Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 13

Yet Another Infobox Survey
It appears that it is time for another survey on the infobox. The previous survey was on whether the list of successor states should include the 15 de facto successor states or the 12 de jure successor states, and the conclusion was that it should include the 15 de facto successor states. (There wasn't the choice of the one continuator state). However, that was based on the assumption that there had to be a list of predecessor and successor states. Then it was proposed that the lists of predecessor states and successor states be removed from the infobox, because the infobox doesn't permit an explanation of the complexities that can be and is explained in the article text. Should we include or remove the lists of predecessor and successor states from the infobox? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove - Not required to have that information in infobox. In view of the complexity, better explained only in article text.   Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Include - see Baltic Republics Question#Fifteen states listed most people agreed that it should be included and with the baltic states Peterzor (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove - they are an optional field in the infobox with which the guide recommends caution when using, and given the complexity of one continuator state, eleven successor states and three restored states I support removing them until a better solution is found. Why don't we ask at the Template talk page to add "Continuator state" and "Restored state" parameter in addition to the "Successor state" parameter, I'm sure someone expert in the templating language would have no problem in adding extra parameters it in a way that was backward compatible with existing usage in other articles. It would benefit many other articles as well. --Nug (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It is information that is useful to be viewed at a glance. -- MisterShiney    ✉    21:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How useful is misrepresented information? Templates are merely an editorial convenience, we don't go ignoring reliable sources just to accommodate it, we change the template instead. --Nug (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is nothing misleading about the infobox. Details and complexities, as always, can be found in the article. LokiiT (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Customize if kept. Of course the infobox is misleading if it lists predecessors and successors only. It doesn't really matter how many editors think there's no difference between the Baltic states and the rest since that belief is not supported by fact. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ambivalent. I don't see the harm in listing the predecessors and successors, with the full 15 included in the latter, and it is simply wrong to assert that it is objectively "incorrect" or outright misleading to include the Baltics as "successor states". It is, in fact, a perfectly normal – and possibly even the most common – use of the term in both casual and academic discourse, even if perhaps not in a technical sense in which the term is employed in the specialist and rarefied field of international law (see discussions above ad nauseam). However, given the rather tedious fuss it has created and given that there is a complexity to the issue that is perhaps not easily addressed by a simple list (although a qualification/footnote of some sort would solve the problem, you'd have thought), it might be easier to just drop it; plus what would probably be more informative for the average reader anyway – and possibly less contentious – is a list of the constituent republics (and yes, all 15 of them).  N-HH   talk / edits  10:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. If Principality of Bulgaria is listed among successors of the Ottoman Empire, why can not we do the same here?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. Also, the Principality of Bulgaria didn't exist before the Ottoman Empire, unlike the Baltic states which existed before the Soviet Union. I'm still waiting for you to explain how a state be both newly independent yet regain independence at the same time. --Nug (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Revision
Thank you to Nug for introducing the proper complexity into the Infobox. Can the RFC now be closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. It seems to me to be introducing a new simplicity, albeit one that conforms to the preferred option and POV of Nug and a few others. Simply excluding them entirely from the category "successor states" and plonking them definitively and exclusively under the term "restored states" is as misleading as simply including them as successor states would be. And claiming that doing so is "to align with RS" is flat-out fraudulent. As noted and discussed above not every source uses the terminology in that way. Plenty of serious sources, if not most, use the term "successor states" to cover all 15 post-Soviet countries rather than using it in a technical legal sense. We also have explicit explanations of why that is the case.  N-HH   talk / edits  22:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the article just became substantially less neutral and less technically accurate. LokiiT (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Then maybe we should just omit the successor states from the infobox, as a few have suggested. All choices are controversial.    Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything can be made artificially controversial. We should include content that's widely supported by reliable sources, which the original table is. LokiiT (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Actually, if you read the instructions on the former countries infobox, any country existing before, during, and after should not appear in the infobox. That most closely describes the sovereign continuity of the Baltic states. I've already indicated the infobox, if kept, needs expansion to show Russia separate from other successors and the Baltics separate from all successors. To suggest the Baltic states are successors suggests they were legally part of the USSR. That's simply unacceptable in an encyclopedia and has nothing to do with nationalist POVs. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, no, it is totally acceptable to suggest they are among the 15 "successor states" of the USSR, as this is simply to follow real world usage as found in a multitude of reliable sources (including one cited way above that asserts this use is the most common in academic and other discourse); just as saying that they are not – based on the esoteric, legal definition of the term – follows other, multiple, real world sources. As pointed out 1000 times, we have an issue here because different, equally reliable, authoritative and serious sources use the term "successor state" with different meanings. Is this ever going to sink in? Maybe this is not about nationalism, but I'm struggling to see on what basis some people are so insistent on preferring the option that happens to buttress a nationalist position. Just because sources and logic can be deployed to defend that position does not mean there is not a political or nationalist motive behind pushing it.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I find your arguments somewhat disingenuous. The intent of the successor state field is to show the successor/s in terms of international law as it recommends this for most of cases, while making an exception in some cases were editors feel it useful to deviate from that. Thus your contention that the restoration view is just a "technical legal" view not only collapses in terms of the intent of the infobox guide, but it fails in the face of the acceptance  by  the international community of the restoration thesis which goes far beyond mere "technical legal sense" to real world consequences in political, financial and human terms. As for your attempt to raise "nationalist" card, surely you jest. Let I remind you that RS show that the view that the Baltic states succeeded in international law is held by Russia alone, and thus that view is verifiably characterised as a "nationalist viewpoint", whereas on the other hand it is easily verified that the restoration view is held and accepted by the international community in general and thus cannot be characterised as "nationalist". Seems to me that you are in fact attempting to give this nationalist viewpoint undue weight through dubious usage arguments, which while may have some utility for article titles, is never the less irrelevant to the original intent of the infobox. --Nug (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The intent of the successor state field is to show the succession both in terms of international law and in common usage.  Showing the 15 states is unsatisfactory, because it is consistent with common usage but disregards international law.  Showing 12 states is unsatisfactory, because it ignores common usage.  Either Nug's tweak should be used, which reconciles common use and international law, or the successor states should be left out of the infobox, which is only an infobox, because the text can explain the subtleties.  Robert McClenon (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree there are problems with doing either but, as noted, I'm not sure the tweak solves them. And apologies for picking up a side point from the previous post, but I'm jesting or being disingenuous when I venture to suggest that nationalism and politics play a part both in WP editing on Eastern European/Soviet issues and, even, in real-world international law (from both sides, that is, not from just the "Baltic", "anti-Soviet" or even "anti-Russian" one)? Come now.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Successor" does not mean simply what was left after. By the rules of the infobox, Baltic sovereignty existed before, during, and after the Soviet era and therefore, as being unchanged, they don't belong in the infobox. I am willing to compromise and to show the Baltic states in the infobox, but the infobox MUST be correct and show Russia similar but separate from the remaining legitimate successors, and the Baltic states as being restored. If that requires a custom section to the infobox, so be it. Otherwise we leave out the predecessor and successor section and just deal with it in the article. Those are the two choices here. There's no third choice of showing all 15 in the "successor" column. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that "all 15" equates to the current, but not always that way, Russian position that the Baltic states are new entities discontinuous with their pre-WWII selves, the Baltics joined legitimately, etc. etc. and that to support that position is to support the Russian nationalist position unsubstantiated by historical fact. Our objective here is to create an appropriate infobox or not at all. I'm glad to make up a custom former countries infobox if that's needed, might take me a bit to figure out the syntax. What it really needs is the ability to title and then subtitle within the "before" and "after" columns. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as I keep trying to point out, and many reliable sources point out, successor can indeed mean exactly that. You're trying to redefine the English language here. Someone describing Latvia as a successor state is not accepting a Russian nationalist point by buying into any Russian legal analysis, they're just not using the term in a legal sense to start with. Equally, sovereignty is not as clear cut as you insist it is. And talking about what description or terminology is "correct" is just plain odd. We're not talking about fixed or agreed terminology or, therefore, categorisation that can be formally determined – by random WP editors or anyone else – to be objectively "correct" or "incorrect". However, precisely because of that, explicitly excluding the Baltic states from a list of "successor states" is as problematic as including them (hence why I've been in favour of having an undivided list with a brief explanatory footnote for Russia and the Baltics or, failing that, outright removal of the list).  N-HH   talk / edits  18:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since this is an encyclopedia, "precedecessor" and "successor" regarding former countries means sovereignty and international law, not colloquial usage. How is an accurate description of the legal sovereign entities here "odd"? Of course we are talking fixed terminology as it relates to sovereignty. (Frankly, it's odd that you think a brief note explains everything.) Would you support a customized infobox that lists Russia, the other successor states, and the Baltic states separately in the "after" section? If not, then the only other alternative I can support that it appears we can both agree on is complete removal of that section of the infobox. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * N-HH's arguments seem somewhat muddled, first he argues for colloquial usage of the term claiming that when sources write in 2007 "Because Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were never legally part of the Soviet Union, they could neither secede nor become Soviet successor states." and "The only non-controversial point is that the three Baltic States are regarded not as new States (and not as successor States of the U.S.S.R.) but as identical to the three Baltic States that existed before their 1940 illegal annexation by the U.S.S.R." they are using the narrow legalistic definition, then N-HH makes the extraordinary claim "sovereignty is not as clear cut as you insist it is", however the issue of sovereignty at its core an issue of international law. N-HH says that all fifteen states should be mentioned in some form in the infobox, I attempted a solution but N-HH strongly objected calling it "flat out fraudulent", insisting that placing Russia under "continuator state" and the Baltics under the term "restored states" is somehow misleading. How he claims it is "misleading" and "flat out fraudulent" is unclear given that sources as early as 1996 assert that view that the Baltics are restored states is accepted by the international community and by 2007 is seen as uncontroversial according to RS. --Nug (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record I neither claimed primacy for "colloquial use" of the term "successor state" nor are we talking about that anyway. Nor did I ever use the term or mean anything close to it: as cited in the acres of text above, plenty of serious sources, including academic ones, use the term with a broad meaning while entirely cognisant of the fact that it also has a separate, legalistic meaning. My point, again, is that there is no simple, objective definition that is appropriate here, one way or the other. And no, an encyclopedia is not obliged to prefer a narrow legalistic definition over other perfectly relevant ones, whether it suits some agendas or not. Also, my use of the word "fraudulent" referred to the claim in an edit summary that the description is in alignment with what RSs say. As noted, that is a fraudulent and misleading claim. And, finally, sovereignty is not "clear cut"; we have the de facto and de jure distinction, let alone the facts that different states clearly take different views – as, again, recorded in plenty of those RSs that are conveniently ignored – on the status of the Baltic states and that international law is not some pure and objective font of truth but rather, is predicated both on incredibly loaded political assumptions and on the opinions of those writers who are interpreting the political backdrop. It may come as a shock to some partisan WP editors but not all writers, however well regarded they may be, agree on matters of interpretation.  N-HH   talk / edits  23:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with  N-HH . Just look at the Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire or similar articles. I don't think the complexity introduced by Nug is "proper". It contradicts to the commonly accepted style, and just confuses a reader.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. The successor states of Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire didn't exist before Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire, unlike the Baltic states which existed before the Soviet Union:
 * "Generally speaking, the experience of pre-war independence gives the Baltic states a unique position compared with other former Soviet republics. In other words, the "restored Baltic republics" enjoy a status under international law which distinguishes them from the "Newly Independent States" (NIS) of the ex-USSR"
 * I'm still waiting for you to explain how a state be both newly independent yet regain independence at the same time. How does obfuscating that Russia is the continuator state and the Baltics are restored states lessen reader confusion?  --Nug (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All needed explanations have already been provided for many times, and that is your problem that you ignore them. However, since some new participants may be unaware of those explanations, I can briefly summarise them as follows.
