0 $
2,350 $
4,700 $
2,711 $

U.S. Upgrades Ukrainian Ports To Fit NATO Warships


U.S. Upgrades Ukrainian Ports To Fit NATO Warships

The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Carney (DDG 64) prepares to go underway in the Black Sea on July 2 during exercise Sea Breeze 2019 in Odesa, Ukraine. (Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class T. Logan Keown/Navy)

The US is upgrading several Ukrainian naval bases to give US and NATO warships the ability to dock in them, Breaking Defence reported.

The US efforts are now focused on the Ochakiv Naval Base and the military facility at Mykolaiv. The report noted that the US effort includes reinforcing and upgrading existing piers and adding a new floating dock, security fencing around the bases, ship repair facilities, and a pair of brand-new Maritime Operations Centers from which Ukrainian and NATO forces can direct exercises and coordinate activities.

Ukraine is not a NATO state, but it receives supplies and training from the US and NATO. Ukraine also hosts the annual Sea Breeze exercise that includes US and allied warships and several hundred Marines.




Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • occupybacon

    Brrr Russia is shitting bricks

    • Black Waters

      You will shit irradiated bricks soon enough.

      • occupybacon

        Uhh ohh I need to change my underwear

        • Dicksonrp


    • grumpy_carpenter

      Explain why you think that.

      All it means is NATO ship can dock at Ukraine ports and maybe refuel, the Montreaux convention still limits the number and size of warships entering the Black Sea and even if the Ukraine joined NATO the Montreaux convention still applies …. so what …. Romanian warships could then dock at Ukraine ports …. whoop-de-shit, It’s still a Russian lake.

      • occupybacon

        Actually NATO upgrades the ports more for the Western states ships rather Romanian, Bulgarian or Turkish ships. It’s funny for any advanced NATO country to listen Russian commanders farting and spanking the monkey just few miles away.

        • grumpy_carpenter

          For christ sakes buddy, NATO put gas pumps in some Ukrainian marina and you make a mess all over your keyboard. You’re gonna go blind at this rate.

          Montreaux convention limits the number of military ships belonging to nations that don’t have a border on the Black Sea allowed in the Black Sea at one time and how long they are allowed to stay. There are also limitations on tonnage so no heavy cruisers or aircraft carriers.

          The convention was agreed to to prevent just this kind of scenario. Turkey ultimately controls the Bosporus and decides who they let through …. might not have been the best time for the USA to try to screw Turkey on the down payment for the F-35 eh?

          • occupybacon

            You keep screaming the “Montreux Convention” like it’s a magic shield for Russia. NATO doesn’t need to bring all it’s fleet near Crimea to listen what the Russians are talking between them. They don’t want to start a nuclear war, just testing their spy skills as close as possible to a big Russian naval base and this is a great opportunity.

            As for Turkey… building those facilities close to Sevastoples, doesn’t require from Turkey to change. There will be the same number of NATO ships in the Black Sea but they will stay closer to the drunken Russian commanders to listen their farts.

          • Daniel Miller

            Is it in your blood to spew nonesence? “Spy wear” then wtf is Russia supposed to say about all of the exposed bases all over the world .
            I hope you realise you dont need a dock to spy on a nations communications……ok at this point i am thinking that all nationalist ukrainians are retards.

          • occupybacon

            But but you can’t hear drunk Russian sailors dancing Kalinka in a submarine, from a satellite :( What could the beginner NATO sailors brag to their girlfriends, about?


          • Daniel Miller

            Wtf are you even talking about? Passive sonar is not a spy tool you moron.

          • occupybacon

            Then neither the radar is, moron.

          • Daniel Miller

            Geee no shit sherlock

          • grumpy_carpenter

            But they could do that before putting gas pumps and a dock boy in the Ukraine …. nothing has changed. Why do you act like this bit of non news is some kind of strategic coup against Russia? Do you really not understand what you read or is your reaction just a poor attempt to troll?

          • occupybacon

            Yeah they could fuck around before but you see, even the NATO ships need something to visit in order to justify the permanent presence near the Russian naval base proximity.

            What if one of them collides with a Russian vessel? They need some sort of explaining in their parliaments: We were visiting our Ukrainian friends, and the Russians bullies smashed into us! Sanctions! sanctiooons!

            The Montreaux Convention can be bypassed in two ways:

            1. A US ship’s engine stops in the middle in the sea, then it’s going to be toweled in a Turkish port where the maintenance would go wayy over 21 days. Hard to believe an American naval engine breaks like it would be a Russian wreck, right?

            2. Turkey to build a new canal that circumvents Phosphorous in order to ease the traffic and facilitate heavier tonnage LNG tanks flowing from Suez to eastern Europe. The ships will have to pay for transiting the new pass.

