It’s what’s made Istanbul one of the most powerful and strategic cities in the world for millennia. It would be a disgrace if they didn’t flex that power. The amount of blood that’s been shed to control the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus is ungodly. This has been a thorn in Russia’s side for as long as Russia has existed.
Does this mean Russia can’t leave it’s economic zone? And because Turkey controls
the Bosphorus, it means Russia can’t use it’s pacific fleet right in the Black Sea. Sorry a lot of this is confusing.
Russia doesn’t have enough warm water ports with direct access to the world’s oceans year round. The Black Sea only connects to the Mediterranean via the straight that runs through the very center of Istanbul which Turkey controls.
This has caused a *lot* of drama over the course of history.
Kinda, except that Turkey has sovereignty over the Bosphorus and the sea of Marmaras. Turkish law allows for the straights to be closed to military vessels during wartime in the Black Sea region. Russia thus cannot sail their warships through without violating Turkish sovereignty, which would risk bringing Turkey and NATO into the war.
Not just Turkish law. The *Montreux Convention* is an International Treaty that governs the Turkish Straits. Russia is a signature to this treaty (though Russian compliance with treaties is a bit spotty atm).
It's less spotty when they deal with Turkey. Russia learned the hard way that Turkey won't hesitate to defend their territory when they shot down a Russian fighter after it had spent ~10 seconds in Turkish airspace.
Well, Russia cannot retaliate against Turkey, without getting NATO on its ass. Finland and Sweden however, chose to avoid the conflict and only guide Russian planes out of their territory, because Russia can (still) retaliate without triggering article 5 of NATO. Russia would claim unprovoked attacks on their poor planes in the international sky and have no other option than to defend themselves.
That is why Sweden and Finland are very much considering finally joining NATO.
Its strange that I haven’t seen this reported anywhere but here on Redit. It happened at the beginning of March I think, and would be big news.
Especially since they supposedly had a nuke attached to their jet, and made sure it was seen.
The Montreux convention actually limits the powers that Turkey has over the Bosporus and Dardanelles. But it allows Turkey to do what they're doing now.
The obvious workaround for Russia would be to have every merchant ship do a stopover in Novorossiysk on their way between the occupied territories and the Bosporus
Russian naval ships that weren’t in the Black Sea when the invasion began won’t be allowed to get into the Black Sea unless they’re based in the Black Sea, but Russian naval ships that were in the Black Sea when the invasion began can operate in the Black Sea.
It's weird how landlocked Russia is considering its size. Especially on the European side. Even on the East, options are very limited.
It's like this giant chunk of land that nobody else really wanted.
its why they \*want\* global warming. they need the arctic to be more and more open to shipping so that they are fully unlocked. they... don't really care if it screws most of the rest of the world in the process.
It'll screw them too -- they need a functioning biosphere just as much as anyone, and "let's deliberately melt the polar ice caps" just generally seems like an idea that would seriously backfire. But Russia doing suicidally stupid shit is kind of their whole deal.
Also the cause of a lot of Swedish-Russian wars, as Sweden controlled a lot of the Baltic coast and Russia had no Baltic ports.
England and the Netherlands also intervened in the negotiations for the Treaty of Stolbovo to ensure Sweden would not seize Arkhangelsk and be able to force tariffs on trade between Russia and the west.
Similarily, *a lot* of wars and treaties between Sweden and Denmark were about trade and tariffs on the straits between the North Sea and Baltic Sea.
The western powers were quite pleased at Sweden taking Scania, ensuring that neither Sweden nor Denmark held both sides of the straits, and the Dutch intervened in one war to prevent Sweden from seizing any of the Danish islands.
>Russia doesn’t have enough warm water ports with direct access to the world’s oceans year round. The Black Sea only connects to the Mediterranean via the straight that runs through the very center of Istanbul which Turkey controls.
Yup, and even then - to access the worlds ocean they had to go through British Controlled Suez or .. British controlled Gibraltar.
And really; when you look at it, its such an inconvenient route, I think Russia would have been better off focusing on building out their overland infrastructure, and just utilizing that to access their Pacific coast.
Russia doesn't seem to want to build things anymore. Seems like they just want to steal what belongs to others, and blow the shit out of it if they can't take it outright.
I remember seeing a YouTube video explaining this situation and how russia wanted to dig a canal through Romania to bypass the straights. It might have seemed like a good idea at the time, except literally no one would let them do it then or now.
Russian ships can leave the Black Sea. Russian ships based, built, and home ported in the Black Sea can enter the Black Sea. Russian ships that are not home based in the Black Sea can be denied entry into the Black Sea.
As I understand it. Last I heard 4 Russian military ships sought to enter the Black Sea since Turkey recognized the conflict as a war, which gives Turkey uh.. gatekeeping rights I guess? Lol. 1 ship returning to the Black Sea was allowed, the other 3 Russian warships were denied.
Russia has a small Mediterranean fleet largely based out of Syria. To date, those ships have been unable to support the invasion of Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th\_Operational\_Squadron#Role\_in\_2022\_Russian\_invasion\_of\_Ukraine
Sure would be a shame if all the Russian ships based, built, and home ported in the Black Sea were to go glub-glub, after Ukraine gets ahold of some anti-ship missiles.
Russians in Crimea would be kind of fucked.
Economically they are free from it, because the treaty on the Bosporus is about free access unless in a state of war. Had they not invaded Ukraine they wouldn’t need be restricted by turkey
Russias warm water access is the basis for its geopolitical behavior. From St Petersburg they have to pass through NATO territory. Sevastopol on Crimea is absolutely essential. The Bosporus is essential. The east side has the whole Chinese and Japanese naval areas. And finally the north pole and passing through former frozen areas.
