Part 7. "Separatists Begin and …Lose"
Part 6. "At the Peak of the Fleet-Wide Psychosis"
Part 5 “It Nearly Came to War”
Part 4. “Sevastopol - Crimea – Russia”
Part 3. “How the Black Sea Fleet Was Divided “Fraternally”
Part 2. “Black Sea Fleet on the Scales of Political Tender“
Part 1. “The Russian Federation’s Black Sea Fleet and National Security of Ukraine”
Part 8. "Split"
The Session of the Supreme Council of the Crimea continued its work on the 27th of May, 1994. Suddenly, the Deputies of the Crimean Parliament and the “President” of the Peninsula stopped understanding each other. It was nothing else but a split. The Crimean Parliament refused to approve the composition of the Government. Neither Yu.Meshkov’s, nor Prime Minister of the Autonomy E.Saburov’s calls helped. Then Yu.Meshkov together with the accompanying him Candidates for Ministerial posts in the Autonomy left the hall of the Session.
Having failed in the formation of the Government of the Peninsula, Yu.Meshkov again began to accuse Ukraine of its attempts to destabilize the Crimean situation. But, seizing the initiative of the Supreme Council of the Autonomy, he agreed to hold talks with Kiev on how to solve the Crimean problems.
***
However, the negotiations were complicated because of the position of the Commandment of the Black Sea Fleet that tried, in their own way, to influence the political situation in the region. Since May 27, a meeting of the BSF Air Force officers supported the decision of the Supreme Council of the Crimea on the resumption of the Constitution of the Peninsula from 1992.
At the same time, the media published an Appeal of the Sevastopol Coordinating Council of the BSF Officers meetings to the Presidents of Ukraine, Russia and the Crimea, as well as the Heads of the CIS states, which stated that it was the position of Ukraine that had led to worsening of the situation on the Peninsula.
***
Meanwhile, the Black Sea Fleet was “muscle-flexing”. On the 28th of May, from 9 am till noon, at the Headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet there took place regular trainings on “rejecting attacks of diversion groups”, the outer security posts were appointed, personnel were given bullet-proof vests. In Kacha Garrison the Air Force of the BSF were mastering questions of mobilization readiness, military units were deploying points for the reception and training of reservists, including living in the Crimea citizens of Ukraine.
At Kacha airport in the one hour readiness for flight, was on duty a helicopter Mi-14 from the 872-th Separate Anti-Boat Helicopter Regiment with the task of tracking the movement of Ukrainian troops at the territory of the Peninsula.
***
 |
|
A.V. Rutskoy, Major-General of Air Forces, Hero of the Soviet Union, the first and the last Vice-President of the Russian Federation in 1991-1993: "Russia should take a firmer position in its attitude to former Soviet republics" http://www.all-kursk.ru/pro/ |
Meanwhile, Moscow was temporising, apparently fearing a negative reaction of the West to its direct support to the Crimean separatists. Although it could not sit idle. Someone in the Kremlin felt it appropriate to use the former Vice-President of Russia Rutskoy. He voiced, allegedly on his own initiative, “in person on his behalf” the Kremlin's position. In particular, according to Rutskoy’s statement in Russian media, the problem of the Crimea could only be solved in case of an agreement between Russia and Ukraine on granting political independence to the Peninsula, as well as giving it the status of a free economic area. At this, he did not exclude the armed conflict in the Crimea, and also suggested that Russia should take a firmer position in its attitude to former Soviet republics. For example, it should increase pressure on them, through stopping the delivery of gas, oil and electricity.
The former Vice-President once again called the Crimea “a Russian territory” and Sevastopol — “a Russian Naval base”. This status, stated Rutskoy, “Sevastopol always had, has and will have”.
***
In Simferopol, Rutskoy’s statement was accepted with understanding.
On the 30th of May, 1994 the Crimean Parliament refused to fulfil the ultimatum of the Supreme Council of Ukraine to cancel its previous decisions. By that time the term of the ultimatum had been expiring.