            Regarding your affirmation that “It’s still a Russian lake”, don’t you think Russia would hunt any single Ukrainian fishing boat in the Black Sea if NATO wasn’t there? Also they could try some stupid shit like invading Odessa or something, someone needs to police those hooligans ;)

        • grumpy_carpenter

          “Actually NATO upgrades the ports more for the Western states ships rather Romanian, Bulgarian or Turkish ships.”

          To be honest I suspect this is just a way of transferring tax dollars to Ukrainian militias without the taxpayers know who and what their tax dollars are being spent on.

          You hire a “construction company” who bids say $100M for work on
          docks that takes $10 M to complete with $90 m spent on the black market arms trade.

          • occupybacon

            I don’t suspect, I’m sure that’s happening too. Not only in Donbas but Ukraine NATO needs to have militias in all ports to be sure Russians do not infiltrate and try to create chaos like In 2014, in Odessa. Btw it’s funny how some Russians believe that they should control American “tax dollars”.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            “Ukraine NATO needs to have militias in all ports to be sure Russians do not infiltrate”

            Russia has always had superior human intel to the west. The USA tries to compensate with signals intel and aerial photography but they are to this day so far behind the Russians and can never catch up. The problem is the west is an open society that allows for migration whereas during the Tsarist and Soviet time you could get shot for mearly speaking to a foreigner.

            After WW2 the west was so ignorant of what was going on in Russia they hired the Richard Gehlan a Nazi intelligence officer, who was equally ignorant but an excellent bullshitter, to head up NATO intelligence on the Soviet Union. This managed to save the skin of an untold number of Nazi war criminals who became intelligence assets but did nothing as far as honest intelligence on what was going on in Russia.

            In the Ukraine today roughly half the population supports Russia. Prior to the coup in 2014 they elected a government sympathetic to Russia. Do you think all those supporters just disappeared? Getting human assets in Russia is much more difficult. They love their country and lost 28 million people of their grandparents age during WW2. They know the cost of treason firsthand.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            “Btw it’s funny how some Russians believe that they should control American “tax dollars”.”

            It’s funny that Americans have the same complaint about Russian’s buying FB ads to influence an election. The USA funnels millions to buy arms for neo-Nazi militias and that’s reasonable but if the Russian buy FB ads that’s a cause for nuclear war.

          • occupybacon

            Only Russians call The Ukrainians Neonazis, that’s how you spot a Russian propagandist on the Internet ;)

          • grumpy_carpenter

            Aren’t you clever. I spot Ukrainian Neonazi’s on the internet by reading the news.




            However since all the sources I cited in this particular post are Israeli I’m sure to be accused being an Hasbara troll by the many neo nazi sympathizers who post on this site.

            I guess I should have used something more amenable to them like these US sources but I like the way the Israeli articles don’t mince words by replacing Nazi with “far right movement”. I guess US sources are less likely to offend readers by revealing they are now on the side of the Nazi’s




            Que sera

          • occupybacon

            Ohh I forgot, Russians and and Antifa, I forgot the Antifa.

      • Brother Ma

        Thanks for that re montreaux which i know of but not all the details you mentioned. So Turkey is the only one who can change the Convention? What if a majority of those with a shore on the Black Sea want to change it but Turkey doesn’t?

        • grumpy_carpenter

          I was kinda wondering that myself. It’s an agreement so the Black Sea nations must have ‘agreed’ to something however from what I’ve read Turkey has control over who moves through the Bosporus so it sounds like it’s ultimately Turkey’s call, although whether that would be considered an illegal blockade would be the point of argument.

          It’s really interesting because usually blockades are usually an act of naval aggression whereas in this case it ‘s whether Turkey has the sovereign right as to who passes through it’s territory.

          • Brother Ma

            Thanks grumpy.

        • AM Hants

          It was set up, owing to Turkish Defence and nothing the other nations can do.

          Montreux Convention 1936…

          In 1936, the former signatories to the Treaty of Lausanne together with Yugoslavia and Australia met at Montreux, Switzerland to abolish the International Straits Commission and return the Straits zone (the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmora, and Bosphorus) to Turkish military control. They allowed Turkey to remilitarize the straits, which had been prohibited under the 1923 Lausanne Convention as part of the peace treaty that finally formally ended the hostilities begun in 1914. The new Montreux Convention also modified the 1923 rules for the passage of vessels through these waters. The Montreux [not Montreaux] Convention of 1936 [20 July 1936, 173 LNTS 213,219] was ratified by Turkey, Great Britain, France, the USSR, Bulgaria, Greece, Germany, Yugoslavia, and Japan (with reservations). While the United States is not a signatory to the Convention, it has historically always complied with its provision.

          Merchant shipping of any flag and with any cargo has freedom of transit in the straits during peacetime and during wartime whenever Turkey is not a belligerent. Turkey may, however, require merchant ships to stop at a station upon entering the straits for the purposes of sanitary and health control. During wartime when Turkey is a belligerent, merchant shipping of countries not at war with Turkey has freedom of transit of the straits so long as those countries maintain their obligation of neutrality (e.g. not to provide support to another belligerent). Turkey may require such ships to commence transiting the straits during daylight hours.