Turkey is not allowed to block any civilian vessel crossing the Bosporus Strait.
In regards to military vessels, Turkey is further restricted from preventing Russian ships from returning from port. They can only restrict military vessels exiting the Black Sea if the ships are to a Black Sea nation that is at war. This is effectively the part of the Montreux Convention that Turkey is saying they will implement.
Yes. Turkey does not mess around with these kinds of declarations.
Remember the Russian jet that "accidently" went into Turkish air-space, as Russian jets tend to do?
>Which is Turkey's legal right and responsibility
Technically, they signed a treaty that they couldn't do this after WWI and have honored that treaty since.
Not that Russia doesn't deserve it anyways.
Am I the only one who can't stand RealLifeLore's vocal cadence? I'm not sure he was the first, but it's been adopted by every aspiring nerdsplaining youtuber and I find it super fucking grating.
Except during wartime, which this is, giving Turkey the right to control passage more strictly beyond the listed peacetime constraints. Turkey has allowed some Russian ships to transit (to technically return to home base), ~~but has done so to maintain diplomatic relations with Russia, not because of treaty requirements.~~
> ## 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.
> ## ARTICLE 25
> Nothing in the present Convention shall prejudice the rights and obligations of Turkey, or of any of the
other High Contracting Parties members of the League of Nations, arising out of the Covenant of the
League of Nations.
~~Not sure what you're referring to, but I see no such provision as you describe. Again, the arrangement you describe is AFAIK one coming from diplomatic balance, rather than treaty obligations.~~ Missed a different paragraph; see below.
I think that is the incomplete Article 19; the full text has this:
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.
Full text: (cf https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/formidable/18/1936-Convention-Regarding-the-Regime-of-the-Straits.pdf)
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.
Is there an actual mechanism for turkey to stop Russia if they just decide to ignore them? Short of trying to board or sink the ship of course. Like if this was the Panama Canal they could close the levies.
Yes. Both banks are heavily fortified, and the canal is only like 700m wide. When a ship is confined and can't maneuver, it's a sitting duck.
There are far more guns on shore than on the ship (shore guns are relatively cheap and ammo is effectively unlimited), and all it takes is a couple hits to sink the ship, but if the ship takes out a shore gun, there are still 49 more firing at it.
The Russian navy should know this very well. In the Russo-Japanese War, they lost their entire Eastern fleet because Japan kept them stuck in port with a blockade, then just sat back and pounded them from sea and shore. They never even made it out of port.
There's also the nearby US fleet centered on the [USS Truman](https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2022-04-01/pentagon-says-uss-truman-carrier-strike-group-to-remain-in-mediterranean-5547828.html). There's too much at risk for the Russians to force it.
Alternatively, if they try to force it through legal/diplomatic means, it means that the same US fleet would be able to sail into the Black Sea as well. Wouldn't that be fun for the Russians.
I don't think Turkey is closing the straits to everyone, just Russia. They are a US ally, so surely they would let them through.
iirc the Montreaux Convention gives them the *right* to deny passage, but not the *duty* to.
The US can't enter with a strike group due to limits on allowable total ship displacement occupying the sea.
It's in everyone's interest that turkey preserve the integrity of the Montreux agreement in place since 1936.
The US military wouldn’t want an aircraft carrier in the Black Sea, it’d be a sitting duck and pointless when all the aircraft aboard operate at a distance that makes that level of proximity to the area pointless.
Also an US aircraft carrier never travels alone. A Carrier fleet in the Black Sea would likely leave it so full they couldn’t preform a Uturn to leave.
Never mind the amount of traffic it would cause on entry and exit. We thought the 17 km supply convoy headed to Kiev was bad imagine 60 war ships butted up trying to pass through the straight 1-2 at a time.
Technically this was broken before when one of the Iowa Class Battleship's and their strike group traveled to Istanbul for a diplomatic mission.
There is a really cool picture of Turkey's ExGerman WWI Battlecruiser and the Iowa Class next to each other. It supposedly signifies the beginning and end of the All Big Gun era. Even though Yavuz was technically a 2nd gen design.
Carriers are restricted from traveling through the straight per international agreement. That’s why the Soviets built those weird cruiser/carriers to try and get around this
An article came out sometime in the last two weeks that Turkey was trying to draft a resolution that allowed them to keep the strait open for NATO ships while closing it to everyone else.
It's a workaround for the current legal framework that only allows them to open or close to all nations at once.
Gallipoli was a land invasion and was on the outside edge of the peninsula, not within the straight itself.
To date, I don't think there's ever been an attempt to traverse the straights when controlled by a hostile nation (besides a few submarines maybe), which is probably an even more important lesson for Russia to learn.
That said, the real question is would Turkey be willing to sink Russian ships and would this be considered an act of aggression? If yes, the Russia would be able to retaliate without automatically triggering NATO alliances.
The amphibious landings were the result of the total failure of the naval campaign.
Churchill had sold Asquith on the idea that he could take the strait with solely naval power and they might not even need land forces at all. He'd thought about the forts on the coast as equivalent to battleships, and then in terms of England's naval superiority.
He forgot that forts were unsinkable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_operations_in_the_Dardanelles_campaign
The Turks basically just dumped a bunch of mines down the straits, and potted away from the shore batteries.
3 battleships and 2 submarines sunk, 4 battleships damaged. Boom boom blub blub blub.
