The geographical position of the Black Sea. Map, coordinates, photo

Russia is the largest country in the entire globe. Its area reaches 17.1 million square meters. The state is located on the Eurasian continent. Russia has a long distance from west to east, so there is a significant difference in time in its regions.

The customs, economic and other borders of Russia have been moved outside the borders of the former USSR, which in itself is a unique phenomenon. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, all CIS countries faced a serious problem. On the one hand, the inconsistency of legislative and financial systems forced them to close the economic space, but at the same time, the new border lines of states did not coincide with ethnic cultural borders, and society did not want to recognize the imposed border restrictions, and most importantly, Russia did not have the opportunity to spend demarcation and equip engineering structures. The establishment of customs offices was also a big problem.

Description of state borders

The length of the borders of the Russian Federation reaches 60 thousand kilometers, of which 40 thousand kilometers fall on the sea borders. The economic maritime space of the country is located 370 kilometers from the coastal zone. There may be courts of other states for the extraction of natural resources. The western and southern borders of the Russian Federation are mainly land, the northern and eastern borders are mainly sea. The fact that the state borders of Russia are so long is due to the enormous size of its territory and the unevenness of the outlines of the lines of the sea coasts of the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic oceans, which wash it on three sides.

Land borders of Russia

In the west and east of the country, land borders have a number of characteristic differences. In pre-revolutionary Russia, they were marked along natural lines. As the state expanded, it was necessary to somehow fix the boundaries of the seas and land. Moreover, in sparsely populated areas, for greater recognition, they should be clearly marked - it can be a mountain range, a river, and so on. But this character of the terrain is observed mainly on the eastern side of the southern border.

Western and southwestern land borders of the state

The modern lines of the western and southwestern borders of Russia arose as a result of the division of individual subjects on the territory of the country. For the most part, these are administrative boundaries that were previously intrastate. They turned out to be practically unrelated to natural objects. This is how the borders of Russia with Poland and Finland were formed.

The land borders of Russia are also long. After the collapse of the union, the number of neighbors remained the same. There are fourteen of them in total. The Russian Federation has only maritime borders with Japan and the United States. But during the Soviet era, the country bordered only on eight states, the rest of the lines between states were considered internal and were conditional. In the northwest, the borders of the Russian Federation are in contact with Finland and Norway.

Borders of Russia with Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia have already officially received state status. Ukraine and Belarus are located along the western and southwestern border. The southern part of the country borders on Georgia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, the republics of Tuva, Altai, Buryatia. In the extreme southeast, the Primorsky Territory of the Russian Federation borders on the DPRK. The length of the border line is only 17 km.

Northern border of the country

Russia's maritime border in the north and east of the country is 12 miles from the coastline. By sea, the Russian Federation borders on 12 states. The northern borders run along the waters of the Arctic Ocean - these are the Kara, Laptev, Barents, East Siberian and Chukchi seas. Within the Arctic Ocean, from the Russian shores to the North Pole, there is a sector of the Arctic. It is limited by conventional lines from the west and east of Ratmanov Island to the North Pole. Polar possession is a relative concept, and the territorial waters of this sector do not belong to Russia, we can only talk about the ownership of the Arctic waters.

Eastern Russian border

The maritime border of Russia from its eastern part runs along the waters of the Pacific Ocean seas. On this side, the country's closest neighbors are the United States and Japan. The Russian Federation borders on Japan in the La Perouse Strait, and in the Bering Strait - with the United States (between Ratmanov Island, which is Russian, and Kruzenshtern, which belongs to the States). The Bering Sea is located between the peninsulas of Chukotka, Alaska, Kamchatka and the Aleutian Islands. The Sea of ​​Okhotsk is located between the Kamchatka peninsulas, Hokkaido, Kuril and Sakhalin islands.

The southern shores of Sakhalin and the Primorsky Territory are washed by the Sea of ​​Japan. All the seas of the Far East, with which Russia has a sea border, are partially frozen. Moreover, the Okhotsk, even taking into account the fact that part of it lies in the southern parallel, turns out to be the most severe in this respect. In its northwestern part, the duration of the ice period is 280 days a year. Due to the large length of the seas along the eastern line of Russia from north to south, climatic conditions in the country differ significantly.

In summer, typhoons enter the Sea of ​​Japan, which are fraught with great destruction. On the coast of the Pacific Ocean in its seismically active zones, catastrophic tsunamis occur as a result of coastal and underwater earthquakes.

Problems of the eastern border of Russia

The maritime borders of Russia and the United States are now marked, but previously there were border problems. The Russian Empire sold Alaska in 1867 for seven million dollars. There are certain difficulties in defining the borders of states in the Bering Strait. Problems arise for Russia and Japan, which disputes the islands of the Lesser Kuril ridge, the total area of ​​which is 8548.96 square meters. km. The dispute arose over the state water area and the territory of the Russian Federation with an area of ​​three hundred thousand square kilometers, including for the economic zone of the sea and islands, which is rich in seafood and fish, and for the shelf zone, which has oil reserves.

In 1855, an agreement was signed, according to which the islands of the Lesser Kuril Ridge were retained by Japan. In 1875 all the Kuril Islands were transferred to Japan. In 1905, following the results of the Russo-Japanese War, the Treaty of Portsmouth was concluded, and Russia ceded South Sakhalin to Japan. In 1945, when Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands became part of the USSR, but their nationality was not defined in the 1951 treaty (San Francisco). The Japanese side claimed that they were part of Japan, and they had nothing to do with the 1875 treaty, since they were not part of the Kuril ridge, but belong to and therefore the treaty signed in San Francisco did not apply to them.

Western state border

The western sea border of Russia connects the country with many European states. It passes through the waters of the Baltic Sea, which belongs to the Atlantic Ocean and forms bays off the coast of the Russian Federation. They house Russian ports. The northern capital of Russia - St. Petersburg - and Vyborg are located in the Gulf of Finland. Kaliningrad is located on the Prelog River, which flows into the Vistula Lagoon. The large Novoluga port is being built at the mouth of the Luga River. does not freeze only off the coast of the Kaliningrad region. This maritime border of Russia on the map links the country (across the sea) with states such as Poland, Germany and Sweden.

Southwestern border

The southwestern part of Russia is washed by the waters of the Azov, Caspian and Black Seas. The maritime borders of the Black Sea give Russia access to the Mediterranean. The port of Novorossiysk is located on the shores of the Tsemesskaya Bay. In the Taganrog Bay - the port of Taganrog. One of the best bays is located in the city of Sevastopol. The Azov and Black Seas are of great importance for the transport links of Russia with the countries of Foreign Europe and the Mediterranean. Also, the sea borders of the Russian Federation are in contact with Georgia and Ukraine. In the south, along the waters of the Caspian Sea, there is a border with Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan.

