. Decisions and legislation now needs to be translated in Kyrgyz. Also people investing in the union's market will be impacted by the country being in it. Seeing that it has a huge say in the decision making and has a veto to changes, I personally think it should be in the infobox.---Krastama (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you should also make "although Kyrgyzstan is an acceding member of the EEU" like in the box. It would be like the EU status although Kyrgyzstan has more of a say than members acceding EU.-Katenzz (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Katenzz, I added your change---Krastama (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
This idea sounds like the most sensible one to me. I live in Azberbaijan which is close to Armenia. Media here says Kyrgyzstan joined the union but its lagging behind in implementation of some things because it's mostly an agriculture oriented country.-Katenzz (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC) (You queue-jumped (again))Knisfo (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess this is the way to go. I support this edit—Mentoroso (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please read WP:OVERCITE before reactivating this request. The citation spam needs to be trimmed before there can be consensus for this edit. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Technical, I removed some citations as asked.---Krastama (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

recent edit[edit]

This one: [26]. "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)

Individual Country Maps[edit]

Should we have the EEU member countries have their maps on their respective pages be like the maps of EU and African Union member countries?? MosMusy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The EU includes more political components than the EEU, so probably not, but then again, the EEU has a court and wants to create a parliament so I'm not entirely sure.—Mentoroso (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Well I doubt the African Union is as tight-knit as EU, yet it does it for its member-states. I guess it's not particularly important at this point.MosMusy (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Mentoroso the flaw with your argument is that ASEAN, which is 100% economic, also has in light color countries of the union in question. See Thailand. Also, unlike the EEU the AU does not have a court it only has a Human Rights court. The AU parliament only consults and advises. See here.–Katenzz (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Katenzz, The maps with ASEAN highlighted were made without a consensus and should not actually be used as the ASEAN is only an economical organization. --Leftcry (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I say we wait for now, it was just a suggestion, but I think we should see how the Union transpires in the coming months. MosMusy (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The AU is also purely economic. And if there was no opposition of the highlighting of the maps for ASEAN that means nobody thought otherwise. In any case, I digress-Katenzz (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we could colour other member states, while keeping the map centred on the country being located. Otherwise, the countries like Belarus would significantly distorted due to the much larger size of the EEU in comparison to the EU. I don't really like the EU maps as they distort the shape of the countries as you go n/e/s/w, hindering the main purpose of the map for those countries. Also, Belarus should not use the European map scheme considering it is integrating with north Eurasian states. Rob984 (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox numbers[edit]

It's pretty pointless adding Kyrgyzstan's information (language, population, currency, etc...) to the infobox as it is not an official member of the union yet and neither are any of its national attributes. The official website of the union says nothing about Kyrgyzstan and will not say anything about until it becomes an official member in May. The Eurasian Economic Union does not consider Kyrgyzstan's national attributes official so neither should we. --Leftcry (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. TDL (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mentoroso: can you please remove all of the information you added about Kyrgyzstan from the infobox. --Leftcry (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I personally object to the removal of the Kyrgyz language, and the Kyrgyz TLD (both of which figure on the website), the Kyrgyz calling code, and the currency. As for the "General Economic Indicators" (GDP, population, etc.), I think that those should be adjusted to the site. Totally removing Kyrgyzstan from the infobox when the country's accession treaty is in force wouldn't be right.---Krastama (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion was to leave Kyrgyzstan in the Member States section as an acceding state but remove its national attributes as they are not yet official to the EEU. As for the Kyrgyz language, the Kyrgyz TLD, the Kyrgyz calling code and the currency, none of them are official to the union so it makes no sense for us to list them as official details when they're simply not. --Leftcry (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The language and TLD figure on the official website (which is under construction). I agree general economic indicators like population don't match up but other than that I don't see any reason to remove anything else.---Krastama (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
@Krastama: Can you tag a source showing the website referring to the language and TLD as official attributes of the union. --Leftcry (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
No Krastama, it doesn't not figure on the website, as it's not a member yet.—Mentoroso (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Guys I misread website. Although President Nursultan Nazarbayev had this to say---Krastama (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
First, I did not add that information to the infobox in the first place, other users did. Second, I'm not removing Kyrgyzstan from the infobox, as far as I'm concerned I agreed to its status as an acceding state. I've made changes to further underline that it isn't a full member yet. But removing it and making it look like a "candidate" is completely wrong and not in line with key facts.—Mentoroso (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mentoroso: Umm...yes you did [27] [28] which is why I asked you to remove it, cause you would know what to remove and what information to bring back. Also, when we agreed to treat Kyrgyzstan as an acceding member we also agreed to not treat it as a full member of the union. By adding the its information to the infobox we are recognizing it as a part of the union when it isn't. The bottom line is, Kyrgyzstan is not a member of the Eurasian Union, its area and population are not part of the Eurasian Union, and its language, currency, calling code and internet TLD are not official to the Eurasian Union, so we shouldn't treat them as such. --Leftcry (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I changed my mind shortly after my edits were reverted. About 4 other users then added the information. A state cannot accede without gradually implementing converging policies and making provisions to harmonise its currency, labour market (people) and laws (which therefore need to be translated in Kyrgyz to be adopted and applied on Kyrgyz territory). By adding Kyrgyzstan to the infobox as an "acceding state", we're clearly stating that it's an official participant and integrating, which it is.—Mentoroso (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Acronym: EAEU vs. EEU[edit]