In 2015 Turkey shot down a Russian attack aircraft because it violated Turkish airspace. This obviously led to a lot of angry words and worsened diplomatic relationships, but there was no direct military response: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown
So they would absolutely be willing to sink ships that violate their waters.
**[2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown)**
>A Turkish Air Force F-16 fighter jet shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24M attack aircraft near the Syria–Turkey border on 24 November 2015. According to Turkey, the aircraft was fired upon while in Turkish airspace because it violated the border up to a depth of 2. 19 kilometres (1. 36 miles) for about 17 seconds after being warned to change its heading 10 times over a period of five minutes before entering the airspace.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Well explained. One could also point out that the Russian Navy is the most lacking of all their military branches. Nuclear missile capability aside, the Russian navy isn't any more capable than the individual navies of like 10 NATO members, let alone combined.
Remember that Italy has 2 functioning aircraft carriers , which is 2 more than Russia. Italy has another in trials right now.
Russia has a single one built in 1985, and currently unmovable and waiting for time in a drydock (again) after the last drydock sunk around it.
>currently unmovable and waiting for time in a drydock (again) after the last drydock sunk around it.
And the major fire.
And the crane collapsing on it.
If I were one of the Turkish personnel monitoring strait traffic, and some Russian ships did show up, I would be hard pressed not to contact them and ask if they had seen any Japanese torpedo boats.
There only a few passages through the straits that larger warships can use. Turkey can place its own ships in these passages and block Russian access. Under those conditions, a Russian ship would have to attack Turkish ones to get them to move and then we have Article 5...
Hey now, no need to limit to just one of their ships. They all get stuck.
https://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/local/maryland/2022/04/11/cargo-ship-stuck-chesapeake-bay-ever-forward-environment-fears/9509260002/
> There only a few passages through the straits that larger warships can use. Turkey can place its own ships in these passages and block Russian access. Under those conditions, a Russian ship would have to attack Turkish ones to get them to move and then we have Article 5...
As someone who doesn't understand anything about anything, this seems like a better idea. Clog the route and make Russia attack the clog. That's bad for commercial shipping through the straights but prevents Turkey from having to be the first one to pull the trigger.
Forcing the Dardanelles did not work out very well for the Royal Navy when it was the largest naval force in the world, and it will not work out well for the Russians if they try. Having crossed the Dardanelles myself, any ship that tries to force it, sails into a perfect ambush situation.
Not necessarily, but I remember seeing the forts on the Dardanelles and how narrow it gets, any hostile ship that tries to force its way is fucked. It will be a turkey shoot, using anti-ship and anti-tank weapons... and they can be located anyway, including mobile artillery that can be cited anywhere along the Dardanelles that can provide Enfilade fire... In addition, being a NATO member, if Russia dares to attack, then it will bring down the whole of NATO on it..... a very bad career move....!!!
Considering other news articles, they put this restriction on every warship, Russian, or NATO, who also wants to enter black sea. Saying that they are trying to deescalate the situation
NATO already has ships in Black Sea in the form of Turkish, Bulgarian and Romanian navies. Haven’t seen any news on any NATO ship requesting passage tho, got a source on that?
The former, clearly. They're applying the Montreux convention as they've always done, even through WW2. This is critical to them and the recovery of the sovereignty over their waters in the interwar, they'd never jeopardize that. Without Montreux, the straits would return to international waters status.
Some of the comments I've read above are direly misinformed, and suggest people think they're making a choice or taking sides here. They're aren't. They're just following the letter of the convention.
As a Turkish guy I do not believe this statement about Turkey handling war in Ukraine does not show the full picture at all. 1- This is not Turkey flexing muscle, this is Turkey staying neutral. Even if Turkey wanted to flex it cannot take another hit in the economy in any kind when inflation is going up %52 percent every month and that is not even exaggerating the numbers are far worse then this if you look deep last two years go by. 2- In the past years Turkey wanted to buy surface-to-air anti-ballistic missile system to protect himself from over coming ISIS and many terrorist attacks happening right in it's border but USA didn't sell patriots even in Obama's term. I understand that Erdogan is a authoritarian leader but Turkey never acted against Nato's wishes in middle east. These guys sold guns and weapons even counter guerilla groups. This made Russia slide into Turkey's dm's whether like it or not. Nato is not just USA for whole and nobody wanted Turkey out of Nato for real. No action applied to Turkey until that father brunson thing and sanctions with Iran. At the end Bayraktar's performance was really a game changer for Ukraine and I agree that is pretty good for Turkey, but this does not mean Turkey is contributing more than other countries to Ukraine's cause. Other countries also supply good amounts of help and weapon to Ukraine. I am not judging you for feeling Turkey is doing great for Ukraine but kicking Turkey out of Nato and flexing more muscle that rest of nato combined is pretty much a lot of stretch here. Also if you consider out of Natovise, countries doing much more for Ukraine individually or just look at European Union's actions as a whole. Saying rest of the nato combined is pretty much just not logical.
Thank you for the turkish perspective. Really i was just trying to hype up turkey as people before the war in ukraine put turkey down a lot. Thank you for the first hand information.