Consequently, the borders of the Russian Federation mostly run along natural boundaries: mountains, seas and rivers. Some of them complicate international contacts (high mountains, glaciers at sea, and so on). Others, on the contrary, are favorable for cooperation with neighbors and allow laying river and land international routes, creating economic space.

Extreme points of Russia

In the northern part, the extreme point is Cape Chelyuskin, which is located on the extreme island point, which is located on one of the islands of the Franz Josef-Rudolf archipelago. The extreme southern point is the crest of the Caucasian ridge, the western point is the extremity of the Sandy Spit of the Baltic Sea, and the eastern point is Cape Dezhnev on the Chukchi Peninsula.

Features of the geographical location of Russia

Most of the country is located in temperate latitudes, but its northern part is located in the harsh conditions of the Arctic. rich in various natural resources, which are abundant here. The country occupies a leading position in the world in terms of size and area of ​​land resources. The area of ​​Russian forests reaches seven hundred million hectares.

The sheer size of the country is very important both from an economic point of view and from a defense one. The territory of the Russian Federation has the largest plains on the planet. These are the West Siberian and Russian (East European) plains. The northern spaces of the country are affected by the air masses of the Arctic Ocean. The territory of Russia is rich in various kinds of minerals and minerals. It is here that about 40% of all the world's iron ore reserves are concentrated. The main area of ​​deposits and rich reserves of copper ores is considered to be the Urals and the Ural region. Here, in the Middle Urals, there are deposits of precious stones such as emerald, ruby, amethyst. And another interesting feature of the country is that it is located in all geographic zones of the northern hemisphere, with the exception of the tropics.

A historical review and analysis of the current norms of Russian and Ukrainian legislation that determine the status of the Azov-Kerch water area, as well as the results of bilateral negotiations on this issue in order to establish how Russia and Ukraine used their rights and fulfilled their obligations under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea . (UNCLOS-82) and what are the legal consequences of the concluded agreements.

V.Ya. Vasiliev, Ph.D., lawyer, applicant for the Department of State and International Law, St. Petersburg State Medical University "

The status of the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait as a whole, without division into Russian and Ukrainian parts, from the point of view of international law, is beyond doubt - according to Part IX of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter UNCLOS-82), the Sea of ​​Azov is “closed or semi-closed sea ​​", and the Kerch Strait -" a narrow passage "through which this sea communicates with the Black Sea 1.

The meaning of the term "enclosed or semi-enclosed sea" (hereinafter enclosed sea), according to UNCLOS-82, is that the sea is surrounded by two or more states and entirely or mainly consists of a territorial sea and an exclusive economic zone of two or more states. The Sea of ​​Azov is completely surrounded by Russia and Ukraine, and even potentially, due to its small size (the point most distant from the coastline is at a distance of no more than 60 nautical miles) does not contain a site that goes beyond the exclusive economic zone of the states.

At the same time, part IX of UNCLOS-82, unlike a number of previous ones, does not provide detailed tools for establishing the legal status of the spaces included in the closed sea and their regime, but only instructs the states washed by closed or semi-enclosed seas to cooperate with each other in the exercise of their rights. and in fulfilling their obligations under the Convention.

The purpose of this analysis is to establish how Russia and Ukraine exercised their rights and fulfilled their obligations under the Convention and what are the legal consequences of the concluded agreements.

Coastal State Sovereignty

The Sea of ​​Azov is located between the parallels 45 ° 172 and 47 ° 172 north latitude and the meridians 34 ° 492 and 39 ° 182 east longitude. Its length from the Arabat Strelka spit to the mouth of the Don River is 195 nautical miles, and between the peaks of Temryuk and Belosaraisky bays it is 97 miles 2.

The Kerch Strait in the west is bounded by the Kerch Peninsula, and in the east by the Taman Peninsula. The southern entrance to the Kerch Strait is located between the Taquil and Panagia capes (8 nautical miles on the navigation map), and the northern entrance is between the Chroni and Archilleon capes (8 nautical miles).

From the point of view of geography, the Azov-Kerch water area is limited by the waters of the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait. So, according to the definition of the International Hydrographic Organization, the border between the Azov and Black Seas runs along the southern entrance to the Kerch Strait 3. The distance between the lines Takil - Panagia and Kyz-Aul - Iron Horn in the middle of the strait is about 2.4 nautical miles.

Although the purpose of drawing the baseline from Cape Kyz-Aul to Cape Zhelezny Rog 4 was to determine a line for measuring the width of the territorial sea, the adjacent and exclusive economic zone in the Black Sea, it was with the help of this straight line, about 16 miles long, that the Sea of ​​Azov was included in the internal seas of the USSR.

The issue of recognizing sea areas as historical waters is a serious legal problem, but the purpose of this work is not a detailed presentation of the doctrinal interpretations of various norms of international law 5. For the purposes of this work, it is enough to cite the conclusions presented in a study released by the UN Secretariat in 1957 and which subsequently received the highest reviews 6. In this work, the Sea of ​​Azov is given in section 1.A - Bays, the waters of which belong to one state. (Bays the coasts of which belong to a single State): “The Sea of ​​Azov is 10 miles wide at the entrance. It is entirely located within the southern part of the territory of the USSR and juts out for a considerable distance into the land, measuring approximately 230 by 110 miles ”7. It is further noted that such maritime areas as the Sea of ​​Azov should not be considered as falling under the category of historical waters: “since, in accordance with customary international maritime law, these areas are in any case inland waters” 8. In this case, it is understood that the state, the internal waters of which is a sea or a bay, regardless of the classification, has full sovereign rights over it.

Consequently, historically, the sovereignty of the coastal state was fully extended to the Sea of ​​Azov until the end of the existence of the USSR from the time of the Russian Empire, as to internal waters. The Azov-Kerch water area was open for international shipping in the event that foreign ships entered the ports of the coastal state. The regime of the Azov-Kerch water area was fully consistent with the status and regime of inland waters as part of the state territory, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone 1958 9 and UNCLOS-82.

After the collapse of the USSR and the formation of the CIS in 1991, the Sea of ​​Azov, as mentioned earlier, from the point of view of international law acquired the status of “an enclosed or semi-enclosed sea in accordance with Art. 122: "For the purposes of this Convention," enclosed or semi-enclosed sea "means a bay, basin or sea surrounded by two or more States and communicating with another sea or ocean through a narrow passage, or consisting entirely or mainly of the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal states ”. But the Convention does not give clear instructions on how the rights should be exercised and what are the obligations of coastal states for this type of seas. In Art. 123 contains only a recommendation to cooperate on these issues with each other 10. According to the well-known maritime lawyer A.A. Kovalev, expressed before the conclusion of the agreement between Russia and Ukraine in 2003, "the idea of ​​preserving the status of internal waters of Russia and Ukraine for these water areas ... can hardly be recognized as legitimate."

The UNCLOS-82 convention has come into force for the Russian Federation since 1997 with some insignificant reservations and has been fully implemented into national legislation - regulatory legal acts are published and available.

