Jump to content

Talk:Post-Soviet states/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Map

It would be cool to have a map where all these states are highlighted. Jacoplane 01:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can just use this map: File:Soviet republics.jpg
from this article
That map has several problems -- it's outdated, showing 80s borders. It's also an JPG which is a nasty format to make a map of. I'm gonna see what I can do. Aris Katsaris 03:12, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I made Image:post_soviet_states.png which I think should link to Image:world_post_soviet.png when clicked on, but I didn't know if that could be done. . . In the former soviet republics page Finland should be included as it was once part of the USSR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacsam2 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Juppiter 16:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OSCE

Should the OSCE be included as one of the regional organizations? It includes the entire post-Soviet space. Of course, it does extend beyond post-Soviet space, but so does the SCO. —thames 18:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The UN likewise includes the whole post-Soviet space but that's not a reason to include it. In the section I had it mention "In this section those organizations are mentioned which are mainly (or completely) composed of post-Soviet states. Organizations with much wider memberships are not discussed." I think that's a reasonable criterion -- the majority of participating states to be post-Soviet states. But exclusivity (the organization's membership to consist entirely of post-Soviet states) is likewise defensible, in which case we should remove SCO instead. Aris Katsaris 18:24, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
The current criteria strikes me as fine. I think removing the SCO under an exclusivity criteria would have a negatiev impact on the article. The SCO is an important organization, as it reflects the post-Sino-Soviet bloc (just as the CIS reflects the extent of the Soviet Union (sans Baltic states)). —thames 19:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

ECO

Currently the article has SCO (China-Post-Soviet). Maybe we should Economic Cooperation Organization as Turkey-Post-Soviet organisation (6 of the 10 members are former soviet republics) regardless of its history with Turkey-Iran-Pakistan (and no soviet) as founders. Alinor 13:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

GUAM map

Maybe we should discuss this a little bit. I put the map GUAMandEurasec, because it shows how the CIS state have split into different groups for the current moment. That means membership is practicaly exclusive - eigther GUAM or Eurasec, not both. The map GUAM+Former+CIS also has positive sides - focused on GUAM, showing previous members. But none of the other organisations (Eurasec, CACO, CSTO, SCO) have this "other CIS" category on their maps (and this is good). So, maybe we should make a GUAM-only map to put here. Or, my proposal - keep the GUAMandEurAsEC-Other map. Alinor 08:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of yours, personally. —Nightstallion (?) 09:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Chechnya and Dagestan

The article stated that basically they are independent and separate states attempting to leave the Russian Federation. It is very wrong to put Chechnya and ESPECIALLY Dagestan in the same boat as places like South Ossetia, or Transniestria, since in their cases, the elected governments and the majority of the people support separation from the main country (Georgia, and Moldova, respectivelly.)

The thing is that since about the year hello there is absolutely no reason to consider Chechnya a separarist state since their officials (elected by their people) do not consider it so. During the period roughly between 1996 and 1999 this article section would have made some sense (since the government and people were de-facto indep.) but definitely not in these days. For example, many people in Quebec would like to separate themselves from Canada and even some officials try to push that agenda but nobody calls it a "separatist state" (or province.)

As for Dagestan, there are '0' reasons why it should even be listed in that section. Dagestan officially never tried to become separate from Russia, and the people that wrote/edited this article may be confusing it with Tatarstan which did attempt to secede in the early 90ies.

Next time someone adds sections like these, It would be nice to see some logic (supported by facts) in their actions. --Lenev 00:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Chechnya artice says "Chechnya is considered an independent republic by its separatists, and a federal republic by its federalists." Dagestan also has a section "Dagestani conflict". Good for me to list it "separatist conflicts". Of course, the level is that of guerilla, not of the state. Also, since you are saying about "roughly between 1996 and 1999", then still a historical mention makes sense, because people in the West remember something was going, and some explanation is due, rather than outright deletion. `'mikka (t) 00:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that there must be some explanation regarding Chechnya and Dagestan, it's just that the way it was listed before, it clearly showed that Chechnya is a separatist entity which created confusion (atleast for me). If it is considered independent by its separatists, it does not mean that the opinion of the federalists does not matter because the elected government (elected by the majority of the people in generally fair elections) is federalist, and that is the "official" position of the whole entity. Whatever small/medium groups with different opinions there may be, their say is not as important as the official one. (See my example for Quebec)