 * When we discuss the Baltic states we should separate the historical viewpoint from the legal one. It is currently believed that the three Baltic states, which were illegally annexed by the USSR, should be, by and large, considered as continuously existing since the moment of their first formation (as a result of the WWI and Russian Revolution). However, serious authors, such as van Elsuwege, speak about such a state continuity with serious reservations: they believe that "the issue of restoration of the international legal personality of the Baltic states is sui generis, with both legal and political dimensions", and that "full and unrestricted restitutio ad integrum can therefore rightfully be described as a legal fiction." The term "sui generis" means that we cannot speak about full restoration from a commonsensual point of view, because the conflict between the two maximae, ex injuria non oritur jus,, and ex factis jus oritur is not fully resolvable in this case. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, the term "legal fiction" is "a rule assuming as true something that is clearly false". It is used to avoid some formal obstacles, which cannot be avoided otherwise. However, all of that has no direct relation to the historical events: for example, if a person X was adopted by Mr Y and Mrs Z, they, for legal purposes, are considered biological parents of X. Does it mean X's biography article can list Y and Z as his biological parents? Obviously not. In connection to that, I found that the attempts of some users to bring purely legal arguments into historical disputes are totally unacceptable.
 * Obviously, under "successor states" the infobox means "post-Soviet states" (the only successor of the USSR is Russia). The fact that "post-Soviet states" ≠ "CIS" is obvious: most sources list fifteen (not twelve) post-Soviet states.
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your persistence with this apparent demagogic "legal fiction" argument seems to becoming tendentious given that your mis-interpretation of the meaning of "legal fiction" and van Elsuwege's stance was pointed out to you previously here. Do you have any new arguments? --Nug (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Mind your tongue, and try to show at least minimal respect to your peers: your responce contains no indication that you tried to think about what I wrote. If you really looked at the Wanderer's responce, you would see that it contained just general phrases taken from the wiki article about Legal fiction. By no means it is a refutation of my arguments (which were seriously misinterpreted by Wanderer). By writing ""Legal fiction" is a legal term referring to methods related on how laws are handled in certain cases" Wanderer demonstrated his poor understanding of the concept. I have no intention to explain anything to you (because, starting from some moment I feel you do not understand simply because you don't want to), but, since other people may read this discussion, I explain my viewpoint again below.
 * To understand what legal fiction is, let's discuss corporate personhood as one of the most important examples. According to American law, a corporation is  an  artificial  person whose personhood status is a legal fiction employed as a convenience to facilitate commerce. In addition, the Supreme Court equated the First Amendment free speech rights of corporations with those of human beings; it also  declared that corporations are  persons  for purposes of the  Fourteenth Amendment. Does it make a corporation a living person? No. Corporations are treated as if they were living persons in some concrete context, however, that does not mean any court ever declared they are living persons. That is what legal fiction means: not to declare that white is black, but to assume that white, for some concrete legal purposes is black (but to keep in mind that white is nevertheless white). That is a difference between a "legal fiction" (assumption as true something that is clearly false) and a "fiction" (creation of something from the imagination).
 * Accordingly, what van Elsuwege says is that present-days Baltic states should be treated as if they continuously existed in 1940-90. However, he never proposed to rewrite history and to declare that they actually existed during that period, and, importantly, he notes that the Baltic states themselves prefer to forget about their state continuity when they find it beneficial. Thus, Lithuania prefers to forget about that, because (i) it has no serious problem with Russian minority, and (ii) that would mean the loss of a considerable part of its territory. In other words, even among the Baltic states themselves there is no agreement on that account, so the attempt to impose Estonian-Latvian vision of history on the Wikipedia community becomes more and more unacceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wanderer602 was correct in pointing out that van Elsuwege is not making the argument you think he is making. Van Elsuwege is saying that a full and unrestricted application of restitutio ad integrum could described as a legal fiction, but he doesn't say a partial and restricted application of restitutio ad integrum is also a fiction. In fact he says there was effective continuity in the passage directly following your quote:
 * "This does not imply that the principle of state continuity is without any effect. In the first place, it involves an important denunciation of the forcible and illegal annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union and thus has an important symbolic and moral dimension. Furthermore, it has a number of practical consequences, for instance, in the field of citizenship policy and on the validity of international treaties. Finally, the explicit recognition of the Baltic thesis on state continuity determined the EU policy with regard to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and distinguishes these countries from the other former Soviet republics from the very beginning."
 * Your argument appears to be that continuity is more theory than reality and it amounts to a "fiction", thus you contend that while the restored republics are deemed to continue the pre-war States, they in fact do not. D. Loeber addressed that same argument in Legal Consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact for the Baltic States in Baltic yearbook of international law: 2001, so I quote in full:
 * ''The legal existence of a State has to be distinguished from the exercise of it rights. The claim to continuity refers to the existence of a State, leaving aside the question of when and how that State exercises its rights.
 * ''It is obvious that the situation in 1991 is not the same as in 1940. The Baltic States have to adapt to changed circumstances. The need is felt primarily in such areas as renewing diplomatic relations, in adjusting treaty relations and in settling property questions.
 * ''At issue in the continuity claim, consequently, is not whether or not it is possible "to erase 50 years of legal life". The question is rather whether or not the Baltic States have suffered "extinction" as a result of foreign domination. If they have lost their status as subjects of international law, a "fiction" can be used for upholding continuity. If, however, the three republics have survived, any fiction is redundant and even misleading. There is no room for a compromise or a third way.
 * ''The protection of the independence of States is one of the basic functions of international law. Therefore, international law is reluctant to admit lightly the extinction of a State. In the case of illegal annexations international law requires that the extinction of the States has been "definite and final". Finality means that the last hope has vanished and that a regaining of independence is contrary to all expectations.
 * In the Baltic case the point of finality was never reached. The population had not acquiesced with the situation and diplomatic representations continued to function in a number of States. Up to 1991 "nothing even approximately final has taken place which would totally destroy any reasonable chance" of a restoration of the Baltic states, as wrote Krystyna Marek in 1968. As the course of history has shown, the chance of a restitutio in integrum'' was never destroyed and has lead to a re-establishment of independence.
 * Trying to substantiate the "Fictitious Continuity" thesis, the authors point to the need of the Baltic States to rely on treaties concluded by the USSR. But such adjustments was the exception and merely a temporary measure, leaving the principle of continuity intact. The situation has been handled by the Baltic States in a consistent manner, without recourse to a "fiction".
