![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 February 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Военные базы стран мира за рубежом from ru.wikipedia. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Alzubaira.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The french section is in french despite being an english page as Im not a french speaker Id request someone to translate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huskermax5 ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I think that the troops in northern ireland should be excluded from this article cause the northern ireland is a part of the UK but not the foreign terrotory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.214.175 ( talk) 11:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The british base in nepal is not a base per se, but an office that looks after Gorkha recruitment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.83.63.193 ( talk) 11:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of countries with overseas military bases's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Podvig-History":
Reference named "Astronautix":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Kosovo of Serbia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.228.166 ( talk) 00:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The article should stick to countries that are internationally recognized. Crimea is NOT internationally recognized as Russian. The UN condemned Russia's annexation there. Transdniester is NOT an internationally recognized country. Neither are South Osettia or Abkhazia. Please refrain from further vandalism. Changing the names to fringe view points is not conducive to producing an encyclopedic article. -- 108.31.150.218 ( talk) 11:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The "UN condemned" Russia's annexation of Crimea with less that 52% of the member states representing less than 34% of the world's population. This is the definition of "internationally recognized"? Szerbey ( talk) 12:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262
-G
I am opening this section per my comments at User talk:Trabant1963. Editor Trabant1963's last edit to this list-article was this one, which is a disputed change, and I myself just reverted it. I asked Trabant1963 to discuss here rather than re-making the change. Trabant, could you please explain what change(s) you want to make, and why? By the way, in Trabant's past edits to this list-article, I noticed that they were perhaps trying to edit the Russia section to present it from Russia's point of view. I think it may be reasonable to try to do that. For example, if there is disagreement about Sevastopol in the Crimea (which Russia may consider to be part of Russia now) then the Russia section could first list the military bases that Russia considers to be outside of Russia, and then also explain any different views. However that would require sources that establish clearly what Russia's perspective is, for example to establish that Russia officially considers Sevastopol to be a part of Russia, if it does. -- do ncr am 21:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Update: Further, I just tried this change to the Russia section, which may be considered a Bold edit and anyone may revert it. But I hope it can be considered as a compromise. What it shows now is:
Russia also has military in the Crimea, which Russia may consider to have joined Russia as a result of the the 2014 referendum, although has not been recognized by most other countries. Most countries consider the Crimea to be part of the Ukraine, and thus consider Russia's military there to be overseas from Russia:
and
* Crimea - Base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol,[reference to Klein] (Crimea is considered part of the Ukraine by most countries, but it is under Russian control as a result of the 2014 Crimean crisis). Around 26,000 personnel.[reference to Klein]
In that I tried to accurately reflect that the Crimea is considered to be overseas by most countries but may not be considered overseas by Russia. Perhaps it may be longer than absolutely necessary, but I don't think it matters if it is a bit wordy, as long as it is clear. I deliberately used "weasel" ( wp:WEASEL) wording in saying "Russia may consider to have joined" and hope that can be accepted temporarily. I would prefer to have it improved by stating Russia's view more clearly with a reference that directly establishes what Russia's official view is, and I would appreciate if anyone else could add that. Hope this helps. -- do ncr am 22:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Ukraine - Base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, Crimea (now joined Russia as a result of the 2014 referendum which was not recognized by the majority of the countries). Around 26,000 personnel. - correctly and truly. Let her show where it's false— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabant1963 ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Currently in the United States section there is a list of countries where the U.S. has bases. The first item is Afghanistan. But that takes the reader to Wikipedia's article about the country, not to more specific information about U.S. bases there. Unfortunately the List of United States military bases article mentions Afghanistan bases in a couple separated places, so I don't see any specific target for a link to one place covering them in more detail. How about changing the first entry to, say:
which summarizes from the List of United States military bases main article. Or use "multiple" instead of the "nine" and "seven"? -- do ncr am 22:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the tags for expanding this article further using the RU version as, having checked it, it's been tagged for needing to be updated, doesn't carry references, and has fallen behind this article in terms of being comprehensive.
Instead, I've tagged it for the lead needing to be rewritten, plus for more references to be found (simply because much of it is unreferenced and I don't want to WP:TAGBOMB it. Per WP:TITLE, the article is "List of countries with overseas military bases" which the article adheres to, although it is open to expansion. The WP:LEAD, however, addresses only US and Russian bases and the significance of a new escalation of post-Cold War strategic bases, omitting Pakistani/Indian, Middle Eastern, and other relationships: the substance of which also needs to be referenced. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 22:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
There have been a number of changes made to the number of US facilities and number of personnel in South Korea over the last few days. While I don't doubt that these changes are good faith, nor doubt that they are fairly close to the reality, reliable sources are lacking, therefore I've tagged them for better sources.
Per WP:WINARS (Wikipedia is not a reliable source), the articles being referenced are, in themselves, badly referenced with multiple red links and unverifiable content. Any assistance in providing reliable references would be appreciated. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
What actually constitutes an "overseas military base" on here? For the UK, I've been listing permanent overseas bases. These are bases that the UK owns regardless of whether or not they are being used for operations. I believe the bases listed for the USA, Russia and France follow that guideline too. However, I've noticed that some countries (Italy, for example) have Afghanistan listed just because they're contributing troops to Operation Resolute Support? If we're listing deployments as overseas bases then we'd be here forever listing the deployments of the USA, UK and France. I recommend we only list the permanent ones. What does everybody else think? TheArmchairSoldier ( talk) 11:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be named "List of overseas military bases by operating country" or something like that? Or simply "List of overseas military bases"? This is fundamentally a list of operating bases, organized by the countries that have them. -- do ncr am 16:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
"by the countries that have them."(my emphasis). -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Given that this is a "List of countries with overseas military bases", not "List of countries with overseas military bases and planned military bases", I've removed content only just introduced on Turkish bases as WP:NOTNEWS. Planned bases are not operating bases: they're not operative until they've been constructed and personnel are officially and actively in place. It is not even guaranteed that any agreements by the host country will be honoured until such a time as the base is officially operative (unless one has a WP:CRYSTAL ball). -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
This part seems outdated. With the reduction of US troops in Afghanistan, the number of US bases there has been reduced, with some closed and others transfered to the Afghan Armed Forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.201.37 ( talk) 12:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Someone can explain why should be deleted the Italian Military bases in : Albania, United Arab Emirates, Kosovo,Lebanon,Malta and Somalia? and why the list of India are not removed yet? in the List of India the list quote : Bhutan, Madagascar Maldives,Mauritius, Seychelles when the listed quotes are just Coastal Surveillance Radar (CSR) less relevant than a Military base and a curiosity is that the quote of Bhutan is just a team of trainer, and all the resource come from Indian journals of last year that nobody know if those facilities are under construction or are in full Functionality. here there is no "impartiality", so I will quote again the list of the Italian bases in Albania, United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Lebanon, Malta and Somalia, Since they are structures that work today under the command of Italian military, in Italian bases and with military employees in various areas, from the main building of the training of security and forces armed movements of those countries.-- LuigiPortaro29 ( talk) 12:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- The British base in Nepal is not a base and just an office to administer recruitment.
