Talk:Black Sea Fleet

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

Letter Ф in the Russian name[edit]

Why is this letter written in uppercase in the article? It's not capitalized in the original Russian name: Черноморский флот (not Черноморский Флот). ЖдуВесны (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scope of article[edit]

It might be nice if we could narrow down whether this refers to the First Chechen War or the Second Chechen War. I couldn't figure it out myself fairly quickly & easily, after some minor Googling; but it could easily be that they've been active in both, which would account for my confusion. -- John Owens (talk) 21:18, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, we're talking at least about the first one. And people, don't you rely so heavily on Google and Internet. In particular, I took this info you demand from RUssian TV and official bulletin of Russian navy. AlexPU
P.S. I think "to base" referring to military units should be used with "on", not with "in" or "at". But don't anyone bother reverting it - not importantAlexPU
In the current situation we hear a lot about the Black Sea Fleet; about time that some people became a bit more familiar with these things. Maybe they'd make better decisions. At the moment there is much talk in the press about 'Russians violating Ukrainian territory', meaning the military in the Crimea. If the April 2010 Agreement specifies a certain number of soldiers and now there are more, then yes, there'd be a violation. If, however, that 2010 Agreement does NOT limit the number of Russian personel in the BSF, there'd be no violation and we would like to point that out to people. The only number I could find was for 2010, in reports about the Agreement saying 'there are currently 16,000 people and 40 ships'. Could someone who can read that 2010 Agreement please insert whether there is a number/limit of soldiers or not. Thx. (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 2010 Ukraine-Russia agreement signed in Kharkiv was basically a one-page document. It accomplished two things: 1) extended the 1997 Lease Agreement for 25 years past 2017, and 2) spelled out the lease payment formula related to gas prices. The 2010 Agreement merely extended the 1997 Agreement in toto. The 1997 Agreement limits the Russian Federation Black Sea Fleet to no more than 25,000 servicemen in Crimea. Within the last two days the Ukrainian Chief of Defense Admiral Tenyukh stated that with recent increases the number of Russian servicemen in Crimea is now 16,000.Федоров (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as the those servicemen also don't leave their bases and do not hamper Ukrainian Security\Naval forces within its sovereign territory. --PLNR (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ships list[edit]

Moved from User talk:Ukrained#Black Sea Fleet

Zdrastuy! Information about the Black Sea Fleet in both Russian and English can be found at their official site, [1]. Information about the composition of the Ukrainian Navy, see World Navies Today. κаллэмакс 22:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you very much. Especially regarding the fact that I was right. Found at least one inaccuracy: [дивизия] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help) and [дивизион] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help) are a little bit different things (which you couldn't know). So I'm going to search for correct EN analogues for each. Any ideas? And thanks for UA Navy. Ukrained 11:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forget about divisions and battallions: you were correct about them. However, I've corrected brigade names and some typos accordimg to this. Best wishes, Ukrained 11:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh, I should have seen that "rocket boat" was "missile boat". :P κаллэмакс 20:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should Kara class cruiser Ochakov relly be in the active ship list? What I know the ship has been in modification for years and is no way near ready for active duty, and probably will be scrapped in a near future. Walle83 (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could somebody please tell me what the Black Sea Fleet's uniforms for an admiral look liked in the late 1700's. I'm doing a report on John Paul Jones.

Ukrainian name in the lead[edit]

Can I ask what relevant does Ukrainian language play to the Russian military unit? We don't have German and Italian names for United States Air Forces in Europe, or in particular the lang-de for Ramstein or Spangdahlem. Nor do we have Japanese for United States Fleet Activities Yokosuka. Yet we do for Yokosuka itself. As for the argument it is located on Ukrainian territory, then at present the territory is leased from Ukraine, therefore until 2017 de facto the territory is not Ukrainian, and the Russian flag flies above it. Not in Ukraine therefore not under Ukrainian administartion therefore outside the influence of Ukrainian language. --Kuban Cossack 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed the Russian fleet does not use Ukrainian language. Nonetheless, being located in Ukraine, the fleet is known under Ukrainian name, which validates the inclusion of this name into the article no less than the name in Russian alphabet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggerr (talkcontribs) 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fleet is not subjected to Ukraine! It serves the Russian Federation, not Ukraine. Add it to the article about the Ukrainian navy if you want. This article is about a Russian military unit, and as shown by my examples above, articles about units stationed in foreign countires do not have the name in the lead in the language that that country uses. As Ukrainian is not official langauge of Russia, there is no place for it in this article--Kuban Cossack 17:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Oppose, unless it can be demonstrated that having a Ukrainian name in the lead is going to be of benefit to Anglophones. Of course, the fleet is well-known under Ukrainian name in Ukraine, but what's the point of having it in the English-language article?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support it is stationed in Ukraine and as such Ukrainian language version is notable.--Molobo 18:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In such case, would you care to answer my question immediately above, please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't see any reason to include the Ukrainian version of "Black Sea Fleet" on this page, especially in light of the 1997 understanding that Russia retained the historical name of the fleet. I do want to point out that the leasing makes the territory de jure "not Ukrainian" rather than de facto. When a property owner leases land, he concedes the legal right to utilize the property under certain conditions for certain amount of time as outlined in the legal agreement, but he does at all times retain the title to the land. --Riurik(discuss) 05:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose, Kuban Cossack makes a valid point. If this were an article on the fleet(s) in Sevastopol then Ukrainian would belong here. It is not; hence it is an independant Russian unit. Bogdan що? 21:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What would be true, is that if we make an article about Sevastoploskaya Bukhta, or whatever the name of the actual base is, then yes, Ukrainian will be there, and more likely than not the title would be translited into Ukrainian from Russian. I can create a stub, however the unit that is that base is a Russian military one and hence Ukrainian is unnecessary. --Kuban Cossack 18:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose as per arguments.--Miyokan 06:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How soon is immediately? And other vague sentences.[edit]