The same day the Marine Brigade of the Black Sea Fleet was brought to the highest level of combat readiness — “war threat”. The personnel of the Brigade got weapons, and to strengthen the Brigade, a Tank Battalion arrived.
***
 |
| Yu.Meshkov is a Crimean bomb of Delayed Action. http://rusouz.org/n4_110702_1.html |
However, this could not rescue the “Russian idea of the Crimea”, which yet again significantly failed. The crack between the Parliament of the Crimea and its “President” turned into a deep and unbridgeable gap. First of all this concerned the control of the Government of the Peninsula, which was giving access to financial and material resources of the Crimea. The appointment of the members of the Cabinet of Ministers was the first major “stumbling block” in the relationship between the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea and Yu. Meshkov.
On the 1st of June, 1994 the “President” of the Crimea gave the Parliament a list of Candidates for the posts of Ministers of the Peninsula, which included well-known Moscow politicians and economists. But the Parliament of the Autonomy refused to consider them, having its own interests as to the executive power in the ARC.
By the way, against the President’s candidates were even his former colleagues from the “Russia” political block, and this led to a sharp disagreement between Meshkov’s team and the Speaker of the Supreme Council of the Crimea S.Tsekov, as well as Vice-Prime Minister E.Saburov, with mutual accusations in the media of the Crimea, which, of course, did not add authority to the leadership of the Peninsula.
More so, as the real reason for the conflict was just many Deputies’ of the Crimean Parliament being unhappy with dividing high posts in the supreme legislative body of the ARC, where there was no room for them. At the same time, local business-structures were actively against the “Varyags from Moscow” as they did not want to lose their control of the economy of the Crimea. In this regard, the Supreme Council of the Crimea, expressing the interests of local business, was trying to substitute for the executive branch of the Peninsula, especially in matters of taxation and distribution of grants from Ukraine.
The Crimean Parliament did not agree to Meshkov’s demand to grant him additional powers with the right to man rule in the Peninsula: the Deputies feared that the “President” would usurp all power.
To E.Saburov, the development of the situation in the Crimea looked much like the situation in Moscow in 1993. He also said that Deputies of the Supreme Council of the Autonomy themselves were pushing Kyiv to taking tough measures against the Peninsula.
***
Having not received the necessary support from the Supreme Council of the Crimea, angry “President” of the Crimea left the Assembly Hall. Later, he made another statement, widely publicised by the media of the Peninsula. He still hoped to get the support of Crimean residents. However, he miscalculated badly. Most of the inhabitants of the Peninsula had already turned away from their “President”.
According to the data of the held in Simferopol sociological research, Yu.Meshkov’s rating began rapidly to fall. If during the elections 73% of the residents of the Crimea voted for Meshkov, now hardly 30% of respondents were supporting him. Even his ex-supporters from openly pro-Russian organizations now were against him. As a matter of fact, the attitude to the Supreme Council of the Crimea was similar.
Thus, the Political Council of the “Union in Support of the Republic of the Crimea” made a sharp statement against the leadership of the ARC, in which it accused it of the following:
- the Parliamentary majority — of the unwillingness to work and groundless hopes for foreign (Russian) support;
- Yu.Meshkov — of doing nothing and having failed to fulfil any of his promises;
- “Russia” block — of betraying common interests;
- S.Tsekov — of inconsistency in his actions.
Besides, the “Union in Support of the Republic of the Crimea” opposed the legal and political nihilism of Yu.Meshkov’s Administration, which, with its controversial actions provoked a worsening of relations between the Republic of the Crimea and Ukraine.
 |
|
Crimean Tatars are calling for Kurultay: "The main result of the three months of the activity of the Crimean Government, headed by Yu.Meshkov, was called accelerated sliding of the Autonomy into force confrontation with Ukraine" http://kafanews.com |
Even more rigid was the position of the Kurultay of the Crimean Tatars.
In early June 1994, Kurultay issued a statement in which the main result of the three months of the activity of the Crimean Government, headed by Yu.Meshkov, was called “accelerated sliding of the Autonomy into force confrontation with Ukraine in order to cover up the Crimean leadership’s inability to solve social problems of the Peninsula”.