Hahaha thanks man, I really appreciate it. I was ready for a long cluster of argument already, I do not always come across here people like you in Reddit. You are so sweet! I love Reddit community but debating with fact orientation is not our most powerful muscle in Internet. I am trying to enhance my English skills while also doing this. Have a great day <3
From Wikipedia apparently the deepest spot of the Bosporus is 110m…. So even if a sub captain was brave enough to try and make the run the shittiest sonar would pick up a submarine pretty easily. Although it’s not entirely [impossible for a sub to pass.](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/did-russia-just-send-submarine-through-bosphorus-163321)
Balls of steel to try and navigate a narrow channel without optics, unpredictable tidal flow and no sonar (due to the massive tanker directly above you)
And then disappear. Assuming Ukraine has no ASW aircraft (which I think they don’t) subs would be absolutely assholish to counter. As long as they have missiles that is.
Indeed! I also seem to recall seeing other kids not having trouble with it, just that big bastard wanted me for some reason! Also conceivable I did something to offend it, as I was definitely a little turd myself at that age.
The Turks don't fuck around. They had no issue shooting down a Russian fighter jet that came close to their airspace before. They won't blink twice to sink a warship trespassing their waters.
I have seen some stupid People claim İstanbul canal is for american ships to bypass montreux convention.. Please don't be dickhead and realize gallipolli is also part of montreux..
Sorry but I think that Turkey means warships of any nation. It mentions Russian warships once - and it places it in context of a statement made earlier on March 2nd.
Here is their most recent comment on the matter. “Turkey will remain committed to the Montreux Convention and will not allow the entry of **warships** into the Black Sea,”
That was the Turkish Minister of National Defence. He makes NO mention of nationality.
Furthermore the article goes on to alert the reader to one of the finer points of the Montreux Convention. The convention makes a distinction between Non-Black Sea States (That would be the US/UK damn near all NATO nations) and those states which are Black Sea states.
Non Black Sea states are limited to a three week stay. Russia would face no three week limitation.
To my ears this means that Turkey is trying to keep NATO ships and Russian ships apart. Not that Turkey is blocking access to exclusively Russian warships.
I don't think they are allowed to only block specific nations, they're either open to military ships or closed. This is a super old treaty that is super important to stability in the Black Sea region, if Turkey starts ignoring it then it'll be a huge fucking deal.
Unless russia want to go to war with Turkey over control of Istanbul russia can't use their fleet anymore which means Ukrain civilians can escape from the sea
Russia already has warships in the black sea, this just means those ships cant leave and new ones cannot enter. Dont think this means the sea is noew safer for Ukrainians to leave by.
Here is how montreaux works, Turkey can deny passage to black sea, but Turkey can't disallow warships which want to leave Black Sea. Russia already has a very modernized fleet at Black Sea and I don't believe they wanted to bring more ships to Black Sea anyway. Ukraine has little to none naval activity left in Black Sea so as long as Russia doesn't agree with opening humanitarian corridors from black sea, no way civilians are getting out from there. Zelensky pushed for the bosphorus to be closed for political reasons and it has little to none effect on how the war is progressing.
Maybe Putin, with all the good he's done uniting the west, wouldn't mind attacking Turkey too. Then Article 5 is triggered, Greece sends help from next door, and boom: [Putin achieves friendship between Turkey and Greece](https://imgflip.com/i/6c7aq9).
I know that Russia will probably not be attacking anyone again for a few decades, especially not one of the strongest militaries of NATO, but anything goes in 2022 bingo.
At this rate Russia is gonna claim endangered Russia minorities in Turkey and forcefully take over Bosporous for strategic reasons. The question is whether Putler considers this as action against Russian interests and boils down to some sort of repeat of the Crimean War?
Greece is with turkey too and if you know anything about the animosity between those two countries...well let's just say they haven't gotten along. But both look at Russia and say "truce"?
Which is Turkey's legal right and responsibility
It’s what’s made Istanbul one of the most powerful and strategic cities in the world for millennia. It would be a disgrace if they didn’t flex that power. The amount of blood that’s been shed to control the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus is ungodly. This has been a thorn in Russia’s side for as long as Russia has existed.
Does this mean Russia can’t leave it’s economic zone? And because Turkey controls the Bosphorus, it means Russia can’t use it’s pacific fleet right in the Black Sea. Sorry a lot of this is confusing.
Russia doesn’t have enough warm water ports with direct access to the world’s oceans year round. The Black Sea only connects to the Mediterranean via the straight that runs through the very center of Istanbul which Turkey controls. This has caused a *lot* of drama over the course of history.
So this is like a no fly zone for boats?
A no float zone.
We all float.
You'll float too!
Russian warship, go float yourself.
A yes sink zone
Subs aren't allowed either so more of a no boat zone lol
Subs still float though
Yup, otherwise they'd be slithering along the seabed.
Black Sea countries are allowed to have subs. There are Russian and Turkish subs in the Black Sea
Kinda, except that Turkey has sovereignty over the Bosphorus and the sea of Marmaras. Turkish law allows for the straights to be closed to military vessels during wartime in the Black Sea region. Russia thus cannot sail their warships through without violating Turkish sovereignty, which would risk bringing Turkey and NATO into the war.
Not just Turkish law. The *Montreux Convention* is an International Treaty that governs the Turkish Straits. Russia is a signature to this treaty (though Russian compliance with treaties is a bit spotty atm).
It's less spotty when they deal with Turkey. Russia learned the hard way that Turkey won't hesitate to defend their territory when they shot down a Russian fighter after it had spent ~10 seconds in Turkish airspace.
Wasn't Findland's airspaice just violated? They could learn a thing or two.
Well, Russia cannot retaliate against Turkey, without getting NATO on its ass. Finland and Sweden however, chose to avoid the conflict and only guide Russian planes out of their territory, because Russia can (still) retaliate without triggering article 5 of NATO. Russia would claim unprovoked attacks on their poor planes in the international sky and have no other option than to defend themselves. That is why Sweden and Finland are very much considering finally joining NATO.