Somebody changed this line at the Partition of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet section in this article, the line says: However, this immediately led to conflicts with the majority of officers who appeared to be loyal to Russia.Immediately sugest that they start fighting right away? And what was the nature of this conflict? Arguments? Fighting? Prank calls? This article is full with vague sentences. Like:However, recent local conflicts in the Caucasus region (particularly in Georgia) and the development of oil transit in the region are forcing Russia to support the fleet as much as possible. What kind of support is this? Acording to the article there is one ship there from 2001 and the youngest after that from 1991. That doesn't sound very suporty... And is Russia planing on bombing the coast of Georgia? Is this article written to intimidate Mikheil Saakashvili? I'm trying to learn from Wikipedia, not to get confused! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foreign Ministry Reports More Facts Of Russian Black Sea Fleet Breaking Ukrainian Laws[edit]

Should it be mentioned in the article? See: [2]. -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely it should be mentioned.

Disputed: statements on extent of Russian presence in Tartus and potential port capabilities[edit]

Under "Recent Developments" the following sentences were added regarding the Russian presence in Tartus: "These reports appear totally without foundation. The Russian naval footprint in Tartus is extremely modest - one floating pier. Google Earth imagery shows that there is no vacant space in the port of Tartus for any naval expansion." The author does not cite any references for these statements, especially important considering the non-NPOV nature of the first sentence. My own examination of Tartus via Google Maps showed a large port complex in the north part of Tartus, so I was not able to verify the author's claim regarding GE imagery showing only a single floating pier and no vacant space for port expansion in Tartus - and in any case, I believe that use of GE and GM imagery in this way violates the Wikipedia no original research clause. Barring supply of references, I suggest these added sentences be stricken. -- Tagryn (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good points since Russia denies all these plans [3] anyhow. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General Neutrality Issues[edit]

Some of article reads like an RT "news" report. Most prominently, the "Incidents with Ukraine" section, where it states certain court decisions were illegal with no objective explanation of why they were 'illegal' and who was saying so.

Look, I don't see any neutrality issues and honestly I don't think the reasons you mentioned are adequate enough to put a neutrality issue message at the top of the page. I'll give it a few days for further discussion before I remove the message. Tomh903 (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The whole "Following the 2014 Ukrainian revolution,when democratically elected president Yanukovich was ousted by a junta including far-right politicians sponsored by NATO countries, in March 2014, the Russian Federation, after a referendum where the overwhelming majority of the population voted in favor of re-joining Russia, (a part of which Crimea had been for centuries until Nikita Khrushchev´s dictatorial decree), accepted Crimea´s interim government petition to rejoin it" doesn't really scream neutrality, to me anyway. It sounds more like Russia's official political line. (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I've removed that sentence, it didn't really have relevance to the section it was in anyway. Tomh903 (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update of Article - 2020[edit]

I made amendments to the history and order of battle sections of the article to bring it more up-to-date and focused on developments and events that have occurred since 2014 in relation to the Black Sea Fleet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC) But the edits (including sourced material) have been deleted and the article is back to being completely out-of-date with bad grammar and disjointed references to events that occurred a decade ago.Reply[reply]

Vasily Bykov[edit]

This article and the Vasily Bykov article claim the ship was not sunk and was witnessed returning to Sebastopol. However, it is no longer listed in the section naming the ships in the Black Sea Fleet. This should be reconciled. If it is still unclear if the ship is or isn’t sunk, then I suggest listing it as possibly sunk similarly to how the transport ships are noted to be possibly destroyed or damaged. 500Afs (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Telegraph says the recently killed Anton Kuprin is the commander. Ukrainian officials have claimed that no one was able to be rescued and that among the dead are the ship's captain, commander of the Black Sea Fleet Anton Kuprin.[4] Have they misunderstood or was Osipov removed at some point? Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I understood, an admiral commands from the flag ship. But the ship has a captain who commands the individual ship. Perhaps they assumed the captain of the individual ship must be the commander of the fleet? Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

loss of moskva and other ships[edit]

THe Moskva isn't listed as lost.

Was it not deployed to the Black Sea fleet? Also would a section of losses be appropriate?

--Patbahn (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps less "news" about the Ukraine war?[edit]

A lot of "news" additions are made to this article about ships that have their own article - disputed claims, possible events, etc. E.g., many "Raptor" class vessels have an identical comment about 3 Raptors (which ones not stated) reported attacked. Admiral Makarov damaged (Ukraine), not damaged (Russia), actually not damaged, error (Ukraine). I would suggest that these additions are not needed, if anywhere they belong in the (linked) ship article until there is firm news without the fog of war, then a brief "damaged" or "sunk" where appropriate. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1176 Akula - hit mine in Mariupol[edit]

Slightly wary of including this as 'no official confirmation' is part of the text - and here also - quotes Ukrainian MP Oleksiy Honcharenko Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that there's an style mistake in some of the titles. They are in normal instead of bold fonts.[edit]

Title explains it all. Someone with the knowledge and editor rights should change it. Right now is kind of confusing when you try to read the article.

Thanks and have a good day. (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian "illegal" annexation of crimea[edit]

Wikipedia should be neutral, according to who was the crimean annexation illegal?? The west?? (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Crimean annexation was illegally done by the Russian Federation in 2014, it is violating Ukrainian Sovereignty, and Sevastapol is Ukrainian according to the Ukrainian Constitution. Let's say Germany annexes Warsaw, Poland and the West does nothing because it is legal. (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]