Talk:Ukraine–European Union relations

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ukraine–European Union relations article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

International relations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ukraine High‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

European Union Low‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On October 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved from Ukraine–European Union relations to European Union–Ukraine relations. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Userbox

Just made a "pro Ukrainian EU-membership" "userbox" feel free to copy it! Mariah-Yulia 15:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user supports Ukrainian membership of the European Union.

Don't forget to mention that some Ukrainians oppose the idea of Ukraine in EU, and they demand referendum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.239.189.26 (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Benita Ferrero-Waldner with Viktor Yushchenko.jpg

Image:Benita Ferrero-Waldner with Viktor Yushchenko.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper: Brussels wants to initial association agreement on February 15, but only English version

See here. Bit too WP:NEWS for now. Article does not say what legal consequences this has.... Looks completely weird to me.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nothing particularly strange. The text of the agreement was not ready, nor there was political will to initial it at the Dec 19 summit, so the next temptative date is Feb 15. Only the English version, I guess, because the EU would not have enough time to check whether the Ukrainian version is thoroughly translated in legal terms. --Dans (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On implementing EU recommendation

Probably a bit to much WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS; (but) the European Commission & the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry seem to have 2 different views on the speed of implement EU recommendation (in Ukraine):

Russia's Secret "No Ukraine-EU association deal" Plan

is if it does exist not a good plan, experts say Viktor Medvedchuk has no change to win the 2015 Ukrainian presidential election and has no pull in current Ukrainian politics. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just inserted this info into the article; I think the readers deserve to know this plan (if it exists) is utterly stupid... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be consistent with the rest of Moskow's actions :D

I realise it's POV, but I couldn't resist.--U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 15:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too proof that I have great political insight: according to this latest poll by Razumkov Centre a party lead by Medvedchuk would score 0.9% of the votes during elections.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statements of Sergey Glazyev and "a leaked documen"; are they not WP:SPECULATION?

The latest days several editors inserted into Ukraine–European_Union_relations#Russian_reaction statements by Sergey Glazyev (an adviser to President of Russia Vladimir Putin); I moved all them to a footnote that is embedding references; this article is not called "Glazyev-Ukraine relations" + Glazyev has no formal position in the Russian Government; so we can not be sure what his words are worth (could be that Putin never listens to him...).

(Now) the section also has (also) info of "a leaked document outlining a Russian Government strategy to insert Ukraine into the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia and prevent its further association with Euro-Atlantic structures". Since we don't know this document is not a fake I propose to move this "leaked document" info to a (new) footnote (that is embedding references (also)).

I guess if we follow WP:SPECULATION to the letter all above mentioned info should be deleted; but I think they are both still interesting to keep (in this article); but then less prominent and thus as footnotes. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added this information because it was prominently featured in media stories about the subject and I thought it was interesting. I've made no effort to learn the specific details of wikipedia policy in this regard (and to be honest I don't really intend to any time soon). I'm sure (based on your comment above) that you'll make a thoughtful decision here and you're obviously operating with more knowledge of the rules than I am. I trust your judgement. Thanks for helping out. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 18:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's speculation. The policy only disallows "unverified" speculation. In this case the speculation has been covered by numerous reliable sources. As long as we don't claim without qualification that the document IS authentic, I don't see a problem.

As for the statements of Glazyev, I don't think we need to report everything the man says. Statements such as "...is some kind of sick self-delusion from numerous (Ukrainian) political scientists and experts, who have fed on European and American grants for 20 years and a whole generation of diplomats and bureaucrats that has appeared after the years of the ‘orange’ hysteria who are carrying out an anti-Russian agenda and are too far from the economy and real life and they don’t really know their country’s history, they are divorced from its spiritual traditions and are creating an effect that Ukraine doesn’t want" really don't add anything important to the article. This is just the man's personal opinion on the history. However, I think some of the other comments which are directly relevant to the topic of this article (ie discussion about possible Russian responses) are worth mentioning.

Personally I don't think putting the content in footnotes is a good idea. As per Help:Footnotes: "Footnotes are used most commonly to provide references (bibliographic citations) to reliable sources in articles, explanatory information, and source information for tables and other elements." That's not really what this information is. I think a better approach would be to trim the quotess to the important bits and keep it inline. As it stands, I agree that all the quotes by Glazyev would overwhelm the text, but if we only retain the important stuff I don't think this would be an isue. How about something like this:

This lasted till 20 August 2013 and was followed (on 21 August 2012) by a statement from the Russian President's top economic advisor Sergey Glazyev arguing that the impact of the Russian response to Ukraine singing the AA, including tariffs and trade checks, could lead to default. He also warned that the agreement would lead to a decline in the standard of living, "political and social unrest" and would violate the Russian-Ukrainian strategic partnership and friendship treaty. As a result, Russia would no longer be obliged to guarantee Ukraine's status as a state and could intervene if pro-Russian regions of the country appealed directly to Russia.

What do others think? TDL (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't prefer it less wordly (with the full quotes then in the/a footnote); so my proposal is:

This lasted till 20 August 2013 and was followed (on 21 August 2012) by a statement from the Russian President's top economic advisor Sergey Glazyev arguing that the impact of the Russian response to Ukraine singing the AA, including tariffs and trade checks, could lead (in Ukraine) to default, a decline in the standard of living, "political and social unrest" and would violate the Russian-Ukrainian strategic partnership and friendship treaty. The later could lead to Russia no longer being obliged to guarantee Ukraine's status as a state and could intervene if pro-Russian regions of the country appealed directly to Russia.

