Hosts leased by… lessees?

The Ukrainian Parliament ratified last week the “Agree­­ment between the Cabinet of Mi­nisters of Ukraine and the Govern­ment of the Rus­sian Federation on Co­ope­ration in Averting and Offset­ting their Consequences of Emergen­cies and Fires in the Populated Areas of Ukraine, where Russian Black Sea Fleet Facilities Are Sta­tioned.” As the question was being discussed, MPs Viktor Pynzenyk, Via­che­slav Kyry­lenko, and Oleksandr Shev­chenko insisted that the bill be returned to the government so that the glaring omissions and discre­pancies with Ukraine’s laws could be removed. Yet Verhkovna Rada Speaker Volo­dy­myr Rybak managed to have this dubious agreement ratified in a second vote (out of the 248 MPs, 222 and 228 sup­ported this decision in the first and second vote, respectively).

Why is it dubious? Before analyzing the quality, importance, and consequences of the ratified agreement, we should note that this country’s parliament has long been unconcerned over the fact that the number of legal and practical problems that arise from the presence of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine has been on the rise, not on the decline, lately. In the heat of the election campaign in late 2012, Ukrainian parliamentarians simply ignored the reports that Russia had exceeded the allowed strength of its marine corps in the Crimea. “Russia is attaching great importance today to the agreements on the number of the marine personnel on the territory of Ukraine and the relocation of troops outside garrisons.

These are the things that affect combat readiness and apparently violate the agreements signed earlier with Ukraine. For example, under Supplement 2 to the agreement on Russian Black Sea Fleet presence, the total number of the marine and land-based naval aviation personnel must not exceed 1,987. Meanwhile, the figure is now much higher than this, even though the Russian side is not exactly flaunting this fact,” says Dmytro Shtyblikov, NOMOS Center international program manager.

At the same time, later last year the Russian Black Sea Fleet refused to meet Ukraine’s demand to pay for the diesel fuel delivered for Sevastopol-based warships. Earlier, the Russian side had been making these payments regularly for 14 years. Then Russian officers suddenly “found out” that there were no grounds for this kind of payments. They claim that international agreements and Ukrainian laws have no clauses that oblige the Black Sea Fleet to pay the added value tax and the excise duty on the material and technical items produced on the territory of and delivered from Russia to meet the fleet’s needs. In addition, a number of problems still remain unresolved through the Russian side’s fault. For instance, the Black Sea Fleet illegally uses about 40 wharfs and subleases over 200 facilities, although subleasing is not envisaged in the agreement and is thus unlawful. No inventory has been made of the facilities allegedly leased by the Black Sea Fleet – not a single contract has been signed on the rental of specific facilities because, in a vicious circle, no inventory was taken of them. Finally, the Black Sea Fleet still refuses to meet Ukraine halfway and solve the problem of the lease of lighthouses and other hydrographic facilities that the fleet has illegally seized, although international law confirms the rights of Ukraine in this matter.

Naturally, as they relish the taste of it, Russian guests on the Ukrainian land are increasingly behaving like hosts. It was reported recently that the Russians intend to establish a year-round multipurpose deep-sea naval weapons test range (instead of the former Soviet naval proving ground in Feodosia), disregarding the interests and safety of the Crimean resort which will have to be literally part of a proving ground. Moreover, it is planned to hold an inter-fleet naval exercise, which will involve the forces of Russia’s Northern, Baltic, Black Sea, and Pacific fleets, later in January in the Black and Mediterranean seas. According to the Russia’s Ministry of Defense, the objective of the exercise is “to explore the possibility of forming an inter-service grouping of forces (troops) outside the Russian Federation, planning the use of it, and taking joint actions within the framework of a united and centrally-commanded naval force.” As “the use of force outside the Russian Federation is being explored” in the immediate vicinity of borders and in Ukraine’s territorial waters, there is not even a hint of guarantees to our country. Moreover, Ukraine comes into the sphere of Russia’s armed actions because “it is planned, as part of the upcoming exercise, to simulate tactical episodes of the loading of marine and airborne units onto landing ships from the unprepared North Caucasus coast” and, clearly, these “episodes” will be tried out at the Russia-leased Opuk proving ground in the Crimea.

Yet some analysts maintain that Ukraine does not in fact enjoy non-aligned status because the latter calls for denying members of any military blocs the right to station their troops on the country’s territory and, all the more so, furnishing any military strategic, tactical and other services to one of the warring sides. Therefore, as long as the fleet of a foreign country is stationed in Ukraine, there can be no question at all of Ukraine’s non-aligned status because the latter has been upset from the very beginning and this country is being drawn, willy-nilly, into one of the blocs.