Ukraine

Let's dwell on the legislation of Ukraine in more detail. For Ukraine, the Convention entered into force in 1999, but no analogue of the Russian law “On internal sea waters, territorial sea and contiguous zone” was adopted. Introduced to the Verkhovna Rada in December 2002 by the chairman of the government V.F. Yanukovych, the draft law "On internal waters, territorial sea and adjacent zone of Ukraine" has been under consideration for more than 10 years.

The text of the bill for the second reading mainly contains definitions similar to the wording of UNCLOS-82. As for the area under consideration, the formation of a territorial sea is envisaged in the Sea of ​​Azov, and the Kerch Strait is considered as divided between the two countries (“The territorial sea of ​​Ukraine includes coastal sea waters in the Black and Azov Seas with a width of 12 nautical miles, measured from the line of maximum low tide as on the mainland and on the islands belonging to Ukraine, or from straight baselines connecting the corresponding points, as well as the waters of the Ukrainian part of the Kerch Strait ... ", Art. 2.2, trans. from Ukrainian). Thus, for the adoption of the law, it was necessary to complete the process of drawing baselines and measuring the width of the territorial sea in the Sea of ​​Azov 11, agreeing on the maritime boundaries in adjacent areas and delimiting the Kerch Strait. Failure to carry out such actions during the three months given to the government under the law, as well as the agreements reached in the negotiations with Russia, made it impossible to adopt the law in this form. Most likely, the law will not be adopted until the completion of negotiations with Russia on the Azov-Kerch water area, duly formalized by a bilateral agreement. It should also be noted that 12 nautical miles is the maximum permissible width of the territorial sea under the Convention, and the establishment of such a width is not always possible due to the configuration of the coastline and islands.

Consequently, the legal regulation of the sea waters of Ukraine takes place according to UNCLOS-82 and national legislation contained in acts, the main of which are: the law "On the state border of Ukraine", adopted immediately after the proclamation of sovereignty in 1991, 1991 12, "On the exclusive ( maritime) economic zone ", 1995 13, as well as a number of other laws, incl. Code of Ukraine on Subsoil 1994 14. The above national legislation contains practically all the rules of law on the regulation of sea waters, except for the establishment of the contiguous zone.

Regarding the prevention of pollution in the internal waters and the territorial sea of ​​Ukraine, the 1996 Rules for the Protection of Internal Marine Waters and the Territorial Sea from Pollution and Pollution are in force, and the Interdepartmental Working Group is responsible for overseeing the observance of the environmental department.

Important is the provision of the law on the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the priority of the UNCLOS-82 norms or the international treaty of Ukraine over the norms of the border law (Art. 32).

The issues of using the continental shelf are regulated by the Code of Ukraine on Subsoil of 1994 and the Law on the EEZ of 1995. At the same time, as in the situation with the Ukrainian internal waters, the territorial sea and the adjacent zone, it has been planned for a long time to adopt a special law establishing the regime of use continental shelf.

The legal regime of the continental shelf of Ukraine is determined together with Ukrainian legislation and USSR regulations. Such acts are: Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR "On the continental shelf of the USSR" dated February 6, 1968; Regulations on the protection of the continental shelf of the USSR, approved by the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 24 of January 11, 1974; Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR "On the procedure for carrying out work on the continental shelf of the USSR and the protection of its natural resources" No. 554 of July 18, 1969 15.

The application of the provisions of the above normative acts of the USSR in relation to the continental shelf of Ukraine is carried out on the basis of the decision of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of 1991 "On the procedure for temporary action on the territory of Ukraine of certain acts of legislation of the USSR", according to which, prior to the adoption of the relevant acts of legislation of Ukraine, acts of legislation are applied on the territory of the republic USSR on issues not regulated by the legislation of Ukraine, provided that the acts of the USSR do not contradict the Constitution and laws of Ukraine.

Concluding the review of the maritime legislation of Ukraine concerning the status of maritime spaces, it should be noted that the law of Ukraine "On the exclusive (maritime) economic zone of Ukraine" does not regulate the legal regime of the continental shelf.

Russia Ukraine

In 1994, an Agreement on Cooperation and Cooperation on Border Issues was concluded between Russia and Ukraine, which confirmed the provisions of the Agreement on Cooperation and Interaction between the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR in 1990 and the Agreement between HA and Ukraine on the further development of interstate relations in 1992. interaction in the waters of the Black and Azov Seas and the Kerch Strait in 1994, the parties agreed to consider the Sea of ​​Azov the internal sea of ​​Russia and Ukraine.

Subsequently, the status of the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait as historical internal waters of Russia and Ukraine was officially enshrined in the Agreement between HA and Ukraine on the state border in 2003 (hereinafter the 2003 Border Treaty), the Agreement between Russia and Ukraine on cooperation in the use of the Azov of the Sea and the Kerch Strait in 2003 (hereinafter the 2003 Cooperation Agreement) and confirmed by the heads of the coastal states in the Joint Statement on the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait, first in 2003, then in 2012.

All types of activity and use of the Sea of ​​Azov, such as the order of navigation of ships, their stay at sea and call at ports; rules for fishing and other fishing for biological resources; exploration and development of mineral resources of the bottom; scientific research; pollution protection measures; the rules of radio navigation services, etc., are regulated by bilateral agreements and laws of Russia and Ukraine, taking into account the general norms and principles of international law: for example, the 2003 Cooperation Agreement establishes the exclusive right of merchant ships, warships and other ships flying the flags of the Russian Federation or Ukraine to freedom shipping in the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait.

Merchant ships flying the flags of third countries enjoy freedom of navigation in the Azov-Kerch water area if they go to the ports of coastal states.

The provisions of the 2003 Cooperation Treaty also establish the right of warships and other state ships of third countries operated for non-commercial purposes to enter the Sea of ​​Azov, provided that they are sent on a visit or a business call to a port of one of the coastal states at its invitation or permission agreed with another coastal state.

Since the state of the negotiation process on the delimitation of exclusive rights between Russia and Ukraine in the Azov-Kerch water area becomes known only if official statements of officials are published, the current position of countries in the negotiations is not always known. What we call the "views of the parties" is either a conclusion from such statements, or was published by the negotiators at different times.

The negotiation process on the Azov-Kerch settlement lasted from 1996 to 2014. To date, more than forty rounds of negotiations have already been held, during which the parties did not find a compromise on the key issue of delimitation - recognition / non-recognition as the state border of the line of the former administrative border between the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR.

In the opinion of the Ukrainian side, the border could not but exist and existed both administratively and formally displayed on maps. Moreover, it almost completely coincides with the so-called median line, i.e. a line drawn in such a way that each point is equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines, from which the breadth of the territorial sea of ​​opposing states is usually measured. The Russian side, in turn, in the issue of the Azov-Kerch settlement, noted the absence of a border between the former republics on the water surface, insisting that during the Soviet Union, internal sea waters could not be properly delimited.