 * The intent of the successor-state field in the template is to indicate the successor states as determined by international law. Given the different treatment of Russia and the Baltic States (the former as continuator, the later as restored states) by the international community with respect to their post-Soviet status and their acceptance of the principle of continuity, I do not see the sense in obfuscating these differences. --Nug (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You wrote I use the term "legal fiction" demagogically, and that Wanderer explained me why I was wrong. In my post I demonstrated that I understand this term correctly, so if you were a good faith user you should have to apologise for your false accusations, not to switch to other arguments.
 * Regarding van Elsiwege's words you quoted, please explain me when did I claim that if something is a legal fiction it has no effect? In contrast, I claimed the directly opposite. According to American law corporations are treated as living persons in some concrete aspects. Thus, a corporation has standing to enter into contracts, to hold property, to sue and be sued, and ultimately to carry on business in the corporate name, and these rights are identical to the rights of real persons. However, a corporation cannot vote, of be elected. In other words, in some circumstances it is treated exactly as a living person, whereas in other situation is not. That is what "legal fiction" is, and it has an immense effect on the life of the American society. Similarly, it is clear from van Elsuwege's words that the idea of full restitutio ad integrum, being a legal fiction, can and should be applied to determine present-days identity of the Baltic states, but that one has not to forget he is dealing with a legal fiction, which has cannot be applied universally, especially to re-write historical books or articles. Moreover, as I already wrote, even the Baltic states themselves do not apply this principle universally.
 * Regarding the extended quote provided by you, I don't understand what fresh information it contains. Yes, everything he is writing is correct. Yes, Baltic state continuity is not "fiction" (it is a "legal fiction", which is not the same). However, all of that are just legal considerations. From the historical point of view, 15 states currently exist on the territory of former Soviet Union, and, in that sense, they are "successors" (although only Russia is a legal successor). Will you argue with the statement that present days Estonia is being frequently listed among "post-Soviet states"? Therefore, the infobox is clear and informative. In contrast, your version of the infobox would be totally misleading: it would imply that during 1940-90 the world community considered the territory of the Baltic states as occupied by the USSR. That is obviously not true, and I already quoted (elsewhere) the opinion that international community was not unanimous on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Loeber's response is most definitely relevant to your argument, he cites Müllerson's "restitutio ad integrum is a legal fiction" argument in the footnote to the paraphrased argument he is rebutting (btw, Loeber is German and Müllerson is Estonian so your "the attempt to impose Estonian-Latvian vision of history on the Wikipedia community" seems rather untoward). My version of the infobox does not imply anything other than how the international community views the post-Soviet states after the dissolution of the USSR, let's not attempt to rewrite post-1991 history. Of course you are welcome to add a footnote to say Russia disagreed with the continuity of the Baltic states with the pre-war republics and Ukraine disagreed with the continuity of Russia with the USSR. --Nug (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, any Estonian, Russian, German or American scholar writing within the frame of mainstream scientific or scholarly discourse expresses not a national point of view, but a viewpoint of scientific/scholarly world community. When I am writing about an "Estonian-Latvian vision of history" I, obviously, mean the vision expressed by Latvian and Estonian nationalists, not scholars. Müllerson's article in "The International and Comparative Law Quarterly" is a demonstration that nationalistic Estonian point of view is not universally supported even by the Estonians themselves (as I expected), which just adds respect to this nation.
 * Regarding Müllerson's article, published in a respectable journal, it is a good source, and I do not see that Loeber really rebutted it. Müllerson writes:
 * "restitutio ad integrum after more than 50 years of being part of another State is often more a legal fiction than a reality."
 * and Loeber cite his opinion, ''along with the opinions of other authors, who share these views. This opinion is supported not by a single author, but by a significant number of experts, and I am not sure if it is a significant minority or majority view. At least, you failed to demonstrate this opinion was really rebutted by Loeber. Moreover, you seem to overlook the key phrase:
 * "Of course, the arguments of the opponents of continuity do not represent the last word, and it is possible to raise convincing counter-arguments. However, this is not the purpose of the article, for it would require an additional lecture."
 * In other words, Loeber disagrees, but he does not claim that point of view is false; he just claims it has some weaknesses.
 * Again, I see no need to continue this discussion. We have plenty of sources that speak about some limited state continuity, these sources are of good quality, and they have not been convincingly rebutted so far. Until you provided an equivocal and convincing evidence that that viewpoint has been rebutted and is considered obsolete by a world scholarly community, I see no need to continue this discussion.
 * Regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Russis is the only state which, as far as I know, views the Baltic states as discontinuous. You have completely lost the main point here in an interminable forest of detail. If
 * each of the Baltic states took steps to maintain sovereign continuity during the Soviet occupation, and
 * nation-states have largely welcomed the Baltic states back as continuous with their pre-WWII selves,
 * then those are really all the basic facts which are required to settle the issue of continuity. I've already stated my position on how the infobox should be organized, consistent with scholarship and current convention in international law regarding Baltic states' continuity. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ...organised consistent with which scholarship? As far as I know, the authors cited by me express neither fringe nor minority views. Regarding recognition, the author cited by Nug (Loeber) says:
 * "''Let us now examine the second area: state practice on the question of continuity. The majority of states agree with the position of Lithuania that the present state is a continuation of pre-war Lithuania. But, some states decline to recognize continuity. This is shown by the language used in documents on the recognition of Lithuania after gaining independence in 1991.
 * '' Continuity is recognized by the countries of the European Union, with certain exceptions. Sweden had recognized the annexation of Lithuania by the USSR and diplomatic relations were thus established anew. Austria bases its recognition on the self-determination of people (and not on regaining independence). Of the other European states, Switzerland also refers to the self-determination of people, but agrees to “renew” diplomatic relations. It is significant that of the states which were formerly part of the “socialist bloc” Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic and Slovakia), Poland, Romania, and Hungary unequivocally recognize continuity. Indeed, in stating its position, Romania specifically referred to the MRP.
 *  Continuity is not recognized in the first instance by Russia, but also, it seems, by other formerly socialistic states such as Albania, Bulgaria, Cuba, and China. Among states further removed geographically, Egypt, India, and Japan, do not refer to continuity in their declarations on recognition."
 * As you can see, even the continuity issue is not as straightforward as you think. However, even if all state recognised restitutio ad intergum of the Baltic states, the question still remained if they recognise it as a legal fiction (in the same sense as a corporation is considered a living person in some aspects), or they recognise state continuity as an actual existence of those states in 1940-90 as a historical fact. As far as I know, the later is a fringe view, so let's stop this nonsense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Paul, well, no, you are the one insisting that the burr stuck to the tail of the dog defines the dog, not the dog itself. The issue is nowhere near as complicated as you paint it out to be in your endless procession of nuances. You postulate your position without regard to the majority position regarding the Baltic states. That affirmation of continuity is not universal does not detract from the correctness, from the standpoint of international law, of considering the Baltic states as continuous. And how do you ignore the majority? Your position ignores the requisite validating corollary: only countries which have explicitly affirmed in the post-Soviet era that the Baltic states were legally part of the USSR can be categorized as considering the Baltic states to be discontinuous. Anything else, such as entering into fresh treaties instead of re-instituting prior treaties, is simply a matter of preference, not a ruling on whether or not the Baltic states legally surrendered their sovereignty to the USSR in 1940. That set of countries that have made that explicit declaration are what constitute the actual "fringe" view as that would be a very small number of countries, with Russia in the lead. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Less play-lawyer and more sticking to what the majority of reliable sources say please. This discussion has become fruitless.LokiiT (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Such comments are really not helpful and someone less thick-skinned might construe that to be a personal attack, LokiiT. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * LokiiT's tone is much less offensive then the tone of some of your (and your fellow's) comments addressed to me. I would say, there is no personal attack at all in the last LokiiT's comment. He just re-iterated what I am saying: don't bring legal fiction into history articles.
 * Let me add to that that your viewpoint is too Balto-centric. In your opinion, only the country that does not explicitly says it doesn't recognise state continuity of the Baltic states can be categorised as considering the Baltic states to be discontinuous. However, that is in a direct contradiction with what the above quote says, as well as to a common sense: in your opinion, the state that expressed no opinion on that subject thereby implicitly supports Baltic continuity, although that is not obvious to me (and, importantly, to Loeber).
 * However, that is not my major point. As I already explained, majority view is that for the purpose of determination of state identity the Baltic states should be considered as existing continuously from 1918 till now. However, this continuity is seen, implicitly or explicitly, as a legal fiction, therefore there is no conflict between this view and the (also commonly accepted) view that the USSR was composed of fifteen (not twelve + three) SSRs.
