Russia Slams Ukraine Decree On Black Sea Fleet As Anti-Russian

[Purveyor]

Source: RIA Novosti


22:10 | 13/ 08/ 2008

Print version

MOSCOW, August 13 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday that a decree issued by the Ukrainian president requiring prior notification for naval movements of Russia's Black Sea Fleet is a 'new serious anti-Russian step.'

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko signed the decree Wednesday stating that Russia was required to notify the Ukrainian authorities of all movements by naval vessels and aircraft from its Crimea-based Black Sea Fleet.

"The new directives are aimed at creating a serious obstacle for the day-to-day operations of the Fleet and contradict the 1997 agreements between Russia and Ukraine on the status and terms of the Russian Black Sea Fleet's presence on Ukrainian territory," the ministry said in a statement.

According to the decree, Russia must seek permission from Kiev for the movement of its warships and aircraft beyond Ukrainian borders. Permission is to be sought no later than 72 hours prior to any planned maneuvers.

"This unilateral step delivers another blow to talks on the issue of the Black Sea Fleet as well as the whole range of bilateral relations," the statement said.

The ministry also said "Russia regards the Ukrainian leader's actions as contradicting the spirit and letter of the named agreements and the 1997 Agreement on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between the Russian Federation and Ukraine."

Read more: http://en.rian.ru/world/20080813/116020526.html

[hedgehog]

1. Well, yeah.....

[Xithras]

2. I've never understood why Russia keeps its fleet in Ukraine.

Russia still has a long stretch of coastline along the Black Sea that includes several large port cities and many large bays that could be developed into new ports. Why don't they just move their fleet out of Ukraine's waters permanently?

[amandabeech]

3. So that they can keep Ukraine in line? n/t

[AllentownJake]

4. Why do we have Gitmo?

Same answer

[Xithras]

5. Touche

"Because we can" is probably the best answer to that question.

Still, you'd think that the Russians would WANT out. Securing a naval base in a foreign country, heck, in a heavily populated foreign city, has to be a logistical nightmare.

[AllentownJake]

6. Yes

but it still allows the locals to know your there and if they act up you can take more. See Gitmo, do you think its easier to run a naval base out of Cuba or Florida 90 miles away.

[Doctor Cynic]

7. That's because it was the base for the CCCP Black Sea Fleet.

The Russians have agreed to rent the base until 2017, but they might vacate the place beforehand. Having an important military installation in a foreign country kind of ties your hands.

[daleo]

10. Having the Russian fleet there probably generates a lot of revenue for the Ukraine

Plus, there is a substantial Russian minority in Eastern Ukraine, as I recall. So this is probably a delicate situation from a lot of perspectives.

[Igel]

11. A heady mix of nationalism and self-aggrievement.

The base used to be on Russian land. They gave it to the Ukraine.

A lot of nationalists want it back. "Greater Russia" is as important as the "near abroad"--Ukraine is *not* the "near abroad".

Having the fleet there shows how powerful and important Russia is. Having the fleet there shows just how badly Russia's been abused, humiliated, and wronged, and how righteous demands for revanchement are.

Russians honestly believed that they were beloved by the peoples they colonized and oppressed, that they sacrificed heartily for the well-being of ethnic minorities like the Ukrainians and Georgians. That, in a very real sense, they're better and make appropriate rulers for others.

The Golden Horde left its mark deep in Russia's psyche. It's not by accident that Ivan the Terrible employed many of the practices of the Horde (and the Ottomans).

[Xolodno]

8. Translated from Russian....

So if we don't do as you want and move our ships around at will without notifying you, then you'll do what? Shoot at us too? Not a bad idea, we kind of want to keep that port...and maybe some land to go with it. Oh and hold your breath, Uncle Sam will be on his way to rescue you to.

[bemildred]

9. Ukraine imposes restrictions on Russian navy

President Victor Yushchenko raised the prospect of revoking an agreement that allows Russia to use the Crimean port until 2017 if Russian commanders defy the new restrictions. The presidential decree requires vessels blockading Georgia to ask Kiev's permission to return to the treaty port.

Reasserting control over its near neighbours is at the heart of Russia's foreign policy. It has ruthlessly cut winter energy supplies to secure compliance from Eastern Europe and used Russian-speaking minorities from the Baltics to Central Asia as leverage against states courting the West.

Mr Yushchenko joined the leaders of Poland and the Baltic states on a solidarity mission by a self-described group of "captive nations" of the USSR, to Tbilisi on Tuesday.

Even before yesterday's decree, Mr Yushchenko had faced domestic criticism for adopting positions that inevitably antagonise Moscow. Ukrainian political analyst James Hydzik said the president had put the country in Moscow's crosshairs. He said: "Protestations of neutrality from the Ukrainian government are not helped by the visit , at least from the Russian standpoint."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/2552925/Ukraine-imposes-restrictions-on-Russian-navy.html