Talk:Union State/Archives/2013

Old talk
Actually, there in no single currency between Russia and Belarus, only talk about that. &mdash; Monedula 06:02, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I understood differently when writing the article, fixing that now. Nikola 11:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * lukoshenko is draging his feet over the currency because he doesnt want to loose his grip on power, or more accuratly moscow taking over belarus as a republic in the federation--GregLoutsenko 20:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through the article to improve things a little, in terms of presentation. I've also amended this text: Since 1999 Lukashenko has backtracked and cancelled quite a few projects and provisions of the Union, as it seemed a bit Like a Point of veiw (POV) issue to me.

Also, can someone provide an explanation of the "state secretary of the Union"? It's mentioned after the list of institutions, but is not included within the list itself. The final two paragraphs regarding VAT also need merging and trimming down. (Silverhelm 12:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC))

The beginning of the article mentions that the supranational union state is not recognized by any other states. However, why would a supranational union need to be recognized by other states? Do the European Union or the OAS need to be recognized by states other than its members? Also is there a source for this statement? Otherwise it should be removed (plus if Yugoslavia had attempted to join then at least one other state recognized it).--anon 13:49 March 26, 2006
 * It is very difficult for a union such as this to make viable trade deals with other nations if those nations refuse to recognize union officials. In otherwords, a foreign country would meet with Russian and Belarusian officials separately, creating two distinct policies, which individually may counter the goals of the joint union.

Name of Union after expansion
If these other states join, would the Union still be known as 'Union of Russia and Belarus' or something like "Union of Eurasian States'?

-G


 * Or maybe Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics, haha :D:D:D 202.89.155.120 (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Union of formerly-Sovereign Socialists Republics might be more fitting, or perhaps just the New Russian Empire would be the most truthful. ;) BillCJ (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Or something from Orwell, perhaps. What was it--"Eurasia"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.164.176 (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Europe + Asia = Eurasia.
 * The United States of Eurasia :) UeArtemis (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.83.158 (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have some strange feeling that the name "Union of Sovereign Republics" (USR). Whenever I get feelings like this, they usually come true. Either that, or I want to give my opinion on this chat. I also have a good feeling that the "USR" may become an EU-like government (a strong confederation). — Nuclear  Vacuum  17:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Side comment: Considering the way that Lukashenko likes to do things (as well as I guess some hard-line Russians) I agree, since the USSR was on paper at least like that too :D. ("Sovereign" republics with some centralised functions such as defence, foreign policy, etc.) As far as I can guess, my understanding is that since the new union will just join up two ex-SSRs Lukashenko will push strongly for a new layer of government on top of the existing ones, to preserve the Republic--Union design of the USSR. Probably saves on headaches too since Belarus has pretty much just continued the institutions of the BSSR and I have a strong feeling that in his heart Belarus is "just a Republic" (big-R :D).
 * Another side note: I think they way the hard-liners will justify the retention of USSR insignia is by making a reference to the Great Patriotic War. 118.90.39.252 (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

the most logical thing to do is call it the Union of independent states. there already is a Commonwealth of independent states. but if union has to be in the name then renamed it union instead of commonwealth. this way they can still have that person holding the union state position in his formal title. i have nothing agaist commonwealth but looking at the artical it seems these two entities are competing with each other in trying to be the new supranational extention of russia. 76.244.155.36 (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The flag and coat of arms
The flag and coat of arms are pure fantasy and they shouldn't be shown in the infobox. I'll remove them. 80.220.116.12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC).

The flag and coat of arms
Where is the source of soviet-like flag and coat of arms?Please tell me someone.220.156.82.98 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay,I found soviet-like flag.But is this really Russia Belarus union's flag?220.156.82.98 (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Serbia
The section about possible expansions mentions that the parliament of Serbia voted to join union in 1999, and that an opposition politician said that he thinks Serbia should join. But, the government has since changed, and all governments since 2000 had no intentions of joining the Union, but set Serbia's goal to join EU. Also, the opposition politician's statement is irrevelant, as he is not part of the government.

I changed that in the article but someone (Mikkalai), reverted it. So can we please discuss it here. Gargamel38 (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He's not "someone", Mikkalai is an established user of at least three years that I know of, who regularly monitors post-Soviet topics. Your edits removed sourced text. I have reverted them as he did. Find sources to back your claims and we can then discuss it here. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how referring to someone as "someone" is somehow insulting, but whatever... As for sources, how about article on Serbia here on wikipedia? There you can see that Serbia has started a process to join EU, so that cancels joining Russia-Belarus union, doesnt it? Besides, the quoted opposition politician (who's statements I don't think are really relevant, but nevermind), has formed a new party which supports joing the EU, too. So I think the whole section mentioning Serbia as possible member should be removed. Gargamel38 (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is part of the history of Serbia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper in which only today's events are described. You are welcome to find valid references and add a text which would explain that this suggestion is officially abandoned. Since you demonstrate the knowledge of what's going on in Serbia and possibly can read Serbian, you are the best person among us three to do so. But the deletion of the past happenings is not an option here. `'Míkka>t 20:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am not very familiar with the policies of EU, but it is quite common that a country may be aa member of several international unions/treaties, Therefore, once again, you must find a reference which explicitly says that the idea of Serbia making union with Russia/Belarus, rather than  making a conclusion from the fact about EU aspirations of Serbia. Also, it will be interesting to find any discussion of the historical/political circumstances of the 1999 statement. I guess it was because Russia supported Serbia (and/or Serbia was looking for this support) in these Yugoslavian events, but it is just my guess. `'Míkka>t 20:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried to find some references, but it turned out to be impossible, simply because there have been very little mentioning of this union in Serb media, and NO mentioning it in the context of Serbia joining it, except for a few articles commenting the parliament's decision back in 1999. Some politicians have called for closer ties to Russia, but no one ever said anything about joining any union (at least no statements I ever heard about or could find). Exception is a statement by the politician quoted here who also said that Serbia should become a part of Russia, but he later said he was "just kidding". Finding references for the fact that Serbia joining EU cancels joining Russia/Belarus is even harder, especially since this union is still very vague and it isn't certain what it will represent. As for political circumstances for parliament's decision, that's easy at least: at that time, Serbia was under military attack by NATO, and it was desperate for Russia's (anyone's) support, so it was more of a political stunt, because the iniative to join ended with that decision. Serbia experienced a U-turn in politics after revolution in 2000, so this initiative is practically forgotten now.
 * As for the article, I still think that the part about Serbia should be removed. I agree with you when you say Serbia and Russia have always been close, but there is no doubt that Serbia's main goal in long term is joining EU with keeping close ties with Russia. I think its pretty obvious that joining both unions is not possible (I can't find references for it, though). If you don't agree with that, than I suggest that this part about Serbia should explain political circumstances of the decision, course of all subsequent governments, as well as opinion of some opposition politicians. Gargamel38 (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait how could Serbia have voted on joining a Union with Russia and Belarus alone when they were still apart of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? --76.31.182.72 (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Fake
Proposed flag is fake. There is no link to confirm it. Governments of both Russian and Belarus' didn't discuss how the state flag must look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.20.161 (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The page has the link http://www.vexillographia.ru/belarus/union.htm WhisperToMe (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)