 * I think LokiiT is right, and it is a good time just to ignore your future arguments unless they are directly supported by the quotes from mainstream sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Paul, this is getting tiresome. As explained to you previously, "'restitutio ad integrum" and continuity are different concepts, the former is related to restitution and compensation while the later is related to the chain of title, i.e. sovereignty. It is synthesis to find a source that states that "full and unrestricted restitutio in integrum" is a legal fiction and extend that to "this continuity is seen, implicitly or explicitly, as a legal fiction". You could own a rare painting which is stolen, it is found and restored to you but someone has splashed indelible ink on it which cannot be fully removed, so "full and unrestricted restitutio ad integrum" is impossible but continuity of your title over the painting remains unaffected. As I have pointed out previously:
 * "The Baltic states themselves have taken the stand that they continue the identities of the states existing before 1940. Accordingly this view states cannot be regarded as new states and therefore they cannot be successor states of the ex-USSR. This view has also been accepted by both the international community and the writers of international law. "
 * It seems this acceptance by the international community is not accepted by some writers of Wikipedia. --Nug (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Paul, you prefer to concentrate on the minutia by which one can argue that Baltic continuity is, generally speaking, a matter of preference rather than strict international law. Very well. By that convention, what is "Balto-centric," then, about applying the simple and obvious litmus test regarding that preference: who is it that says, today, post-Soviet, that the Baltic states were not occupied and therefore by definition cannot be considered to be continuous? You're the one who always insists we should use the latest information, so, clearly, whatever was said or unsaid or recognized or not recognized during the Cold War is irrelevant. Your rules.
 * No one disputes there were 15 SSRs at some time before the formal dissolution of the USSR, which was, as you well know, attended by 11 former SSRs with one coming on board subsequently, i.e. 12, successors. That there were three Baltic SSRs (bringing the total to 15) is irrelevant to the issue here--you quote sources to conflate administrative SSRs with their sovereign successors. That is the [fill-in-the]-centric fiction here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies to the others here that we're hashing this out again for god knows which time through. Hopefully we won't expand to Soviet occupation or more of a Soviet intervention. I've proposed a simple and I believe simple and accurate solution to the infobox problem if we do, indeed, keep the infobox. Tweaking the template is a bit tricky, though. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The complexity of the definition of successor states with respect to the Soviet Union is why I have proposed that the infobox not list successor states at all. Unfortunately, it seems that advocates of the 15-state representation think that it would be incorrect to omit that list.  Can anyone who favors the 15-state approach explain why it is incorrect or forbidden to omit the list of successor states from the infobox and discuss the complexities in the article text?    Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mediation ?
On the one hand, I think that the argument over the Infobox has been an abuse of pixels. It's an Infobox only. The full detail is in the article text. However, it even resulted in a new method of abuse of talk pages. At the same time, there has been an RFC, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus. The next step in content dispute resolution seems to be mediation. Should I originate an request for mediation, or does everyone agree that there is a consensus? If there isn't agreement that there is a consensus, then there isn't a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, from my standpoint,
 * predecessor/successor infobox, Baltic states listed no different from other "successors", a no-go for me: the Baltics were occupied territory
 * predecessor/successor infobox, Baltic states listed as predecessors and successors, also a no-go on two counts: (1) implies ceding of sovereignty and newly independent afterwards; (2) the directions for the infobox indicate "no change" to sovereign status before->after states should be left out
 * predecessor/successor infobox, differentiate Russia, other successors, Baltic states as I've proposed: support as proposer
 * predecessor/successor infobox, leave out Baltic states completely, a no-go: while technically correct if we're discussing sovereignty, not listing all the entities corresponding to former administrative SSRs leads to confusion, as others have noted
 * no predecessor/successor infobox: well, that moves the issue to the article, although I expect that to be less contentious since we're not attempting to dumb down square pegs into an insufficient number of round holes [added...] if sticking strictly to the template; I do think adopting my proposed predecessor/successor infobox would permit us to devote less article narrative space to the Baltic issue while providing a lead-in to discuss more on Russia as continuation state
 * Perhaps we could check how many here strongly advocate for including the predecessor/successor (section of the) infobox? I'm willing to not include it as a fallback position to achieve consensus. I do hope I've clarified (although far less concisely than I'd prefer) what constitutes appropriate predecessor/successor infobox format and content should we include it. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * VєсrumЬа's proposed infobox change hasn't been given chance to be fully discussed, so this mediation proposal is premature at this stage. --Nug (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

New Survey

 * Include 15 successor states in infobox
 * Include Baltic states as predecessors and successors
 * List Russia as continuator, 11 successors, 3 restored states
 * Omit Baltic states, leave 12 successor states
 * Omit predecessors and successors from infobox


 * Omit predecessors and successors from infobox Least likely to cause controversy, as details can be in article text. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I think yet another survey is a bit early, we still haven't completed discussion of Vecrumba's proposal. --Nug (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

continuator state or successor state
"successor state" was the original term used in this article to desribe the status of "russian federation" in relation to the soviet union, somone inserted some new "continuator state" concept without its own article. So i propose we restore the more common original Peterzor (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Continuator state is the more precise term with respect to the Russian Federation. There are 12 successor states including the Russian Federation, one continuator state.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we at least acknowledge the fact, i mean we could somehow mention them both although i still consider "continuator state" is a wrong description Peterzor (talk)
 * The Russian Federation got all the Soviet embassy buildings as well as the UN Security council seat, so it is properly considered a "continuator state", as the sources show. The other 11 states had to buy their own new embassy buildings as they were new "successor states", while the Baltic states had their pre-war embassy buildings returned to them (or were given compensation when the original building was no longer available) as they were "restored states". --Nug (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I posted an opinion from the UK government above which explains the terms in Part III and how Russia is viewed in Part IV. Here is a link.  TFD (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Technically Russia is not a strict continuator state of the USSR (i.e., 1:1), however, it is considered continuous with the USSR as it (by choice) assumed the USSR's rights and obligations under international law. It's incorrect to simply describe Russia as a successor state. (Which is another problem with the infobox). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to close this, there's the additional technicality that the Russian republic never seceded from the USSR, so at the point all others had left, Russia became the continuation state by default. As I've already noted elsewhere here, the Duma did also declare Russia continuous back through to the Tsarist empire. (This affects how Russia looks at those descended from tsarist emigrants, they are no different in status from recent emigrants.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

In case my infobox (before/after) proposal isn't clear
Pardon my lack of expertise with wikitables and use of HTML, perhaps I can answer the question posed above, if we insist on listing all 15 entities on the "after" side which corresponded to an administrative SSR regardless of legality:

Hope this clarifies what I believe constitutes a factually acceptable representation regarding sovereign entities. Of course, if we all wind up agreeing to disagree, then the only consensus which respects all concerned is that we agree to leave this to the article body. I am fine either way. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not quite sure in what way this differs from Nug's attempted split earlier. As with that proposal, it seems to ignore the problems inherent in fixing on, and running with, one conveniently preferred definition of "successor state"; simply excluding the Baltics from that category and rigidly applying instead a wholly different terminology is just as problematic as blindly including them.  N-HH   talk / edits  23:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Successor" refers to sovereignty--I'm not invoking any different terminology. There are no "competing" definitions here regarding this aspect of the article. I don't wish to open another can of worms, but this is just another version of sources stating the Baltic states were "part of" the USSR. They never ceded their sovereignty to the USSR, so "part of" is occupation and administration (SSRs), but in no way joining. What I'm proposing merely reflects those circumstances. I'm not redefining anything from what it is, nor conveniently adding, subtracting, preferring, or ignoring. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I usually leave the voluminous typing of sources to others, however, it seems I need to provide some evidence that I'm not just blowing smoke out my proverbial ass. From a source specifically dedicated to the topic: The International Politics of Russia and the Successor States, Mark Webber, 1996, University of Manchester Press, pages 107 and following:
 * "The process of recognition [by existing states, discussed in prior paragraph] conferred upon the successor states the sovereign statehood they had previously lacked as constituent parts of the USSR. The legal tidiness of this process was seemingly matched by the manner in which the former republics themselves executed the transference of sovereignty away from the former USSR. Two major issues stood out in this regard. First, the question of borders. This matter was dealt with in CIS founding agreements, which recognised the administrative borders of the Soviet republics as the inviolable frontiers of the successor states, a move which denied the legitimacy of any territorial claims amongst the member states of the CIS. A second issue concerned the legal obligations and rights of the defunct USSR. Who would assume the multitude of treaty and other responsibilities of the former state and take its important seat in international organisations? A precedent in the matter had been set by the Baltic states. By claiming a restoration of their pre-war independence rather than asserting secession from the Union, these countries did not consider themselves "successor" states to the USSR in international law and, therefore, did not seek to claim any of its rights or obligations (for instance, the payment and servicing of Soviet debts). The member states of the CIS, by contrast adopted the opposite position, pledging in the Commonwealth's founding agreements to fulfill all the USSR's international commitments. This step conferred upon the CIS members the position of successor states. The apparent egalitarianism of this common status was, however, belied by Russia's emergence as primer inter pares. The CIS heads of state recognised Russia's continuation of the Soviet Union's membership of the UN (including its permanent seat in the Security Council) and other international organisations. This position was welcomed by the international community, who saw it as a method of alleviating some of the uncertainty over the Soviet treaty and other obligations.
