Hey I’m late to the thread (again?)
Can someone remind me of what reason Russia has to attack a neighboring country?
And also, how many Ukrainians have been slaughtered by Russia?
(I’m assuming that the Ukranians slaughtered by Russia were soldiers encroaching on Russian territory. Certainly Russia, lovely country, is not slaughtering innocent civilians.)
Thanks!
Try reading the Montreux Convention or at least a proper analysis of it before spouting ignorant horseshit yet again. There is absolutely nothing tangled about it or any kind of hierarchy of laws and/or treaties. It is very simple. In the event of war, Turkey can refuse the belligerents in the conflict from passage through the Straits. That is why the sister ship of the Moskva, the Varyag spent 9 months sitting in the Mediterranean hoping Turkey would change its mind and let them in before returning to her home port in the Pacific. The Varyag was not allowed transit because Russia is at war, and she was not homeported in the Black Sea before the war began. She is thus not allowed ‘back’ into the Black Sea because she wasn’t based there beforehand and wouldn’t be returning to her home port.
How home port is configured is very simple: it is where the ship is based out of. All Russian warships based in the Black Sea are in the Black Sea, or in the case of Moskva, at the bottom of it. No Russian warships outside the Black Sea are based out of the Black Sea, so none of them can return there, nor can Russia succeed with any high jinks like claiming Varyag is now homeported in the Black Sea, since she clearly was not homeported there before the war started, hence why she sat in the Med for nine months before slinking back home to Vladivostok.
And again, the only ‘side’ having to abide with not being allowed transit through the straits is Russia. NATO warships can come and go as they please within the restrictions set out by the convention. Turkey has advised other nations not to send warships into the Black Sea at the moment, but as the article I linked at that you clearly didn’t read or understand noted, that is only a request, the only nation the Straits are closed to is Russia - and Ukraine as well, but as Ukraine has no warships outside the Black Sea that’s a moot point. If NATO, or any country apart from Russia for that matter felt it wanted to send warships into the Black Sea, there is nothing stopping them from doing so apart from Turkey’s request to refrain for the time being.
To reiterate what I already quoted in very clear and easy to understand English:
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).
Go troll elsewhere Putin stooge, you’re not going to get any traction here.
You think kedikat is competent with easy-to-understand English?
That’s adorable!
Read my English. I did not dispute what you had said earlier. I was wondering how Turkey as a member of NATO might have conflicts with the treaties of both NATO and the Montreux. And how the conflict might be legally complex.
I also intentionally wrote request/law in respect of your information.
I don’t know why you are denigrating and lecturing me about the home port thing, when I noted it existed. I just also noted that I was not aware of the technicalities of what legally constituted home port. Wondering if there might be some odd ways of circumventing it.
And of course you folks have decided I am some kind of Putin stooge, Russian sympathizer and propagandist. But I mostly just put out some facts. And ask questions. Facts do not always bolster just one side. Questions can wander all over the place. I also do not say terrible things to folks who do not say them to me. A lot of folks here take time to give good answers and information. As you did. Others just say nasty stuff. So sometimes I reply in kind. Most times I ignore.
From the wiki on Montreux: When Turkey is at war, or feels threatened by a war, it may take any decision about the passage of warships as it sees fit.
So, no conflict. Turkey is a member of NATO. If NATO goes to war, Turkey will also be at war or at least threatened by war as a member of NATO. It can then let whoever they want through whenever they want. There is no legal complexity at all.
Never mind. You said it quite clearly. Thanks.
If NATO was at war. And so Turkey by treaty. But Turkey was not all on board with the war. Could it enforce the Montreux and deny some or all vessels despite the wishes of NATO military? Erdogan does a lot of sideways stuff. Playing various sides off one another for his own gain. Could he use this as a ploy? Or does the NATO treaty membership cause an over ride to it?
Also ask to Dissonance as you have a lot of info on this.
As noted, legally under Montreux Turkey can do whatever it wants with passage if it even ‘feels threatened by a war’.