          During peacetime, light surface vessels [defined as warships displacing more than 100 tons but not above 10,000 tons] of all powers may transit the straits after giving prior notice to Turkey as required by the Convention. Turkey may waive the notification requirement if the warships were transiting for the purpose of providing humanitarian assistance. The choice of “light surface vessels” as the largest warship allowed through the straits effectively kept the new German “pocket battleships” out of the Black Sea — a primary goal of the Soviet negotiators…


          The US did not sign up to it, and neither have they ratified the ‘Law of the Seas Convention’. So not sure, why they believe they can control the seas?

          • Brother Ma


      • AM Hants

        Just mentioned the 1936 Montreux Convention and how it would work in non-NATO Ukraine?

        Wonder how it will work, with the US controlled black market, using Ukraine for trafficking?

  • occupybacon

    They want to expose Mistral ships closer to Russians so they can see them better.


    • Robert Ferrin

      Hope they are better than the F-35 or Zumwald destroyer that cost the U.S. taxpayer $3-$4 billion ,and now its is only fit to become a missile launch platform which Russia produces for a few million.Lol stupid people with stupid toys as they say you can’t fix stupid and they set out to prove they were right!!!

      • occupybacon

        You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else. – Winston Churchill

      • grumpy_carpenter

        The USA builds build the littoral combat ship at $1.2B each and the Russians build the Buyan corvette for the same mission at $70m each. Both ships have a similar mission and operate in coastal waters. All 15 of the Russian ship that are either in service or under construction cost less than a single US LCS class ship.

        The LCS has separate modules that have to be swapped out for surface missiles and anti-submarine warfare. The Buyan carries 8 anti-shipping or land attack cruise missiles, anti-submarine missiles, minesweeping gear and anti-aircraft missiles every time it leaves port.

        The USA announced the LCS program with great fanfare but according to the navy the ship can’t defend itself against anything but speed boats that aren’t armed with missiles and are too big across the beam to operate in channels in littoral waters. It’s been described as useless by US admirals.

        We only learned the Buyan existed when they launched a cruise missile attack on Syria from the Caspian sea in 2015 that so surprised the US navy that they immediately pulled their carrier group out the Persian gulf until they could figure out WTF fired those very accurate very long range missiles from the Caspian sea.

        • vaderfater

          The corvette operates in the own costal waters, The american ships you can send through oceans, Big difference.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            First. According to American propaganda it the Russian who are aggressors in the world. Russia has a DEFENSE industry. The USA produces offensive weapons designed to penetrate enemy defenses and invade other countries. The weapons the Russian build are designed to defend their homeland for the benefit of Russian taxpayers.
            Can you honestly tell me that Americans are getting good value out of weapons like the LCS?

            Second. You’re telling me that $1.13B of the $1.2B price tag of the LCS is so it has enough range to cross an ocean? And even then when it gets there it can operate as either a surface combatant, ASW platform or minesweeper but in order to switch roles it has to go back to port and switch out modules.

            Third. If Russia wanted to add range to their $70m dollar ship do you think it would cost them $1.13 billion to add a bigger gas tank? Or would they simply send their fleet with tankers?

  • Tommy Jensen

    What about Kazakhstans ports. What about them?

    • occupybacon

      patience Tommy, patience…

    • Concrete Mike

      LOL its true what about the Kazakh subs!!!

  • Domenic Patrone

    This is simply another step toward America not being there at all in the end. Economic insolvency is drawing close and budget constraints will soon be heard around the world. “BACK AWAY RUSSIA!” is the message this port upgrading sends. Will Russia heed it in time ??? Ha! I thought not ..

  • Vitex

    Spend billions from your GDP so that NATO can protect you.

  • Brother Ma

    How nice that the US upgrades the facilities yet keeps the Ukraine as a beggar . So doing much for the US ‘s capability but not the home nation.
    Don’t get me wrong,it serves Ukraine right for breaking away from Russia anyway.

  • Toronto Tonto

    More great news .

    • FreePalestine_BDS

      Says the truly tonto person.

  • AM Hants

    Riddle me this. Is Ukraine a NATO member?

    How does that work, with the Montreux 1936 Convention and passage through the Black Sea?

  • Russia will one day THANK the US for updating and outfitting these ports, that will soon enough thereafter be back in Russian jurisdiction. Muchas gracias.

  • AM Hants

    Off topic.

    Now why do so many nations want the S-400?

    US’ Multi-Billion Dollar European Missile Shield Full of Holes – Reports


    Has the US got any 21st century weapons and systems, that actually work?

    • thomas malthaus


      Rostec produces it. The CEO states that no country is receiving the latest or next generation model. I might have misgivings with the Turkey transaction, but they’re accepting delivery this week.