According to the organisation’s website (source) the official acronym is EAEU. However, many news organisations including TASS use the acronym EEU. So I have put both and made a note on the page. 159753 (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that! --Leftcry (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
EEU is also used on the website, I've created a separate note section for those kind of refs---Krastama (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I think one thing the Union needs for sure is to agree on an acronym! 159753 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Heh! They should indeed! :) ---Krastama (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eurasian Economic Union/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 12:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Given the size of the article, I should have this one up in a couple of days if that's ok Jaguar 12:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Initial comments[edit]

Thank you for taking the time Jaguar for reviewing the article. It is very much appreciated.—Mentoroso (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


  • Citations are generally discouraged from the lead unless it is citing controversial information. I think that "Although Kyrgyzstan's accession treaty will not come into force until May 2015, provided it has been ratified,[15][16][17][18]" - is not really controversial (I could be wrong), so why four citations?
  • Maybe the third paragraph could be switched with the second, as articles generally have the second paragraphs in the lead talking about the history and the third [last] miscellaneous?


  • "The idea was quickly seen as a way to bolster trade" - bolster trade with who? Western nations or Eurasian?
 Comment: The goal is to boost trade in general: to increase mutual trade between members of the union and increase trade with Europe and Asia (the EEU also wants be a transit hub for countries of both continents)—Mentoroso (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph in the Founding Treaties (1990s) subsection should contain at least one source
  • Some paragraphs in the Geography section are unsourced. Please make sure at least every paragraph is sourced in order for this to meet the criteria
  • Some flow issues in the Enlargement section. The opening "Tajikistan is interested in joining" should be merged with another paragraph
  • Budget subsection is very short, consider expanding or merging it?
  • Would the European Union be considered 'competition' to the EEU? A mention of "Tensions between the EEU and the European Union (EU) occurred as both have sought to deepen their ties with several former Soviet republics" gives us an idea that there could be some competition
 Comment: There's some sort of a competition yes, for countries like Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia. Both unions have tried to sign agreements with those countries for them to pursue integration. Russia wants those countries to remain in its sphere of influence. The EU wants them to pursue european integration. It could probably described as a "tug of war"—Mentoroso (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Kazakhstan ranks favorably in terms of miles of road per inhabitant as other developed countries in the world have much less roadway per inhabitant" - big claim! This needs to be sourced?
  • Second paragraph in the Existing integration projects is unsourced


  • Does this article use American English or British English? In some cases there are words such as "modernise" and different spelling variations such as "unrecognized" etc
Green tickY Completed


  • All of these need to be replaced or removed in order to pass some part of the GA criteria. You can check what links are dead at the toolserver
Green tickY Completed All links have been replaced with the exception of one (no replacement needed as other references are present)

On hold[edit]

Overall a comprehensive article, it is broad and well referenced, despite the problems it has now it has a fighting chance of passing the GAN. The major concerns here are the dead references that need to be replaced and some prose/lead issues too. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and if they are all addressed we'll take another look. Thanks Jaguar 20:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Hi Jaguar! I have updated and corrected the article in line with your comments. I hope it fits your expectations adequately.—Mentoroso (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted[edit]

Sorry for not seeing this as I have been away for a while - thanks for addressing them. After reading through the article again extensively I am happy to say that this article has improved and meets the GA criteria. It passes 1a. of the criteria (well written) and after your improvements, the references should also pass. Anyway, I could go on for a bit, but let's promote this Good article Jaguar 18:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Dozens of protestors"[edit]

"However, not all Kazakh citizens were happy about the agreement; dozens of people protesting the agreement were arrested in the nation's capital after it was signed."