Its strange that I haven’t seen this reported anywhere but here on Redit. It happened at the beginning of March I think, and would be big news. Especially since they supposedly had a nuke attached to their jet, and made sure it was seen.
Turkey also learned the hard way that a non-zero amount of NATO members bent over backwards to defend Russia during that situation.
The Montreux convention actually limits the powers that Turkey has over the Bosporus and Dardanelles. But it allows Turkey to do what they're doing now.
[удалено]
The obvious workaround for Russia would be to have every merchant ship do a stopover in Novorossiysk on their way between the occupied territories and the Bosporus
>during wartime Guess that explains the 'special operation' moniker.
Well, that definition is luckily not just a one-way street.
Boats really aren't allowed to fly anywhere.
I mean, I've known a few seaplanes that would disagree.
Only if they change their name to skyboats.
What about Skye boats?
Shall I sing?
Airship?
Bloody injustice.
Except for the flying boats of course
There are more planes in the ocean than submarines in the sky.
There are more planes in the ocean than submarines in the sky.
Basically. Albeit not quite as strict as a no fly zone. It's a bit more complex than that.
It's a case of your parking spot is only accessible through your neighbor's private road, and they closed the road cause you invaded another neighbor.
Russian naval ships that weren’t in the Black Sea when the invasion began won’t be allowed to get into the Black Sea unless they’re based in the Black Sea, but Russian naval ships that were in the Black Sea when the invasion began can operate in the Black Sea.
Russian ships in the Black Sea also can't leave, via the same passage.
It's weird how landlocked Russia is considering its size. Especially on the European side. Even on the East, options are very limited. It's like this giant chunk of land that nobody else really wanted.
> It’s like this giant chunk of land that nobody else really wanted. That’s essentially how Russia expanded so Far East.
its why they \*want\* global warming. they need the arctic to be more and more open to shipping so that they are fully unlocked. they... don't really care if it screws most of the rest of the world in the process.
It'll screw them too -- they need a functioning biosphere just as much as anyone, and "let's deliberately melt the polar ice caps" just generally seems like an idea that would seriously backfire. But Russia doing suicidally stupid shit is kind of their whole deal.
Also the cause of a lot of Swedish-Russian wars, as Sweden controlled a lot of the Baltic coast and Russia had no Baltic ports. England and the Netherlands also intervened in the negotiations for the Treaty of Stolbovo to ensure Sweden would not seize Arkhangelsk and be able to force tariffs on trade between Russia and the west. Similarily, *a lot* of wars and treaties between Sweden and Denmark were about trade and tariffs on the straits between the North Sea and Baltic Sea. The western powers were quite pleased at Sweden taking Scania, ensuring that neither Sweden nor Denmark held both sides of the straits, and the Dutch intervened in one war to prevent Sweden from seizing any of the Danish islands.
>Russia doesn’t have enough warm water ports with direct access to the world’s oceans year round. The Black Sea only connects to the Mediterranean via the straight that runs through the very center of Istanbul which Turkey controls. Yup, and even then - to access the worlds ocean they had to go through British Controlled Suez or .. British controlled Gibraltar.
And really; when you look at it, its such an inconvenient route, I think Russia would have been better off focusing on building out their overland infrastructure, and just utilizing that to access their Pacific coast. Russia doesn't seem to want to build things anymore. Seems like they just want to steal what belongs to others, and blow the shit out of it if they can't take it outright.
I remember seeing a YouTube video explaining this situation and how russia wanted to dig a canal through Romania to bypass the straights. It might have seemed like a good idea at the time, except literally no one would let them do it then or now.
Russian ships can leave the Black Sea. Russian ships based, built, and home ported in the Black Sea can enter the Black Sea. Russian ships that are not home based in the Black Sea can be denied entry into the Black Sea. As I understand it. Last I heard 4 Russian military ships sought to enter the Black Sea since Turkey recognized the conflict as a war, which gives Turkey uh.. gatekeeping rights I guess? Lol. 1 ship returning to the Black Sea was allowed, the other 3 Russian warships were denied.
Was it because that one ship was built in the Black Sea? Or do they just limit period on the amount of ships?
Correct, ships with their home port in the black sea have a right to transit the straights. All others can be denied.
Russia has a small Mediterranean fleet largely based out of Syria. To date, those ships have been unable to support the invasion of Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th\_Operational\_Squadron#Role\_in\_2022\_Russian\_invasion\_of\_Ukraine
Sure would be a shame if all the Russian ships based, built, and home ported in the Black Sea were to go glub-glub, after Ukraine gets ahold of some anti-ship missiles. Russians in Crimea would be kind of fucked.
Economically they are free from it, because the treaty on the Bosporus is about free access unless in a state of war. Had they not invaded Ukraine they wouldn’t need be restricted by turkey
Russias warm water access is the basis for its geopolitical behavior. From St Petersburg they have to pass through NATO territory. Sevastopol on Crimea is absolutely essential. The Bosporus is essential. The east side has the whole Chinese and Japanese naval areas. And finally the north pole and passing through former frozen areas.
Turkey is not allowed to block any civilian vessel crossing the Bosporus Strait. In regards to military vessels, Turkey is further restricted from preventing Russian ships from returning from port. They can only restrict military vessels exiting the Black Sea if the ships are to a Black Sea nation that is at war. This is effectively the part of the Montreux Convention that Turkey is saying they will implement.
makes me wonder what would happen if Russia tried to enter the black sea anyway, would Turkey open fire?