I think it is best to keep those two removed from the list that contains South Ossetia, Abkhazia et al., and keep the explanation that's just below that, which talks about the historical events, and how these "separatists" are different from the ones who are quite close to being completely independent (like So. Ossetia for example), since officially those separatist events are over, even according to the Chechnya and Dagestan articles. --64.229.216.196 00:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC) --Lenev 00:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC) sorry forgot to login

Do whatever you want, but plain deletion of information is not an option. History changes every day, and if we keep deleting things from articles just because they slightly changed, we'll have a complete mess. A correct approach is to move/rephrase data in the current way. `'mikka (t) 00:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I will rephrase it, but there's no way those countries are staying in that list, because it is just blatant misinformation. However, there will be an explanation under it with all the needed information.

Also, since I did not finish editing the article reverting it was very inappropriate (especially since I provided an explanation, and I am a registered user with many other good edits. It's not like I decided to vandalize pages after all this time.)Here, have a quote,

"Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. " From Wikipedia's official guidelines.

--Lenev 00:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice the "...and deletions" part? And especially you did not provide explanations before deletion. I am repeating: I looked at your edit summary, then looked into the talk page, shrugged, and reverted unexplained deletion. The current version is 100% OK with me.

`'mikka (t) 01:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Conflict in Chechnya is nowhere close to end, and removing it from list is blatant misinformation and sweeping under the carpet. `'mikka (t) 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hahah, hilarious. That it's "nowhere close to end" is completely your opinion. It has not been "swept under the carpet", I am not going to repeat this again, I have added TWO PARAGRAPHS explaining the situation in detail. Adding that sentence gives the wrong impression that is why an explanation is there. If you want to improve the article, then improve the explanation paragraphs, adding a sentence does not make it better in any way. As for the differences between the listed conflicts and these ones they are explained in this discussion. The current situation is this= Chechnya is a part of Russia, the government admits it and the government was elected by the people. Anything else are no more than conspiracy theories and you're free to make an article on them, or even one of those weird "Russia is the devil" websites that so many Russophobes make. So far you made 0 (?!) points to support your decisions. "Sweeping under the rug" is an expression and it proves nothing other than your inability to present valid arguments on this issue.--Lenev 17:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The section name is "Separattist conflicts". First question: Are you saying that the separatist conflict in Chechnya is ended? Second point: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Encyclopedia covers not only today, but past as well. The article is named "Post-Soviet States". There was Ichkeria. The issue must be covered. In addition, the Chechnya article says "In addition to the elected government, there is a self-proclaimed separatist government, not recognized ....". Therefore I say "sweeping under the rug" THe separatist conflict is "nowhere close to end". I thought you can read so I didn't care much about arguments. Now I see that you are writer, not reader; what is your nationality? `'mikka (t) 18:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I said that the conflicts are not all equal and that it was unfair to squish them all into one very simple list. However, I am OK with the new edits that explain each conflicts status.--Lenev 18:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You're twisting my words, I never said it should not be covered or that it should be forgotten! I said that it must be explained in more detail.--Lenev 18:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I see that you can't read or write. What was the point of your statement? In ANY debate/discussion, the arguments have to be presented. Never have I heard that one of the sides should find the opponents arguments by themselves.--Lenev 18:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
My nationality is irrelevant.--Lenev 18:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Soviet

