Talk:Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics

Name

New Union Treaty (Russian: новый союзный договор) is widely known, but rather an unoffical name. The offical name of the new union was to be the "Union of Sovereign States"(Russian: Союз Суверенных Государств), and the last draft of the treaty itself was offically known as (Russian: "Договор о Союзе суверенных государств"). --KPbIC 19:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

remark

In the article is written:

Six of the fifteen Soviet republics however did not participate in drafting of the treaty: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Georgia and Armenia, i.e. the non-Slav, non-Eastern Orthodox of the fifteen republics.

That's not correct, since central asian republics and Azerbaijan were also neither slavic nor orthodox. --Ljowa 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Union of Sovereign States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012062757/http://history.eserver.org/ussr-in-1991.txt to http://history.eserver.org/ussr-in-1991.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

USSR 2 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect USSR 2. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

flag and coats

ok, what is the problem now, let discuss it here Gooduserdude (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Do not re-add the flag unless sourced that this hypothetical state would continue to use this flag. The listing to show the pre-existing republics who would compose this state is not a source or reason to declare the previous USSR flag to be the flag that it would have used. --Havsjö (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

you are right, flag and coats do not belong here, let alone an entire infobox Gooduserdude (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC: infobox

Question: Should the infobox be removed? yes or no? Gooduserdude (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• yes None of that is new information and presents the repeated content of the article inaccurately through a infobox about a proposed non-existent country. It vaguely defined leader(as well as the flags of the old soviet republics) is just a trimmed down, name-changed Soviet Union. A country-infobox is unsuitable for the article, which does not discuss a so strictly defined proposed state as to be able to include an infobox in this way. The source used for the population estimate (the only actual "content") can be included in the text normally and the map, as it is the only 2 thing of any actual "worth" Gooduserdude (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes GMPX1234 (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).

• Yes, there's no need for its inclusion. Idealigic (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Merger with the page section Perestroika#New Union Treaty

This article should be merged with the article Perestroika. The New Union Treaty is part of the reforms that Gorbachev made to stop the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Hyperx1000 (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

By that logic, Demokratizatsiya, Glasnost, new political thinking and Uskoreniye should also be merged here. Also, the New Union Treaty was the result of Perestroika not going according to plan. He never intended to decentralize the union to that extent, he just realized it was the only way to hold it together by 1991. Charles Essie (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The New Union Treaty was the proposed treaty of the new Soviet Union after it had become so unstable that Gorbachev realized that it would be the only way to hold the country together. The treaty was never signed because of the failed coup attempt. However, it forms the basis for the modern Commonwealth of Independent States. Hyperx1000 (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

That's what I said, I'm not sure what you're getting at? Charles Essie (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

What I really don't get is why it's discussed in the beginning of this article when it wasn't part of Perestroika at the beginning. Charles Essie (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I was already planning to move that section to the bottom of the article once the merging was complete. I temporarily put it at the top to make it easier to edit. Hyperx1000 (talk) 3:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Split

I'm calling for the this article to be restored or at least have a proper discussion about it. @Hyperx1000: Feel free to join. Charles Essie (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Support, I don't feel there was any really needed reason to merge the page, if it needs expansion then we can just simply expand it.

Support, I think the section is now big enough to warrant its own article. (split content) Hyperx1000 (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)