- The Indian Army has multiple bases in Bhutan (on the eastern and western fronts of Bhutan - including a small air force presence in Paro Airport, the training mission (IMTRAT) is separate from the bases. It also maintains a small air force unit in Surkhet in Nepal and an administrative unit for recruitment of Nepalese soldiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.83.63.193 ( talk) 11:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not really interested in the Italian and Indian military bases issue. But please stop removing actual french military bases from the article. 109.77.121.90 ( talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Should French Guiana, Polynesia, Reunion, Mayotte etc be listed under "overseas" bases? These are part of France, and (perhaps with the exception of bits of Poylnesia, parts of the EU also). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
41.82.99.10 (
talk)
15:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Seems to just be editors from a certain country / group of countries insisting that their country has dozens of military bases, from anything from full-scale bases to "docking facilities" and arms storage, but any other country's actual military units based overseas are not worthy? Also we need to clarify that most of these are in fact just units within local bases. It's extremely misleading to suggest Volkel Air Base is a US base. Instead, it should say "Unit at Volkel Air Base". Rob984 ( talk) 09:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I have heard that someone has deleted the Italian military base in Djibouti , why? , it's similar of those of Japan "Deployment Airforce for Counter-Piracy Enforcement", in Djibouti USA, France, Italy and Japan have Military bases, in the United Arab Emirates, Italy have a similar Military base, I don 't know for what reason someone delete the Military bases of Italy When in the list of other countries there even "Coastal Surveillance Radars", I would like to put also the Coastal Surveillance Radar of Italy , but I just listed the Military Bases , There are many military bases listed in the list of other countries, Which aren't Military Bases or "deployment" as in the case of Turkey. --LuigiPortaro29 22:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuigiPortaro29 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the move request was: Not moved, uncountered opposes ( non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk) 01:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
List of countries with overseas military bases → List of military bases abroad, by operating country – Request this move to address two issues: 1) use "abroad" not "overseas" because Bhutan is not overseas from Pakistan, etc. (as pointed out by Filpro and perhaps others); 2) to suggest properly that this list-article lists all military bases abroad, organized by country controlling them, rather than just listing the countries and not their bases (as brought up in #Name of list-article). do ncr am 22:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
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) 21:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. There does not appear to be consensus for this change, as it slightly changes the focus of the article. ( non-admin closure) Brad v 03:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
List of countries with overseas military bases → List of overseas military bases by country –
Obviously, this title is more accurate. This isn't just a list of countries, its a list of military bases grouped by country.
To User:Iryna Harpy, please actually read the past requested move before knee jerk reverting a straightforward change. It was opposed because it involved changing "overseas military bases" to "military bases aboard". Nothing to do with correcting the poor arrangement of the title, which is what all I have amended here. Edit: I notice you actually commented, what the hell?
Rob984 ( talk) 23:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict)This list was moved to "List of overseas military bases by country" by Rob984. Given that variants on the title (and how it would impact on the content) have been mulled over for some time, I've reverted on the understanding that this is up for WP:CONSENSUS. Personally, I object to the move as the majority of countries in the world don't have OS bases. We've only just established what doesn't constitute a base, and that there are only a handful of countries that do have OS bases per reliable sources. Opening up the title in this manner does not meet with WP:PRECISION. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of countries with overseas military bases. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Concerning these recent additions by Goldring234, I had to revert them as they are either contradicted by the references cited or not supported at all. Please see the definition of what constitutes a base or facility. Chinese military labourers [1] working on highway projects overseas do not qualify, neither do vaguely termed listening/radar "stations' with no data on personnel deployment. Dalbandin Airport would not qualify, as the U.S. ceased its use of Pakistani bases long ago; the Shamsi Airbase was the last publicly known base for the Afghan war which came under Pakistani control in 2011 (see this section). Reliable sources should be used to source such entries and validate the information. Mere claims/speculation are not sufficient. Regards, Mar4d ( talk) 08:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
No issues with that. Can we also revert back the edits which Mar4d added from yesterday as well? Also wanted to add one more thing. The US still operates drone bases in Pakistan as cited in this report [1] Goldring234 ( talk) 14:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
"As a country that not only hosts some 700,000 Indian expatriates but also key Indian listening facilities, Oman is assuming ever-greater importance for New Dehli as an outpost..'
If that is not enough, then consider this [4] as well which is even more forthright even giving the name where that listening post is located (Ras al-Hadd is the name where it is located).
You seem to think that oversees Listening posts, Drone bases, Radar Installations are not 'Military bases' and one hand using that term in a very restrictive way when it comes to Indian overseas military facilities and on the other hand arguing against the presence of 7000 Chinese troops in Gilgit Baltistan as not 'defense-related'. Goldring234 ( talk) 17:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
References
@Mar4d
"The Indian section does not name the bases, or indicate if they are principal occupants. Your rebuttals on the Pakistani troops are largely irrelevant."
The rebuttals on Pakistani troops are very much relevant because they expose the hypocrisy of your argument. The google search (Pakistani troops in Tabuk) you keep citing without giving any specifics is very revealing about the way you go about the whole thing. In which of those links does it mention that Pakistanis are the principal occupants of Tabuk base. Also many of those google links trace back to 2003 and 2010 . Where does it mention that they are still using it in 2017 ? Goldring234 ( talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
"More importantly, I cannot find any sources establishing the number of Indian personnel overseas."
That should not matter at all to state the fact that the facilities do exist. When more information is available that will be included. So far we know from reliable sources that India has oversees military Radar installations and Intelligence collection Listening posts. That all that needs to be told. When more details in terms of personnel is available, that can be included then. Goldring234 ( talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
"This is in contrast to the Pakistani deployments."
No they are not. The sources given for Pakistani deployment in Saudi are as vague and unreliable ( to use your words). They do not mention any details with respect to the personnel or whether they are principal occupants of any base. Goldring234 ( talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
"How, pray tell, is a batch of technicians working on China-Pakistan Economic Corridor equivalent to a defence unit? "
Are you so naive that you can't differentiate between Civilian and Military technicians? Surely you don't think that the Military technicians are building for civilian purposes, do you? All of them are dual use facilities but primarily geared for military strategic objectives. If tomorrow the US troops operating drones from Pakistani bases are engaged in maintenance of those facilities and work on roads leading up it, are you going to argue that they are civilian technicians working on civilian projects? Goldring234 ( talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
"This link contains nothing more than a reference to Indian army claims, so it's not even worth discussing. Finally, the widely ranging figures have no credible sources in any of those refs (the NYT vaguely quotes "journalists, human rights activists" etc.) and given the total Chinese population in Pakistan is 15,000, they appear highly exaggerated."
You can't and should not be judging what is right or wrong claims. That is pushing your opinions and biases. We should be just putting out what the references say. Both the Indian and Western press acknowledge the Chinese military presence in Gilgit-Baltistan. Precisely because both the Chinese and Pakistanis refuse to acknowledge this publicly, they have to rely on the "journalists, human rights activists" etc on the ground for details. Goldring234 ( talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
"I must also note that your account had no edits since 2009, and you suddenly appeared hours after my edit on this article on 8 June. You may be a disruptive WP:SPA for all I know, and WP:NOTHERE for anything other than disruption, and that's another issue. "
Is 'disruptive' your word for someone trying to correct this article with more edits from reliable references. You think too much about yourself. Let me assure you that I am here simply to add more reliable information which I come across. Goldring234 ( talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I will be removing bases that are on the list, but are just located on that country's territory. Overseas is in other states sovereign land, not the U.S. having a base on Guam or Hawaii (for example). Garuda28 ( talk) 18:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The list of Indian bases is bloated presumably to depict the country as an aggressor. While it can be expected that articles on geopolitics would have some Wikipedia editors getting biased, the list on Indian bases seems to have been systematically boated with persistent edits from certain Wikipedia editors who also redo edits of anyone else trying to update the section.