 * "Russia's status as the continuing state of the USSR had three significant consequences. First, unlike the other former Soviet republics, it was not obliged to submit formal applications for membership to international bodies in which the USSR had participated. (A caveat here concerns Belarus and Ukraine [their UN memberships] -- see below, p. 109). Second, continuation, from a legal position, bestowed upon Russia all the treaty obligations and other international commitments of the USSR. Notwithstanding the assumption of these duties by all the CIS members in their founding agreements, Russia's standing as the continuing state of the USSR implied that Soviet responsibilities would impinge unequally and that only Russia had the capability to ensure the widest implementation of treaties and other obligations entered into by the USSR. Finally, Russia's privileged status furnished a quasi-legal gloss to the unilateral acquisition of Soviet assets. Here, the Russian position rested on a legal technicality. The fact that Russia alone among the former republics had not declared independence, meant only it remained in the Union when the USSR was dissolved. In this sense, what belonged to the USSR perforce belonged to Russia. Making good this interpretation, during December 1991, Yeltsin had issued decrees asserting Russian control over the Soviet Ministry of External Relations (and thus, all Soviet embassies and consulates abroad), the USSR Foreign Intelligence Agency and the Soviet bank for foreign economic affairs (and thus, Soviet foreign-currency accounts). This had been met with some consternation by the other former republics. A majority (Ukraine was an exception), had been prepared to accept the notion of Russia as the USSR's continuing state on the basis of two calculations: first, that Russia provided the most credible voice for representing their collective interests in diplomatic fora and second, that Russia could assume the position of party of last resort in fulfilling the international commitments of the now defunct USSR. The spirit of trust implicit in these assumptions was clearly contradicted by Russia's unilateral exploitation of its elevated status. This created a bitter legacy, and seemed to confirm for Ukraine the case against Russia's assumption of Soviet responsibilities."

So, what do we have? Choices made by the administrative entities of the (former) USSR conferred their status in international law regarding continuation state, successor state, or restored state with respect to the former USSR. How they view themselves is how they are. There's no "POV" to be had here. It doesn't get any simpler. I would note that the Russian Duma did pass a measure declaring Russia is continuous with the Soviet Union, before it Bolshevik Russia, and before it, the Russian Empire. (Webber is Professor of International Politics and Head of Government and Society at the University of Birmingham's School of Government and Society.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What do we have? Well, we have above a detailed analysis of the technical legal position by one author (and focused on Russia's position vis a vis the USSR, not the Baltic question, or the use of the term "successor state"). We could though of course see what this same author says, specifically, about the use and definition of the term "successor state". Here it is, as quoted ages ago, it seems now:
 * "What terminology does one use when referring to the new states that have emerged from the USSR? A variety of labels have been employed; 'former republics', 'post-Soviet republics', 'Eurasian states', and 'successor states' among others. In the main, we shall adopt the last of these. The term successor state does, it is true, have a specific meaning in international law, and as we shall discover in Chapter 3, the Baltic states have shunned the label, as has Russia. In fact, the latter has claimed the title of the USSR's 'continuing' state, a position which carries certain obligations and rights ... Nonetheless, there are a number of reasons why the label of 'successor state' is to be preferred above others. The first is a practical consideration: it has already fallen into common usage. If one tag above others tends to be favoured in academic and diplomatic discourse it is this one. Second, it has a descriptive utility, suggestive of the shared past and common, recently acquired status of the new states. Third, notwithstanding the legalistic point noted above, there is one important respect in which all the new states are, in fact, the USSR's successors – their current frontiers".
 * There are also thousands of examples-of-use sources in which the term is used to apply to all 15, not just "colloquially" or "inaccurately" but by academics and official national and international bodies. And, finally, you could quit insisting that we have to use the term in the narrow legalistic sense. We don't, any more than those thousands of other publications.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * However the creators of the infobox template did not have Webber's definition of "successor states" in mind when they wrote in the template guide. That they mention that "successor state" be defined in terms of international law in the majority of cases indicates the intent, yet you insist this international law definition as being "narrow legalistic sense". Your originally expressed the view that all 15 republics be mentioned in the infobox, with that being achieved with Vecrumba's solution it seems somewhat incredulous that you continue to object. --Nug (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As I also quoted a while back, the template guidance is not quite as definitive as even that and leaves the question open for individual pages. As for alternative suggestions, mine was that, if we were to have anything, we should simply list the constituent republics rather than predecessor/successor countries (however defined). Vecrumba's solution doesn't do that – as clearly set out above, it lists the successor states but excludes the Baltic states from that heading – and it seems somewhat incredulous that you should suggest it does or suggest that I have somehow switched my position on such a formulation, when I objected to it a few days ago when you floated more or less exactly the same option.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I never claimed the template guide as definitive, but the intent is clear, and the majority of articles do have "successor state" in terms of international law. Vecrumba's proposal shows the prelude and aftermath of the Soviet Union, and comes closer to the spirit of the infobox than your proposal of listing the administrative regions (which is in any case covered in the article including a map). It is unclear why you object to differentiating between continuator, successor and restored states, surely UK readers will want to be given a clue as to why some of their taxes was spent restituting gold and real estate to the Baltic states but not to the eleven newly independent post-Soviet states, while Russia took control of Soviet embassy buildings and debt. --Nug (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @N-HH, Hopefully we'll eventually get back to creating the excellent article this should be after finishing bickering over the USSR's totalitarianism and expansionism. What you are really describing ("simply list the constituent republics") is a middle column indicating "administered as, during the USSR". There is no such column, nor is that the function of the successor state column. I believe my solution states the facts of the situation simply and succinctly--quite frankly, I think adopting it would also allow us to expend less content on the USSR's aforementioned totalitarianism and expansionism and more content on its peoples (regardless of legalities), their histories, their accomplishments during the Soviet era. My interest in Russian and Soviet history isn't to grind an anti-Soviet axe. That said, with respect to the Soviet era, I do firmly believe that Wikipedia should not propagate versions of history, whether through parroting propaganda or oversimplifying to the point of just being wrong, which don't fit facts. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I see someone's just gone ahead and made the change proposed above despite their being no consensus for it and despite only three people, including the person proposing it, commenting on it at all. @Nug, it is quite clear why I object to the differentiation under these headings, as if they are the only fixed and accurate description. Indeed, that's been my point for the last month. Equally, I do not object to explaining the differences in the way each of the 15 successor states are sometimes described and treated; that, too, has been my point for the last month (I long ago suggested annotation to explain the legal complexity). @Vecrumba, I am not asking either for WP to propagate a Soviet version of history or for oversimplification, let along anything which is "wrong".  N-HH   talk / edits  11:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you concede that the majority of articles do have "successor state" in terms of international law, you don't want to propagate a Soviet version of history and are against oversimplification, then what precisely are you objecting too? Your solution of completely removing the successor-state fields will never work because other people not familiar with the discussion will restore it and we will have to have the same discussion all over again. Vecrumba's solution may not be prefect, but your solution is less so. --Nug (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Exhibit A: "I object to the differentiation under these headings, as if they are the only fixed and accurate description" (what precisely I object to). Exhibit B: "I long ago suggested annotation to explain the legal complexity" (ie my solution is only outright removal if all else fails).  N-HH   talk / edits  09:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Lumping all states into one successor-state bucket is not the only fixed solution either, nor is it any more accurate by any measure. If you are prepared to annotate that, why is it not possible to annotate Vecrumba's version? --Nug (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Infobox (and other issues)
There is a continuing debate over whether the Former State infobox for the Soviet Union should list the 15 post-Soviet states, or 12 states excluding the Baltic republics, or whether the list of predecessor and successor states should be left out of the infobox due to the complexities of the analysis. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't characterise it as "continuing debate" given that hasn't commented on the talk page after his revert, so I doubt he is aware of the long discussion. Apparently at issue here is that this editor commented "all former state articles has predecessor and successor lists" with this revert. That is clearly not the case, for example the article Nazi Germany does not use the "successor state" field. Given the complex nature of the status of former Soviet states and the limitations of the Former Country template which says "There are no strict rules so please exercise caution and common sense when using this feature", the outcome of the discussion above was that it is better to exercise caution and not to use the "successor state" field at this point in time. --Nug (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that the Predecessor/Successor construct buried in the infobox doesn't always work. In this case:
 * there are legal predecessors (Russia and other states which legally surrendered sovereignty to the USSR on an equal par)
 * there are legal successor states (newly sovereign),
 * there is a legal successor state to the USSR which also encompasses legal aspects of continuance (that being Russia and by CIS agreement and by subsequent international recognition accorded), and
 * there are not legal predecessors (occupied, legal sovereign representatives in exile) and territorial sovereignty restored (Baltic states).