Thus, despite the fact that both the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait are historical inland waters (or a historical bay, according to one of the mentioned UN classifications), when carrying out delimitation, the parties considered it acceptable to apply the provisions of Art. 15 of the 1982 Convention on the Delimitation of the Territorial Sea: “due to historical legal grounds or other special circumstances, it is necessary to delimit the territorial seas of two states in a different way than the principle of the median line” 16. According to the materials of the negotiations on the delimitation of the Azov-Kerch water area, the decision on the delimitation of the Kerch Strait was to be reached at the highest level and formalized in the form of a Joint Statement of the Presidents of both states (already made twice, but containing only intentions, not decisions). Before the Crimea became part of the Russian Federation 17, the difficulty was that the Kerch Strait, washing the shores of the Crimea and Krasnodar Territory, is shallow and has two routes suitable for the passage of ships from the Black Sea to the Sea of ​​Azov:

1) Kerch-Yenikalsky Canal (KEK) - suitable for the passage of ships with a draft of up to 8 m, through which the main stream of ships passes. After the collapse of the USSR, the channel, as being on the balance sheet and assigned to the Kerch Sea Trade Port (KMTP), by order of the Minister of the USSR Navy in 1978, was under the jurisdiction of Ukraine (Kerch, Crimean Region, Ukrainian SSR). Vessel traffic on KEK is regulated by the Kerch Port Authority;

2) fairway no. 50 with access to channel no. 52, which allows the passage of vessels with a draft of up to 3 m and is currently managed by the Russian side.

At the same time, the parties put forward mutual claims regarding the ownership and legitimacy of the rights to exercise traffic control both along the KEK and along the fairways No. 50 and No. 52.

According to some Russian researchers, after the collapse of the USSR, the Center for the Regulation of Vessel Traffic in the Kerch Strait, created and assigned to the KMTP by the USSR Ministry of Marine Fleet, was supposed to go under joint Russian-Ukrainian control. The reason for this was the fact that the equipment of this Center was located on both sides of the strait, was centrally controlled and maintained in proper condition by the USSR Ministry of Marine Fleet. The fact that KEK was on the balance sheet of the port of Kerch did not give, in their opinion, any additional rights to the Ukrainian side. KEK was always the property of the state represented by the USSR Ministry of Marine Fleet, and the port carried out only operational management of this property on behalf of this ministry. The ship traffic control center of the KMTP was, in fact, a joint inter-republican enterprise subordinate to the USSR Ministry of Marine Fleet. Moreover, upon the termination of the existence of the union state in accordance with Art. 11 of the Treaty on the CIS of 1991 on the territory of the member states of the Commonwealth terminated all legal acts of the USSR, retaining their legal force only if they were mutually recognized by the parties. The same procedure, in their opinion, should have been observed in relation to the above-mentioned Order of the Ministry of Marine Fleet of the USSR of 1978 “On the transfer of vessel traffic control functions for KEK”. However, this did not happen, and the KTMP Administration, on whose balance sheet, as noted above, was KEK, carried out traffic management in the canal and collected tolls for the passage to finance the maintenance of the canal in working order.

The Russian side believed that the Kerch-Yenikalsky canal as an artificial hydraulic structure, created by Russia in 1874, taking into account the experience gained during this period of joint operation of the canal, and also taking into account that about 70% of ships passing through the KEK serve ports Russia, should be jointly managed by analogy with international practice. The agreement on the creation of such an interstate enterprise for the purpose of regulating the movement of ships in the strait is contained in the Joint Statement of the Presidents of Russia and Ukraine on the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait in 2003 18.

In the opinion of the Russian side, the delimitation of the waters in the Kerch Strait could not be carried out without a fair delimitation of those parts of the waters where the main navigable route, which is the KEK, passes. That is, when delimiting the Kerch Strait, as in the situation with the Sea of ​​Azov, the parties should have applied Art. 15 of the 1982 Convention - the existence of historical legal grounds and other special circumstances, according to which delimitation is carried out in a different way than the principle of the median line.

Unilaterally established boundaries

Along with this, the Ukrainian authorities have repeatedly put forward an initiative regarding the possibility of a unilateral border establishment in the Azov-Kerch water area. These intentions have been tested in practice. In 1999, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, by official note 19, notified the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation about the unilateral implementation of the "line of protection of the state border in the Azov and Black Seas and the Kerch Strait." The Russian side, in reply note 20, rightly assessed the unilateral actions of Ukraine on the establishment of lines of "protection of the state border in the Azov and Black Seas and the Kerch Strait, as well as the protection of the rights of Ukraine in the exclusive maritime economic zone and the continental shelf in the northeastern part of the Black Sea" as serious violation of the generally recognized principle of international law, according to which the delimitation of both land and sea spaces between neighboring states is carried out through agreements. Nevertheless, the border was drawn on official Ukrainian maps and was drawn before the conclusion of the 2003 treaty.

Moreover, the status of the Sea of ​​Azov as the historical internal waters of Ukraine and Russia, already established by the above agreements, does not imply a unilateral change of status. As noted in the preamble to the 2003 Cooperation Agreement, "The parties are convinced that all issues related to the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait should be resolved only by peaceful means jointly or by agreement between Russia and Ukraine." It seems most important that this kind of unilateral action certainly contradicts the spirit and main provisions of the 1997 Treaty, a key agreement that defines the main provisions in the Russian-Ukrainian partnership and lays the foundation for their development in the future.

A similar exchange of notes and statements took place in 2008. Then the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation was forced to declare that Russia has no intentions to change the border in the Kerch Strait for the simple reason that this border has not been established.

The issue was under constant consideration of the Subcommittee on International Cooperation of the Russian-Ukrainian Interstate Commission, and a positive decision was possible. This is evidenced by the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation S.V. Lavrov, said in 2011: “We are satisfied with the progress of the negotiations on the settlement in the Azov-Kerch water area and the Black Sea. Progress has been made with regard to delineation in the Sea of ​​Azov. As for the Black Sea segment, the parties still have to work, but the interaction is proceeding professionally and with an understanding of the need to find a compromise. The same applies to the Kerch Strait ”21.

On March 18, 2012, the President of Ukraine V. Yanukovych in an interview with the Vesti-24 program said: “We are very close to making a decision on the delimitation of the Kerch Strait, this is very important, and in this regard, practically on the delimitation of borders with Russia”. There were no similar statements from the Russian leadership, but on July 12, 2012, a Joint Statement by the Presidents of Russia and Ukraine was published.

We will quote it in full, since this is the most significant document after the 2003 treaty:

Joint statement of the presidents of Russia and Ukraine on the delimitation of maritime spaces in the Azov and Black Seas, as well as in the Kerch Strait

Russia and Ukraine consider it important to delimit the maritime spaces in the Azov and Black Seas, as well as in the Kerch Strait in the spirit of friendship, good-neighborliness and strategic partnership, taking into account the legitimate interests of both states.