Here are concrete example of systematic abuse of editorial rights:
At this point, it should come as no surprise to anyone that some Wikipedia editors couldn't care less about the integrity of their postings. Moreover, they make persistent edits to make sure no one can undo their edits. Makes you wonder what motivates them. - Pratikus ( talk) 21:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Iryna Harpy Not sure exactly how you can help here but I hope you are taking a note - Pratikus ( talk) 22:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Please stop undoing genuine changes Garuda28 without any rationale or objective critic. Garuda28 et. all You are welcome to present your reasons here on the talk page. I will raise a formal displute within Wikipedia otherwise for vandalism-type undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratikus ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi
Adamgerber80, if the above bullet points were not specific enough for you, we cannot help you. You may very well feel like this is a rant...your feelings are appreciated however let the readers judge for themselves how specific this list is. Editors that do not have anything of value to contribute to this discussion or an article, should not feel compelled to do so. Also, please refrain from personal comments like 'you are ranting' when there is an issue (with a specific list and citations) that needs to be reviewed by genuine editors. There are some guidelines on this:
WP:NPA, and
WP:BATTLEGROUND. -
Pratikus (
talk)
16:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
References
I made a quick search on the subject to see what I could find, and found that there's been lots of speculations, hopes and plans, but there's still no operating Indian Air Force base in Tajikistan. And the main reason for that is that Russia won't allow it. For recent sources see
Russia Beyond: "All these years the Indians have run into the Russian wall as Moscow has been unrelenting in its stand that it doesn’t want foreign powers to deploy fighter aircraft in its backyard and a former territory. The Russians have thus far steadfastly refused to grant this favour to its age-old strategic partner – India"
;
Mail Online India: "India refurbished the base in 2007 but could not base fighters and helicopters there because of Russian pressure"
;
The Diplomat: "There are no reports of Indian combat aircraft having ever been stationed at the base.” India forked out millions renovating the base at Ayni, only to be blocked from moving in by the Russians"
. Or to sum things up: there is no Indian air base in Tajikistan, has never been any, and most probably won't be any either.- Tom |
Thomas.W
talk
21:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi
Thomas.W, That is my understanding as well. A more recent article
[1], mentions the India-Tajik Friendship Hospital and tit is often referred to as a military hospital and seems to be confused with Ayni or Farkhor air base. As far as the air base itself is concerned, the article states that When India was finally ready to proceed with making Ayni fully operational, Russia was having second thoughts. And during the latter half of 2007, Moscow let it be known that it not only opposed Indian deployment, but it also began pressuring President Imomali Rahmon’s (sic) administration in Dushanbe to revoke Indian access to the base.
Pratikus (
talk)
21:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Do these have any place in this article? Speculation seems contradictory to the purpose to me. Garuda28 ( talk) 02:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Garuda28, mere speculation should not be included in this list. A purpose of Wikipedia (or any Encyclopedia in general) is to provide knowledge to the reader. For example, You and I (assuming we are both laymen) speculating on a future military base on our own would not provide any knowledge to a reader. So that should not be included in this list. Nor should any speculation from biased parties (for example traditionally rival countries) be included in this list as that would be speculative propaganda. However, when the Head of State of a sovereign country announces that there will likely be a foreign military base in his/ her country ..... that is knowledge worth mentioning. A quotation from the Head of State (or a named authority speaking on public record) is no longer mere speculation but is knowledge. And it is the purpose of an Encyclopedia to share it. I am assuming the entry related to a potential Chinese base in Azores prompted you to discuss this. Thank you for bringing it up for discussion. The references for this particular entry include quotes from the Prime Minister of Portugal (the host country) and the Cultural Minister of the concerned Portuguese town. Garuda28 Would you say that is mere speculation or that is knowledge? That should be the litmus test to determine if it is worth including on this Wikipedia page. I firmly believe that it is knowledge. -- mapleprat 03:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 03:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Pinging parties with interest: Thomas.W any thoughts? -- mapleprat 03:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 03:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Cam Ranh Bay should be removed from the list of overseas Russian bases - Russia's lease expired years ago.
Cam Ranh is regularly visited by military vessels and aircraft from several nations, but it is not a Russian-leased, owned, or operated facility.
https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/editorials/friendship-visit-to-vietnam/article_70666aa6-2315-11e8-ab2d-9779fe30c4c1.html http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/03/27/vietnam.russia/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.78.193 ( talk) 18:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Currently the description of countries for the UAE base in Somalia/Somaliland looks like this:
I think this style should be expanded to all bases in partially or unrecognised states. The other states relevant to this article are:
It makes the most sense to have the internationally recognised country which the bases reside in, e.g. Moldova for Transnistria, and then the partially recognised state in brackets following. Also the entry for the Turkish base in Northern Cyprus is absurd, as only Turkey recognises it. Following that style, you could change the US base in South Korea to "
North Korea (disputed by
South Korea)". So this entry and the three Russian bases in partially recognised states should follow the Somalia/Somaliland format, acknowledging both international perception and the actual reality that the internationally perceived parent countries have no control in that area. There are also the cases of occupied territory like Crimea and the Golan Heights, and autonomous regions like Iraqi Kuridstan, but those can be sorted out after the style for partially recognised states is.
Doeze (
talk)
13:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I removed the entry for the bases in Akrotiri and Dhekelia or Sovereign Base Areas (SBA) because I believe they do not belong in an article that otherwise contains only bases of sovereign states located in different sovereign states. This edit was undone with the message:
'They are [overseas]. For one they are kept from the Republic of Cyprus for purely military purposes (Cypriot nationality law applies), and secondly BOTs are not part of the UK.'
I disagree with this, firstly because I don't think it matters 'why' they are "kept" from the Republic of Cyprus, just the fact that they are kept means they are not overseas, and secondly because, while BOTs are indeed not part of the UK, and the SBA are unique among them, the whole territory is largely administered by a branch of the UK government. A territory held by a country for the sole purpose of military bases is probably the least "overseas" as military bases can be.
If the consensus is to keep the SBA in the article then there should at least be a consistency, and a similar situation to this is a French base in French Polynesia, which already has information and a reliable government source about it in the article Overseas military bases of France. So it would be best if either bases like these were added to the article, or the SBA entry was removed. Doeze ( talk) 21:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Opening this discussion as requested by @ Adamgerber80: who requested I provide a clearer source for an Emirati base in Assab. The initial source cited was from a Bloomberg source which stated "..the U.A.E. has built a military facility at the Eritrean port town of Assab to support its forces." [11] , on further search there's also multiple other source which documents the same thing. [12] this is another source which documents satellite evidence. Reuters also claims "Abu Dhabi has a military base in Assab which it uses in its military campaign in the war in Yemen, located just across the Red Sea." [13]. Another source: [14]. A source which explains how Al Hudaydah offensive took off from Eritrea [15]. Also, not really a cited source, but I personally know people who were deployed to the Assab base from the UAE military. I've noticed my edits have been reverted more than once with two different resources. I'm not really adamant on adding this piece of information in this article, but wondering why oppose adding it when there's citations proving it? Please clarify your reverts. Thanks Wikiemirati ( talk) 20:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
As everyone know, since 1967 Israel has occupied the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank. having military bases on a land that is run on a daily basis as indistinguishable from the territory that is internationally reconginzed, does NOT mean having bases overseas. Because, if we do so, we will miss the whole idea of the meaning of the term "overseas", and mix it up with the other term of "occupied territories".