 * As long as that's how they are organized and simply and factually described in the infobox, I'm happy. But it would have to be a custom infobox since Predecessor and Successor headings are hard coded. (There should be a more generic box supporting multiple headings, and probably better organized vertically for readability. Fitting square pegs into round holes with an avalanche of footnotes doesn't really help anyone's understanding. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have been chosen by the RfC bot to weigh in. I would argue that if the 3 Baltic Republic States came under the rule - whether voluntarily or not, of the Soviet Union, then they should be included in the info box because they would still be classified as Former Soviet States, regardless of what they were before the Soviet Union took over. Hope that helps. -- MisterShiney    ✉    19:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. The infobox is provided to give a simple summary of the topic of the article for a general reader.  Any Estonian, Georgian, Ukrainian etc, or of course Russian, will confirm that pre 1990 they lived in and were governed by the USSR and had Soviet passport/citizenship.  The average Wikipedia visitor will expect to see the names of all the present day countries that the Soviet Union encompassed, not some list that has been reduced by reference to some point of legal detail.  Sussexonian (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Citizenship is, in essence, a legal issue; so claiming on one hand that citizenship matters but on the other hand arguing that "some point of legal detail" is somehow invalid is contradictory. This isn't about Georgia, Ukraine or Russia, but explicitly about Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania where (unlike Georgia, Ukrainia or Russia) illegally incorporated into the USSR and thus those people continued to hold citizenship of the pre-war republics and countries like the USA continued to recognise passports issued by the Baltic legations. The average Wikipedia visitor does not expect to have their preconceptions confirmed, but expect to be informed and perhaps even learn something new, as is the function of all encyclopaedias. Templates are merely a convenience for the 99% of cases, but doesn't mean it is correct to shoehorn the remaining 1% of articles into ill fitting template parameters. --Nug (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned the question is not whether or not to represent there were administrative entities called the Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian SSRs, but their post-Soviet representation. They cannot be represented in a way which implies newly sovereign. Recall also that the Soviet Union recognized the independence of the Baltic states before the demise of the USSR. "Simple" cannot be "Incorrect." I really don't see what the problem is in indicating the simple fact that Baltic states are NOT successors. That the world is flat is another "simple" view--of what you see out your window, but we all know that's not true. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with a "simple fact" or "preconceptions" about what is or it not a "successor state", or about what is "incorrect" as if this is akin to flat vs round earth debates, it's to do with what we mean by the term, and the (actual) fact that the term "successor state" can be used to mean different things by different people to start with (and that there are even differences of opinion in respect of the details when it comes to the technical international law definition that some of us seem conveniently fixated on). Much of the ongoing verbiage and argument could be avoided if people actually just grasped this point.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies I didn't notice this earlier with the discussion going on below. If we go with everything "successor state" means to everyone, then we have nothing. Much of the ongoing verbiage and argument could be avoided if people actually just grasped this point. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus
Peterzor: There isn't a consensus in favor of listing the 15 states as successor states. There was a consensus that, if there was a list of successor states, it should not list the 12 and omit the Baltic republics. There isn't a consensus on whether to keep the 15, or go to the modified Infobox with the 1, the 11, and the 3, or omit the list of successor states. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * stop lying everyone who reads this talkpage can see consensus, in either case you are edit warring stop that Peterzor (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Calling people liars because you think differently isn't helpful here. Let's pretend we're working together and you have some input for me on my proposal. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I think that the infobox should be for concise, unambiguous information. Russia for example has aspects of both a successor and a continuator state.  When the Soviet Union dissolved all republics left, and Russia was just one of many.  On the other hand, the other successor states allowed it to continue the Soviet Union's  embassies.  The predecessor states pose a problem too.  Did merge with Soviet Russia or were they extinguished?  Were the Baltic states extinguished in 1941 and revived in 1990 or did they continue during the interim?  In either case, does that mean that the status quo ante was fully restored in 1990?  TFD (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus for this change either. The constant switching and reverting is getting ridiculous.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Vecrumba's solution may not be prefect, but the solution of entirely removing aftermath information is less so. TFD, sources write that should Scotland succeed from the UK, England would not be a successor state but be a continuator. That was the case with Russia too. As for the question of extinction and the issue of status quo ante with respect to the Baltic states, this source Statehood and the Law of Self-determination by D. Rai*c published in 2002 writes:
 * "Also, the annexation of a State does not, in principle, lead to the juridical extinction of that State, although it may have disappeared in an empirical sense. It is now generally accepted that no title to territory can be acquired through the illegal use or threat of armed force, not even when the occupation is effective and all effective organised resistance against the invader has ceased.71 In such cases the international personality of the annexed State, or in other words its juridical existence, remains intact, even though the actual exercise of it rights is suspended72"
 * And footnote 72 says:
 * "This principle was applied to, for instance, the World War II cases of Albania, Austria, Ethiopia and Poland. A complex case is formed by the Baltic States which remained under de facto control for over 50 years. Lithuania declared its independence on 11 March 1990, Estonia on 20 August 1991, and Latvia on 21 August 1991. Opinions differ with respect to whether the Baltic States regained their independence (which would only have been suspended de fact as a result of the Soviet annexation) or whether they became new States. The Baltic States' position is that they never de jure formed part of the Soviet Union and that consequently, they do no consider themselves to be successors of the Soviet Union. Most States never recognised the Soviet annexation de jure because the incorporation was considered to be in violation of international law. Several States regarded the statehood of the Baltic States as uninterrupted since the establishment of their independence. It is therefore tenable that their statehood did not become extinct during Soviet rule and, consequently, that the status quo ante (that is, the de facto situation prior to the Soviet annexation) was restored in 1990-1991. Practice seems to support this position. For instance, Finland and Estonia renewed the application of the treaty on cultural co-operation which was concluded over 50 years ago. Moreover, in a declaration of 27 August 1991, the EC welcomed the 'restoration of the sovereignty and independence of the Baltic States', Strictly speaking any reference to the restoration of sovereignty and independence is superfluous if the Baltic states became new States. The German Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Genscher, declared that the Baltic States had not been 'recognised', but that the interrupted diplomatic relations had merely been re-established.
 * So it seems the restoration view, through state practice, is leaning towards acceptance. --Nug (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @TFD, the Russian SFSR never left the USSR, so it's unique from the rest. As I said, I think my proposal strikes a reasonable balance. The purpose of the article is not to spend an eternity in talk in a morass debating the finer points of sovereignty before, during, or after, or to devote the article to that. What you're bringing up best left perhaps for a whole new article or to go in the "post-Soviet" states article (a title which fortuitously side-steps succession). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Belarus, Russia and Ukraine declared themselves separate from the Soviet Union December 8, 1991, under the Belavezha Accords. The Soviet Union was dissolved December 25, 1991.  The new Russian state was governed by the president and legislature of the Russian SFSR, not the USSR.  Russia had to apply to the UN to be recognized as the continuator state.  In similar constitutional circumstances, the UN did not recognize Serbia as a continuator state.
 * Should Scotland leave the UK, the Queen-in-Council and the UK parliament, not an English regional executive and assembly, would govern the reduced state. Scottish MPs would continue to sit in the UK parliament until legislation ended their membership.  Incidentally, the country would contain both England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and continue sovereignty over British overseas territories.  Even then, it would be up to Scotland, England, and the international community to determine which if any of the two states was the continuator.
 * TFD (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @TFD, dissolution is not an act of secession. Recall, the timeline includes:
 * 24 August 1991, Ukraine secedes
 * 25 August 1991, Belarus secedes
 * Tripartite meeting (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus), 8 December 1991, the Belavezha Accords
 * From that standpoint, the "dissolution" was strictly ceremonial, in that by prior declaration only one of the three signatories was a member of the USSR, Russia being the last republic standing without declaring formal secession prior.
 * The subsequent final agreement "dissolving" the USSR was significant because the seceded republics, now already states, affirmed to be bound by certain obligations of the former Soviet state.
 * UN membership was a thornier issue because there was no provision in the UN charter for the situation in question regardless of Russia being a continuator, successor, or some amalgam of the two.
 * Your examples unrelated to the USSR are WP:SYNTHESIS. It would be better to stick to the topic without muddling the matter. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The United Kingdom analysis is interesting, but is not directly relevant. The history of the Soviet Union and the history of the United Kingdom are very different.  The real question is how to display the infobox.   I will be satisfied either with the 1, 11, 3 form, or with no successor states, as long as the complexities are in either case addressed in the article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually Nug presented the case of the UK, which was the subject of the source I provided which discusses the situation of the USSR and how it relates to the UK. So if there is any synthesis, it was by the English government's legal advisers.  In any case, Russia declared itself separate from the Soviet Union Dec. 8th, but the Soviet Union continued until Dec. 25th.  The international community accepted Russia as the continuator state, but that was not automatic and it retains elements of a successor state.  They could for example have allowed the Soviet Union to continue as a government in exile or they could have decided that there was no continuator, as they did with Yugoslavia.  TFD (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've not read any source that speculates about allowing "the Soviet Union to continue as a government in exile", nor was there ever any real prospect of not recognising Russia as the continuator, given that Russia claimed that role from the very beginning, from State succession and membership in international organisations by Konrad G. Bhler on page 161:
 * "Therefore, since the first days of the year 1992 the Russian Federation has consistently claimed to be the 'continuator State' of the USSR in all international affairs"
 * and the international community concurred:
 * "However, most countries simply continued diplomatic relations with the Russian Federation without reaccrediting their Ambassadors in Moscow and former Soviet Ambassadors abroad. Moreover, in addition to the above mentioned practice of the United Nations and other international organisations, the EC and the CoE have treated the Russian Federation as the continuing State of the former Soviet Union."