Agree? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, to me! I have a few minor changes in mind, but since we mostly agree I'll go ahead and make the change in the article. Feel free to tweak the wording further if you like. TDL (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good :); nice work. I changed 1 word to "statements" since your/"our" edit of yesterday combined to diffrent statements Glazyev made (on 21-8-13 and 21-9-2013). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is an excellent point. The fact that they were both on the 21st threw me. Thanks for the correction! TDL (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! The fact that they were both on the 21st looked strange to me too ;). Keep on eye on the news in on 21-10-2013 ;). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Georgia (country)–European Union relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Georgia–European Union relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Change Is Gonna Come...

... with regard to the European Union Association Agreement-signing. See here and here. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS See above message as "storing references for later use". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More "references for possible later use" on Ukrainian parliament bills to solve "the Yulia Tymoshenko European Union Association Agreement problem" are here, here, here (in this article political expert Kostiantyn Matviienko observes “The way the Europeans are pushing Ukraine to sign the Association Agreement makes me think the EU have made their choice and want to sign the agreement”), here and here. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Relations with the EU currently stand suspended"

Please do not put simplistic non-true sentences like "Relations with the EU currently stand suspended" into the article. According to high level EU-diplomats there is still has a chance to sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement + today Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych said ""An alternative for reforms in Ukraine and an alternative for European integration do not exist". So there is clearly a wish on both sides to continue Ukraine–European Union relations. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New article?

Any else think that there should be an article titled "Accession of Ukraine to the European Union", they're obviously intrested (at least many of their people are) and so is the EU (well, maybe not with Viktor Yanukovych in charge). Charles Essie (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead rewrite needed

The current lead is inadequate and needs rewriting urgently. It is fine for people from the EU and Ukraine that understand what's going on but not for people that are not from the EU, particularly its partners from Canada and the United States. Western readers from the Americas need to understand what's going on. Can someone familiar with the subject rewrite it in a concise manner? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best today to make the lead better readable and updated it. Is it more understandable now? I think the lead should also contain some info about pre-2012 Ukraine–European Union relations. But I am a bit worried that would make the lead too long. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015 Poll

I think it should be noted that the February 2015 poll included the occupied territories of Ukraine, in contrast to the other polls. A reader may wonder why such a sudden drop in support is shown. The occupied territories have completely different information environments, and this causes the overall percentages to be warped.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on European Union–Ukraine relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the page into "Accession of Ukraine to the European Union?"

Given the application already submitted by Ukraine, would be apt now to rename the page--WeifengYang (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There may be consensus to split the page, but that can be discussed/done separately. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 19:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine–European Union relations → Accession of Ukraine to the European Union – As things were changed and European Parliament submitted Ukraine's application. MiskoGe (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Favonian (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ukraine is not in the European Union. The current title is accurate. --Spekkios (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other states which are negotiating to enter the EU generally have "accession of" titles:
Turkey has two pages, Accession of Turkey to the European Union and Turkey–European Union relations. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are specifically about those state's accession. This article is about Ukraine-European Union relations. That is the reason why Turkey has two articles. The answer is to start a new article about the process of a possible Ukraine accession, not to rewrite this one. --Spekkios (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Kosovo and BiH articles are about relations, while rest describe both. --MiskoGe (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spekkios: Accession is the process of joining, not the declaration of membership. Describing the relationship between two governments (UA-EU relations) is not the same as events between them. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 20:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like that terminology: to me "accession" describes something that has already happened, like a country accending to a treaty. Even if technically correct I think it implies to the average reader that a country has accesended to the EU. --Spekkios (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral At the moment, I think it would be premature to rename it, given that the full formal procedure has yet to begin, which does not compare to applicants like Serbia and Turkey, despite significant support from the Eastern Bloc. However, having said that, the example of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a clear precedent of a country that also hasn't formally started, with the current Ukraine-EU relations page having substantially more information on Ukraine's prospect of joining the EU that would provide sufficient material and developments to merit the name change or its own separate page. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 20:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support splitting relevant content to form Accession of Ukraine to the European Union page and Ukraine–European Union relations page, akin to the current treatment of Turkey's accession, which also has two pages. Bosnia and Herzegovina has the same formality in its accession to the E.U. so the argument about it not being "formal" is moot. If his move is successful, I would also suggest doing a similar move for Moldova and Georgia. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current title is fine, and will make much more sense to the average reader than the proposed one.Mannysoloway (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support split per Dan the Animator's suggestion. —Legoless (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what the bolded-vote should be, but I agree with the comments above that while a split makes some sense, a move would be undesirable. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed split 16 March 2022

Split per consensus here and in the move discussion (permalink). I'm working on a draft below the redirect and will remove the redirect when it's ready. (non-admin closure) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As things were changed and European Parliament submitted Ukraine's application. However, the move request was rejected, while 4 out of 6 voters either supported or agreed with splitting the "Proposed European Union membership" section to the separate page as "having substantially more information on Ukraine's prospect of joining the EU that would provide sufficient material and developments to merit the name change or its own separate page". --MiskoGe (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the closer of the RM, I'd like to point out that anyone is free to boldly WP:SPLIT the page as they see fit. But there was consensus against the proposal to move the page, and a page split isn't a possible outcome for a requested move. Calidum 15:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It can and will make sense to make a separate article for the accession process as Ukraine, as well as Georgia and Moldova all formally submitted their membership applications to the European Union. Ivan Milenin (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.