So i ask the Wikipedia community to accept my edit and keep it. -- Oren neu dag ( talk) 10:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: "The establishment of military bases abroad enable a country to project power" To: "The establishment of military bases abroad enables a country to project power" The verb needs to agree with establishment, not bases. Establishment is singular, not plural. Radambc2 ( talk) 11:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The British base section is missing Oman facilities:
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-cements-position-in-gulf-with-new-joint-base-in-oman
New training base just opened
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-strengthens-ties-between-uk-and-oman
New port facility and logistics station opened
New bases being made in the South China Sea and Caribbean. (for future article edit once bases completed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy.belcher ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Information to be added or removed: The UK has opened two new bases in Oman; one for training purposes (Omani-British Joint Training Base) and one for naval logistics (Duqm). Explanation of issue: This two new facilities are overseas military bases of the UK not currently listed on the relevant article References supporting change: >training base: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-cements-position-in-gulf-with-new-joint-base-in-oman >naval logistics base: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-strengthens-ties-between-uk-and-oman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy.belcher ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
All the content I added has news sources, and I can find out about them on the Internet. Why do I always withdraw my content? Daboluo123 ( talk) 12:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The Crimean Peninsula is actually controlled by Russia, although it is considered to belong to Ukraine. I think whether a base is in the territory of a country or overseas should be subject to actuality, not de jure. Daboluo123 ( talk) 12:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Issue: Reading through the talkpage above, its seems a lots of reverts and dicussion is mainly due to confusion and/or lack of understanding of the definition and criteria for "overseas military base". It might be clear to the regular watchers of the article. Large majority of readers of the article do not read the talkpage, including those who leave messages on this talkpage they might not read the whole talkpage.
Solution and benefits: Inclusion of a short section with a "clear definition" to serve as the "objective criteria" in the article will help clarify this for the readers, guide future editors/edits, make the maintenance of this article much easier, reduce the edit disputes on the talkpage.
Definition has been agreed long ago by others, I just inclued it in the article: Since the 'definition" has already been discussed on this talkpage above (see Talk:List of countries with overseas military bases#Definition) and consensus was reached more than 4 years ago, which no one has challenged or tried to amend since then, I have gone ahead with the inclusion of that definition in to the article. Subsequent discussions on the talkpage above have also provided the defnition of what is NOT a miltary base for the purpose of this article. Please review the article.
Most editors, while adding a new subsection in this article, usually click on an existing subsection and alphabetically add a new subsection above or below it. I have embessed hidden edit comments on top and bottom inside each nation's subsection to remind editors to read the definition first before adding a new subsection or a military base to an existing subsection. This will also take care of knee-jerk editors who don't read the article sequentially, and jump to add their edit, hence miss/ignore reading the definition.
Don't argue if you don't like my edits, just directly enhance with iterative collaborative edits: I have not added anything of my own. I just took others consensus/discussion above and summarised it. Still my edits might not be the best. Please do ahead and enhenace. I don't care even even if you rephrase everything I did, throw out some of my work, dramatically change my edits, or create consensus on entirely new definition (until then retain the existing one). As a reader and editor, all I care is that when I arrive on this article, I should be able to see a "clear definition" and an "objective criteria" to guide the reading and editing. If you do not like the way I have edited, please do not argue here because its an avoidable headache/exhaustion, instead please go ahead and directly enhance my edits. Thank you in advance.
Tagging the regular editors: I am tagging the editors whom I noticed above being the most prolific and long-timer regular participants in the discussions. These are the Iron lady Iryna Harpy (I wish the hero survior lady editor is doing great), the Military History Guzzler Garuda28 and the Mumbaicha Mulga Adamgerber80, pls add the article to your watchlist if not already done so. I do not know any of you before, just saw you here today, hence no ealrier relations or WP:COI. Their discussion above is the basis of definition in my edit regarding "what is and what is NOT" an overseas military base. Hence, they are best suited to review and directly enhance/rephrase my edits. I thank your all for maintaining this article in a clean objective way. Feel free to tag others. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 ( talk)
Some of the entries have slipped through, those do not meet the criteria as agreed in the various discussion on talkpage above among several editors over the last few years. See
Talk:List of countries with overseas military bases#Definition above, especially
"This list compromises military bases where there are official contracts for the use of territory in one nation-state by another nation-state exclusively, not ancillaries under a broader NATO (or other) agreement for use of a base by a non nation-state body under a cooperative agreement. I've removed the Afghanistan entry for Italy, but I suspect that there are more such entries throughout this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)"
These fell through the cracks, and do not meet the criteria for inclusion.
58.182.176.169 ( talk) 20:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
ATTN: Dear Garuda28 and Iryna Harpy, please watch the persistent efforts by ArtyomSokolov and others to push WP:POV by repeatedly readding//vdandalising text to Turkey. Most of these are military presence, not bases, these are no "signed agreements for the usage or setting up of bases". The soruce cited by the POV pusher editors, itself says that Turkey has presence in 13 nations these "can not be called bases, many of these are just UN peacekeeping arrangements." See the translation of source (source-1). I have removed the following vandalism once again.
58.182.176.169 ( talk) 10:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
ATTN: Dear all, and Garuda28, Iryna Harpy, Riddhidev BISWAS
Please watch the persistent efforts by editors to insert Pakistan. It has merely sent trianers and advisors, there is not agreement where Pakistan can use Saudi bases except for providing training to Saudis. I had earlier removed it. Someone reinserted it. Please review Pakistan's sources. Leep a close watch on text and people related to Pakistan and Trukey. Also see Pak does not have a base in Saudi. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 10:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Eclipsed830: The unit you are citing is a U.S. military unit that trains Taiwanese pilots, which is different than any of the other training bases here, which are units of those countries that train in a foreign state. Garuda28 ( talk) 16:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Garuda28: So we should keep Taiwan and Luke Air Force Base, but remove the specific unit? Perhaps the definitions and other examples are a bit too loose. It's the same exact setup as Singapore and Germany have with the United States, which is also listed on this wiki- "Singapore - United States – Mountain Home Air Force Base (training base);[46] Luke Air Force Base (training base)[47]" "Germany - United States – Aircraft training facilities at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico and at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida. (training base)" Eclipsed830 ( talk) 16:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Inf-in MD: There isn't anything currently on that page related to the Golan Heights, so I don't see how adding a 500/30 restriction would we warranted here given the lack of conflict. Guettarda ( talk) 15:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Inf-in MD: you appear to have removed the section in the article but left tag on the talk page, please explain yourself. I’m having a very hard time coming up with a scenario where those actions make sense together and aren’t WP:POINTY. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Camp Eagle in Bosnia has been handed over to the Bosnian Federal Armed Forces by the US. Also says so in the Wikipedia article this links to. 2A01:598:D828:1BE5:D825:8EE6:790A:9D05 ( talk) 17:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
can we add the iranian & israeli bases in eritrea? https://www.haaretz.com/2012-12-12/ty-article/.premium/israel-iran-have-bases-in-eritrea/0000017f-efe8-d497-a1ff-efe863340000 Bakheer ( talk) 00:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
The presence of Chinese bases in Cambodia and Myanmar is not confirmed, as I clarified in the article. This is confirmed by other sources and noted by Wikipedia as well, as the pages of both bases (Cocos Island and Ream Naval Base) also say that there is no confirmation of the presence of Chinese bases. The only confirmed Chinese overseas military base is in Djibouti. Rigorosho ( talk) 11:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)User:Rigorosho
As of 2023, there are no confirmed news reports that suggest the deployment of Chinese assets at Gwadar port. News articles and reports do note the possibility that the port could host military assets in the future.
April 2, 2018 "The prospect of the PLA Navy in Gwadar poses greater security questions" [16]
June 2, 2020 "Whether the Chinese naval base materializes remains to be seen." [17]
July 27, 2023 "Gwadar in Pakistan are the three most likely locations for a Chinese naval base to be established in the next two to five years" [18]
Zanonomous ( talk) 00:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is Georgia not in red marked on the map when its shown in the list?