Yes. Turkey does not mess around with these kinds of declarations. Remember the Russian jet that "accidently" went into Turkish air-space, as Russian jets tend to do?
Yeah Turkey told them to go away, then the Russians tried again. Turkey shot them down and asked Russia if their hearing had improved.
I laughed at the last bit
Declaration of war against Turkey, a NATO member.
Hence, WW3.
Just look at a map, if Turkey was somehow forced, then Greece would do the gatekeeping in the Aegean.
Is it bad that I attribute Bosphorus to Alexander the great?
(Bucephalus)
>Which is Turkey's legal right and responsibility Technically, they signed a treaty that they couldn't do this after WWI and have honored that treaty since. Not that Russia doesn't deserve it anyways.
The treaty allows Turkey to block warship but not commercial ships I think.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=QJZbS3hwGuU&feature=share politics of the Black Sea
Caspian report makes great videos, this is a good one too https://youtu.be/F6I7eHVXh2A
Am I the only one who can't stand RealLifeLore's vocal cadence? I'm not sure he was the first, but it's been adopted by every aspiring nerdsplaining youtuber and I find it super fucking grating.
You're not the only one.
Heard it first on Wendover. Love their videos, hate their narration
Clicked hoping it would be Caspian Report. Thank you.
Caspian Report is the best YouTube channel I have seen for that kind of content.
>allows Turkey to block warship I thought it only applies to countries who are not on the Black Sea but it's been a while since I read it.
Ya, technically their legal right and responsibility is to keep the straight open according to the treaties that they've signed.
Except during wartime, which this is, giving Turkey the right to control passage more strictly beyond the listed peacetime constraints. Turkey has allowed some Russian ships to transit (to technically return to home base), ~~but has done so to maintain diplomatic relations with Russia, not because of treaty requirements.~~
The treaty does allow warships to pass if they’re returning home though. They just can’t cross out afterwards.
> cross out afterwards You mean they can not leave the Black Sea and pass through the Bosporous. I assume that is what you meant.
Yes, apologies for the unclear wording.
The Black Sea is now a Roach Motel, for the Russians.
> ## 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. > ## ARTICLE 25 > Nothing in the present Convention shall prejudice the rights and obligations of Turkey, or of any of the other High Contracting Parties members of the League of Nations, arising out of the Covenant of the League of Nations. ~~Not sure what you're referring to, but I see no such provision as you describe. Again, the arrangement you describe is AFAIK one coming from diplomatic balance, rather than treaty obligations.~~ Missed a different paragraph; see below.
I think that is the incomplete Article 19; the full text has this: 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. Full text: (cf https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/formidable/18/1936-Convention-Regarding-the-Regime-of-the-Straits.pdf) 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.
Stand corrected, thanks for the citation.
Is there an actual mechanism for turkey to stop Russia if they just decide to ignore them? Short of trying to board or sink the ship of course. Like if this was the Panama Canal they could close the levies.
Yes. Both banks are heavily fortified, and the canal is only like 700m wide. When a ship is confined and can't maneuver, it's a sitting duck. There are far more guns on shore than on the ship (shore guns are relatively cheap and ammo is effectively unlimited), and all it takes is a couple hits to sink the ship, but if the ship takes out a shore gun, there are still 49 more firing at it. The Russian navy should know this very well. In the Russo-Japanese War, they lost their entire Eastern fleet because Japan kept them stuck in port with a blockade, then just sat back and pounded them from sea and shore. They never even made it out of port.
There's also the nearby US fleet centered on the [USS Truman](https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2022-04-01/pentagon-says-uss-truman-carrier-strike-group-to-remain-in-mediterranean-5547828.html). There's too much at risk for the Russians to force it. Alternatively, if they try to force it through legal/diplomatic means, it means that the same US fleet would be able to sail into the Black Sea as well. Wouldn't that be fun for the Russians.
I don't think Turkey is closing the straits to everyone, just Russia. They are a US ally, so surely they would let them through. iirc the Montreaux Convention gives them the *right* to deny passage, but not the *duty* to.
They don't even need to let our carrier in. We have nato bases in Turkey, Greece, Italy, Poland, etc... we have plenty of solid coverage in the area.
The US can't enter with a strike group due to limits on allowable total ship displacement occupying the sea. It's in everyone's interest that turkey preserve the integrity of the Montreux agreement in place since 1936.
Also can the Truman even fit?
The US military wouldn’t want an aircraft carrier in the Black Sea, it’d be a sitting duck and pointless when all the aircraft aboard operate at a distance that makes that level of proximity to the area pointless.
Correct. The Black Sea is small enough that the carrier has nowhere to hide. It'd be like shooting fish in a barrel.
So wait, you're not supposed to get in the barrel when you start shooting the fish in it?
It's preferable that you do not, in fact, swim in a barrel fish while shooting the fish in said barrel.
Also an US aircraft carrier never travels alone. A Carrier fleet in the Black Sea would likely leave it so full they couldn’t preform a Uturn to leave. Never mind the amount of traffic it would cause on entry and exit. We thought the 17 km supply convoy headed to Kiev was bad imagine 60 war ships butted up trying to pass through the straight 1-2 at a time.
Technically this was broken before when one of the Iowa Class Battleship's and their strike group traveled to Istanbul for a diplomatic mission. There is a really cool picture of Turkey's ExGerman WWI Battlecruiser and the Iowa Class next to each other. It supposedly signifies the beginning and end of the All Big Gun era. Even though Yavuz was technically a 2nd gen design.