They welcome the substantial progress in the negotiation process, primarily with regard to the Kerch Strait, considering it as a fundamental factor for a comprehensive settlement in this area.

Both sides proceed from the expediency, upon reaching agreement on all the above-mentioned spaces, to conclude a Russian-Ukrainian agreement covering the Sea of ​​Azov, the Kerch Strait, adjacent territorial seas, the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zones of the two countries in the Black Sea. The relevant departments of the two countries were instructed to prepare such an agreement for signing.

The parties confirm the need to ensure cooperation in the Azov-Kerch water area, including the sustainable operation and development of the Kerch-Yenikalsky canal, by creating a joint Russian-Ukrainian corporation to manage this most reliable navigable artery in the Kerch Strait.

Russia and Ukraine are stepping up bilateral cooperation in the field of shipping, fishing, protection of the marine environment and environmental safety, as well as in other areas with the aim of completing work on the relevant agreements 22.

Over the year that has passed since the announcement, no joint acts affecting the legal status of the water area in question have been published. Based on the analysis of the text of the statement, where the term "territorial sea" refers only to "adjacent seas" and does not apply to the Azov-Kerch water area, such a distinction was not planned at the time of signing the statement.

In addition to the aforementioned bilateral international treaties of a global nature, the two states also concluded intergovernmental agreements affecting the water area in question, but not changing its legal status, about which there are corresponding reservations in the text of these agreements. These are the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on cooperation in maritime and aviation search and rescue in the Black and Azov Seas 23 and the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on measures to ensure the safety of navigation in the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait 24.

The entry of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation from the point of view of international law did not affect the status of the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait. In terms of the delimitation of the Kerch Strait, virtually no changes have occurred, which corresponds to the Russian interpretation of the status of the strait.

conclusions

At present, the waters of the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait, bounded by the baseline established in the USSR between the capes of Kyz-Aul and the Iron Horn, are, from the point of view of international law, an "enclosed or semi-enclosed sea", Art. 122 UNCLOS-82.

The waters of the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait, according to a bilateral agreement between Russia and Ukraine, are historically the internal waters of Russia and Ukraine. (Article 1 of the 2003 Treaty).

The state border line, which should delimit the Sea of ​​Azov by agreement between Russia and Ukraine, has not been drawn at the moment.

A number of intergovernmental agreements concluded between Russia and Ukraine do not touch upon the issue of delimiting sea spaces between HA and Ukraine, about which each of them has a corresponding clause.

All issues that relate to the status of the waters of the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait, such as the establishment of routes for the movement of vessels, change in the status of water areas and the establishment of any navigation rules in them, should, from the point of view of international law and the legislation of the Russian Federation, be resolved jointly by the competent authorities of Russia and Ukraine. ...

From the author's point of view, changes in the current status of the water area under consideration are unlikely in the next few years. This is due not so much to the current state of Russian-Ukrainian relations as to the fact that the establishment of a territorial sea for Russia and Ukraine in the Sea of ​​Azov will entail, in accordance with the generally accepted principles of international maritime law, a reduction in the rights that states jointly possess (loss of full sovereign rights to internal waters) in connection with the formation of the high sea, albeit in the status of an exclusive economic zone, and the acquisition of the international status by the Kerch Strait. In addition, it is not possible to reach any other agreement on the division of maritime spaces without full consensus on all issues, primarily of an economic nature.

1. UNCLOS-82, Art. 122.

2. Pilot of the Sea of ​​Azov No. 1243, UNiO of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, 2007, corrected as of 09/14/2013

3. The limit of the Black Sea: A line joining Cape Takil and Cape Panaghia (45 ° 02'N). Limits of Oceans and Seas, 3rd edition. International Hydrographic Organization. Special edition, 1953, reprint 1971, no proofreading has been received, p. 18.

4. A list of the geographical coordinates of the points that determine the position of the baselines for calculating the width of the territorial waters, the economic zone and the continental shelf of the USSR. Approved by the decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of February 7, 1984 and January 15, 1985, op. on "Maritime legislation of the Russian Federation", GUNiO MO RF, No. 9055.1. P. 54, points No. 35 (45 ° 03ґ32ґґN; 36 ° 22ґ33ґґE) and No. 36 (45 ° 06ґ36ґґN; 36 ° 44ґ42ґґE) of the Black Sea section, Pulkovo-42 coordinate system.

5. The issue is considered in detail in the work “International legal qualification of sea areas as historical waters (Theory and practice of states, vol. 23). Ed. A.N. Vylegzhanin. - M., MGIMO, 2012.

6. “International legal qualification of sea areas as historical waters (Theory and practice of states, v. 23). Ed. A.N. Vylegzhanin. - M., MGIMO, 2012.

7. Historic Bays. Memorandum by the UN Secretariat (Prep. Doc. No.1); Doc. A / Conf.13 / 1, 30 September 1957, P.3: “The Sea of ​​Azov is ten miles across at its entrance. It is situated entirely within the southern part of the territory of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and extends a considerable distance inland, its dimensions being approximately 230 by 110 miles ".

9. Art. 5 "Waters located inland from the baseline of the territorial sea are part of the internal waters of the state." It is important due to the fact that a number of maritime states, including the United States, have not signed or ratified UNCLOS-82, being parties to the 1958 Convention.

10. For details, see A.A. Kovalev. Modern international maritime law and the practice of its application. - M., Scientific book, 2003.S. 183-187.

11. "List of geographical coordinates of points defining the baselines for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf in the Sea of ​​Azov" - submitted to the UN by a note verbale in 1992, without negotiations with the Russian Federation ...

13. Law of Ukraine "On the exclusive (maritime) economic zone of Ukraine" dated May 16, 1995.

15. Available in the databases "Garant" and "Consultant".

16. A.S. Surzhin. International legal regime of the Black Sea (including the Azov-Kerch water area and the Black Sea straits. - M., RUDN, 2011.

17. Agreement on the acceptance of the Republic of Crimea in the Russian Federation and the formation of new subjects within the Russian Federation. Ratified on March 21, 2014.

18. The Government of the Russian Federation and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine are entrusted with the creation of a joint Russian-Ukrainian corporation for the purpose of cooperation in the Azov-Kerch water area, including the operation of the Kerch-Yenikalsky shipping canal. Said statement, Kerch, December 24, 2003.

21. Opening remarks by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia S.V. Lavrov at a meeting of the Subcommittee on International Cooperation of the Russian-Ukrainian Interstate Commission. Odessa, June 4, 2011.

In Ukraine, at last, they were puzzled by the question - how will we divide the Azov Sea? Then some of the blockade of Crimea from land were going to enter. It means that some have other interests as well.
So that's it. I think the answer will be like this.
And we will not share how!
The Azov Sea is the inland sea of ​​Russia.
And before introducing the blockade, think about how you will go through the Kerch Strait?
You can, of course, hint at other options for the development of the situation. But that's another time.