If Moldova is also red because of Transnistria, Georgia should be aswell. Sp4nX383 ( talk) 14:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 February 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Военные базы стран мира за рубежом from ru.wikipedia. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Alzubaira.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The french section is in french despite being an english page as Im not a french speaker Id request someone to translate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huskermax5 ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I think that the troops in northern ireland should be excluded from this article cause the northern ireland is a part of the UK but not the foreign terrotory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.214.175 ( talk) 11:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The british base in nepal is not a base per se, but an office that looks after Gorkha recruitment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.83.63.193 ( talk) 11:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of countries with overseas military bases's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Podvig-History":
Reference named "Astronautix":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Kosovo of Serbia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.228.166 ( talk) 00:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The article should stick to countries that are internationally recognized. Crimea is NOT internationally recognized as Russian. The UN condemned Russia's annexation there. Transdniester is NOT an internationally recognized country. Neither are South Osettia or Abkhazia. Please refrain from further vandalism. Changing the names to fringe view points is not conducive to producing an encyclopedic article. -- 108.31.150.218 ( talk) 11:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The "UN condemned" Russia's annexation of Crimea with less that 52% of the member states representing less than 34% of the world's population. This is the definition of "internationally recognized"? Szerbey ( talk) 12:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262
-G
I am opening this section per my comments at User talk:Trabant1963. Editor Trabant1963's last edit to this list-article was this one, which is a disputed change, and I myself just reverted it. I asked Trabant1963 to discuss here rather than re-making the change. Trabant, could you please explain what change(s) you want to make, and why? By the way, in Trabant's past edits to this list-article, I noticed that they were perhaps trying to edit the Russia section to present it from Russia's point of view. I think it may be reasonable to try to do that. For example, if there is disagreement about Sevastopol in the Crimea (which Russia may consider to be part of Russia now) then the Russia section could first list the military bases that Russia considers to be outside of Russia, and then also explain any different views. However that would require sources that establish clearly what Russia's perspective is, for example to establish that Russia officially considers Sevastopol to be a part of Russia, if it does. -- do ncr am 21:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Update: Further, I just tried this change to the Russia section, which may be considered a Bold edit and anyone may revert it. But I hope it can be considered as a compromise. What it shows now is:
Russia also has military in the Crimea, which Russia may consider to have joined Russia as a result of the the 2014 referendum, although has not been recognized by most other countries. Most countries consider the Crimea to be part of the Ukraine, and thus consider Russia's military there to be overseas from Russia:
and
* Crimea - Base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol,[reference to Klein] (Crimea is considered part of the Ukraine by most countries, but it is under Russian control as a result of the 2014 Crimean crisis). Around 26,000 personnel.[reference to Klein]
In that I tried to accurately reflect that the Crimea is considered to be overseas by most countries but may not be considered overseas by Russia. Perhaps it may be longer than absolutely necessary, but I don't think it matters if it is a bit wordy, as long as it is clear. I deliberately used "weasel" ( wp:WEASEL) wording in saying "Russia may consider to have joined" and hope that can be accepted temporarily. I would prefer to have it improved by stating Russia's view more clearly with a reference that directly establishes what Russia's official view is, and I would appreciate if anyone else could add that. Hope this helps. -- do ncr am 22:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Ukraine - Base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, Crimea (now joined Russia as a result of the 2014 referendum which was not recognized by the majority of the countries). Around 26,000 personnel. - correctly and truly. Let her show where it's false— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabant1963 ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Currently in the United States section there is a list of countries where the U.S. has bases. The first item is Afghanistan. But that takes the reader to Wikipedia's article about the country, not to more specific information about U.S. bases there. Unfortunately the List of United States military bases article mentions Afghanistan bases in a couple separated places, so I don't see any specific target for a link to one place covering them in more detail. How about changing the first entry to, say:
which summarizes from the List of United States military bases main article. Or use "multiple" instead of the "nine" and "seven"? -- do ncr am 22:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the tags for expanding this article further using the RU version as, having checked it, it's been tagged for needing to be updated, doesn't carry references, and has fallen behind this article in terms of being comprehensive.
Instead, I've tagged it for the lead needing to be rewritten, plus for more references to be found (simply because much of it is unreferenced and I don't want to WP:TAGBOMB it. Per WP:TITLE, the article is "List of countries with overseas military bases" which the article adheres to, although it is open to expansion. The WP:LEAD, however, addresses only US and Russian bases and the significance of a new escalation of post-Cold War strategic bases, omitting Pakistani/Indian, Middle Eastern, and other relationships: the substance of which also needs to be referenced. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 22:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
There have been a number of changes made to the number of US facilities and number of personnel in South Korea over the last few days. While I don't doubt that these changes are good faith, nor doubt that they are fairly close to the reality, reliable sources are lacking, therefore I've tagged them for better sources.
Per WP:WINARS (Wikipedia is not a reliable source), the articles being referenced are, in themselves, badly referenced with multiple red links and unverifiable content. Any assistance in providing reliable references would be appreciated. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
What actually constitutes an "overseas military base" on here? For the UK, I've been listing permanent overseas bases. These are bases that the UK owns regardless of whether or not they are being used for operations. I believe the bases listed for the USA, Russia and France follow that guideline too. However, I've noticed that some countries (Italy, for example) have Afghanistan listed just because they're contributing troops to Operation Resolute Support? If we're listing deployments as overseas bases then we'd be here forever listing the deployments of the USA, UK and France. I recommend we only list the permanent ones. What does everybody else think? TheArmchairSoldier ( talk) 11:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be named "List of overseas military bases by operating country" or something like that? Or simply "List of overseas military bases"? This is fundamentally a list of operating bases, organized by the countries that have them. -- do ncr am 16:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
"by the countries that have them."(my emphasis). -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Given that this is a "List of countries with overseas military bases", not "List of countries with overseas military bases and planned military bases", I've removed content only just introduced on Turkish bases as WP:NOTNEWS. Planned bases are not operating bases: they're not operative until they've been constructed and personnel are officially and actively in place. It is not even guaranteed that any agreements by the host country will be honoured until such a time as the base is officially operative (unless one has a WP:CRYSTAL ball). -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
This part seems outdated. With the reduction of US troops in Afghanistan, the number of US bases there has been reduced, with some closed and others transfered to the Afghan Armed Forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.201.37 ( talk) 12:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Someone can explain why should be deleted the Italian Military bases in : Albania, United Arab Emirates, Kosovo,Lebanon,Malta and Somalia? and why the list of India are not removed yet? in the List of India the list quote : Bhutan, Madagascar Maldives,Mauritius, Seychelles when the listed quotes are just Coastal Surveillance Radar (CSR) less relevant than a Military base and a curiosity is that the quote of Bhutan is just a team of trainer, and all the resource come from Indian journals of last year that nobody know if those facilities are under construction or are in full Functionality. here there is no "impartiality", so I will quote again the list of the Italian bases in Albania, United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Lebanon, Malta and Somalia, Since they are structures that work today under the command of Italian military, in Italian bases and with military employees in various areas, from the main building of the training of security and forces armed movements of those countries.-- LuigiPortaro29 ( talk) 12:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- The British base in Nepal is not a base and just an office to administer recruitment.
