Posted on 01/02/2024 2:13:47 PM PST by Macho MAGA Man
See my post #22 for what the difference is:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4207336/posts?page=22#22
Part of the Cuban Missile Crisis deal was removing missiles from Turkey and Italy....but we didn't tell anybody.
Turkey knows that any transfer of ships from Britain to Romania would be destined for Ukraine. Thus, it would block any such transit through the Bosporus.
.
“PS, it was just an observation, no reason for the personal insults. Grow up.”
Nice try, kid.
Your posting history speaks for itself: You oppose Ukraine in this conflict and you oppose NATO.
In any event, the last time the Brits fought the Turks was in WWI, over 100 years ago. And that was because Turkey (the Ottoman Empire) was part of the Central Powers, the alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire. In other words, Britain and Turkey (the Ottoman Empire) were enemies in WWI. Besides Gallipoli, there were the battles with the Turks in which British officer T.E. Lawrence (”Lawrence of Arabia”) played a significant role.
“But the constant, if anything happens in the black sea, the UK acts like it’s a critical interest.”
It’s not that much different from the Gulf of Mexico. Just think of the disruption the closure or blockade of the Gulf of Mexico would have. Maintaining the freedom of the seas benefits everyone.
“And I’ll go one further, if hypothetically we never had another ship from America into or out of the Black Sea, what the hell difference would it make to any American?”
See my comment above.
Again, see the Montreux Convention.
If the ships belonged to Romania (which has a Black Sea coastline) they legally would be allowed to enter if protocols observed, required notice given, etc.
The UK does not have a coastline on the Black Sea.
Naturally, Turkey does not want escalation in the black Sea. UK military ships entering into those waters certainly risks escalation.
I know about the Montreaux Convention. And I also know that Turkey’s application of it is situational.
No one fears angering the United States or her allies any more.
The feeble mindedness and weakness of Biden is not a secret to the anti-American interests.
China testing the limits with Taiwan still to come.
Iran feeling it can flex muscles against the Great Satan any time.
Ukraine was once part of the Ottoman Empire.
They appear to be much smaller than the max of this canal.
Minehunter
Displacement 600 t (590 long tons; 660 short tons)[1]
Length 52.5 m (172 ft 3 in)
Beam 10.9 m (35 ft 9 in)
Draught 2.3 m (7 ft 7 in)
Canal
Length 171 km (106 mi)
Maximum boat length 190 m (623 ft)
Maximum boat beam 11.45 m (38 ft)
Maximum boat draft 4 m (13 ft)
Locks 16
The width is tight.
Of course it’s situational. The Turks wisely do not want escalation (as I wrote before).
Romania has a right to see to its own security under the Convention. Both Ukrainian and Russian mines are drifting about, and Romania has the right to its own minesweepers crewed by Romanians (not British) to clear its territorial waters.
In addition, there is apparently a trilateral agreement in the works for Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey to clear the loose Ukrainian and Russian mines floating about in the Black Sea. See:
If this is really about grain shipments, Romanian mine sweepers can handle it. The grain is shipped from Ukraine’s Danube ports on its border with Romania (see a map if needed). If the UK is really concerned about grain shipments, why not transfer the boats to Romania? And let the Romanians sail them in? No probs, as Romania is not a warring party and it has a Black Sea coastline. (And has the good sense not to get all scrappy with the Russians and cause an incident, unlike the Brits.)
Also, remember that the Convention applies to warships of non-Black Sea nations that have guns more than a caliber of 8 inches (200 mm). I don’t know what these two minesweepers possess, but minesweepers generally are very lightly armed; I am unaware of any that have an 8” or larger gun (I think the most common gun on a minesweeper is around 20 mm; but I defer to those who are more knowledgeable on the subject).
Also, minesweepers are basically defensive in nature (their mission is to REMOVE sea mines, which pose a hazard to shipping in general).
This recent development re: the British minesweepers creates some interesting scenarios.
See my Post #52.
In wartime, Turkey can block any dang outside military ship it sees fit under the Convention, even if Turkey is not a belligerent. Ukraine and Russia are at war, as Turkey has so stipulated.
The simple answer, if these UK mine sweepers are so needed, is to hand them over to Romania, not Ukraine. Problem solved.
Warships of the nations at war cannot transit the straits unless they are returning to their home bases (thus, in the current situation, Russian and Ukrainian warships can only transit the straits to return to their Black Sea home bases.
But, Britain is not at war.
However, Turkey can, per the Convention, deny transit to any vessel if Turkey believes its (Turkey’s) interests are threatened. Hence, my comment that its application by Turkey is “situational.”
Great Britain needs a Dardanelles strategy.
Exactly. It’s well past time for a negotiated end to this nightmare.
The question is, where will anybody find a few responsible adults to properly negotiate this?
Yes, Turkey understandably feels its interests threatened if there is escalation — which is quite possible with British military vessels. Not so with Romanian vessels, especially with the trilateral agreement for mine clearance.
Let’s not forget:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Black_Sea_incident
And:
And:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
Th “Black Sea Incident” incident occurred near Russia itself (Sea of Azov). But the fact is that the ships were not precluded from transiting the straits into the Black Sea.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident isn’t similar at all, as the Maddox and Turner Joy entered the Gulf from the south, and the open sea (the international waters of the South China Sea). The Gulf of Tonkin was likewise in international waters, except for internationally recognized national coastal waters; they did NOT enter the Gulf from the strait between Hainan Island and mainland China.
You seem unwilling to see the point: the point is, that you get military ships belonging to hostile nations too close for comfort in such an environment and escalation can happen. It does not always happen, but it too often comes close. Certain people would love to see US/UK/NATO dragged into this war in a bigger way than we already are.
We all know the Gulf of Tonkin Incident resulted in major escalation. The 2021 incident was uncomfortable. A 2024 incident might be worse than uncomfortable, and who knows what miscalculations might occur. Why risk it? Keep those pesky nosy Bits out of the theater.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.