On November 28, 1869, the affiliation of the spit to the Kuban region was confirmed by a decree of the Russian Senate, and the border was ordered to consider the middle of the strait between the Crimea and the extreme point of the Taman spit.

After the October Revolution and the Civil War, by the Resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of August 13, 1922, the Tuzla spit was included in the Crimean region.

By a decree of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR in January 1941, a decision was made "On the transfer of the island of Srednaya Kosa (Tuzla) from the Temryuk region of the Krasnodar Territory to the Crimean ASSR."

After the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, the administrative border between the Crimean region and the Krasnodar Territory was not revised.

During the Great Patriotic War, a Soviet amphibious assault was landed on the spit occupied by the German garrison. In a fierce battle from 6 to 9 October 1943, the scythe was freed from German troops.

The practical transfer of the spit and the administrative boundary line between the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR were realized only in the early 1970s. Moreover, this was done in the form of coordinating the graphic outline on the map of administrative boundaries at the level of the deputy chairmen of the Crimean Regional Executive Committee and the Krasnodar Regional Executive Committee.

Territorial dispute

According to the position of Russia, it follows from the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on the transfer of the Crimean region to Ukraine that only the continental land part of the Crimean region was transferred to the administrative-territorial disposal of Ukraine. Jurisdiction over the coastal waters of the seas, based on the principle that the waters of the coastal seas belong to the state as a whole, and not to its individual subjects, remained with the USSR.

In 2003, from the Krasnodar Territory of Russia, an attempt was made to restore the spit by creating an artificial dam. This marked the beginning of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia over the ownership of the island, the restored spit and a possible change in the navigation regime in the Kerch Strait. After a meeting between Presidents Putin and Kuchma, the construction of the dam was suspended.

I wonder where is this clown from the show media now? - 2003 - Training of the Russian invasion of Crimea and on about. Tuzla

In 2005, a special commission of the Ukrainian parliament recognized that the Tuzla island in the Kerch Strait could disappear within a year, if not protected from the waves. The currents in the Kerch Strait, which accelerated due to the dam, built in 2003, erode not only Tuzla, but also the Arshintsevskaya Spit near Kerch. The coast of the island was strengthened in blocks.

In 2014, during the crisis in Ukraine and the aggravation of the situation in Crimea, most of the Crimean peninsula was actually annexed to Russia, in connection with which on March 21, 2014, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the Kerch Strait “can no longer be a subject negotiations with Ukraine ".http: //ru.enc.tfode.com/Kosa_Tuzla

The Kerch Strait (Kerç boğazı ;-), called by the ancient Greeks the Cimmerian Bosporus (by the people - the Cimmerians) is a strait connecting the Black and Azov seas. The western coast of the strait is the Crimea peninsula, the eastern one is the Taman peninsula. The width of the strait is from 4.5 to 15 km. The greatest depth is 18 meters. The most important port is the city of Kerch.

The Kerch Strait is a fishing area for many species of fish. Putin begins in late autumn and lasts for several months. It is recommended to draw a conditional border between Europe and Asia along the Kerch Strait, leaving the Sea of ​​Azov within Europe. The tradition of dividing dates back to antiquity.

History

Myth, archaic
Euripides describes how Io, the beloved of Zeus, turned by the Hero into a cow and chased by a gadfly, swims across the strait from the side of Taurida (Crimea).
Aeschylus calls the crossing over the strait "Cow's ford".
In his Biographies, Plutarch, referring to Hellanicus, reports that the Amazons were crossing the Cimmerian Bosporus on ice.

You are blue, blue waves
Where the sea merges with the sea,
Where is the sting of the argos wasp
Once upon a fierce abyss
To the shores of Asian Io
Rushed away from the pastures of Europe!
Whom did you send to us?
Euripides. Iphigenia in Taurida, Art. 393-399.

Antiquity

The fact that nomads crossed the strait on ice in winter is known from the History of Herodotus. In the 5th century BC. NS. representatives of the ancient aristocratic Milesian family of Archeanaktids founded on the western bank of the strait the city of Panticapaeum - the capital of the Bosporus kingdom on the site of present-day Kerch Cimmerian crossings are mentioned by Herodotus twice

2.You will come later to Isthm Cimmerian,
To the cramped gates of the sea. There, having dared
You must swim across the strait of Meotida.
And the glorious memory in people will remain
About this crossing. There will be a name for her -
"Cow ford" - Bosphorus.
You will throw Europe
Plains, you will come to the Asian continent.
"Aeschylus, Prometheus chained," Art. 732-735. (Per. A. I. Piotrovsky)

In the II century BC. NS. on the ice of the strait from the side of Lake Meotid (Sea of ​​Azov), a battle took place between the army of the commander Neoptolemus and the barbarians: “The ice in these places is so strong at the mouth of the Meotidskoye Lake (that is, in the Kerch Strait) that in the place where the military commander of Mithridates defeated the barbarians in a horse battle on ice in winter, he also defeated the same barbarians in a sea battle in the summer, when the ice melted "(Strabo, II, 1, 6)" They say that the commander of Mithridates Neoptolemus in the same strait in the summer defeated the barbarians in a sea battle, and in the winter in a horse. " (Vii, 3, 18)

XX century

In April 1944, construction began on a railway bridge across the strait. 115 spans of the same type, 27.1 m each, a 110-meter span of a double navigable opening above the fairway for the passage of large ships, turning on the middle support, the overpass at the coast and the dam made up the full length of the bridge crossing. Construction was completed in the autumn of the same year. Since the bridge had no ice cutters, in February 1945 about 30% of the supports were damaged by ice from the Sea of ​​Azov. The bridge was not rebuilt, and the surviving parts were eliminated, as they were an obstacle to navigation.

To replace the destroyed bridge, the Kerch ferry crossing was opened in 1953, connecting the Crimea and the Krasnodar Territory (the line Port Crimea - Port Caucasus). Four railway ferries took part in the crossing: Zapolyarny, Severny, Yuzhny and Vostochny. Initially, these ferries were planned to be used on a railway crossing under construction across the Yenisei in Igarka, but in 1953 this construction was closed and the ferries were transported to the Crimea. Later, three car ferries were put into operation: "Kerchensky-1", "Kerchensky-2" and "Yeysk".

In the late 1980s, due to the aging of railway ferries, the transportation of passenger and then freight trains across the strait was discontinued. Due to funding problems, new ferries were not built for the crossing, and for almost 15 years the crossing served only for transporting cars. Projects for the construction of a new bridge across the Kerch Strait were repeatedly proposed, but due to the high cost they did not receive further development.

In 2004, the railway ferry "Annenkov" was transferred to the ferry, and in November 2004, on the eve of the second round of the presidential elections in Ukraine, the ceremonial opening of the ferry crossing took place. The action was attended by Viktor Yanukovych (at that time the prime minister and presidential candidate of Ukraine) and Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, after the opening ceremony, the railway service across the strait was never restored.

