Talk:Ukraine–NATO relations

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ukraine Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

NATO (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[3rd Infantry Division (United States)#Current status|2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Russia-NATO

Russia is not a member of NATO, not going to be a member and it is not intending to join military or any other alliances with Ukraine. But Russia is mentioned 6 times in this article.

I propose to move all Russian concerns from this article into "Russia-NATO relationships". --DmitriyR (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia may target its missiles at Ukraine if its neighbour joins NATO and accepts the deployment of a US missile defence shield.[24]

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin allegedly declared at a NATO-Russia summit in 2008 that if Ukraine would join NATO his country can contend to annex the Ukrainian East and Crimea[10]

This sort of info should be in this article, unless you consider these statements normal... — Mariah-Yulia (talk)

Of course the NATO–Russia relations should be expanded with this info too a little bit of WP:Fork is sometimes necessary. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the UKR-RUS tensions in it's own paragraph and expanded NATO–Russia relations a bit. — Mariah-Yulia (talk)

Government source for polls

Every single independent poll, whether it's Ukrainian, American or Russian, shows the same figures low figures of about 17-22% in support of joining NATO. Yet the Ukrainian government keeps reporting completely different results, saying there's apparently much more support. They claimed that according to a Razumkov center poll, support was at 30%. Yet when we go to Razumkov's website, it shows support is half that. What a joke, do they think people are that dumb? Please stop inserting this ridiculous propaganda into the article, unless it's to show the huge contrast between government figures and every other independent source. LokiiT (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. After 2017 things changed in a huge way.104.169.24.168 (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Ukraine–NATO relations

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 Ukraine–NATO relations'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 "RatingJuly12":

From Ukraine: The language question, the results of recent research in 2012, UA: Rating, 25 May 2012
From Ukraine–European Union relations: The language question, the results of recent research in 2012, RATING (25 May 2012)

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 ⚡ 01:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ukraine–NATO relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ukraine–NATO relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ukraine–NATO relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140407102404/http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/162006.html to http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/162006.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

possible error

There could be an error: "that in contacts with Moscow" instead than "unlike Moscow" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas-topway-it (talk • contribs) 13:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The link about the Russian military invasion of 2014 relates to the ongoing military invasion (2022) and not the one from 2014. 109.252.171.114 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Which link are you referring to specifically? Could you provide a snippet of the relevant text? The article is quite stuffed with links and so I cannot reasonably parse out what may be the perceived error. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On Request of guarantees of Ukraine's non-accession to NATO The anchor tag href uses Cyrillic, Instead of Alphabet, hence resulting in 404, thus showing "The article that you're looking for doesn't exist."

Please change to "FILE/" instead of "Файл" NutShards (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I don't see Файл anywhere in either the wikitext source, or the actual HTML source. All links seem to be working fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did you talk about the picture contained in the section? Could you please if it is working now? P1221 (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am referring to image, and I checked it and it is now working as intended, Sorry for not giving out clear info on the error NutShards (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source for Enhanced Opportunity Partner

[1]. --Lyrono (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of Sweden's politicians for upcoming now wants to join nato

Anyone with editing rights may it be changed.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/applying-join-nato-would-destabilize-security-situation-swedish-pm-says-2022-03-08/

About 51 % wish now to join nato. One of the candidates to elections, promised he would join nato, however currently ruling officials refuse so far, admission — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:813B:18CC:E1B9:501 (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CGTN source

The CGTN source is the only one which counts the deputies for and against the motion in State Duma. If a more reliable source can be found use it. In the meantime, this doesn't seem like falsified information, therefore the blanket CGTN ban makes no sense here. Armduino (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the article text for which you used CGTN as source was for the statement that the Duma asked Putin to recognize the breakaway territories. This article fact was widely reported in reliable sources, and in fact had such a source (Radio Free Europe) right next to the CGTN ref. There was no need to use the CGTN source. Only in your most recent edit re-installing the CGTN source did you add a statement about the vote counts in the Duma on the issue; this data was not so widely reported and the RFE source didn't give it, unlike (I presume) the CGTN article. Still, that data was reported by some reliable sources (I found an acceptable one in the second set of 20 search results from Google), and even the questionable but not deprecated source Tass was a top result for the data.