 * Given the documented support of the international community for Russia as continuator and the Baltics as restored states, the opposition by some here appears to be in dissonance with that reality. --Nug (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And what about the documented support for use of the term successor state to refer to all 15 and the documented assertion that that is the majority use of the terminology in "academic and diplomatic discourse"? Again, the current version of the infobox, based on Vecrumba's proposal and based on minority-use legalistic terminology, has no consensus. I am at a loss to understand why when, correctly, Peterzor is criticised for editing in one version, others are not similarly being held to account for suddenly inserting and then edit-warring this one in instead. Both sides seem equally culpable here.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Peterzor just admitted to being a sock of a banned user, so there is no equal culpability here. What about using common sense as the template guide suggests. The UN deems them continuator, the EC deems them continuator, the CoE deems them continuator, most countries deems them continuator and Russia itself deems themselves to be continuator, and you are insisting that we give the view of one author greater weight? --Nug (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

@TFD, I'll need to check (what's said about) the wording of the tripartite agreement, but you're not correct regarding Russia "seceding" because the December 8th dissolution meant there was no USSR left. Russia was the only "member" left of the union, which, at that point, didn't even qualify as a union, as that requires at least two. @N-HH, sovereignty is a legal concept. If you think I'm being "legalistic" then you're only confirming mine is the proper approach. Just because many sources are sloppy doesn't mean we need to be. Sources dealing with the details and issues of sovereignty associated with the demise of the USSR are quite clear about the differences between Russia, the Baltics, and the rest. There's no "minority" viewpoint being espoused. I've also already explained why your suggestion of simply listing SSRs is not appropriate, and if we did list them, where they would need to go. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to carry on going round in circles or engage in further pointless discussion about whether sources are "wrong" or "sloppy" or whether one terminology is "more accurate" or "more proper" than another. These are all total non-points and dubious anyway in terms of forcing objectivity onto subjective matters of language; plus I'm not even arguing for one use over the other. You either don't understand the rather simple points I'm making or you don't care. Either way, the bottom line here at this point is that there is no consensus for the insertion of this reformed infobox section with its split headers. Where did you get consensus before forcing it into the article amid a tortuous and tedious debate? Where?  N-HH   talk / edits  08:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears that apart from the recently blocked sock puppet of a banned user who started this thread, the only other person objecting here seems to be you. Consensus isn't unanimity. If you are not even arguing for one use over the other, then what is the point? Isn't it time to drop the stick? --Nug (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, no, there has been extensive discussion about the various options, within which, others have for example explicitly stated their preference for a simple 15-successor list; and Vecrumba's unilaterally introduced option has been reverted, at least once. Again, can you please point to where anyone other than yourself and Vecrumba – two out of the many people who have commented – have agreed, explicitly, with this split, deus ex machina option?  N-HH   talk / edits  22:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that you failed to indicate apart from yourself and a banned sockpuppet who else explicitly opposes Vecrumba's scheme. The scheme wasn't "unilaterally introduced" but was evolved from previous discussion concerning the desirability of mentioning all 15 states and Vecrumba's scheme (which is also supported by Robert McClenon) also includes the 15 states. You still haven't adequately explained why you oppose a slightly more complex 15-state list over a "simple 15-successor list", why you are so vehemently opposed to differentiating the 15 that you would rather not mention any state or persist with tedious debate while incongruously claiming you are "not even arguing for one use over the other". --Nug (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Vecrumba, your position is that the Soviet Union was dissolved by the Dec. 8 agreement. However, Gorbachev said on Dec. 25 that all Soviet institutions would be dissolved by Dec. 31 and the USSR would transition to the CIS.  So for a brief period both an independent Russia and the Soviet Union existed.  The fact that the Soviet Union no longer had any republics in union did not mean that the country had ceased to exist in international law, and there are many cases of governments that no longer control their territory being recognized.  TFD (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's a good point, there are many cases of governments that no longer control their territory being recognized, however the two week tail of transitional uncertainly shouldn't wag the dog of the international communities' subsequent recognition of Russia as continuator. --Nug (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @TFD, Article 71 of the last Soviet constitution declares: "В Союзе Советских Социалистических Республик объединяются:" (the USSR unites) the 15 SSRs. I'd argue that regardless of bureaucratic artifacts (Gorbachev), a constitution which explicitly itemizes the members of the union is rendered void in the absence of such members. The constitution also stipulates the members remain sovereign with the exception of aspects dedicated to the common welfare and defense of the Soviet peoples, so there's no purpose to or surviving sovereignty of the union. I'm sure we can find plenty of sources to discuss that in more detail, in a more appropriate article, perhaps an "aftermath" section in the 1977 Soviet Constitution article?
 * The earth will not stop spinning with us all flying off if we can put the discussion here to bed. Do you have any strenuous objections regarding my proposal (as currently appears in the article)? Just curious. We wouldn't fly off, actually, but I do enjoy the imagery. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your argument is that the Union ceased to exist when the last member left. Yet the USSR continued to be recognized until it dissolved itself.  Your argument has the further problem that if Moldova had been the last state to leave the USSR, that it would have been the continuator.  Anyway, you need sources to back up your views, not arguments.  TFD (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources tell us that most countries and international organisations recognise Russia as a continuator of the USSR. While it is interesting to debate the status of the USSR in the weeks between its dissolution and Russia's recognition as a continuator, we ought to abide by WP:NOTFORUM. --Nug (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The last republic to leave the Soviet Union was Kazakhstan. Leaving the job of trying to write an encyclopedia to amateurs is a wild idea. 24.146.224.254 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @TFD, I don't think anyone declared "we continue to recognize the USSR in the absence of its constitutionally enumerated members." It's expected it took some time and the facade of agreements to transition the bureaucratic Soviet apparatchik to Russia. I think you missed my main point and question, which were (a) that there's a lot of interesting material here that hasn't been covered anywhere, and (b) where should we reflect that? There's no dispute that Russia has assumed the role and has been largely recognized as the continuator state of the USSR. Your Moldova argument is irrelevant. Sources on the topic here specifically speak to the convenient technicality that Russia was the last republic left standing at dissolution, supporting the continuator state position, not signing and sealing the relationship in and of itself. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter who was left standing at the end, what counts is what Russia asserts, and the international community recognises, that Russia is the continuator of the USSR. --Nug (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, everything else is "interesting" and also the tail wagging the dog. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Soviet Union was correctly assigned to Category:States and territories disestablished in 1991 because it was dissolved. Even based on the territory, it does not correspond neither Russian Empire nor modern Russia. In all such cases we normally do not indicate successor and predecessor states. Let's remove them all from the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing them from the infobox. Either it should not list the successor states, or it should list them with the 1, 11, and 3 details.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The territory of modern Russian state corresponds with the territory of the Soviet Russian republic. Not having anything listed isn't a long term solution because other people not familiar with the discussion will inevitably add the 15 state version at some point in the future. The 1, 11, and 3 version is the best compromise. --Nug (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, all events related to creation and dissolution of USSR should be described in body of the article. We are talking only about infobox here. Soviet Union does not longer exist, and it has no any single clearly defined successor state (same territory), just like Chechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Do we have any successor states for such countries? No, we do not. And we do not even have successor states for countries like Communist Poland. Any opposite examples? I think we need a general policy about states that no longer exist, and this is one of them. Now, speaking about Baltic Republics, they simple left the "sinking ship" of SU earlier than others. There is little other difference. All republics were occupied by armed forces, from Turkmenistan to Georgia and Armenia, but only earlier than Baltic Republics. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding, so who occupied Russia? Aliens? Yes, we are talking only about infobox here, and the inbox guide recommends that in most cases the successors in terms of international law be shown. Your contention that a successor in international law can only be a single entity sharing the same 100% territory as the predecessor is not supported by the sources. See for example State succession and membership in international organisations by Konrad G. Bhler on page 161:
 * "Therefore, since the first days of the year 1992 the Russian Federation has consistently claimed to be the 'continuator State' of the USSR in all international affairs"
 * and the international community concurred:
 * "However, most countries simply continued diplomatic relations with the Russian Federation without reaccrediting their Ambassadors in Moscow and former Soviet Ambassadors abroad. Moreover, in addition to the above mentioned practice of the United Nations and other international organisations, the EC and the CoE have treated the Russian Federation as the continuing State of the former Soviet Union."
 * The UN deems them continuator, the EC deems them continuator, the CoE deems them continuator, most countries (Except Ukraine who wanted a share of diplomatic property abroad) deems them continuator and Russia itself deems themselves to be continuator. --Nug (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Vecrumba, you need to provide a source that the UN revoked the USSR's security council seat on December 8th, and that the world no longer recognized them on that date. Maybe you are confusing the international community with the Baltic states.  TFD (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So what? doesn't change the fact that the international community accepts Russia's claim to being the continuator of the USSR, see State succession and membership in international organisations by Konrad G. Bhler on page 161. --Nug (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No one questions that the have been accepted as the continuator state. However whether they really are is questionable, given that the Soviet Union ceased to exist.  TFD (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While I think Baltic States should not be listed separately, current version (restored by Nug) is not really bad. I do not think anyone should waste a lot of time to discuss infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @TFD, I really think you just want to argue with me. Really, what's the point of suggesting I've confused the Baltic states and Russia?
 * That the UN had to formally revoke anything on a specific date (re the existence of the USSR) is your synthesis. What is true is that there was a membership crisis which was eventually resolved with and by Russia being the continuator state.