The same negative mark was given to the Supreme Council of the Crimea. According to the Central Council of the Majlis of the Crimean Tatar people, the first days of work of the Crimean Parliament showed an open reluctance of the Deputies from “Russia” block to take into consideration the opinion of the representatives of the Crimean Tatars. Based on this fact, the leadership of Majlis demanded to give the Deputies of the Crimean Parliament elected by the Crimean Tatars, the right to “veto” decisions that were being made. Otherwise, the Central Council of the Majlis promised at an extraordinary session of Kurultay to decide on a number of fundamental questions, including:
- on calling back Deputies from Kurultay from the Supreme Council of the Crimea;
- on appealing to the UN and other international organizations on the fact of the rights of the Crimean Tatar people being ignored;
- on choosing ways and forms of practical realization of the right to self-determination.
 |
|
М.Dzhemilyov, the Head of the Mejlis of Crimean Tatars: chided Ukraine of “too big concessions to the Crimean separatists” and called Kiev to take a firmer position as to the Crimea http://glavcom.ua |
Summing up the assessment of the situation in the Crimea, the leader of the Crimean Tatar people M.Dzhemilev chided Ukraine of “too big concessions to the Crimean separatists” and called Kiev to take a firmer position as to the Crimea.
***
In this situation, almost the only support to Yu.Meshkov was so-called “Black Sea Cossacks”, trying to earn their reputation on dubious political adventures of the “President” of the Crimea.
Thus, as long back as the 28th of May, 1994 in Simferopol was held “The Council of the Cossack Chieftains of Russia and Nearest Foreign Countries”, which was attended by about a hundred of so-called “Cossacks” from Siberia, Far East, Krasnodar Territory and Ingushetia. According to those present, with obviously exaggerated personal ambitions, “only the Cossacks could become a stabilizing force able to prevent a conflict between Russia and Ukraine”. As a result of the meeting, it was decided to open a branch of the Don Cossacks in Simferopol.
For his part, the “President” of the Crimea also promised his full support to the “Cossacks”. In accordance with his Decree “On the Cossacks of the Crimea”, from the 15 of May, 1994, the Government of the Autonomy had to have created a program of “the revival of the Cossacks of the Peninsula”.
 |
|
Crimean Cossacks: "only the Cossacks could become a stabilizing force to prevent the conflict between Russia and Ukraine" http://ru.tsn.ua/ |
All in all, by the time of signing the Decree, the number of registered “Cossacks” in the Crimea had made a few hundred people, which, according to Yu.Meshkov, was a “real force” on which he could rely in his confrontation with both, Ukraine and his own Crimean Parliament. To extend these capabilities, since the 1st of September, 1994 in the Crimea was to start its work a special “Cossack Academy”, which was planned to train up to 150 people. Besides, the question of allocation of a land plot to accommodate the “stronghold of the Cossacks” in the town of Alupka, was being considered.
In the meantime, for lack of equipment and weapons, the “Cossacks” were planning to continue patrolling streets of Crimean cities together with local Militia Police.
The split in pro-Russian forces in the Crimea, as well as Moscow's indecision in direct support of the Crimean separatists, made the Autonomy’s Supreme Council make concessions to Ukraine. On the 2nd of June, 1994 there was held the first meeting of the delegation of the Supreme Council of Ukraine with the leadership of the Parliament of the Crimean Autonomy. According to the head of the Kiev delegation V.Butkevich, it was constructive and, along with political issues considered the search for solutions to the economic problems of the Crimea.
During the meeting it was decided to create a group of lawyers for expert estimation of decisions of the two Parliaments, as well as for controlling execution of decisions.
To tell the truth, the leadership of the Crimean Parliament was still trying to “show teeth”. Thus, against the backdrop of ongoing negotiations, S.Tsekov sent a telegram to the Supreme Council of Ukraine, in which he rebuked Kiev in the “staying in the Crimea of representatives of Power Structures and the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, without coordination with the leadership of the Autonomy”. Besides, the Speaker of the Crimean Parliament expressed a strong protest against the introduction in the Peninsula of direct Ukraine’s Presidential Rule, as demanded by many Members of the Ukrainian Parliament. In response, S.Tsekov threatened with the referendum on the independence of the ARC.