After you added the Duma vote data to the article (of some slight interest, I suppose), Amigao once again removed the CGTN reference and added a {{cn}} in its place. I will presently replace the {cn} with the source I found (Fortune) which gives that Duma vote.

Basically there is no need to rely on the deprecated source CGTN, and like all deprecated sources, it should be avoided. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map under section "Russian opposition to Ukrainian NATO membership"

THe map under this section appears to use the wrong colors for Finland and Sweden. It uses a color lighter than those of NATO member countries, but darker than countries in the process of accession, despite being in the process of accession. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source given nor external reference found to claim that in 2004 NATO was given "free access" to Ukraine

in the chapter "History of Relations" following statement is made:

"On 6 April 2004, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law on the free access of NATO forces to the territory of Ukraine."

This is a rather broad statement which seems to suggest that NATO troops were allowed to freely enter Ukraine territory. This seems unlikely, and neither is any source given in the article, nor was I able to find more information on this in an extensive online search.

I suggest that either more details and sources should be added to this paragraph, or otherwise it should be deleted. Rabbit without ears (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typo?

"In July 2002 he said, "NATO will give Ukraine security. Ukraine will make the alliance stronger".--Please check if "2002" is a typo. Thanks. 2001:2020:343:AEED:C55C:3EB3:4D56:B687 (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 February 2024

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: Retracted per above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine–NATO relations → NATO–Ukraine relations – alphabetizing per the standard for hundreds of bilateral relations articles. Cf., e.g. NATO–Russia relations. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (STRONGLY). I think the alphabetization rule makes complete sense when it's between two nations, but multinational organizations generally supersede the alphabetization rule and come last in titles. "NATO-Russia" is merely a bizarre exception that should probably be fixed to match with Serbia–NATO relations, Sweden–NATO relations, Switzerland–NATO relations, this page (Ukraine–NATO relations), and the FIFTY (50) pages in the "[NameOfCountry]–European Union relations" format in Category:Third-country relations of the European_Union. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you then think we should have this standard: bilateral state-to-state goes alphabetical and "bilateral" state-to-IGO is "state-then-IGO" no matter alphabetical order? If so, that's totally legit by me, and I can remove this request and make the inverse request at the Russia article. @Paintspot:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that works! Like, it's basically already the (possibly-unofficial but still widely-used) standard, given how all the other pages are set-up. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oppose per paintspot DarmaniLink (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted per above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:06, 13 February 2024 (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.

Update map/image

Could somebody update the map in the top left of the article of NATO and Ukraine by coloring Sweden as a NATO member please? Thank you. Feel free to delete my message when it's done. Wikidoge04 (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please, make Sweden green on the first main round map at this page (on the globe) 107.171.238.228 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done That is impossible to do. Untamed1910 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At end of section "Russian invasion of Ukraine", add a line like: "On 10 July 2024, Stoltenberg announced establishing a NATO command for Ukraine to ensure training and delivery of security assistance to Ukraine, consisting of 700 personnel and headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany.^[1] " D4n2016 (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Slightly reworded and provided a non-video source from the US DoD – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "2024 NATO Public Forum | Day 1, 10 July 2024". YouTube.

Link fix

NATO enlargement summit in November 2002 -> 2002 Prague summit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C01:780:4F00:C134:73B0:3F85:6284 (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"NATO officials vowed support for Ukraine and worked to downplay tensions between the bloc and Russia, which refused to recognize the impeachment of Yanukovych or the Yatsenyuk Government.[85]"

Cited source does not support impeachment claim. 2A01:799:CD9:8C00:C19:B49E:F5E9:F502 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you for catching this! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Attacked by Russia in 2014”

Considering only five people died during the annexation of Crimea, is this phrasing a bit sensational? 47.32.176.29 (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "2024 NATO Public Forum | Day 1, 10 July 2024". YouTube.

[1]