Talk:List of Russian military bases abroad

Azerbaijan radar station
Someone got information about the russian radar station in Azerbaijan? 199.64.72.252 (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gabala Radar Station Secretlondon (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Lock request
I think this article has been hijacked for political means. In my opinion it would be safer to lock the article on an earlier version until passions sooth over Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.43.58 (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree - because it would mean my own amendments taking account of the new situation where Sevastopol is no longer a part of Russian overseas military bases would be washed out. Steve Masterson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.190.38 (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Should East Germany be on the list?
I was wondering about this. I would imagine there were many Military bases in East Germany and throughout the Soviet Union.

Why is Vietnam on the list?
Having a couple unarmed officers for general information exchange and training shouldn't really count. Or does someone have hard evidence of people with Russian insignia marching around on a base there? Bodyguard/police types shouldn't be counted.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.204.14 (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree, there is no one with Russian insignia in Vietnam: Cam Ranh will be considered as a US base too if it also apply to Russia. I understand that in a military perspective knowing that Russian air force has a foreign pacific base free of landing and rest is important, however it does not constitute as a military base, which must see troops on the ground, permanent or temporary-wise. Cam Ranh do not even have temporary Russian troops anymore; it does not even constitute as a Russian supply station, like those for US and NATO; if a Russian plane want to fuel here they will need to pay for it, like we go to a gas station. It is that plain and simple. I wish this can be resolved quickly, as the appearance that Vietnam still hold Russian military base is highly misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.34.32.98 (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Any of your personal thoughts on the matter are precisely that: your personal point of view. Wikipedia relies of reliable secondary sources, not original research. There are reliable sources attesting to the fact that the base and contract are current. There are no reliable sources for what constitutes the contracting of the use of a base as being requisite time spans or any other factors either IP has discussed. Unless you have reliable sources stating that it is not an RF base, it is a base. It's hardly unique that any nation-state's foreign territory bases be up for re-entering agreements at any point in time... in fact, 'in perpetuity' agreements are the exception to the rule, not the rule. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Some quotes found from an article in The Diplomat on March 13 2015 titled "Vietnam's Cam Ranh Bay caught in US-Russia Crossfire":

"''It was also reported that the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi had raised official concerns with Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. According to an anonymous State Department official, “We have urged Vietnamese officials to ensure that Russia is not able to use its access to Cam Ranh Bay to conduct activities that could raise tensions in the region." At the same time the State Department noted that the U.S. government respected Vietnam’s right to reach agreements with other countries for access to Vietnam’s military bases''."

From the embolden word above, issued by State Department, we can see that Russia does not own the base; it's a Vietnamese base with Russian access. Further evidence can be found from the same article:

"On the hand, Vietnam’s most recent Defense White Paper, published in 2009, declares that “Vietnam advocates neither joining any military alliances nor giving any other countries permission to have military bases or use its soil to carry out military activities against other countries (emphasis added).” This policy guidance is commonly referred to as the “three nos.” --WeifengYang (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is your personal reading. Russia uses it. Period. Regardless legalese. However if you find the exact text of the agreement, this will be very useful for the article to clarify the issue. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone provide me a concrete secondary source that support the fact that now, not back in 2003, that Russia owns and uses the base? It will be helpful if such source can be provided. I still find the article I found to be highly recognizable and therefore, makes the claim that Russia has no military base in Vietnam validatedWeifengYang (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A base is not necessarily owned. It may be leased. But this splitting hairs is irrelevant from the point of view of defense. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, the issue must be detailed in the Kam Ranh article, not here. here is a list, i.e, a convenience navigation tool. It cannot have all details and subtleties. But the fact is that Kam Ranh is a Russian nest and Americans are worried about this. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

International Recognition
This article is a joke if it recognizes Transdniestr, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia as sovereign countries. The overwhelming majority of the world recognizes them as Moldovan, Georgian and Georgian. ALL UN member states recognize Transdniestr as Moldovan. All but four recognize South Osettia as Georgian. All but four recognize Abkhazia as Georgian.--108.31.150.218 (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

✅ I changed these disputed areas (and Crimea) to being owned by Georgia/Moldova/Ukraine, but disputed. This is more NPOV. Thank you for noticing these problems. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Crimea is again stated as a part of Russia on the map which is being pushed to illustrate this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emulsioner (talk • contribs) 07:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what's happened, . The map depicting Crimea as a disputed territory was supplanted without the crosshatched "disputed territory" identifier and legend stating that it is de facto administered by the RF, and that the RF's claims are not internationally recognised. Thanks for picking up on it. The map stays out as WP:POV and original research with no discussions... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Separate subheader for Crimea
I don't consider creating a subheader for Crimea here to be either WP:NPOV or useful for the reader outside of WP:RECENTISM and high profile media attention. The current bases list, as stands, already depicts a few other disputed territories in a neutral manner. Creating a separate subheader is potentially misleading for the reader as, by inference, it suggests that other disputed territories are not disputed or 'dispute worthy' as Crimea. Disputed territories are disputed territories. Parsing them as if they are somehow different in terms of the level of 'disputed' status is WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Related to this, should there just be a subheading for bases in disputed territories, such as in Georgian and Ukrainian regions? It seems disingenuous to mark them as being part of those countries when the regions those bases are in are disputed territory, Crimea and Abkhazia being two main examples. — Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

There should definitely be a map for this article, as many other lists have such a map. I think for Crimea, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria, shading the entire country of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova is not helpful for the reader. It only increase confusion as if Russian military's presence is beyond these disputed territories, but in the scope of the entire nation. It will be better if we can have a map where all four of these region are shaded, with their boundaries delineated in dashes, not clear borders, to their respective claimers. WeifengYang (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the map I am considering: (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Misleading map
I've removed the RF bases map as WP:OR until issue of disputed territories being designated in another colour is addressed at Wiki Commons. As is noted on the file's talk page, Crimea is not internationally recognised as a territory of the Russian Federation, any more than Transnistria, Abkhazia, or South Ossetia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

There should definitely be a map for this article, as many other lists have such a map. I think for Crimea, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria, shading the entire country of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova is not helpful for the reader. It only increase confusion as if Russian military's presence is beyond these disputed territories, but in the scope of the entire nation. It will be better if we can have a map where all four of these region are shaded, with their boundaries delineated in dashes, not clear borders, to their respective claimers.

This is the map I'm considering: WeifengYang (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine as a starting point for creating a WP:RS map, but you've restored it without any amendments to the depictions of disputed territory. Approximate claimed territories need to be added first, then discussed here (on this talk page) as to potential tweaks and clearest methods of depiction for the reader to be able to comprehend. Anyone can create maps on Wiki Commons, but they must pass the WP:NOR and WP:RS Wikipedia demands of its sourcing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Russian military bases abroad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315024323/http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20734/Podvig-S%26GS.pdf to http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20734/Podvig-S%26GS.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/320/34.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Transnistria
Why does the article say "partially recognised Transnistria separatist region"? No UN member recognizes it. --63.243.196.34 (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I've gone WP:BOLD and changed the wording to reflect that Transnistria is unrecognised by any sovereign states. I've also tagged the content for a reference and clarification regarding what "peacekeeping" in a pro-Russian separatist state actually means. It smacks of WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. If any other editors consider the content to be in need of better qualification, please table the references and suggestion for content on the talk page here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Planned base in Venezuela
Will mention of Russia's planned base in Venezuela be added to the article? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)