Therefore, as it was in the case of the Russian Black Sea Fleet’s actions in Georgia in 2008, Ukraine will find itself drawn, contrary to its wishes, into military operations with unpredictable consequences, as far as our security is concerned. For the objective of the exercise – “to allow the naval personnel to gain practical skills in the Black and Mediterranean seas area” – clearly illustrates the aggressive intentions of our neighbor in the inflammable Black and Mediterranean seas region, which may upset the peaceful status of Ukraine that stays out of military blocs. What is more, the war game has in fact begun – all the fleets have been getting ready for it since December 2012, and this activity envisaged reconnaissance (i.e., visiting) of the exercise areas, preparatory command post exercises coupled with live fire trainings, as well as anti-terrorist and counter piracy measures. Task forces of warships are already on the way to the designated exercise areas. Russia is holding a naval exercise of this magnitude for the first time in the past few decades in order to improve troop control and ensure all-round interaction of fleets in a remote maritime area.

Yet some analysts maintain that Ukraine does not in fact enjoy non-aligned status because the latter calls for denying members of any military blocs the right to station their troops on the country’s territory and, all the more so, furnishing any military strategic, tactical and other services to one of the warring sides. Therefore, as long as the fleet of a foreign country is stationed in Ukraine, there can be no question at all of Ukraine’s non-aligned status because the latter has been upset from the very beginning and this country is being drawn, willy-nilly, into one of the blocs.

But let us get back to the agreement the Verkhovna Rada ratified later last week. As Viktor Pynzenyk noted during a parliamentary debate, by passing this law “the Ukrainian parliament has admitted that the laws of another country – Russia – can be in force on the territory of Ukraine.” He pointed out that Article 5 of the Agreement sets out that the Russian law will be applicable to the Russian Black Sea Fleet servicemen who are stationed on the territory of Ukraine and are part of rescue units at the time they are taking part in the actions to avert emergencies and fires and offset their consequences in the Ukrainian populated areas, where Russian Black Sea Fleet facilities are located. Pynzenyk also pointed out Article 9 which sets out that if any damage has been done to a natural or artificial person of Ukraine by the invited side, this damage will be repaired by the inviting, i.e., Ukrainian, side.

In his turn, Vasyl Kvashuk, whom Parliamentary Speaker Volodymyr Rybak introduced as deputy minister for emergencies (even though it is called a state service now), said that “the Agreement complies with the Constitution of Ukraine.” “The Agreement has been drawn up to develop the current agreement on Black Sea Fleet bases in Ukraine signed on May 28, 1997. This agreement was worked out on the basis of the duly-ratified Agreement between the Governments of Ukraine and the Russian Federation on Cooperation in Averting Industrial Accidents, Natural and Man-made Disasters and Offsetting their Consequences,” Kvashuk said.

Refat CHUBAROV, member of the Crimean parliament, First Deputy Head of the Majlis of the Crimean Tatar people, and president of the World Congress of Crimean Tatars, told The Day that this decision is an aberration. Only one set of laws can be valid on the territory of one country, and citizens of all the other states on its territory must obey its law. Some Day experts point out that the situation, when citizens of some other country abide by their own laws on a foreign territory, resembles very much the situation, when WWII-time Nazi German invaders extended the validity of German laws and attitudes to the occupied Soviet territory. The impression is that the Verkhovna Rada is also under a lease of the Russian side and, hence, flouts its own interests and satisfies the interests and demands of the neighbors. Therefore, the leaders of our country are in fact being… leased by the lessees, i.e. by those to whom they leased out a part of their land for the Black Sea Fleet.

Volodymyr PRYTULA, a Crimean analyst, an expert of the Crimean Political Dialogue project, told The Day that, firstly, this situation is a juridical aberration, which provides grounds for a thorough legal examination of the ratified agreements. Secondly, this is a precedent that creates a dangerous practice in the Crimea and other regions of Ukraine, when citizens of other states can flout the laws of the country they are staying in. There have already been instances when Russian servicemen repeatedly violated the laws of Ukraine – for example, they went off the permitted limits without notifying and receiving permission from Ukrainian authorities. Violations like this are likely to occur more often now. But while we used to say earlier that it was a violation of the Ukrainian law, now, after this precedent, the Russian military have got a legal right to do so. Thirdly, according to Prytula, the adoption of this law, so awkward from the angle of international law and juridical practice, undermines the reputation and increases the responsibility of the president of Ukraine because he, as the head of state, will be held responsible for everything that will be occurring on the country’s territory, especially if foreign military servicemen are involved. “I think this fact should prompt the president to veto this law and subject it to legal expert examination because it represents a clear danger of instability and breach of law for this country and our people,” Prytula says.