Territorial dispute

In 1996, the deputy of the Legislative Assembly of the Krasnodar Territory, Alexander Travnikov, for the first time raised the question of the territorial affiliation of the Tuzla Kosa at a session of the ZSK. The substantiation of the legality of Russia's territorial claim to this territory was formulated in the books by A. Travnikov "The Spit of Tuzla is a listed territory" and "The Spit of Tuzla and the strategic interests of Russia."

In 2003, the Kerch Strait was at the center of a dispute between Russia and Ukraine after the authorities of the Krasnodar Territory, in an effort to prevent erosion of the sea coast, began to hastily erect a dam from Taman towards the Ukrainian island of Tuzla. Russia was accused of encroaching on Ukrainian territory. The conflict was resolved after the intervention of the presidents - the construction of the dam was stopped, and Tuzla remained Ukrainian. As a reciprocal concession, Ukraine agreed to sign an agreement according to which the Kerch Strait was recognized as the joint internal waters of Russia and Ukraine.

10 years have passed since the conflict with the Russian Federation around the Tuzla island in the Sea of ​​Azov - Details - Inter - 09/29/2013. PinzEnyk, Kuchma ... and now the default Rogue / Patrashenko / who signed the project to restructure the state debt of Ukraine exactly when the creditors announced their disagreement with the restructuring plan through their representatives - the law firm Shirman and Sterling.
Asking for such territory, hoping to exchange it for glass beads - this is a classic of hohlyak greed, irrepressible theft and unprofessionalism.

Negotiations of expert groups on the delimitation of the Azov-Kerch water area and the Black Sea continued for a long time. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine considered Russia's position on delimiting the Kerch Strait to be illegal. Russia refuses to divide the Kerch Strait along the former internal Soviet administrative border, because in this case it loses control over two-thirds of the Kerch Strait, which entails financial and political costs.

Ukraine accused Russia of double standards, recalling that the former intra-Soviet administrative border was recognized at the insistence of Russia as the interstate Russian-Estonian border in the Narva and the Gulfs of Finland. Ukraine insistently demanded to divide the Kerch Strait in a similar way "in accordance with international law."

Kosa Tuzla and Russia's strategic interests
Travnikov A.I.

Phoenix Publisher
Year 2005

In politics, the small Tuzla spit in the Kerch Strait is not a trifle. This is the principle. The principle of defending the national interests of Russia. And principles cannot be bargained for. The question, first raised by A. Travnikov in the mid-90s, erupted in the 2003 crisis in relations between Russia and Ukraine. Today the topic may become relevant again. Moreover, there is still no final solution to the issue either on Tuzla or on the Black Sea bases. The book contains only facts. The reader himself has the right to draw conclusions.
http://flikeinvest.org.kniga-diva.ru/kniga/2029

"the opinion of the titular Ukrainian nation" and "analysts" on servicing the Urkovlada))) - The most unrealistic project of the Kremlin: the Kerch ghost bridge

31 Aug 2015 g.
In the fall, the first bridge will be built across the Kerch Strait. While technological, for the supply of materials to construction sites. Traffic on the passenger bridge will open in 2018. Now construction is underway at an accelerated pace

:: 01 :: :: to the beginning of the section ::

This text was written in 1987 and, at present, is only of retrospective value.

Political and legal aspects of the problem of the Sea of ​​Azov, the Kerch Strait and Tuzla Island. The collapse of the USSR and the formation of new independent states on its territory gave rise to a number of problems associated with the legal status and regime of use of certain categories of sea spaces in the Black Sea-Azov basin, as well as their delimitation. In particular, these include the issues of the legal status and regime of use of the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait, and later, at some stage, the issue of Tuzla arose sharply.

Before the collapse of the USSR, such problems did not exist, and they could not exist, tk. The Sea of ​​Azov had the status of the historical inland waters of this state. The Kerch Strait was a natural waterway to inland waters and therefore did not have the status of a strait used for international shipping. And Tuzla was the sovereign land territory of this state.

Today the Sea of ​​Azov washes the land territories of the two independent states of Ukraine and Russia. It is one of the smallest and shallow seas of the World Ocean, as evidenced by its morphometric indicators - an area of ​​39.1 thousand km, a volume of 290 km, an average depth of 7.4 m (the largest is 13 m). However, in spite of this, in the Azov basin, rather large marine economic complexes are formed, both in Ukraine and in Russia, based on the development of biological resources of the sea and a developed port infrastructure.

In particular, inter-branch port complexes operate here, including the largest metallurgical enterprises and an iron ore plant with specialized sea berths. Great interest in the Sea of ​​Azov is caused by the presence of significant reserves of gas and gas condensate, the possibility of very significant catches of valuable varieties of fish, receiving significant income from the use of resort and recreational resources of the Azov coast, effective use of developed transport communications. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Sea of ​​Azov and everything connected with it is a zone of special, strategic interests of both Ukraine and Russia.

--

The first question that arose in relation to the Sea of ​​Azov after the collapse of the USSR was whether it should be considered as the historical internal waters of Russia and Ukraine, or should such categories of maritime spaces as the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone be identified and delimited between Russia and Ukraine. As for the Kerch Strait, does it refer to the straits used for international navigation, and naturally, will the rules of Part III of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea be applied to it, or the regime of its use can be established only by the national legislation of Ukraine, or a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and Russia.

There are various points of view on these issues in the literature. For example, with regard to the Kerch Strait, some are of the opinion that after the collapse of the USSR, the status of a strait used for international shipping is assigned to it, while others are of the opinion that it is an "internal" strait and thereby determines the legal status of the Sea of ​​Azov.

In our opinion, despite the fact that both of these points of view are practically polarized, nevertheless, none of them is true. The reason for this is that they are trying to consider the status of the Kerch Strait, and not the Sea of ​​Azov as the primary one. At the same time, forgetting that, firstly, the straits are natural, relatively narrow water spaces that separate land areas and connect adjacent water spaces or their parts. Thus, the straits are only elements of the sea route, connecting the vastness of the World Ocean into a single system of sea routes.

Secondly, the concept of "straits used for international navigation" is based on two interrelated criteria: the geographical position of the strait and its significance for international navigation. The geographic location of the strait, in turn, is determined by such characteristics as the categories of sea spaces that the strait connects and the presence or absence of an alternative passage for ships.
Therefore, the primary, in our opinion, is the status of the Sea of ​​Azov. And depending on whether its waters are historical internal waters or such categories of sea spaces as a territorial sea and an exclusive economic zone are established in the Sea of ​​Azov, the question of recognizing or not recognizing the status of the strait used for international shipping depends on the Kerch Strait.

