I cannot believe this guy still thinks anyone takes him seriously on anything. What a knucklehead.
The “comments on political aspects” that were moderated in the other thread were partisan jabs. People are free to make comments on political aspects in IMHO breaking news threads. They are not free to call Republicans or Democrats poopyheads in IMHO breaking news threads. This is really not complicated.
Also, it’s amusing that you think Turkiye is “increasing its collaboration with Russia” by closing the Black Sea to Russian naval reinforcements, humiliating Russia’s attempt to terminate the Ukrainian grain transport deal, and supplying Ukraine with Bayraktar drones, TLRG-230 multiple-launch rocket systems, a couple hundred MRAP (mine-resistant armoured personnel carriers), and a fair bit of munitions and materiel. And they’re currently building a couple corvettes for the Ukrainian navy, though those aren’t donations and likely won’t be delivered till hostilities are over. Erdogan has done business with Russia as well, it’s true, but he’s been doing it on Turkiye’s terms and consistently in ways that establish Turkiye and not Russia as the dominant regional power in the Black Sea.
None of which mitigates the fact that Erdogan is an authoritarian jackass himself, but that’s a topic for another thread.
I’m just wondering why he’s writing “Turkiye” and not “Hellas”.
I thought Hellas was Greece. Could easily be wrong about that.
Right - he was writing about Greece and Turkieye. Seems to me it should be either Greece and Turkey, or Hellas and Turkiye. If you’re doing the whole “local pronunciation” thing, then why go half-way?
Besides, if we take Putin’s policy pronouncements literally, everything is ultimately Russia anyway.
Claiming Greece enjoys ‘quite good relations’ with Russia and basing this on their possession of some S-300s is just flat out delusional. The S-300s in question were acquired in 1999, from Cyprus who had acquired them from Russia in 1997, around the same time South Korea was demonstrating that it had ‘quite good relations’ with Russia by acquiring some T-80Us and BMP-3s, largely for the same reason. Russia inherited not just mountains of military hardware from the Soviet Union but its international debts as well. Lacking hard cash and descending into the kleptocracy of Putin, it settled some of its international debts in the form of military hardware. The S-300 isn’t a new system by any stretch of the imagination, having first been deployed in 1978 for fucks sake.
The only thing funnier is describing Greece and Turkey - sorry, Turkiye - as having some friction recently. Well yeah, I suppose the past 200 years is relatively recent on a geological time scale, but it’s also the entire history of modern Greco-Turkish relations since Greece declared its independence from the Ottoman empire. Greece agreed to take the S-300s from Cyprus in exchange for other weapons and install the S-300s in Crete in order to solve some of the ‘friction’ Cyprus’ planned deployment of them was causing. It may come as a surprise to astute observers of Greco-Turkish relations such as our dear comrad here, but there has been some recent friction between Greece and Turkiye with regards to Cyprus. Meaning, you know, the entire modern history of Cyprus leading to the Turkish invasion and creation of the state of Northern Cyprus, a state internationally recognized by exactly one country - Turkiye.
I assume you are referring to our resident Putin apologist, not me?
I’m sure that was the case. And I have to mention again how much more pleasant and readable this thread has become since I put that fucker Kedikat on “ignore”. It’s a quickly selectable option that I highly recommend.
Yes, of course, I was replying to you about him. Sorry for any confusion.
Turkey requested the name change, Greece did not. (Or, I guess, Turkiye. I don’t know how to do the little dots.)
I’d love it if people stopped sticking J’s into names in a language that doesn’t have a J, but I think the ship has long sailed on that one.
Eh, I’m cool with it
– Yehoshua/Joshua
A few good replies with actual information. Appreciated. I will look into the info.
I’m trying out the Turkiye thing, as it is turning up with that spelling and pronunciation more often lately.
Agreed.
But he is a skillful one.
The Bosphorus passage is closed to all military vessels of all countries during this.
Wrong again. Turkey is allowed to use the Bosphorus and Dardanelles as much as it damn well pleases, and the only two countries not allowed to use them are belligerents in the current war, i.e., Ukraine and Russia. Black Sea and non-Black Sea powers that are not belligerents in the war are allowed passage subject to required prior notification and applicable restrictions on tonnage allowed in the Black Sea at any one-time, maximum tonnage of any individual vessel, maximum gun caliber, etc., etc. That mouthful out of the way, which of the two belligerents in the Russian war with Ukraine do you think this has a material effect on? Here’s a hint: Russia withdraws two war ships after Turkey denies Black Sea access | Middle East Eye.
You’ll note I also called it the ‘w’ word rather than calling it a special military operation. Turkey chose to use that word as well when it decided it was going to close the Straits on Feb 27th. If they had chosen to not use the ‘w’ word, Russian ships would still be free to conduct transits. Articles 19-21, the ones Turkey put into effect, only apply “in time of war” or if Turkey considers herself threatened by “imminent danger of war”. If Turkey felt like collaborating with Russia, all it had to do was not recognize the conflict as a war.
Technically, Article 19 prevents only Russia from moving ships through the straits, so why is the security of NATO shipping – not to mention the national security of NATO members Romania and Bulgaria – affected by the Turkish closure?
In a March 10 discussion with the United States, a Turkish official explained that Turkey has advised all countries to refrain from sending warships through the Straits but has not formally closed them to non-belligerent states (including NATO).
Can NATO Take Action To Protect Shipping
Article 19 Montreux Convention only prevents belligerent nations from transiting the Bosporus Strait and entering the Black Sea. So technically, this article only pertains to Russian warships. Still, nothing in the treaty prevents non-belligerent nations like the UK, France, and Italy from sending warships into the Black Sea to protect NATO merchant ship or to defend NATO’s territorial waters in Romania.
Their failure to do so is because Turkey has advised all countries not to send warships through the Straits.
This, however, is only a request.
I notice there is a clause that allows even warships to transit the straits if they are returning to their home port. So NATO and other warships may be able to return if they were out. Not sure how the home port designation is configured. I wonder what Erdogan would/could do, if some warship, either side decided to ignore the request/law? Turkey/Turkyie is in NATO. Must be a tangled legal argument of hierarchy of treaties/laws.
Targeting/Attacking locomotives.
Some of the long range attacks on infrastructure specifically targets rail power stations. In my opinion too much is aimed at other infrastructure.
But it got me wondering about precision attack on locomotives. I hear nothing about this. But locomotives and their cars are of course limited to a predetermined path. Diesel locomotives must have a pretty good heat signature. Electric may be less. Both sides have a lot of local intel, pro and amateur.
Are they attacking rail traffic in an immediately targeted way? Are missiles hitting locomotives? Can they?