Talk:1988 Black Sea bumping incident

English and Russian-language texts of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The introduction alludes to differences between the English and Russian-language texts of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is implied that the USA later realized that the Soviets were in the right. However there is no reference to this in the body of the article, merely to the Soviet regulations pursuant to the Russian-language version.

There is actually a more complex issue of international law here. If the convention allows a member state to regulate passage, that would mean allows a member to restrict passage rights. The Soviets did not designate any routes for innocent passage in the Black Sea at all. It implies that the Soviets proceeded on the basis that passage was only permitted if designated. Actually the convention would appear to allow passage unless it is restricted. That different approach probably made the Soviet regulations invalid.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologize
Did the USA apologize for their behaviour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.72.246.181 (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Did the Soviets? Would need a valid source for either claim.104.169.16.173 (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For not opening fire as they should have upon the ships that were openly breaking the law and refusing to follow commands? 93.125.106.93 (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The US Navy was not breaking the law. It was practicing freedom of navigation. CsikosLo (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Both statements are correct. U.S. Navy held it was operating in compliance with international law regarding "innocent passage."  Soviet Navy was operating in compliance with Soviet Law requiring defense of the state border.Moryak (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Except regarding first point: 1)Innocent passage doesn't work just because one wants too. There ARE conditions. 2)It doesn't make you immune to rightfull demands of the waters owner as you may be endangering other people with your ignorance. USA forces here acted in perfect accordance to old irish joke about USA carrier, it's escorts and small humble spanish lighthouse... ;) 93.125.106.93 (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * COMPLETE violation of Talk Page policy - WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP. 50.111.51.247 (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Other side's view
Deputy Commander in Chief of the Black Sea Fleet Rear-Admiral Valery Kulikov, who took a direct part in that incident as a first mate on the Bezzavetny told me the story.

The American missile cruiser USS Yorktown and the destroyer Caron entered Soviet territorial waters off the coast of Crimea, using the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as cover for their actions. This convention, which in exceptional cases, allows “innocent passage” for combat ships carrying weapons through territorial waters of littoral states, was signed but not ratified by the USSR. The guard-boat Bezzavetny and a Soviet frigate SKR-6 went to intercept the Americans, who refused to change course, claiming they were not violating the law and refusing to leave the territorial waters of the USSR.

The commanders of the guard ships started ramming the cruiser, Bezzavetny doing so twice. As a result, it tore the skin of the American cruiser with its anchor flake, destroyed the guardrail, broke the captain’s gig and several anti-ship harpoon launchers. The collision caused a fire on the cruiser, and soon it had to leave Soviet waters. [From http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/russian-admiral-once-while-we-still-have-slap-pentagon-face-near-our-borders/ri16380 ]

And there's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjQ2WFNr3HE

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.147.8 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * He told you this in Spain?104.169.16.173 (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Look a the link. He simply put the text without placing it into quote. 93.125.106.93 (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Map
It would be interesting to have a map of where the incident happened. I don't have the knowledge to do so—and I'm at work anyway... 70.26.183.201 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are coordinates in the Incident section, if you click on them or hover over with cursor, you'll see the map. Brandmeistertalk  08:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Brandmeister is correct, you can link to an separate site for the map, but I felt this request was valid for the slightly more casual Wikipedian. So, I added a map of the location, but Brandmeister's contains much more information.Demt1298 (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Demt1298