Many people seem to belive that the way foreward for post-soviet states is privitization, deregulation, etc. This is incorrect. Belarus has the highest GDP per capita of the post-soviet states and has a socialist economy. Its industial output decrease in the early 1990s but recovered under Lushenko it was the first country to reach 1990 economic levels again) and has steady economic growth, low unemploment, and does not have CIA secret prisons. Russia and other countries which implemented a IMF/US imposed program of handing over industry to capitalists had their economies collapse. It is true that since the post soviet period changes have to be made, but many Russians think that conditions were better under the soviet union and prefer it to the current regime. 72.139.119.165 21:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting, I took a course on this, and over 70% of Russians said they regretted the demise of the Soviet Union but didn't think it would be possible to restore it. And Yeltsin always struck me as a crook, though he was presented positively in the Western media. I think that socialism with a heart would be best for Russians. Juppiter 23:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What's funny is that Estonia has a much higher GDP per capita than Belarus...more than twice as much in fact. Too bad propagandist moonbats are intellectually dishonest so in order to compensate for the fact that they are blindly wrong, they have to lie to themselves and others around them. Either that or they are too stupid to find the CIA World Fact Book or other reliable sources.

Post-soviet frozen conflicts

I noticed that Post-soviet frozen conflicts is redirected to this article. What are your thought on it having its own article? I think it makes sense as not all soviet states are envolved in frozen conflicts. - Pocopocopocopoco 00:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Also, frozen conflicts can be more broad than just the soviet frozen conflicts, they could include Kosovo as well. Pocopocopocopoco 01:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

FSU as primary name of article

Suggestion: possibly rename this article as FORMER SOVIET UNION and let Post-Soviet States be the REDIRECT. Trink24 (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be simply merged into Republics_of_the_Soviet_Union#Independent_nations.--Termer (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

I know kazakhstan is commonly considered a central asian country but I think it could also be considered a Eurasian country, a large part of its territory is in europe, about 1/3 of its population are slavs/germans, ethnicly Kazakhs are closser realeted to the Tatars and Bashkirs than to the peoples of centrial asia (OK Maybe Kyrgez), the main launguege in kazakhstan is russian (even if kazakh is official and still widely known), it has a verry large christian minority, in terms of economic developement Kazakhstan is alot! closser to russia than to the other central asian countries, kazakstan is a stepp country with forests in the north, the central asian countries are deasert scrubb or mountans. kazakstan was mainly nomadic, most of central asia was mainly sedentary.--J intela (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Finland

In the former soviet republics page Finland should be included as it was once part of the USSR and this fact is stated on the Finland page as it formerly being under Soviet control. Jacsam2 (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Finland was never part of the USSR. It was once part of the Russian Empire, but became independent in the First World War, at the same time the Communists took power and renamed the Empire the Soviet Union. In terms of this article, the topic discussed here is the states that emerged from the USSR's disintegration, namely the 15 republics. Finland is not one of those. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Move

Is anyone going to object is I move Kazakhstan to Eurasia?--J intela (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

While I understand why you'd want to, that list is trying to show the groupings of the republics. Kazakhstan is one of the central asian states. Russia is it's own grouping, the title Eurasia could probably be removed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
yah, your right,--J intela (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Euler diagram

Can someone produce a diagram as proposed here? Japinderum (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Post-Soviet states

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Post-Soviet states's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "imf":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Rename

Most people use the terms the Former Soviet Union or the Former Soviet Republics, so this article ahould use one of those as a name. Charles Essie (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The current title works because it makes not judgment as to the Baltic states being members of the USSR according to international law. Neither of your suggest titles technically includes those three countries. Also, the slightly wider title makes it easier to include sovereign or de facto entities which are not linked directly to the USSR. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for posting here, I don't know how to start a new topic.

In the "post-soviet nostalgia" section right at the bottom there is the following statement:

According to July 2012 polling in Ukraine by RATING, 42% of respondents supported the formation of a unified state of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus; earlier in 2012 this support had been 48%.[31]

The corresponding reference has nothing whatsoever to do with the statement in question. I urge you to check it yourself. The significance of the statistic in question is such that I recommend it be removed until supporting evidence of some kind is presented. Right now there is no evidence whatsoever for this incredible statistic.

user: rastadreadlion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastadreadlion (talk • contribs) 12:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"Near Abroad" difference?