However, the conflict between the legislative and executive branches of the Crimean power would not let it act as a united front against Ukraine. This situation was undermining the position of the Crimean separatists almost more than all Ukraine's efforts to restore Constitutional order in the Crimea.
The Struggle Continues. Sevastopol and the Black Sea Fleet as Factors of “Independence” of the Crimea
Because of the split of the leadership of the Crimea, the center of the pro-Russian Crimean activity in the Peninsula gradually was moving to Sevastopol, where it had an active support of the Black Sea Fleet Commandment.
 |
|
A.G.Kruglov, Deputy of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea (1990-1998), Organizer of the Russian Vetche (meeting) of Sevastopol, the 1995 photo: promised to immediately return Sevastopol to the Russian Federation if he is elected the Mayor of the city http://navsegda3.narod.ru |
Traditionally, the most consistent position on this issue was that of a Deputy of the Supreme Council of the Crimea, a candidate for the post of the Head of the Sevastopol City Council, A. Kruglov. On the 3d of June, 1994, he issued another appeal to citizens of Sevastopol and the Black Sea sailors, calling the Crimean Peninsula “a historical territory of Russia”. Besides, he promised to immediately return Sevastopol to the Russian Federation if he is elected the Mayor of the city. To implement such plans in Sevastopol, under the leadership of A.Kruglov, another “People’s Front” was being organized. It called the international community to “support the right of the people of the Crimea to decide their destiny in accordance with international Law”.
 |
|
Yu.Luzhkov had been a mayor of Moscow for 18 years (from 1992 to 2010) and was dismissed “due to having lost confidence of the President of Russia”: "Sevastopol - the 12th city district of the capital of the Russian Federation” http://durdom.in.ua/ |
An active support to the pro-Russian organizations of Sevastopol continued to be given by Russia, which had actually realized the hopeless loss of the Crimea, but was still focusing its efforts on the “city of Russian glory”. In particular, Sevastopol was promised subsidies to the city budget in the amount of 50 billion roubles, preferential supply of oil and gas, as well as assistance in the sphere of education. In Sevastopol, for example, it was planned to set up several branches of Russian universities. Mayor of Moscow Yuriy Luzhkov was not lagging behind in “propaganda” matters either. He called Sevastopol “the 12th city district of the capital of the Russian Federation”.
However, all these promises did not influence the rapidly deteriorating economic situation in Sevastopol. The decrease of production continued, enterprises did not have money to pay salaries, every third employee was on leave without pay or was working part time.
Meanwhile, political activities of the local authorities did not leave them time for doing their direct duties. In this situation, the only support of Sevastopol remained financial grants from Ukraine.
***
Consolidating its influence in Sevastopol, the Russian side at the same time was delaying the process of the Black Sea Fleet division, trying to save it for Russia. The Commandment of the Black Sea Fleet did not even try to conceal such intentions. As the Commander of the Fleet E.Baltin said during the summing up of the results of the first half of the study term, the main thing was to disrupt the negotiations on this issue.
And officers' meetings of the Fleet under the command of Colonel Volodin, coordinated their actions with the Commandment of the Fleet. Not in vain did Volodin even insist on holding negotiations after June 26, 1994: for that day there was appointed a survey of the residents of Sevastopol on the status of the city. The Russians even wanted to delay negotiations till the Presidential elections in Ukraine.
The “indivisibility of the Fleet” was actively supported by some chauvinistic socio-political organizations in Russia itself. In particular, a similar demand was expressed by the Executive Committee of the “Union of Hero Cities”, at the same time they offered to withdraw Ukraine’s Naval Headquarters from Sevastopol, to give the city itself a Russian status and to give the Crimea to Russia.
