Talk:Partnership for Peace

New member - Nov 2006 - Serbia ? -
Serbia is a new member since today,it should be on the front page of Wikipedia,and this article is to be changed.I would like to do that,but I am too lazy to look for links,but it is very important to change front page of Wikipedia and add this as one of the most important news.Thank you YXYX 16:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are misinfomred. First of all, Serbia is not the only one invited (Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina were too), second of all, as it is completely insignificant for the rest of the world it shouldn't be on the front page, and finally, it is still NOT a member, as it didn't sign the agreement. This is, of course, a formality, but a serious encyclopedia should treat formalities with outmost care. Regards.

How can it be insignificant??? Are you crazy,if you look on the front page,whenever there are elections in some socialist or communist country that is on the front page. Now there is a new country in Partnership for Peace(which is more important then some communist elections),that doesnt happen every day,so it should be on the front page,since it is a very important event.

YXYX 11:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Socialist and communist states do by definition not have elections, so your claim is nonsensical to the extreme. Go bother someone else. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 19:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes in my last edit
Here are the main changes I have made:


 * I have expanded the intro to include Malta and why it left.
 * The dates each PfP member signed the Partnership document are in full.
 * References!
 * Integrated Montenegro, Serbia, and BiH's invites to PfP in the article.
 * Updated map; might try a crack at an SVG.

- Thanks, Hoshie 13:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Assessment
To be honest, I'm not entirely positive whether this article ought to be listed under the Military History project, as it seems a political/economic/diplomatic association, not a proper military alliance (or at least not a significant one, as it hasn't been directly involved in any conflicts, has it?) But, all of that aside, there's just not enough content here. You explain briefly what the PfP is, and who's a member, but not the history of how/why it developed, what it has done in the past, etc. Lists are no substitute for actual prose paragraph content. LordAmeth 00:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * PfP isn't a military alliance, it's a subsiduary body associated to a military alliance (NATO). If you're going to categorise it, it's probably best labelled as a diplomatic association.  It hasn't been _directly_ involved in any conflicts because doing so would contradict its supposed objectives (though it has come close at times, hence the reason Malta left and certain other neutral states have declined to join).


 * Secondly, there's an error in the references, numbers 2 and 3 point to the same link (the document for Malta's entry to the PfP)

Despite some fairly thorough searching, I can't seem to find a source document referring to Malta's withdrawal. --Wren-3talk 16:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Same here. It seems that Maltese and NATO sources from the late 90's are pretty thin here. I fixed the ref some time ago. - Thanks, Hoshie 23:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Map
Are the USA,Canada etc. not member of PFP or why arent they coloured?But if yes, why are Poland and all the new members coloured?--84.161.68.31 (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PfP is a NATO programme for non-NATO countries. Therefore, only non-NATO countries can belong to it.  Green coloured countries are former members of PfP; they ceased to belong to PfP when they joined NATO.--Gorpik (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Meaning
This article lists only the membership/-history, but doesn't give any information about membership requirements or meaning besides "creating trust" with NATO. Is being a member of PfP really only a "I want to publicly declare that I like NATO and/or peace" checkbox for countries or are there any real obligations? As-is, the article is not helpful at all for understanding the PfP. 46.115.156.195 (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I started the "Activities" section to fill this gap. Could still use some expansion. -- Beland (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Controversy
The article doesnt say anything regarding the fact that PfP membership had given rise to a certain amount of controversy in some countries (e.g. Ireland) 2.123.243.237 (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

the Bulgarian Society Novae
The wording is unidiomatic and the society needs a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.191.234 (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The winner of Cyprus' presidential election in February 2013, Nicos Anastasiades
Does this mean that this part of the article is out of date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.191.234 (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Russia's membership - could be explained
Can at least a few words be added to this article to explain why Russia is a member of this NATO program, in light of the fact that NATO's primary reason for existence is to curb threats from Russia? Why would Russia want to have anything to do with any NATO program? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * And given that Russia is in PfP, what does PfP membership mean in practice ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This question has already gone more than two years with no hint at an answer. I still cannot understand how come Russia is a member of this organization whose aims are, among others,
 * To enhance the ability for states to provide humanitarian missions such as peacekeeping and search and rescue as the main goal through building a cooperative militaristic relationship with NATO and other states involved;
 * To build forces that can work with members of the NATO in the long run;
 * To consult with and report to NATO if threats made to the security, territory or sovereignty of a participating state are detected.
 * considering that, for instance, the establishment of NATO bases in Poland and the Baltic states is viewed by the Russian authorities as a menace. — Tonymec (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

War and Peace
This article needs urgent update: surely the Russo-Ukrainian War raises questions about this Partnership for Peace. - ELEKHHT 13:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of French name
Since French is co-official alongside English in NATO, I thought about the inclusion of the French name. I don't feel bold enough to edit this, so I figured that I would discuss it first. Caehlla2357 (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine is also in
https://www.nato.int/structur/nmlo/links/yavoriv-training-centre.pdf --31.144.193.145 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian invasion of Ukraine
What is the status of the PfP now? It does not seem to be working. 2601:647:5800:3B60:4462:E45D:493C:359 (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Finland joined NATO
Please edit the image of countries in Europe in relation to the PfP membership. FanofMultimedia123 (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)