I think maybe this should be removed and replaced by a more reliable barometer of public opinion in Kazakhstan.

I.e.: "The Eurasian Development Bank's Integration Barometer survey shows that public support for the Customs Union dwindled from 80% in 2012 to 73% in 2013, while opposition to it increased from 4% to 6% as trade restrictions and higher import duties for imports from third countries pushed up the prices of imported goods in Kazakhstan."

More recent data probably exists somewhere. Esn (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The full poll results from 2012 and 2013 are here (at the bottom). More recent polls: July 2014 (Russia), June 2014 (Kazakhstan). Esn (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've edited the article to replace the previous line with the June 2014 public opinion poll results, which shows that support stood at 68% and opposition at 5.5% (with the rest indifferent or unsure). Esn (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


Is there a reference about that flag in the infobox. Official site only show logo and there are no mentions about that 'proposed' flag. kazekagetr 18:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it's just some fan art. Commons:File:Флаг_Евразийского_союза.jpg says "The project is not the official flag of the Eurasian Union. The proposed private persons". I've removed this flag several times, but Twittermon, a WP:SPA, keeps restoring it without any explanation or discussion. I'm going to remove it again, pending any sources showing it has official status. We shouldn't be presenting it as official unless it is. TDL (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


I won't correct anything, since I mostly edit in the Spanish Wikipedia, but I'd warn you that this article is quite not updated since Kyrgyzstan joined the bloc on 22 May 2015 ([29]). Anyway, as I'm aware of the arrogance and the supremacist thinking of the anglo-saxonic editors, I'm just warning and I won't do anything. It's up to you, like a Cambodian friend of mine says.Viet-hoian1 (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting ethnic bigotry and stick to the topic of the article.
Your claim above is not correct. As the source you link to very clearly says "All that remains now for Kyrgyzstan’s complete accession to the EEU is ratification of the treaty by the parliaments of the other members–Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Armenia." As of last week, Kazakhstan had not completed the process.[30] Once it joins of course it should be added, but we shouldn't prematurely claim it is a member when this is incorrect. TDL (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to follow up, Kyrgyzstan joined on 6 August. TDL (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Danlaycock Sorry, I was taken by mistake by the information provided by this apparently not very accurate news site: [31] World Bulletin). I guess this news site either can't be trusted as a reliable source, or, if generally speaking, it may eventually be considered as a reliable source (though clearly not, in this case), it made a gross mistake that led me to edit erroneous informations. And I guess most wikipedias, at least the ones that I consulted, made the same mistake. I've already corrected the edition in the Spanish Wikipedia, which is the one where I edit most frequently. I'm really sorry that I made such a confusion based on false informations, based on a source that I had not previously considered as an unreliable source. Greetings and apologies! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Danlaycock By the way, the other source I mentioned previously also gave the same false information. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Language maps[edit]

As an answer by the edit by Kintetsubuffalo concerning to the languages spoken in Eurasian Economic Union, and given his/her response, according to whom, Russian is spoken by all people in the EEU, I must answer this: Neither Russian is spoken by all the rest. In Armenia, Russian is only spoken by a small minority and it's not an official language of Armenia. So, if that map (the one about the Russian language) should be included, while the others should not be, should Germany be included on a map of the Turkic Council? And since English is a lingua franca in the EU and in most of the world, should the article European Union or World include a map of the English language too? In the EEU article, either neither of the official languages should be displayed on a map, or all of them should be displayed on a map. Urgup-tur (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say all people, you misquoting troll.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
No comments about that reply! Urgup-tur (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
So is this true:
"Russian is widely spoken in all member states"
"widely" infers a majority. Is this true outside of Russia and Belarus? I don't think even Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have that many speakers, let alone Armenia. Rob984 (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
re: "I don't think" - please don't "don't think", but do research instead. This is wikipedia, not some blog where people randomly spill their guts. You are mistaken, especially about Kazakhstan. At the same time I do agree with you in the sense that statements of such kind require references. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
It is widely spoken in Armenia.[1] Belarus and Kazakhstan are easily verified as well. So it remains to find confirmation for Kyrgyzstan. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I was honestly just asking for it to be verified, hardly spilling my guts. According to the 2009 census, 2.5 million Kyrgyz people can speak Russian, so "widely" is marginally correct. Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ "The South Caucasus Between The EU And The Eurasian Union" (PDF). Caucasus Analytical Digest #51-52. Forschungsstelle Osteuropa, Bremen and Center for Security Studies, Zürich. 17 June 2013. pp. 22–23. ISSN 1867-9323. Retrieved 3 July 2013. 