But despite all such like demands, the negotiations on the division of the Black Sea fleet continued. In early June 1994, the parties reached an agreement in principle, according to which 669 warships had to go to Russia, and 164 — to Ukraine. In Sevastopol, expert groups of the Russian Navy and the Naval Forces of Ukraine were working on estimation of objects of the Black Sea Fleet. But the Commandment of the Black Sea Fleet kept complicating their work in all possible ways. Thus, it was withholding from the Ukrainian side the full list of the Black Sea Fleet ships, due to which fact, the division of the Fleet was being done actually “blindly”.
Besides, it was stressed all the time that the Fleet infrastructure could not be divided because of the social problems of its servicemen. It supposedly was confirmed by various “appeals of Fleet’s collectives” with requests not to transfer their units to Ukraine. In particular, one of such appeals was from “officers and warrant officers of the Naval base Donuzlav”, who feared losing their flats because of their reluctance to serve in the Ukrainian Navy.
***
The next round of negotiations on the division of the Black Sea Fleet as always was accompanied by all sorts of provocations from the Russian side. For example, under the pretext of “threat of being captured by the Ukrainian side” was brought into greater degree of combat readiness the 116th Brigade of River Ships. Within the relevant activities was strengthened the protection of coastal bases of the Brigade, were reactivated the ship guns, and boats were moored in combat-like way. Their Captains got the right to use arms.
 |
| Frigate “Hetman Sahaydachnyi” of the Navy of Ukraine: in order to prevent the unauthorized departure of boats from Izmail, was relocated to the port of Ust-Dunaysk http://soobscha.tomsk.ru |
In response, in order to prevent the unauthorized departure of boats from Izmail, to the port of Ust-Dunaysk was relocated Ukrainian Navy Anti-Submarine ship “Getman Sagaydachny”.
Besides, the Commandment of the Ukrainian Navy decided from June 1, 1994 on, not to use the radio navigation station in Odessa Hydro-Graphic Region because of the reluctance of the Hydrographic Service of the BSF to cooperate with the Ukrainian side. In particular, the Hydrographic Service of the Black Sea Fleet refused to coordinate its plans for hydrographic work in Ukrainian territorial waters with the Commandment of the Ukrainian Navy.
***
Very uneasy were negotiations between the Supreme Council of Ukraine and the Crimean Parliament. On the 3d of June, 1994 their delegations adopted the final document, which confirmed the status of the Crimea as part of Ukraine, as well as the power of the Ukrainian Constitution in the Peninsula. On the 4th of June, the Ukrainian side was given for review a draft of the Constitution of the Crimea, adopted by the Supreme Council of the Crimea.
 |
|
V. Klichnikov, the Head of the Parliamentary Commission of the Crimea on Cooperation with Bodies of Local Self-Government of the ARC: "Ukraine's leadership was ready for constructive cooperation in coordination of the new version of the Constitution of the Crimea" http://www.rada.crimea.ua |
The next day, the Presidium of the Crimean Parliament heard the report of the Head of the Crimean delegation V.Klichnikov on the results of his work in the Supreme Council of Ukraine. According to him, Ukraine's leadership was ready for constructive cooperation in coordination of the new version of the Constitution of the Crimea.
After the discussion of the report, it was decided on June 6, 1994 to hold a meeting of the Constitutional Commission, which was to prepare amendments to the draft of the Main Law of the Peninsula for further discussion by the Crimean Parliament, taking into consideration the comments of the Supreme Council of Ukraine. The Parliamentary Commission for the Study of Ukraine's political and legal situation in the Crimea, by the deadline had to prepare their views on the project.
On the 6th of June, delegation of the Supreme Council of Ukraine and the working group of the Crimean Parliament decided to set up two working groups. The first group had by the 15th of June, 1994 to submit proposals to the Parliament of the Crimea on agreement of the Basic Law of the Crimea with the Constitution of Ukraine and the second — to develop proposals for socio-economic development of the region as part of the national economic complex of Ukraine.
 |
| Ye.Saburov (1946-2009), Vice Premier of the Republic of the Crimea in 1994: ruled out the possibility of the Crimea’s disintegration from Ukraine http://www.chaskor.ru |
According to the Vice-Prime Minister of the Crimea E.Saburov, it was the unsettled economic situation of the Peninsula that remained the main source of problems in the relationship between the Crimea and Ukraine. At this, he ruled out the possibility of the Crimea’s disintegration from Ukraine. At the same time, E.Saburov spoke for the priority of the development of relations between the Autonomy and Russia, for preservation of the “transparency” of the borders between the Crimea and the Russian Federation, as well as introduction of dual citizenship, which, in fact, had to maximize the Russian expansion in the Peninsula.
