Posted on 01/02/2024 2:13:47 PM PST by Macho MAGA Man
Turkey has vowed to block two British Royal Navy ships intended for Ukraine to pass through its waters. Last month, Britain said it would transfer the two minehunter ships to the Ukrainian navy to help bolster its sea operations in its war with Russia.
However, the Turkish presidency's communications directorate has now said it will not let the vessels through its Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits.
When Russia first waged war on Ukraine in 2022, Turkey sparked an international agreement that blocks the passage of military ships through the passages for those at war.
Today (Tuesday, January 2), the NATO member country says it has implemented the 1936 Montreux Convention impartially and meticulously in order to prevent a military escalation in the Black Sea.
...... Snip......
The news comes less than 24 hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin vowed to "intensify" attacks on Ukraine following strikes in Russia's Belgorod region on Saturday.
(Excerpt) Read more at express.co.uk ...
Turkey has been part of NATO for over 70 years
“Turkey is honoring a senior treaty.”
The Montreaux Convention? Britain is not at war. And, unless the minesweepers have 8-inch guns they do not fall under the transit restrictions. Minesweepers are defensive assets, and are an integral part of maintaining freedom of the seas: They serve to safeguard shipping in general.
Per the strict reading of the Convention, the minesweepers are not prohibited from transiting the straits.
HOWEVER, there is a carve-out to the effect that if Turkey believes IT’S interests are at stake, Turkey can unilaterally deny transit on that alone.
So, Turkey is just serving its own interests in this matter, which are not to act in a way that is adverse to Russia’s interests. It’s a win-win for Russia.
The Montreaux Convention? Britain is not at war. And, unless the minesweepers have 8-inch guns they do not fall under the transit restrictions. Minesweepers are defensive assets, and are an integral part of maintaining freedom of the seas: They serve to safeguard shipping in general.
Per the strict reading of the Convention, the minesweepers are not prohibited from transiting the straits.
HOWEVER, there is a carve-out to the effect that if Turkey believes ITS interests are at stake, Turkey can unilaterally deny transit on that alone.
So, Turkey is just serving its own interests in this matter, which are not to act in a way that is adverse to Russia’s interests. It’s a win-win for Russia.
They are warships destined for a country at war.
“They are warships destined for a country at war.”
They are not Ukrainian warships; they are still British warships. So, technically, until such time as they have formally and officially been transferred to Ukraine, they are still warships of a non-combatant nation. Remember, the Montreaux Convention said that (paraphrasing): “In wartime, if Turkey is not involved in the conflict, warships of the nations at war may not pass through the Straits, except when returning to their base.”
So, they are the warships of a non-combatant country (Britain), and not precluded from transiting the straits.
Likewise, if they had in fact formally and officially been transferred to Ukraine, they would be going back to their Ukrainian base(s), which can only be at a Ukrainian Black Sea port or facility. Thus, they also would not be precluded from transiting the straits. Another example: Say Ukraine had a warship built in, oh, Egypt. Upon completion it sails back to Ukraine. It is Ukraine’s ship, and it is going back to its home country, Ukraine. In that scenario it would also not be precluded from transit through the straits.
Believe me, ANY contract or agreement or treaty can be interpreted to serve specific interests.
Thus, the single most obvious justification for blocking the transit is the one that — according to Turkey — affects its own interests (and those interests can be as broad or creative as Turkey wishes them to be).
You’re slicing it thin bro
“You’re slicing it thin bro.”
Not at all. You are perhaps unaware of the old adage: “There is nothing quite as breakable as a treaty.” That is because there are always “work-arounds” and undeclared “exceptions” to be found.
But the fact is that the British minesweepers on their face are not prohibited from transit through the straits: (1) Britain is a non-combatant in the Russo-Ukraine War; (2) the minesweepers are less than 10,000 tons in gross weight; (3) the minesweepers do not have any guns of 8-inch caliber or greater. There is simply nothing in Montreaux that would prohibit the transit. Moreover, if the minesweepers have already been formally and officially transferred to Ukrainian registry, then the above restrictions on non-Black Sea warships are irrelevant.
Which would bring us to the condition of warring nations and THEIR warships. Again, they would have to transit the straits in order to reach their home ports, which necessarily MUST be a Black Sea port given the fact that Ukraine has no other direct maritime connection.
Read the Montreaux Convention, and show me how its application can prohibit the transit of those minesweeper, EXCEPT for the clause re: Turkish interests.
I await your response.
“There was a time when it made sense having Turkey in NATO. But with the rise of islamic fundamentalism in Turkey (which began in the late 1970s) it has become unreliable and outright hostile to our interests.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are absolutely right.
The problem is that a number of countries are not the same as they were “in the good old days”. Turkey was largely pro Western back then. Now only about 50% (maybe slightly more) of Turkey-citizens remain pro-West. However, not many in Turkey are pro Russia neither. Its just the Islam problem there.
Now take IRAN for example, same thing! They were a truly a close and good ally to America and the West, before Khomeini and his Islamic meatheads took over...
The world is changing, and it’s a time-bomb. In sake of pure power, Islam, neosoviets and communists are teaming up against the West’s interests, all over the world. If we try to naively sleep-walk our way through this, our future will be short-lived.
Russia-Iran-Hamas-Hezbollah-Alliance have launched a “war-economy”.
41% of Russias budget is now oriented towards total war.
It’s time for the West to invest for war (that will prevent war) and to counteract Russia’s massively expanding military and imperialist ambitions.
Weakness is a magnet for aggressors. Isolationism is seen by our worst enemies as a spectacular sign of weakness. Since we all know that weakness ALWAYS triggeres wars.
So... its now time to hope for the best, while preparing for the worst.
You really think letting Russia control Ukrain’s grain production and exports is going to be good for the world, including the US? Boy are you living in a world of illusion.
“Weakness is a magnet for aggressors. Isolationism is seen by our worst enemies as a spectacular sign of weakness. Since we all know that weakness ALWAYS triggeres wars.
So... its now time to hope for the best, while preparing for the worst.”
Very true.
Somebody blundered?
Reply of the thread!
The strategic importance of the Black Sea has been ignored by NATO for too long. And the US to perhaps a bit of a lesser extent, but still, short-sighted. Blood on bureaucrat hands.
President Trump, you’d have never allowed all this to get this far or even get started.
So wish we could, but we'd be voiding our own Constitution and Federal Law as amended by the US Patriot Act II (. However, I still wonder why the Governors of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas don't activate their own National Guards with thousands of troops on the border locked and loaded.
Yes, I know the USSC years ago ruled against Arizona for attempting to enforce its own immigration policies. As Andrew Jackson? said in another State vs USSC ruling, "Now let them enforce their decision"
Biteme's open border policies will be the ruin of America. It won't be the biased media, nor the professors at our once renowned universities, nor their brain-washed students. It will simply happen because of the non-enforcement of Immigration laws that have been on the books for decades.
I've followed this issue since the 1980's when I had to chase those lowlifes from my gate beside my house (lived on a cul-de-sac). Had no firearms at the time, but was highly trained with a PR-24 baton from my Navy Shore Patrol days. I chased off some 15 or 20 away in the middle of the night once. Yes, I knew it was stupid, but I was young, in shape, and my family lived there.
With these continuous caravans coming at us and the gates open and Border Patrol told to let them go, I'm not adverse to open live rounds at the male military age types. Raid me DHS. This is my opinion, only.
It’s definitely getting worse. I agree with you about live fire.
We literally have enemies at the gate and someone left it open (Obama controlled Biden admin).
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.