A sad anniversary for the Black Sea Fleet

Subscribe

MOSCOW. (Viktor Safonov for RIA Novosti)

Ten years ago, on May 28, Russia and Ukraine signed a "big treaty" and an agreement on the status of the Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine. But Russian sailors describe the occasion as a "sad" anniversary. Why?

The reasons are many. The central one is the lack of additional legal agreements regulating basic aspects of the fleet's existence, dropped for some reason or other from the "bigger treaty." One of these, incidentally, is on hydrographic facilities in the Crimea. Both sides lay claim to them. As a result, there are frequent disputes which even courts at different levels cannot resolve. Crimean judges regularly rule in favor of local authorities, but the fleet's command refuses to accept the rulings, justly believing that international treaties are not subject to the peninsula's law enforcement practices. They must be dealt with by intergovernmental commissions. Yet even such commissions, which meet once every six months at most, cannot come to terms.

On the one hand, there is the safety of sailing in coastal waters of the Crimea to consider, and on the other, a desire to get additional dividends from servicing warships from a neighboring country. On top of all else, there is a lot of hot air about Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, etc., although similar facilities at the British naval base in Gibraltar and the American base in Yokosuka (Japan) belong respectively to the United Kingdom and the United States. No legal issues are raised there.

But the claims to hydrographic equipment near Sevastopol pale in comparison with more serious problems. One of them is the rapid ageing of Black Sea warships. No modern vessel has joined the fleet since the status agreement was inked. The fleet's flagship Moskva is more than 20 years old. The missile cruiser was built back in 1983, but spent half of its life at the Nikolayev repair yards. The refit, however, failed to give the cruiser its former might or new strength. Over the past 14 years the cruiser has never used its main missiles for practice. During its spell of duty in the Mediterranean in 2002, it carried no missiles at all.

The other first- and second-echelon ships that make up the core of the fleet are also advanced in age, with more than 25 years under their belt. Two relatively new missile-carrying ships, Bora and Samum, which are equipped with supersonic Moskit anti-ship missiles, joined the fleet in the early 1990s. In 1991, the Black Sea Fleet included more than 800 combat vessels and launches, special and auxiliary ships, along with several hundred planes, whereas today they are counted in dozens.

Admiral Igor Kasatonov, a former Black Sea commander (1991-1992), said that the fleet is outnumbered by the Turkish fleet one to four. Ankara has 13 submarines on the Black Sea against Russia's one. The Turks boast 26 ships in the cruiser and patrol vessel classes, while the Russians have only six. "No comment," said the admiral.

But the crucial problem, he said, is that the fleet is losing its basing facilities. Its main forces are stationed in Sevastopol, with only a few vessels found in Feodosia, Temryuk and Novorossiisk. Of the network of airfields that once stretched from Moldova to Daghestan, only two airports remain - one in Kacha (north of Sevastopol) and one in Gvardeisk (Simferopol). The new bases that are being built in Novorossiisk and Tuapse are making slow progress and will not be able to compensate for Sevastopol's loss, either in natural conditions or in infrastructure development, if Russia has to leave it in 2017. What has taken three centuries to establish in the Crimea will be impossible to rebuild even in 20 or 30 years.

Problems also plague Russian citizens living in Sevastopol. Their status and accommodation conditions are a far cry from accepted standards. In the early 1990s, when Russia and Ukraine allowed dual citizenship, the wives and children of Russian warrant and senior officers were persuaded to take out Ukrainian passports. It made no difference, they were assured, you will find it easier to take care of your housing problems in the Crimea. Now the dual citizenship has been repealed, and members of the same family belong to different states. The husband is a Russian citizen and upon retirement is entitled to an apartment certificate at his chosen place of residence. The certificate, however, does not cover his wife or children, and a divorce appears the only way out. In Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it is no problem to obtain a Russian passport, whereas in Sevastopol, it is practically impossible.

Pensions, according to the agreements concluded in the same years, are paid to Russian citizens in Ukrainian hryvnas. But Kiev charges high exchange commissions, and retirees find themselves at a disadvantage compared with their Russian counterparts. Now, the "smartest" of them, when they go on a pension, register themselves in a nearby Russian locality to draw their pensions there. Once in six months they go there to collect it. Travel expenses are less than exchange fees.

To be sure, Russian authorities, especially the mayor of Moscow, do everything in their power to help out their citizens who sometimes find themselves hostages in Sevastopol. Moscow builds houses for them, opens Russian-language schools and branches of the capital's universities. But an absence of solutions to legal problems often means that their efforts come to nothing.

A further problem is that Ukraine now has no one in a position of authority with whom the issues of the Black Sea Fleet, Sevastopol and its Russian residents can be decided. A drawn-out political crisis and the bitter fight between the opposing forces stand in the way of serious negotiations.

The only option is to wait.

Viktor Safonov is an analyst for Nezavisimoye Voennoye Obozreniye.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

Newsfeed
0
To participate in the discussion
log in or register
loader
Chats
Заголовок открываемого материала