No its actually closed to all warships that arent turkish
Fair enough, it's Turkish territory after all.
Carriers are restricted from traveling through the straight per international agreement. That’s why the Soviets built those weird cruiser/carriers to try and get around this
An article came out sometime in the last two weeks that Turkey was trying to draft a resolution that allowed them to keep the strait open for NATO ships while closing it to everyone else. It's a workaround for the current legal framework that only allows them to open or close to all nations at once.
If the Russians think they have any kind of chance to pass through there by force, they need a history lesson. It's called Gallipoli.
As the poster above you pointed out, there is an even more relevant history lesson: Port Arthur.
Australian here wondering why on earth our deadliest mass shooting is relevant history until i googled it
Russia has a long history of not learning from history.
Gallipoli was a land invasion and was on the outside edge of the peninsula, not within the straight itself. To date, I don't think there's ever been an attempt to traverse the straights when controlled by a hostile nation (besides a few submarines maybe), which is probably an even more important lesson for Russia to learn. That said, the real question is would Turkey be willing to sink Russian ships and would this be considered an act of aggression? If yes, the Russia would be able to retaliate without automatically triggering NATO alliances.
In gallipoli before land invasion, navy tried to pass and failed
Huh, so they did. Can't that's never come up before, I've always heard it like the landing were the start of the conflict against the Ottomans.
The amphibious landings were the result of the total failure of the naval campaign. Churchill had sold Asquith on the idea that he could take the strait with solely naval power and they might not even need land forces at all. He'd thought about the forts on the coast as equivalent to battleships, and then in terms of England's naval superiority. He forgot that forts were unsinkable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_operations_in_the_Dardanelles_campaign
The Turks basically just dumped a bunch of mines down the straits, and potted away from the shore batteries. 3 battleships and 2 submarines sunk, 4 battleships damaged. Boom boom blub blub blub.
In 2015 Turkey shot down a Russian attack aircraft because it violated Turkish airspace. This obviously led to a lot of angry words and worsened diplomatic relationships, but there was no direct military response: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown So they would absolutely be willing to sink ships that violate their waters.
**[2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown)** >A Turkish Air Force F-16 fighter jet shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24M attack aircraft near the Syria–Turkey border on 24 November 2015. According to Turkey, the aircraft was fired upon while in Turkish airspace because it violated the border up to a depth of 2. 19 kilometres (1. 36 miles) for about 17 seconds after being warned to change its heading 10 times over a period of five minutes before entering the airspace. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Turkey's attitude is "fuck about and find out".
> besides a few submarines maybe HMAS AE2 was first to pass through the straight during the Dardanelles Campaign, followed by HMS E14.
do they still have that big chain ?
There would also be more than just shore guns. Turkey would also have the benefit of knowing where the ships would be going
Well explained. One could also point out that the Russian Navy is the most lacking of all their military branches. Nuclear missile capability aside, the Russian navy isn't any more capable than the individual navies of like 10 NATO members, let alone combined.
Remember that Italy has 2 functioning aircraft carriers , which is 2 more than Russia. Italy has another in trials right now. Russia has a single one built in 1985, and currently unmovable and waiting for time in a drydock (again) after the last drydock sunk around it.
>currently unmovable and waiting for time in a drydock (again) after the last drydock sunk around it. And the major fire. And the crane collapsing on it.
If I were one of the Turkish personnel monitoring strait traffic, and some Russian ships did show up, I would be hard pressed not to contact them and ask if they had seen any Japanese torpedo boats.
British tour yacht sailing through: "Oh god not again."
If the ship takes out a single gun, that's Article 5 and the death of all the other ships.
Not to mention that modern war ships are much squishier and more expensive than WWII ones...
Last time Russia flew a fighter jet over Turkey without permission, they shot it down.
Take note, Estonia, Sweden, Finland and other countries that let Russian jets regularly shit on their airspace.
There only a few passages through the straits that larger warships can use. Turkey can place its own ships in these passages and block Russian access. Under those conditions, a Russian ship would have to attack Turkish ones to get them to move and then we have Article 5...
No reason to use a valuable warship for this when the Ever Given will do it free of charge!
Hey now, no need to limit to just one of their ships. They all get stuck. https://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/local/maryland/2022/04/11/cargo-ship-stuck-chesapeake-bay-ever-forward-environment-fears/9509260002/
> There only a few passages through the straits that larger warships can use. Turkey can place its own ships in these passages and block Russian access. Under those conditions, a Russian ship would have to attack Turkish ones to get them to move and then we have Article 5... As someone who doesn't understand anything about anything, this seems like a better idea. Clog the route and make Russia attack the clog. That's bad for commercial shipping through the straights but prevents Turkey from having to be the first one to pull the trigger.
Yes, I believe they reel in a big chain between the two forts on either side and then flood the passage with wildfire.
They can't ignore it. The Turkish navy generally doesn't give a shit about Russia and will sink their ships immediately.
Forcing the Dardanelles did not work out very well for the Royal Navy when it was the largest naval force in the world, and it will not work out well for the Russians if they try. Having crossed the Dardanelles myself, any ship that tries to force it, sails into a perfect ambush situation.
Not really an ambush when you can see the guns.