On the 8th of June, 1994, the Supreme Council of the Crimea returned to discussing the final document on the status of the Peninsula. For the adoption of the document was the Head of the Crimean delegation at the talks with the Supreme Council of Ukraine, V.Klichnikov. According to him, the document was drafted extremely carefully and did not assume any prerequisites. And its main aim was to keep peace between the Crimea and Ukraine.
However, the final document had never been adopted by the Parliament of the Peninsula. According to representatives of the pro-Russian majority in the Supreme Legislative Body of the Peninsula, it meant “the Crimea’s retreat from its positions”.
Instead, the Parliament of the Autonomy decided to change the composition of the delegation to the negotiations with Ukraine and the Crimean part of the Mixed Commission on Agreeing the Ukrainian and Crimean Laws. That was a step back in the seemingly already decided issue.
The problem of the status of the Crimea caused a split in the “Parliamentary block “Russia”. 10 Deputies who had been its members, announced about the creation of a new faction –“Republic”. At the same time they were against the Parliamentary majority, having stated that their goal was not a union with Russia, but creation of an independent state in the Crimea.
***
It should be noted that the leadership of the Crimea tried to keep under its control the power structures of the Autonomy. Thus, ignoring the Decree of the President of Ukraine “On Reorganization of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Crimea”, Yu.Meshkov ordered to establish a Collegium of Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of the Crimea. It would consist of 11 people, including the Minister of the Internal Affairs of the Crimea Kuznetsov and his Deputies and Heads of Departments.
Besides, the “President” of the Crimea sent a telegram to the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine S.Vasilishin, demanding to withdraw from the Autonomy Colonel General Nedrygaylo, who, according to Yu.Meshkov, “had demoralized all the staff of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the “Peninsula”.
 |
| S.Tsekov, the Head of the Supreme Council of the Crimea in 1994-1995, “Being against Ukraine’s independence in 1991, we were trying to preserve the Soviet Union in the Crimea” http://www.ruscrimea.ru/ |
In his turn, the Speaker of the Crimean Parliament, S.Tsekov called the Crimean Police not to go to work to the Main Department of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the Crimea, stating at the same time that the Supreme Council of the Crimea would do everything possible to preserve the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Crimea and provide its funding.
The “Minister of the Internal Affairs of the Crimea” V. Kuznetsov made a speech and assured that no activities for re-subordinating the Police of the Crimea to the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine had been and would be carried out.
With these statements, the Supreme Council of the Crimea obliged the leadership of the Parliament of the Peninsula to meet staff of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and to explain to them the position of the Crimean Parliament.
The question of sources of financing “the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Crimea” was also discussed. In order to settle this issue, it was decided to increase the price of bread, as well as the excise tax on alcohol products.
***
To continue negotiations on the division of the Black Sea Fleet, on the 8th of June, 1994, in Ukraine arrived a Russian Governmental delegation led by Ambassador-at-Large of the Russian Federation Yu.Dubinin. The delegation included the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy Admiral F.Gromov. At the talks there was agreed a list of sailing means and corresponding coastal infrastructure. There was also achieved an agreement on the Russian part of the Black Sea Fleet basing in Sevastopol.
Taking into consideration these circumstances, the Russian side dramatically accelerated the removal of the property of the Fleet to the territory of Russia. As before, they used for that large landing ships making regular cruises from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk.
Transfer of assets was mainly from the basing point of Donuzlav, which was going to Ukraine. Gradually phased out the activities of the apartment-operational part, which first of all concerned preparations for winter 1994-1995.
Covering this process, in Donuzlav the Commandment restricts access to information of military nature for servicemen who took an oath of loyalty to the people of Ukraine.
