Turkey closed the straits of Bosphorus - Russia gives a last chance/warning - Turkey reopens

a reply to: DISRAELI
a reply to: intrptr

How is it an act of war?

Serious question. What criteria are you guys using to get to that conclusion.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Whether it is an act of war or not, I was just disagreeing with the other poster's assumption that it was a NATO action.

If there was a deliberate (as distinct from purely accidental) closing, I would be content with the description "act intended to annoy the Russians".

a reply to: DISRAELI

Ok thanks for clarifying.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for repeating what i just said…

If war occurs involved nations can be blocked from transit.

What war?

a reply to: DISRAELI

If there was a deliberate (as distinct from purely accidental) closing, I would be content with the description "act intended to annoy the Russians".

"Accidental" blockade, huh? To annoy Russia? You know as well as I that, a) Turkey is NATO and b) blockading Russian supply vessels from the Mediterranean is a counter measure designed to interdict supply to Russians base and port at Tartus.

Article

a reply to: intrptr

Thanks for ignoring facts that dont support your position. I added the emphasis for the part you ignored.

In April 1982, the Convention was amended to allow Turkey to close the Straits at its discretion in peacetime as well as during wartime.

1936 CONVENTION REGARDING THE REGIME OF THE STRAITS ****PDF LINK ****


a reply to: intrptr
A country that closes its sovereign waters is not blockading any nation.

You really need to get of the bogus NATO kick your on.

originally posted by: intrptr
You know as well as I that, a) Turkey is NATO

It does not follow that Turkey seeks and gets NATO permission for everything that they do.
You ought to consider seriously another possibility; that Turkey are acting on their own and deliberately trying to drag NATO into a war-situation which NATO does not want, to suit Turkey's own purposes.
It is plausible that NATO leaders are telling them this behind the scenes.

a reply to: Xcathdra

1936? Really… lots of international law been violated since then.

You taking high moral ground?

The USS Taylor was in the Black Sea in February on a "routine trip," according to the US Navy, when it ran aground near the Turkish port city of Samsun.
Russia accused Turkey of violating the 1936 Montreux Convention by permitting the US ship to remain in the Black Sea for longer than the time allowed as the USS Taylor underwent repairs.
Ankara denied the allegations.
According to a 1936 agreement that regulates traffic in the Turkish straits, military ships of non-littoral (not lying along the shore) states are not allowed to stay over 21 days in the Black Sea.

Take the lawg out of your own eye.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You really need to get of the bogus NATO kick your on.

Yah, shh, don't talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the ME, Europe, Balkans…

a reply to: DISRAELI

It does not follow that Turkey seeks and gets NATO permission for everything that they do.

When it comes to Russian and Syria it does.


Easy enough to hide behind, "Turkey did it" though, isn't it?

a reply to: intrptr

Your post has nothing to do with the false claims that Turkey could only shut the straight in times of war. The Montreux agreement came into effect in 1936 and has been updated over the years, like the part you ignored about turkey being able to close the straight at its discretion in peacetime.

You are trying to deflect.

NATO has nothing to do with Turkeys actions no matter how much you want to try and link the 2.

Yes the Turks can close the straights as they see fit. It is unlikely that they have or will as they have no interest in escalating a situation they have already come out on top of. They have already humiliated Russia once they have no need to do it again. The Turks and Russia have business to do. Russia sanctions against Turkey were more symbolic than anything showing the Turks that despite the public rhetoric the Russians are not willing to do anything to upset the apple cart. They Turks have no reason to either.

a reply to: Xcathdra

This could also be Russia trying to change the story by demonizing Turkey.

Turkey doesn't need Russia's help on that . They are doing a very fine job of it themselves , thank you very much . :>)

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Not to the Russian people hence the possibility that Russian actions towards Turkey is meant to distract the Russian people so Putin doesn't appear weak and impotent.

Also apparently sanctions outside of a UN mandate are illegal when applied to Russia but ok when Russia does it.

a reply to: intrptr

Putin should have thought of that before he started bombing ethnic Turks in Syria. And no, Turkey is not NATO, it is a member of NATO.

The whole boondoggle of covert war in Syria via Turkey is proxy war, forcing the turks to take the risks for the US and EU military arm of NATO.

Turkey's being exploited and coerced to these ends to overthrow long time neighbor Syria. Russia isn't bombing Turkey, just the supply lines inside Syria. Ultimately problematic, the same quandary existed in Vietnam. The us bombed the Hi Chi Minh trails from North to South Vietnam forever, without being able to bomb the source in the North.

Like trying to defeat an ant nest by spraying the trails without disturbing the nest. Now the tables are reversed and the Russians are in the unenviable position of interdicting supply lines without disturbing the Nest in Turkey.

Lots of luck there guys. The tables are stacked against you. Maybe if Iran and China take a more active role…

a reply to: DJW001

Putin should have thought of that before he started bombing ethnic Turks in Syria.

Turks shouldn't be in Syria…?

And no, Turkey is not NATO, it is a member of NATO.

Riiight, does what headquarters orders it to.

originally posted by: intrptr
Turks shouldn't be in Syria…?

You have heard of states with mixed populations?
The other poster said "ethnic" Turks, referring to a population of Turkish origin which has been in that area for centuries, and happened to be included within Syria when the boundaries were drawn up.
(This was when the Turks had just lost a war, and the new territory of Syria was going to be under French control)
Similarly there are populations living within the borders of Turkey who are not ethnic Turks.

[Turkey] does what headquarters orders it to.

This is a fantasy, and an over-simplification of a complex situation.
The world is more subtle and complicated than you are willing to understand.

a reply to: intrptr

Nope. Turkey is having a go at Russia because he knows that behind his bluster, Putin is weak and Turkey can defeat Russia without calling on NATO. This makes Turkey the most powerful player in the region, and Putin's propagandists are trying to kick dust in everyone's yes so that they don't notice the emperor is not wearing any clothes.

a reply to: DISRAELI

You have heard of states with mixed populations?
The other poster said "ethnic" Turks, referring to a population of Turkish origin which has been in that area for centuries, and happened to be included within Syria when the boundaries were drawn up.

Nice try. The armed turkish militias ("Turkmen", what a gentle Euphemism) are also trying to overthrow syria, illegally.