- The Indian Army has multiple bases in Bhutan (on the eastern and western fronts of Bhutan - including a small air force presence in Paro Airport, the training mission (IMTRAT) is separate from the bases. It also maintains a small air force unit in Surkhet in Nepal and an administrative unit for recruitment of Nepalese soldiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.83.63.193 ( talk) 11:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not really interested in the Italian and Indian military bases issue. But please stop removing actual french military bases from the article. 109.77.121.90 ( talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Should French Guiana, Polynesia, Reunion, Mayotte etc be listed under "overseas" bases? These are part of France, and (perhaps with the exception of bits of Poylnesia, parts of the EU also). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
41.82.99.10 (
talk)
15:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Seems to just be editors from a certain country / group of countries insisting that their country has dozens of military bases, from anything from full-scale bases to "docking facilities" and arms storage, but any other country's actual military units based overseas are not worthy? Also we need to clarify that most of these are in fact just units within local bases. It's extremely misleading to suggest Volkel Air Base is a US base. Instead, it should say "Unit at Volkel Air Base". Rob984 ( talk) 09:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I have heard that someone has deleted the Italian military base in Djibouti , why? , it's similar of those of Japan "Deployment Airforce for Counter-Piracy Enforcement", in Djibouti USA, France, Italy and Japan have Military bases, in the United Arab Emirates, Italy have a similar Military base, I don 't know for what reason someone delete the Military bases of Italy When in the list of other countries there even "Coastal Surveillance Radars", I would like to put also the Coastal Surveillance Radar of Italy , but I just listed the Military Bases , There are many military bases listed in the list of other countries, Which aren't Military Bases or "deployment" as in the case of Turkey. --LuigiPortaro29 22:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuigiPortaro29 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the move request was: Not moved, uncountered opposes ( non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk) 01:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
List of countries with overseas military bases → List of military bases abroad, by operating country – Request this move to address two issues: 1) use "abroad" not "overseas" because Bhutan is not overseas from Pakistan, etc. (as pointed out by Filpro and perhaps others); 2) to suggest properly that this list-article lists all military bases abroad, organized by country controlling them, rather than just listing the countries and not their bases (as brought up in #Name of list-article). do ncr am 22:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
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) 21:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. There does not appear to be consensus for this change, as it slightly changes the focus of the article. ( non-admin closure) Brad v 03:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
List of countries with overseas military bases → List of overseas military bases by country –
Obviously, this title is more accurate. This isn't just a list of countries, its a list of military bases grouped by country.
To User:Iryna Harpy, please actually read the past requested move before knee jerk reverting a straightforward change. It was opposed because it involved changing "overseas military bases" to "military bases aboard". Nothing to do with correcting the poor arrangement of the title, which is what all I have amended here. Edit: I notice you actually commented, what the hell?
Rob984 ( talk) 23:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict)This list was moved to "List of overseas military bases by country" by Rob984. Given that variants on the title (and how it would impact on the content) have been mulled over for some time, I've reverted on the understanding that this is up for WP:CONSENSUS. Personally, I object to the move as the majority of countries in the world don't have OS bases. We've only just established what doesn't constitute a base, and that there are only a handful of countries that do have OS bases per reliable sources. Opening up the title in this manner does not meet with WP:PRECISION. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of countries with overseas military bases. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Concerning these recent additions by Goldring234, I had to revert them as they are either contradicted by the references cited or not supported at all. Please see the definition of what constitutes a base or facility. Chinese military labourers [1] working on highway projects overseas do not qualify, neither do vaguely termed listening/radar "stations' with no data on personnel deployment. Dalbandin Airport would not qualify, as the U.S. ceased its use of Pakistani bases long ago; the Shamsi Airbase was the last publicly known base for the Afghan war which came under Pakistani control in 2011 (see this section). Reliable sources should be used to source such entries and validate the information. Mere claims/speculation are not sufficient. Regards, Mar4d ( talk) 08:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
No issues with that. Can we also revert back the edits which Mar4d added from yesterday as well? Also wanted to add one more thing. The US still operates drone bases in Pakistan as cited in this report [1] Goldring234 ( talk) 14:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
"As a country that not only hosts some 700,000 Indian expatriates but also key Indian listening facilities, Oman is assuming ever-greater importance for New Dehli as an outpost..'
If that is not enough, then consider this [4] as well which is even more forthright even giving the name where that listening post is located (Ras al-Hadd is the name where it is located).
You seem to think that oversees Listening posts, Drone bases, Radar Installations are not 'Military bases' and one hand using that term in a very restrictive way when it comes to Indian overseas military facilities and on the other hand arguing against the presence of 7000 Chinese troops in Gilgit Baltistan as not 'defense-related'. Goldring234 ( talk) 17:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
References
@Mar4d
"The Indian section does not name the bases, or indicate if they are principal occupants. Your rebuttals on the Pakistani troops are largely irrelevant."
The rebuttals on Pakistani troops are very much relevant because they expose the hypocrisy of your argument. The google search (Pakistani troops in Tabuk) you keep citing without giving any specifics is very revealing about the way you go about the whole thing. In which of those links does it mention that Pakistanis are the principal occupants of Tabuk base. Also many of those google links trace back to 2003 and 2010 . Where does it mention that they are still using it in 2017 ? Goldring234 ( talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
"More importantly, I cannot find any sources establishing the number of Indian personnel overseas."
That should not matter at all to state the fact that the facilities do exist. When more information is available that will be included. So far we know from reliable sources that India has oversees military Radar installations and Intelligence collection Listening posts. That all that needs to be told. When more details in terms of personnel is available, that can be included then. Goldring234 ( talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
"This is in contrast to the Pakistani deployments."
No they are not. The sources given for Pakistani deployment in Saudi are as vague and unreliable ( to use your words). They do not mention any details with respect to the personnel or whether they are principal occupants of any base. Goldring234 ( talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
"How, pray tell, is a batch of technicians working on China-Pakistan Economic Corridor equivalent to a defence unit? "
Are you so naive that you can't differentiate between Civilian and Military technicians? Surely you don't think that the Military technicians are building for civilian purposes, do you? All of them are dual use facilities but primarily geared for military strategic objectives. If tomorrow the US troops operating drones from Pakistani bases are engaged in maintenance of those facilities and work on roads leading up it, are you going to argue that they are civilian technicians working on civilian projects? Goldring234 ( talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
"This link contains nothing more than a reference to Indian army claims, so it's not even worth discussing. Finally, the widely ranging figures have no credible sources in any of those refs (the NYT vaguely quotes "journalists, human rights activists" etc.) and given the total Chinese population in Pakistan is 15,000, they appear highly exaggerated."
You can't and should not be judging what is right or wrong claims. That is pushing your opinions and biases. We should be just putting out what the references say. Both the Indian and Western press acknowledge the Chinese military presence in Gilgit-Baltistan. Precisely because both the Chinese and Pakistanis refuse to acknowledge this publicly, they have to rely on the "journalists, human rights activists" etc on the ground for details. Goldring234 ( talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
"I must also note that your account had no edits since 2009, and you suddenly appeared hours after my edit on this article on 8 June. You may be a disruptive WP:SPA for all I know, and WP:NOTHERE for anything other than disruption, and that's another issue. "
Is 'disruptive' your word for someone trying to correct this article with more edits from reliable references. You think too much about yourself. Let me assure you that I am here simply to add more reliable information which I come across. Goldring234 ( talk) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I will be removing bases that are on the list, but are just located on that country's territory. Overseas is in other states sovereign land, not the U.S. having a base on Guam or Hawaii (for example). Garuda28 ( talk) 18:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The list of Indian bases is bloated presumably to depict the country as an aggressor. While it can be expected that articles on geopolitics would have some Wikipedia editors getting biased, the list on Indian bases seems to have been systematically boated with persistent edits from certain Wikipedia editors who also redo edits of anyone else trying to update the section.