 * This isn't about whether your personal perspective is more or less right than mine. That the USSR continued to vote at the UN after December 8, 1991 is a geopolitical artifact. What matters is what scholars on international law say about those votes and whether the USSR really existed at that point. You still haven't suggested which article is best suited for covering the topic of Russia succeeding the USSR in more detail. If you just want argue, I'll stop responding.
 * None of this affects the representation of the result of the breakup of the USSR. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, reliable sources say that Russia had features of both a successor and a continuator state, and that it was recognized as a continuator state by other states. You need to look up "original research."  It does not mean accurately reporting what sources say, but making judgments based on one's personal opinion, in this case that one view is right and the other wrong.
 * Incidentally, in your opinion, when did the Soviet Union turn into Russia? Was it Dec. 8th or after Dec. 25th?
 * TFD (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Russia would of course have successor features since there were other successors as well. Russia is generally recognized as continuator of the USSR in international relations and obligations, it assumed control over all Soviet management structures and ownership of all Soviet assets abroad. Seems pretty clear on that. Then there is also self-declaration as continuous back to the Russian Empire.
 * You already know my personal opinion that the "existence" of the USSR after December 8th, in the absence of any of its constitutionally mandated members, is questionable. Again, my opinion and your opinion are utterly irrelevant, contrary to your "making judgements". Law is law . Sovereignty isn't a souffle. The only thing that matters is what experts in international law have written on the specific topic and what they have stated regarding the actions or inaction of other states and international organizations&mdash;not, for example, our compiling lists of votes by the USSR at the UN subsequent to December 8th, ergo, the USSR still "existed" (that is "original research"). Our only discussion is about how to organize what scholarly experts state. What's the purpose of accusing me of original research and baiting me for my personal opinion to argue further when we both know very well the proper approach to the topic here? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I provided a legal opinion and the experts are divided. You are quite correct that "Russia is generally recognized as continuator of the USSR in international relations and obligations." That was a political decision. Under similar circumstances, the "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" was not accepted as a continuator state. Note that that both the Polish and Nationalist governments in exile were recognized then lost recognition, showing that UN recognition does not always agree with other legal theories of state recognition. I do not think that when there is ambiguity in legal opinion that we should come down on one or the other side. TFD (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @TFD, why can't you simply stick to Russia? Everything else you introduce is irrelevant. It is your personal contention that it's purely a political decision to view Russia as a continuator when there are legal considerations, agreements, and technical conveniences (last one standing), as I've mentioned regarding what's stated in directly relevant (specific to the topic here) sources. And you still haven't indicated where best to discuss the finer points of this aspect of the Soviet aftermath. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Regarding extinction of the USSR, it was first asserted at Minsk by Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia (only republic not already seceded prior) that the Soviet Union, as a subject of international law, had ceased to exist. That assertion was repeated in the December 21st declaration. That's what sources say. When Gorbachev finally admitted the gig was over (and what that chronology signifies) is somewhat a separate matter. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If the Soviet Union went into extinction, then Russia could not be a continuator state, since it was a new state formed upon the extinction of he Soviet Union. In fact the United Nations continued to recognize the Soviet envoy until Gorbachev's resignation, when he was recognized as the Russian ambassador.  This is all well explained in Yehuda Zvi Blum's article, "Russia Takes Over the Soviet Union's Seat at the United Nations", European Journal of International Law, October 14, 2003:  "Thus resulted a practical solution which, while politically the only realistic one, remains legally suspect."  It is not up to us to determine issues of international law, just report what the experts say.  TFD (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And other sources speak of legal convenience, reasonably not far removed from "suspect." Tell me something I haven't already said. You keep dancing around the circumstance that, regardless, Russia is treated as continuous while no other republic is, has declared itself continuous with the USSR, and the other legitimate former republics have explicitly recognized it as such.
 * BTW, what Blum's article states (as I recall, I've read it too) is that USSR's ambassador to the UN simply informed them to remove USSR and replace with Russia going forward. There was no explicit recognition by the UN of the USSR as a viable sovereign entity subsequent to the first (December 8th) declaration of dissolution. Waiting to see what happens with "business as usual" in the meantime is sometimes just waiting to see what happens and "business as usual" in the meantime. It's not explicit continued diplomatic recognition or validation of the continued existence of the sovereign USSR, that's your synthesis.
 * Blum's article does state the USSR was declared to be dissolved December 8th and that December 21st was merely a repeat performance of said declaration.
 * Whether or not you're maintaining that Russia should not be differentiated from the newly independent states in any way, where do you suggest this topic be covered in greater detail? As far as I can tell we're done with the infobox. It's not perfect but it's far more informative than pretending they were all SSRs one day and all newly independent the next. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * IOW you have not bothered to read the sources I provided because they are contrary to what you want to be in the article. Incidentally you say that the Soviet Union ceased to exist and Russia was a "newly independent state", which is the definition of a successor state, not a continuator state.  Instead of saying that is OR, read the sources I provided that will explain it to you.  TFD (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Of course I've read those sources and more. "I" don't say anything.
 * Sources indicate the USSR was declared dead by a subset of seceded and one remaining member 8 December 1991
 * Sources state the USSR was declared doubly dead 21 December 1991 by the seceded (one observing) and last remaining at time of declared death 8 December 1991
 * Sources state Russia is considered the continuator state of the USSR in international law, not a perfect continuator, and is it or isn't it a continuator state legally, strictly, well, Russia didn't declare continuous on 8 December 1991 so there's some after the fact, on the other hand, the diplomatic machinery of the (declared defunct) USSR continued to function for some time and was eventually transitioned to Russia in an orderly fashion, so functionally can still be considered "gapless," that Russia never seceded prior to dissolution technically bolsters the continuator case, etc.--this is all in sources
 * At no time have I called Russia a newly independent state; what I said was that the original article infobox misrepresented in lumping all the former SSRs together, implying all are newly independent states
 * The cessation of the USSR and transition to Russia's assumption of the USSR mantle as continuous in international diplomacy and law is both a vital and interesting topic; again, in which article do you think this best belongs, or does it merit its own article?
 * From where I stand, the problem here is that we largely agree, and you just don't know how to cope with that. When you've got some idea of where you think this discussion best belongs in a WP article, do let me know. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the magic keystroke abbreviated edit summary, meant to say "Of course there's a consensus. Admitting there's a consensus appears to be more of a challenge." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The correct approach as I see it is to leave it out of the infobox and discuss it in the body of the article. TFD (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to give undue weight to a few weeks of ambiguity between the dissolution of the USSR and the international community's recognition of Russia as continuator has failed as it is not sufficiently significant to warrant your so called "correct approach". --Nug (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a "few weeks of ambiguity", but a genuine dispute in reliable sources. The opinion from the UK government is fairly current.  However, what happened in December 1991 is relevant to whether the Soviet Union continues to exist under a new name or whether Russia is a new state.  TFD (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To say there is "a genuine dispute in reliable sources" is an exaggeration. And no, what happened in December 1991 has no relevance in the face of the international community's acceptance of Russia assertion of its continuity with the USSR. --Nug (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @TFD, it's simply false to contend there's any dispute over Russia being treated as continuing the USSR. The rest is details of the ultimate implementation of that continuance. To do so improperly conflates the "during" (transition) with the "after" (what's recognized internationally). Do you dispute what Russia states about its being continuous with the USSR? Scholars will be debating the finer points for years. Let's not have the tail wag the dog. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If scholars will be debating the issue for years, it is not up to us to decide which group is right, per the policy of neutrality. Personally I have no opinion on whether Russia is a continuation of the USSR or a successor state.  It seems however that the Soviet Union ceased to exist and its rights and obligations were assumed by Russia, which gives it aspect of both a successor of the defunct Soviet Union or a continuation of the Soviet Union under a new name.  TFD (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Debating the finer points, there's a difference. It's clear Russia is not a "newly independent" state like the other non-Baltic former SSRs, is the only one regarded as and self-declared as continuous, and is therefore appropriately treated separate from the rest in the infobox. You're splitting hairs and missing the do. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It differs because it has attributes of both a successor and a continuator state. It has attributes of the former because the Soviet Union ceased to exist and attributes of the latter, because it assumed the rights and obligations of the Soviet Union. TFD (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you are attributing undue weight to what ever academic debate may have existed, if at all (I've not seen any on the scale, for example, as seen with regard to the Holodomor). The bottom line is that the Russian Federation's view that it is not a successor but a continuator of the USSR has been accepted by other States, as well as the UN where the name 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' was simply replaced by the new name 'Russian Federation' on UN documents. --Nug (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @ TFD, then you would agree that in terms of successors (newly independent) or the Baltics (restored), Russia is like neither of those and should be treated separately infobox and content-wise regarding the post-Soviet geopolitical landscape. That it has aspects of continuator and successor is detail subservient to the main point which is that after the dust settled, Russia was/is treated in international law and treaties as the continuation of the USSR. To Nug's point, the USSR's ambassador to the UN simply instructed them to replace USSR with the Russian Federation. That's it, nothing more. The full letter is available in sources and likely on un.org as well. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)