However Erdogan, no matter how sideways he feels on the situation, is not going to toss over NATO for anything short of an existential crisis. Like the rest of NATO backing a Greek invasion of Cyprus or some such nonsense. He certainly isn’t going to go to bat for a hamstrung Russian state if NATO got provoked into intervening. Too much to lose for far too little gain. Because NATO isn’t going to intervene directly unless Russia does something suicidal like bomb Warsaw or drop a nuke…well…anywhere. And in that sort of situation Turkey won’t even blink twice - they’ll be putting out guide lights for the U.S. carriers passing through the Straits.
If NATO goes to war, Article 20 of the Montreux Convention is probably the last thing anyone is going to have to worry about. 
And to our dear Comrad, people think you are a Putin stooge because that’s clearly what you are, not because you ask questions or have some cough facts (haha haha haha haha). I’m not going to explain the Montreux Convention to you yet again just because you don’t or refuse to understand it. I’ve already provided a direct link to the full text of the convention. But just for the fuck of it and for the sake of other readers, here is the text of the currently applicable article, Article 19 - there is a war, and Turkey is not a belligerent in it. Turkey has recognized the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a war, the belligerents are Russia and Ukraine, hence the part I bolded applies to them, and only them.
ARTICLE 19
In time of war, Turkey not being belligerent, warships shall enjoy complete freedom of transit and
navigation through the Straits under the same conditions as those laid down in Articles 10 to 18.
Vessels of war belonging to belligerent Powers shall not, however, pass through the Straits except in cases arising out of the application of Article 25 of the present Convention, and in cases of assistance rendered to a State victim of aggression in virtue of a treaty of mutual assistance binding Turkey, concluded within the framework of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and registered and
published in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of the Covenant.In the exceptional cases provided for in the preceding paragraph, the limitations laid down in Articles 10 to 18 of the present Convention shall not be applicable.
Notwithstanding the prohibition of passage laid down in paragraph 2 above, vessels of war belonging
to belligerent Powers, whether they are Black Sea Powers or not, which have become separated from
their bases, may return thereto.Vessels of war belonging to belligerent Powers shall not make any capture, exercise the right of visit
and search, or carry out any hostile act in the Straits.
That particular part may be grounds for NATO warships to passage the straits even if Turkey does not want them to. If the NATO agreement of mutual support is within the Covenant of the League of Nations. And if NATO has invoked the mutual defence agreement. And Turkey is still in NATO.
I did read some of the Montreux Covenant. But I am not about to spend the length of time required to fully parse it out and all it’s possible permutations. If that sort of thing is for you, fantastic. It is quite a feat. I find folks often divert to minutia in replies. But it is often interesting to go there.
In the meantime. Military vessels are not going through the straits. By law or request. But it will be interesting to see what happens if they try anyways.
Because you’re a stupid asshole who is full of shit, and it’s an irritating burden to continually rebut your “mistakes” so any casual reader who comes late to the thread does not incorrectly conclude you have anything reliably factual to offer in this conversation. Fuck off.
At the risk of “just asking questions”, I do have to just ask a question.
How does Turkey enforce this closure?
Have you seen the Bosporus? It’s quite narrow. All the Turks would have to do is park a couple of freighters sidewise and it’ll cut off the Black Sea.
Facts can be revelatory. You should go there more often.
Well, yeah. Matters of defense policy are always a government decision. Did you think a bunch of schoolchildren had pooled their lunch money to buy an S-300?
Turkey would block it. The straits are VERY narrow; at their narrowest it’s less than a kilometer across. If Turkey doesn’t want anyone getting through, the US Navy could not get through. It’d be trivially easy to block it, and the only way to clear it would be to invade Turkey, and best of luck with that.
Who knows? Maybe that “hold a bake sale to buy a bomber” thing finally happened.
I recall seeing a photo of a Supermarine Spitfire that was bought by a town for donation to the RAF in WWII.
I included the point of it being a government decision in relation to my earlier post about moderating out political posts in the other Ukraine/Russia thread. Mild sarcasm. But so many posts later, lost in meaning. Often happens in threads. Plus the fuzziness of sarcasm in text is bad enough.