Here are concrete example of systematic abuse of editorial rights:
At this point, it should come as no surprise to anyone that some Wikipedia editors couldn't care less about the integrity of their postings. Moreover, they make persistent edits to make sure no one can undo their edits. Makes you wonder what motivates them. - Pratikus ( talk) 21:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Iryna Harpy Not sure exactly how you can help here but I hope you are taking a note - Pratikus ( talk) 22:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Please stop undoing genuine changes Garuda28 without any rationale or objective critic. Garuda28 et. all You are welcome to present your reasons here on the talk page. I will raise a formal displute within Wikipedia otherwise for vandalism-type undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratikus ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi
Adamgerber80, if the above bullet points were not specific enough for you, we cannot help you. You may very well feel like this is a rant...your feelings are appreciated however let the readers judge for themselves how specific this list is. Editors that do not have anything of value to contribute to this discussion or an article, should not feel compelled to do so. Also, please refrain from personal comments like 'you are ranting' when there is an issue (with a specific list and citations) that needs to be reviewed by genuine editors. There are some guidelines on this:
WP:NPA, and
WP:BATTLEGROUND. -
Pratikus (
talk)
16:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
References
I made a quick search on the subject to see what I could find, and found that there's been lots of speculations, hopes and plans, but there's still no operating Indian Air Force base in Tajikistan. And the main reason for that is that Russia won't allow it. For recent sources see
Russia Beyond: "All these years the Indians have run into the Russian wall as Moscow has been unrelenting in its stand that it doesn’t want foreign powers to deploy fighter aircraft in its backyard and a former territory. The Russians have thus far steadfastly refused to grant this favour to its age-old strategic partner – India"
;
Mail Online India: "India refurbished the base in 2007 but could not base fighters and helicopters there because of Russian pressure"
;
The Diplomat: "There are no reports of Indian combat aircraft having ever been stationed at the base.” India forked out millions renovating the base at Ayni, only to be blocked from moving in by the Russians"
. Or to sum things up: there is no Indian air base in Tajikistan, has never been any, and most probably won't be any either.- Tom |
Thomas.W
talk
21:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi
Thomas.W, That is my understanding as well. A more recent article
[1], mentions the India-Tajik Friendship Hospital and tit is often referred to as a military hospital and seems to be confused with Ayni or Farkhor air base. As far as the air base itself is concerned, the article states that When India was finally ready to proceed with making Ayni fully operational, Russia was having second thoughts. And during the latter half of 2007, Moscow let it be known that it not only opposed Indian deployment, but it also began pressuring President Imomali Rahmon’s (sic) administration in Dushanbe to revoke Indian access to the base.
Pratikus (
talk)
21:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Do these have any place in this article? Speculation seems contradictory to the purpose to me. Garuda28 ( talk) 02:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Garuda28, mere speculation should not be included in this list. A purpose of Wikipedia (or any Encyclopedia in general) is to provide knowledge to the reader. For example, You and I (assuming we are both laymen) speculating on a future military base on our own would not provide any knowledge to a reader. So that should not be included in this list. Nor should any speculation from biased parties (for example traditionally rival countries) be included in this list as that would be speculative propaganda. However, when the Head of State of a sovereign country announces that there will likely be a foreign military base in his/ her country ..... that is knowledge worth mentioning. A quotation from the Head of State (or a named authority speaking on public record) is no longer mere speculation but is knowledge. And it is the purpose of an Encyclopedia to share it. I am assuming the entry related to a potential Chinese base in Azores prompted you to discuss this. Thank you for bringing it up for discussion. The references for this particular entry include quotes from the Prime Minister of Portugal (the host country) and the Cultural Minister of the concerned Portuguese town. Garuda28 Would you say that is mere speculation or that is knowledge? That should be the litmus test to determine if it is worth including on this Wikipedia page. I firmly believe that it is knowledge. -- mapleprat 03:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 03:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Pinging parties with interest: Thomas.W any thoughts? -- mapleprat 03:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 03:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Cam Ranh Bay should be removed from the list of overseas Russian bases - Russia's lease expired years ago.
Cam Ranh is regularly visited by military vessels and aircraft from several nations, but it is not a Russian-leased, owned, or operated facility.
https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/editorials/friendship-visit-to-vietnam/article_70666aa6-2315-11e8-ab2d-9779fe30c4c1.html http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/03/27/vietnam.russia/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.78.193 ( talk) 18:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Currently the description of countries for the UAE base in Somalia/Somaliland looks like this:
I think this style should be expanded to all bases in partially or unrecognised states. The other states relevant to this article are:
It makes the most sense to have the internationally recognised country which the bases reside in, e.g. Moldova for Transnistria, and then the partially recognised state in brackets following. Also the entry for the Turkish base in Northern Cyprus is absurd, as only Turkey recognises it. Following that style, you could change the US base in South Korea to "
North Korea (disputed by
South Korea)". So this entry and the three Russian bases in partially recognised states should follow the Somalia/Somaliland format, acknowledging both international perception and the actual reality that the internationally perceived parent countries have no control in that area. There are also the cases of occupied territory like Crimea and the Golan Heights, and autonomous regions like Iraqi Kuridstan, but those can be sorted out after the style for partially recognised states is.
Doeze (
talk)
13:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I removed the entry for the bases in Akrotiri and Dhekelia or Sovereign Base Areas (SBA) because I believe they do not belong in an article that otherwise contains only bases of sovereign states located in different sovereign states. This edit was undone with the message:
'They are [overseas]. For one they are kept from the Republic of Cyprus for purely military purposes (Cypriot nationality law applies), and secondly BOTs are not part of the UK.'
I disagree with this, firstly because I don't think it matters 'why' they are "kept" from the Republic of Cyprus, just the fact that they are kept means they are not overseas, and secondly because, while BOTs are indeed not part of the UK, and the SBA are unique among them, the whole territory is largely administered by a branch of the UK government. A territory held by a country for the sole purpose of military bases is probably the least "overseas" as military bases can be.
If the consensus is to keep the SBA in the article then there should at least be a consistency, and a similar situation to this is a French base in French Polynesia, which already has information and a reliable government source about it in the article Overseas military bases of France. So it would be best if either bases like these were added to the article, or the SBA entry was removed. Doeze ( talk) 21:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Opening this discussion as requested by @ Adamgerber80: who requested I provide a clearer source for an Emirati base in Assab. The initial source cited was from a Bloomberg source which stated "..the U.A.E. has built a military facility at the Eritrean port town of Assab to support its forces." [11] , on further search there's also multiple other source which documents the same thing. [12] this is another source which documents satellite evidence. Reuters also claims "Abu Dhabi has a military base in Assab which it uses in its military campaign in the war in Yemen, located just across the Red Sea." [13]. Another source: [14]. A source which explains how Al Hudaydah offensive took off from Eritrea [15]. Also, not really a cited source, but I personally know people who were deployed to the Assab base from the UAE military. I've noticed my edits have been reverted more than once with two different resources. I'm not really adamant on adding this piece of information in this article, but wondering why oppose adding it when there's citations proving it? Please clarify your reverts. Thanks Wikiemirati ( talk) 20:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
As everyone know, since 1967 Israel has occupied the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank. having military bases on a land that is run on a daily basis as indistinguishable from the territory that is internationally reconginzed, does NOT mean having bases overseas. Because, if we do so, we will miss the whole idea of the meaning of the term "overseas", and mix it up with the other term of "occupied territories".