In the ' legislature' part of the info box in the lede, the "interparlementary assembly" is listed. That assembly seems )according to the constituting treaty have no legislative power. It seems from that treaty that the supreme council (similar to the EU council) takes the main decisions on a proposal of the commission (and of course after obtaining national approval if needed, possibly through parliaments). I think we have 4 possibilities to add

  1. interparl assembly (which I think has no basis in the treaty
  2. leave blank (there is no true 'chambre')
  3. supreme council (it takes that role as far as I can see in the treaty)
  4. national parliaments (problematic, because they are not an organ of the Union)

I personally think nr 2 or 3 are good, and welcome the thoughts of others. --L.tak (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi L.Tak, you're right about the interparliamentary assembly, I've modified the paragraph to correct it. There should however be a paragraph on the Supreme Council though. —Mentoroso (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks about that. I have had the time to look at the competences of the Supreme Council (Article 12). Those are very broad powers which are generally regarded legislative powers (determine strategy, approve budget, appoint judges and chairmen of other entities, "make decisions aimed at implementing the objectives of the Union"... L.tak (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be good if we had a "Supreme Council" part under the "Politics and Governance" section, in which we would put the powers the Supreme Council have and state like you said "The Supreme Council has very broad powers which are often regarded as legislative powers (such as determining strategy, approving the budget, appointing judges and chairmen of other entities)"—Mentoroso (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Trade agreements section[edit]

There is something odd about the CISFTA. The link in the last column links to a old treaty, while according to the table, while the links in the source speak about 2011/2012. Furthermore, the table suggests the treaty came into force between the EEU and one of the 3 other CISFTA states at a certain date, while it is also possible, that the CISFTA didn't enter into force for all EEU states at the same date. Do we have a title with signatures and ratifications so we can make a separate table for the Free trade area, and separate it from the Free Trade Agreements? L.tak (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done I fixed the column link with the right treaty text from the World Trade Organisaiton website. Details about the history of the CISFTA should be made on the CISFTA wikipedia page. The goal of this article should be only to show current FTAs in force and FTAs being negotiatiated.—Mentoroso (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I think I have the dates correct now:
State Signature Entry into Force Comment
Armenia 18 October 2011 17 October 2012 Eurasian Economic Union member
Belarus 18 October 2011 20 September 2012 Eurasian Economic Union member
Kazakhstan 18 October 2011 8 December 2012 Eurasian Economic Union member
Kyrgyzstan 18 October 2011 13 December 2013 Eurasian Economic Union member
Moldova 18 October 2011 9 December 2012
Russia 18 October 2011 20 September 2012 Eurasian Economic Union member
Tajikistan 18 October 2011
Ukraine 18 October 2011 20 September 2012
Uzbekistan 12 January 2014

From this table, my problem becomes clear. The table on our page only shows Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Moldova and their entry into force, which suggests that is the entry into force of the relations with the EEU (member states), but in fact it is the entry into force date with a selected number of EEU members that have already ratified (and not e.g. Kyrgyz republic). Wouldn't it be wiser to either add dates for all, or add dates for none, in stead of only for these 3? L.tak (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I added a note to clarify what you said, and linked it to the CISFTA page. Adding the CISFTA table on the EEU page would be off topic, and most readers interested in specifics would go to the CISFTA page anyway. Also, most EEU member states enforce the treaty between September and December 2012. The only exception being Kyrgyzstan. So a couple months doesn't make it as bad as it seems.—Mentoroso (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Iran updte[edit]

Signed an agreement [32]Lihaas (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, seems to be some kind of step towards an FTA... L.tak (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eurasian Economic Union. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eurasian Economic Union. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)