Unfortunately, misunderstanding of this connection led to the fact that at some stage completely illogical actions began to be taken. In particular, proposals should be developed to establish a territorial sea and an exclusive maritime economic zone in the Sea of ​​Azov. The illogicality of such actions was that with such an approach, free access to foreign merchant ships and warships to the Sea of ​​Azov would be automatically opened, since The Kerch Strait would acquire the status of a strait used for international shipping in accordance with the provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

It took our politicians more than 10 years to understand that such an approach is not beneficial for either Ukraine or Russia. Only on December 24, 2003 in Kerch a joint statement was made by the President of Ukraine and the President of the Russian Federation, in which they confirmed "their common understanding that ... the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait are historically the internal waters of Ukraine and Russia, and the settlement of issues, concerning this water area, is carried out under an agreement between Ukraine and Russia in accordance with international law, "and an Agreement was signed between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on cooperation in the use of the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait.

The recent statement of the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko that he is going to return Crimea now with the help of the revival of the naval forces of the "Nezalezhnaya", caused bewilderment among many naval commanders: either laugh or stop reacting to all sorts of official nonsense.

But the situation worsened even more when Poroshenko announced in Odessa a plan for the development and implementation of the State Target Program for the Development of Shipbuilding for the Period until 2035. And he added that he considers one of the most important tasks to ensure security and defense in the Azov-Black Sea region.

Agree that such a presidential statement is pretty funny. Indeed, for all the time of independence, Ukraine itself in Nikolaev in 2011 laid down only one more or less modern warship - the corvette of the project 58250 "Volodymyr the Great". According to Ukrainian data, only 43% of the ship is on the slipway today.

Recall that during the Soviet era, aircraft-carrying cruisers were built in Nikolaev, in comparison with which the Ukrainian corvette with a displacement of 2,650 tons is a small armored boat. The "Square" disgracefully lost most of the Navy in March 2014. Then many ships raised the Andreevskie flags and went over to the side of Russia. And Kiev was left with only half of its warships, which were relocated to Odessa. Some were dragged in tow, all the ships were outdated long ago, including the flagship - the frigate Getman Sagaidachny. Only one Project 206MR missile boat is armed with outdated P-15M Termit anti-ship missiles. Recently, one of the boats in its territorial waters was blown up by an alleged sea mine of the Second World War. And the only naval educational institution - the PS Nakhimov Academy of Naval Forces, has already moved to the Russian Sevastopol.

It is not even clear to an expert that Poroshenko's "sea" statement is empty demagoguery. Purpose: to collect the rating from Ukrainian sailors, at the same time making their own revenge-seekers happy. And so far nobody canceled the traditional "sawing". It is possible that over the next 10-15 years Ukraine will be able to build 2-3 Project 58250 corvettes armed with French Exocet anti-ship missiles. But compared to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, this is less than a drop in the sea. In a hypothetical military clash, the Ukrainian fleet will be instantly destroyed completely with the help of various naval missiles, including the land-based Bastion. So what kind of "return" of Crimea to Ukraine with the help of the fleet can we talk about?

However, there is a more interesting problem, which so far everyone is silent. We are talking about new maritime borders in the Sea of ​​Azov and access to its water area. Recall that the last statement on the delimitation of the maritime boundaries in the Azov and Black Seas was signed in 2012 by Vladimir Putin and Viktor Yanukovych. But the final decision was never made.

There was a conditional border, rather controversial, which ran along the Kerch Strait. But after the entry of Crimea into Russia, all talks about the settlement of this issue, of course, stopped. Although there are still no official maritime borders there, it is clear that the entire Kerch Strait remained with Russia, as well as the section of the Sea of ​​Azov adjacent to the Crimean coast. Lost for Ukraine and the Crimean section of the Black Sea. The passage of ships from the Sea of ​​Azov to the Black Sea and back without the permission of Russia is legally impossible. As for the Ukrainian borders in the Sea of ​​Azov, they can be conventionally considered a 12-mile (22-kilometer) coastal zone (as a rule, this is how the borders of states in any seas and oceans are defined).

Accordingly, only the warships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet have access to the Sea of ​​Azov. Only a small number of boats are based in the ports of Mariupol and Berdyansk. Kiev is now able to control only the coastal zone of the Sea of ​​Azov from the settlement of Shirokino to Shooting (in Crimea, this is the border of Ukraine and Russia). The section of the coastal zone from the Russian border (Novoazovsk) to Shirokino is under the control of the Donetsk People's Republic. Experts believe that the Ukrainian fleet in the Sea of ​​Azov is only capable of fighting reconnaissance groups of militias, and even then with varying success.

I must say that there is uncertainty with the western coast of Crimea. The distance from the coast of the peninsula to the coast of Ukraine here ranges from 15 to 40 kilometers. It turns out that the countries simply do not have enough space to create a 22-kilometer zone of territorial waters. In addition, several oil-rich shelves have been found in this area. In such cases, it is customary to define the border along the median line. But today, relations between our countries do not contribute in any way to constructive negotiations. And they will not start until Ukraine recognizes the annexation of Crimea to Russia. However, local exacerbations can be provoked.

So is there any threat to Russia from the Ukrainian Navy? The land admirals of Kiev have nothing to cover: the water area of ​​the Russian part of the Sea of ​​Azov is completely controlled by boats, and often by larger ships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. The Russian naval aviation is also involved in the patrol. And any target in the Sea of ​​Azov can be hit by an anti-ship missile from the Crimea or from ships of the Black Sea Fleet, which can be fired from the Black Sea.

Of course, you can send messengers to Washington once again to request military assistance through the naval line. Many ports are clogged with decommissioned destroyers in the United States. A mothballed old battleship can also be put under steam. But how long will it take until Ukrainian sailors master this technique? The Pentagon is unlikely to send the latest ships to this area, which could become "hot" due to the sick imagination of some high-ranking officials. I would like to remind them of the statement made by Russian President Vladimir Putin at last year's meeting in Novorossiysk. There, he announced the deployment of new Russian sea-launched cruise missiles that nullify American power and nullify Washington's military superiority in the vast geopolitical region from Warsaw to Kabul, from Rome to Baghdad.

Summing up, we can say that all the talk about the revival of the Ukrainian Navy will remain just talk. There are no military or material resources for this now, and are not foreseen in the foreseeable future. There is no normal infrastructure for the navy. Yes, and with personnel, an acute problem is about to arise: there is nowhere to train new sailors, and many of the existing ones now serve in the RF Armed Forces. And with what or by whom will Kiev threaten the security of the Republic of Crimea?

As for the delimitation of the maritime borders with Ukraine, after the annexation of Crimea to Russia, this issue seems to have been settled. The main controversial point related to the borders in the Kerch Strait has now lost its relevance. But a new problem arose with the delimitation of borders off the western coast of Crimea.

The "Square" fleet no longer has access to the Sea of ​​Azov. In a military sense, this sea is lost for Ukraine. Only patrol boats located in the ports of Azov can display the "zhovto-blakit" flag. And few serious politicians are already paying attention to the irresponsible statements of the Kiev leaders.

Vladimir Bogdanov
Photo: Alexey Pavlishak / TASS