So i ask the Wikipedia community to accept my edit and keep it. -- Oren neu dag ( talk) 10:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: "The establishment of military bases abroad enable a country to project power" To: "The establishment of military bases abroad enables a country to project power" The verb needs to agree with establishment, not bases. Establishment is singular, not plural. Radambc2 ( talk) 11:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The British base section is missing Oman facilities:
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-cements-position-in-gulf-with-new-joint-base-in-oman
New training base just opened
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-strengthens-ties-between-uk-and-oman
New port facility and logistics station opened
New bases being made in the South China Sea and Caribbean. (for future article edit once bases completed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy.belcher ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Information to be added or removed: The UK has opened two new bases in Oman; one for training purposes (Omani-British Joint Training Base) and one for naval logistics (Duqm). Explanation of issue: This two new facilities are overseas military bases of the UK not currently listed on the relevant article References supporting change: >training base: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-cements-position-in-gulf-with-new-joint-base-in-oman >naval logistics base: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-strengthens-ties-between-uk-and-oman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy.belcher ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
All the content I added has news sources, and I can find out about them on the Internet. Why do I always withdraw my content? Daboluo123 ( talk) 12:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The Crimean Peninsula is actually controlled by Russia, although it is considered to belong to Ukraine. I think whether a base is in the territory of a country or overseas should be subject to actuality, not de jure. Daboluo123 ( talk) 12:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Issue: Reading through the talkpage above, its seems a lots of reverts and dicussion is mainly due to confusion and/or lack of understanding of the definition and criteria for "overseas military base". It might be clear to the regular watchers of the article. Large majority of readers of the article do not read the talkpage, including those who leave messages on this talkpage they might not read the whole talkpage.
Solution and benefits: Inclusion of a short section with a "clear definition" to serve as the "objective criteria" in the article will help clarify this for the readers, guide future editors/edits, make the maintenance of this article much easier, reduce the edit disputes on the talkpage.
Definition has been agreed long ago by others, I just inclued it in the article: Since the 'definition" has already been discussed on this talkpage above (see Talk:List of countries with overseas military bases#Definition) and consensus was reached more than 4 years ago, which no one has challenged or tried to amend since then, I have gone ahead with the inclusion of that definition in to the article. Subsequent discussions on the talkpage above have also provided the defnition of what is NOT a miltary base for the purpose of this article. Please review the article.
Most editors, while adding a new subsection in this article, usually click on an existing subsection and alphabetically add a new subsection above or below it. I have embessed hidden edit comments on top and bottom inside each nation's subsection to remind editors to read the definition first before adding a new subsection or a military base to an existing subsection. This will also take care of knee-jerk editors who don't read the article sequentially, and jump to add their edit, hence miss/ignore reading the definition.
Don't argue if you don't like my edits, just directly enhance with iterative collaborative edits: I have not added anything of my own. I just took others consensus/discussion above and summarised it. Still my edits might not be the best. Please do ahead and enhenace. I don't care even even if you rephrase everything I did, throw out some of my work, dramatically change my edits, or create consensus on entirely new definition (until then retain the existing one). As a reader and editor, all I care is that when I arrive on this article, I should be able to see a "clear definition" and an "objective criteria" to guide the reading and editing. If you do not like the way I have edited, please do not argue here because its an avoidable headache/exhaustion, instead please go ahead and directly enhance my edits. Thank you in advance.
Tagging the regular editors: I am tagging the editors whom I noticed above being the most prolific and long-timer regular participants in the discussions. These are the Iron lady Iryna Harpy (I wish the hero survior lady editor is doing great), the Military History Guzzler Garuda28 and the Mumbaicha Mulga Adamgerber80, pls add the article to your watchlist if not already done so. I do not know any of you before, just saw you here today, hence no ealrier relations or WP:COI. Their discussion above is the basis of definition in my edit regarding "what is and what is NOT" an overseas military base. Hence, they are best suited to review and directly enhance/rephrase my edits. I thank your all for maintaining this article in a clean objective way. Feel free to tag others. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 ( talk)
Some of the entries have slipped through, those do not meet the criteria as agreed in the various discussion on talkpage above among several editors over the last few years. See
Talk:List of countries with overseas military bases#Definition above, especially
"This list compromises military bases where there are official contracts for the use of territory in one nation-state by another nation-state exclusively, not ancillaries under a broader NATO (or other) agreement for use of a base by a non nation-state body under a cooperative agreement. I've removed the Afghanistan entry for Italy, but I suspect that there are more such entries throughout this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)"
These fell through the cracks, and do not meet the criteria for inclusion.
58.182.176.169 ( talk) 20:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
ATTN: Dear Garuda28 and Iryna Harpy, please watch the persistent efforts by ArtyomSokolov and others to push WP:POV by repeatedly readding//vdandalising text to Turkey. Most of these are military presence, not bases, these are no "signed agreements for the usage or setting up of bases". The soruce cited by the POV pusher editors, itself says that Turkey has presence in 13 nations these "can not be called bases, many of these are just UN peacekeeping arrangements." See the translation of source (source-1). I have removed the following vandalism once again.
58.182.176.169 ( talk) 10:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
ATTN: Dear all, and Garuda28, Iryna Harpy, Riddhidev BISWAS
Please watch the persistent efforts by editors to insert Pakistan. It has merely sent trianers and advisors, there is not agreement where Pakistan can use Saudi bases except for providing training to Saudis. I had earlier removed it. Someone reinserted it. Please review Pakistan's sources. Leep a close watch on text and people related to Pakistan and Trukey. Also see Pak does not have a base in Saudi. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 10:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Eclipsed830: The unit you are citing is a U.S. military unit that trains Taiwanese pilots, which is different than any of the other training bases here, which are units of those countries that train in a foreign state. Garuda28 ( talk) 16:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Garuda28: So we should keep Taiwan and Luke Air Force Base, but remove the specific unit? Perhaps the definitions and other examples are a bit too loose. It's the same exact setup as Singapore and Germany have with the United States, which is also listed on this wiki- "Singapore - United States – Mountain Home Air Force Base (training base);[46] Luke Air Force Base (training base)[47]" "Germany - United States – Aircraft training facilities at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico and at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida. (training base)" Eclipsed830 ( talk) 16:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Inf-in MD: There isn't anything currently on that page related to the Golan Heights, so I don't see how adding a 500/30 restriction would we warranted here given the lack of conflict. Guettarda ( talk) 15:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Inf-in MD: you appear to have removed the section in the article but left tag on the talk page, please explain yourself. I’m having a very hard time coming up with a scenario where those actions make sense together and aren’t WP:POINTY. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Camp Eagle in Bosnia has been handed over to the Bosnian Federal Armed Forces by the US. Also says so in the Wikipedia article this links to. 2A01:598:D828:1BE5:D825:8EE6:790A:9D05 ( talk) 17:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
can we add the iranian & israeli bases in eritrea? https://www.haaretz.com/2012-12-12/ty-article/.premium/israel-iran-have-bases-in-eritrea/0000017f-efe8-d497-a1ff-efe863340000 Bakheer ( talk) 00:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
The presence of Chinese bases in Cambodia and Myanmar is not confirmed, as I clarified in the article. This is confirmed by other sources and noted by Wikipedia as well, as the pages of both bases (Cocos Island and Ream Naval Base) also say that there is no confirmation of the presence of Chinese bases. The only confirmed Chinese overseas military base is in Djibouti. Rigorosho ( talk) 11:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)User:Rigorosho
As of 2023, there are no confirmed news reports that suggest the deployment of Chinese assets at Gwadar port. News articles and reports do note the possibility that the port could host military assets in the future.
April 2, 2018 "The prospect of the PLA Navy in Gwadar poses greater security questions" [16]
June 2, 2020 "Whether the Chinese naval base materializes remains to be seen." [17]
July 27, 2023 "Gwadar in Pakistan are the three most likely locations for a Chinese naval base to be established in the next two to five years" [18]
Zanonomous ( talk) 00:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is Georgia not in red marked on the map when its shown in the list?
If Moldova is also red because of Transnistria, Georgia should be aswell. Sp4nX383 ( talk) 14:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)