Is "Near Abroad" the same thing as the post-Soviet states? Are the two terms mutually interchangeable? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, "near abroad" indicates a large imported ethnic Russian population and is a code word for Russia to meddle in another state's internal affairs based on ethnic or economic interests. That said, the two terms are mostly interchangeable. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No Poland/East Germany

Subject says all. Why aren't they considered to not be ex-soviet states? RomanK79 (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither was ever part of the Soviet Union. They were satellite states. TDL (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering that Warsaw Pact satellite states were heavily influenced by the Soviet Union, similarly developed and economically ranked as those listed here, should this article include the other countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.99.87 (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

They simply don't fall into the category. None of the Communist successors of post-war Europe is even Russia-friendly (apart from Serbia who favour an EU/Moscow balance in relations). Obviously the pre-1990 administrations were in some way indebted to the Soviet Union as without the 1917 revolutions, no communist party could have realistically held power in Europe, but these were all overturned in revolutions and dismantled from within when one-time loyalists suddenly reversed policy in favour of pro-west orientation. But even the nostalgic elements among each former communist state cannot be part of any Post-Soviet state organisation. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that many people around the world have the same doubt as RomanK79 but that is because of not knowing the difference between Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. Soviet Union was a country which beside Russia included many other states (same as United States, a country which is formed by numerous states). Then there was the Warsaw Pact which included the Soviet Union and its allied countries (Poland, Bulgaria, East Germany, etc.).
To make it simple: Soviet Union is equivalent of United States, and Warsaw Pact is equivalent of NATO.
Poland and East Germany were part of Warsaw Pact, but were not part of the Soviet Union.
What makes confusion to people around the world is that besides the fall of the Warsaw Pact when countries decided not to be Soviet allies anymore, there was also the fall of the Soviet Union, a process in which numerous former Soviet countries became independent.
So here goes the main difference:
Warsaw Pact was formed by sovereign countries. They were: Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria (Yugoslavia and Albania were also part for a short period).
Soviet Union was a sovereign country which collapsed in the early 1990s and its Socialist Republics which formed it, became independent: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kirgizia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Minor nuances:
Czechoslovakia, a former Warsaw Pact member which was not part of Soviet Union also divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Yugoslavia, which was a member of the Warsaw Pact only for a short while, and was not part of the Soviet Union, also dismembered during the 1990s.
So. yes, they were all under the Soviet sphere of influence (except Yugoslavia), but countries which formed the Warsaw Pact were independent countries, and in turn, the Soviet Union itself was composed of republics which by the fall of communism became independent. So one needs to understand these two levels of Soviet influence (Warsaw Pact, which was formed by sovereign countries which were Soviet allies; and the Soviet Union itself, which was formed by non-sovereign countries which were part of Soviet Union and only became independent in the 1990s). FkpCascais (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Newly Independent States (NIS) vs Baltic Continuity States

I see Newly Independent States redirects to the main article. It is presented with initials which indicates some official usage. Scouring the web there is very little on the topic of a so-called "NIS" category and nothing I can personally find uses the term to the exclusion of the Baltic countries. I fear the term is being used here by proponents of post-Soviet Baltic tenets with the aim of fostering legitimacy to the continuity claim. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I've boldly removed it. TDL (talk)

Updates

I've made some updates as a few sections were really out of date. EurAsEc and the Customs Union don't exist as separate entities any more, and the Eurasian Economic Union is live. Uzbekistan also withdrew from EurAsEc and from CSTO years ago, but also joined the CIS Free Trade area (which I combined into the CIS section, since it's technically not a separate organization, just a CIS-wide treaty). Also added mention of Ukraine thinking about withdrawing from the CIS. The paragraphs and references are all lifted from the relevant wiki articles. Sorry if the footnote formatting is off: please feel free to clean that up.Konchevnik81 (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

December 1991

"15 independent states that emerged from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in its dissolution in December 1991" When Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, it had 12 republics. Velirand (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Post-Soviet 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Post-Soviet 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Post-Soviet 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Post-Soviet 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:

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) 00:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Post-Soviet 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:

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) 08:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Near abroad be merged into Post-Soviet states. I think that the content in the Near abroad article can easily be explained in the context of Post-Soviet states, and the Post-Soviet states article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Near abroad will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. L50g (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Post-Soviet_states/Archive_1&oldid=1073888349"