In response to such actions of the BSF Commandment, the Military Council of the Ukrainian Navy expressed a protest against the facts of illegal taking away of machinery and equipment of the Fleet from the Ukrainian territory. In particular, these facts took place at the Crimean Naval Base, in Ochakov Division, and other units and formations of the Black Sea Fleet.
***
 |
|
Diesel-electric submarine with winged missiles of Project 651 (according to the NATO classification - “Juliett”) from the 14th Division of Submarines of the BSF http://ru.wikipedia.org/ |
At that moment it was seen how a sharp pressure on the stationed in the Crimea Ukrainian units was increasing, and also how suffered the servicemen, who had expressed a desire to transfer to the Ukrainian Navy.
Thus, on the 5th of June, 1994, Coordinating Council of Officer Meetings of the Black Sea Fleet, made an appeal to the Representative of the President of Ukraine in Sevastopol, in which was expressed dissatisfaction of the BSF personnel and their family members’ with “the entry into the city of additional units of Ukrainian power structures”, and a demand to explain the reason for such actions.
For its part, “personnel” of the 14th Submarine Division sent an open letter to the leaderships of the Crimea, Russia and Ukraine, in which was expressed the thought of the “impossibility of location of the Fleets of Russia and Ukraine in Sevastopol” because, as stated the authors of the document, “it could lead to various conflicts”. Apart from this, “Submariners” called the Ukrainian leadership not to bring additional troops to the Crimea without a permission of the leadership of the Autonomy, and warned of their readiness to take all possible measures to prevent the seizure of bases and ships of the Fleet.
|
Note. The 14th Division of Submarines was formed on the 30th of March, 1967, and consisted of the 153th (based in the Southern Harbour of Sevastopol), 155 and 27th Brigades (based in Balaklava) and the 381nd Division of Submarines (based in Feodosia); it was subordinate immediately to the Commander of the Black Sea Fleet. The Division was based in three naval bases of the Crimea, at the moment of its formation it had 47 submarines (1 large, 34 middle-sized and 12 small boats) with a total salvo fire at sea and coastal targets – more than 400 torpedos. Six Anti-Boat projects of 644, 665, 651 (С-69, С-158, С-162, С-164, Б-67, Б-318) were equipped with winged missiles П-5. The Commandment of the Division was in Balaklava, where on the Object K-825 there was a special protected Commanding Point of the Division with a signal office of special communications. Since 1969 submarines of the Division had been on regular guard duties in the Black Sea (1 missile and 1 torpedo submarine went out for each duty). In 1969,8 submarines were on duty, in 1970 - 11. Until 1975, annually 10-11 submarines were at guard duties in the Black Sea. As there were not enough missile submarines for constant guard duties, they were longer on their duties than torpedo ones |
|
|
B-435 Submarine of Project 641 (“Foxtrot”, according to NATO’s classification) from the 14th Division of Submarines of the BSF, now U01 “Zaporizhzhya” of the Navy of Ukraine http://www.segodnya.ua/life |
To discredit the Ukrainian Navy, in Sevastopol press there were published opinions of relatives of some cadets of the Sevastopol Naval Institute, who called a mistake their having taken the Ukrainian oath. At this they asked E.Baltin to take their relatives to serve in the BSF after they have graduated from the institute. Admiral answered with a refusal, explaining his position by the “low level of training of graduates”.
***
Never stopped provocative actions against located in the Crimea subunits of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. In particular, in early July, a group of unknown persons made an attempt to attack a checkpoint of the A0950 military unit of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the city of Saki.
From the airfield of Kacha continued regular (2-3 flights a day) reconnaissance flights of the BSF aircrafts over the territory of the Crimea. At the same time, on all aircraft and helicopters of the Fleet had been changed equipment codes of identification “friend or foe”.
The most tense was the situation around the Regiment of the National Guard of Ukraine in Sevastopol, which very much irritated separatists. In this regard, they took all sorts of measures (from provocations to building up a negative public opinion about the Ukrainian troops), trying to make the Ukrainian leadership withdraw the Regiment from the city.