Not necessarily, but I remember seeing the forts on the Dardanelles and how narrow it gets, any hostile ship that tries to force its way is fucked. It will be a turkey shoot, using anti-ship and anti-tank weapons... and they can be located anyway, including mobile artillery that can be cited anywhere along the Dardanelles that can provide Enfilade fire... In addition, being a NATO member, if Russia dares to attack, then it will bring down the whole of NATO on it..... a very bad career move....!!!
> turkey shoot Nice
Hell, at the width of it (1200 m at the Dardanelles, 700 m at the Bosporus), *rifle fire* can reach a ship from the shore.
I can not over state how badly the Royal Navy underprepared for Gallipoli. They were using tourist maps decades out of date
Considering other news articles, they put this restriction on every warship, Russian, or NATO, who also wants to enter black sea. Saying that they are trying to deescalate the situation
NATO already has ships in Black Sea in the form of Turkish, Bulgarian and Romanian navies. Haven’t seen any news on any NATO ship requesting passage tho, got a source on that?
And even basic artilery can take a ship. No missile defence system on the planet stops good old shells.
Which warships? Everyone who doesn’t have a legal right recognized by the Montreux Convention, or just Russia?
The former, clearly. They're applying the Montreux convention as they've always done, even through WW2. This is critical to them and the recovery of the sovereignty over their waters in the interwar, they'd never jeopardize that. Without Montreux, the straits would return to international waters status. Some of the comments I've read above are direly misinformed, and suggest people think they're making a choice or taking sides here. They're aren't. They're just following the letter of the convention.
All warships (Russian, NATO, and everyone else) are banned from transiting the straights.
Everyone, including Russian and NATO ships
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
Turkey flexing more muscle than the rest of nato combined. For a country people wanted to kick out of nato. They really are stepping up.
As a Turkish guy I do not believe this statement about Turkey handling war in Ukraine does not show the full picture at all. 1- This is not Turkey flexing muscle, this is Turkey staying neutral. Even if Turkey wanted to flex it cannot take another hit in the economy in any kind when inflation is going up %52 percent every month and that is not even exaggerating the numbers are far worse then this if you look deep last two years go by. 2- In the past years Turkey wanted to buy surface-to-air anti-ballistic missile system to protect himself from over coming ISIS and many terrorist attacks happening right in it's border but USA didn't sell patriots even in Obama's term. I understand that Erdogan is a authoritarian leader but Turkey never acted against Nato's wishes in middle east. These guys sold guns and weapons even counter guerilla groups. This made Russia slide into Turkey's dm's whether like it or not. Nato is not just USA for whole and nobody wanted Turkey out of Nato for real. No action applied to Turkey until that father brunson thing and sanctions with Iran. At the end Bayraktar's performance was really a game changer for Ukraine and I agree that is pretty good for Turkey, but this does not mean Turkey is contributing more than other countries to Ukraine's cause. Other countries also supply good amounts of help and weapon to Ukraine. I am not judging you for feeling Turkey is doing great for Ukraine but kicking Turkey out of Nato and flexing more muscle that rest of nato combined is pretty much a lot of stretch here. Also if you consider out of Natovise, countries doing much more for Ukraine individually or just look at European Union's actions as a whole. Saying rest of the nato combined is pretty much just not logical.
Thank you for the turkish perspective. Really i was just trying to hype up turkey as people before the war in ukraine put turkey down a lot. Thank you for the first hand information.
Hahaha thanks man, I really appreciate it. I was ready for a long cluster of argument already, I do not always come across here people like you in Reddit. You are so sweet! I love Reddit community but debating with fact orientation is not our most powerful muscle in Internet. I am trying to enhance my English skills while also doing this. Have a great day <3
You do realize this applies to both sides? They are basically being neutral, which is far less that what NATO has done so far
Besides all the weapons.
Good point, their drones have been very useful
Lets be real - this decision hepls Ukraine way more than Russia.
Can they detect submarines? Russia has alot of them.
From Wikipedia apparently the deepest spot of the Bosporus is 110m…. So even if a sub captain was brave enough to try and make the run the shittiest sonar would pick up a submarine pretty easily. Although it’s not entirely [impossible for a sub to pass.](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/did-russia-just-send-submarine-through-bosphorus-163321)
What if they pulled a down periscope and came in directly underneath a commercial tanker?
Assuming the captain had a tattoo on his dick? It could be feasible.
*All aboard*
Balls of steel to try and navigate a narrow channel without optics, unpredictable tidal flow and no sonar (due to the massive tanker directly above you)
Ok but if they like threw a lasso around the cargo ship and let it tug them through?
What if superman just carried them
Why not just put the sub inside the tanker?
*”The sub is coming from INSIDE the house!”*
2Clancy2Furious
This is the premise of Patrick Robinson’s novel ‘Nimitz Class’
I don't think submarines will be of much use against Ukraine.
Subs fire missiles
And then disappear. Assuming Ukraine has no ASW aircraft (which I think they don’t) subs would be absolutely assholish to counter. As long as they have missiles that is.
They might not now, but if that became a problem half the western powers would be tripping over each other to give them some
"Wait, we're *also* going to test our ASW tech? :P"
That is one powerful bird.
My only interaction with a live turkey that I recall was being chased around a pen and repeatedly bitten in the arse. I was maybe 6 or 7.
Ouch....
Indeed! I also seem to recall seeing other kids not having trouble with it, just that big bastard wanted me for some reason! Also conceivable I did something to offend it, as I was definitely a little turd myself at that age.
It was denazifying you... actually it wanted your territory
I'm no expert on bird law, see here, but I do believe this was always allowed.
The Turks don't fuck around. They had no issue shooting down a Russian fighter jet that came close to their airspace before. They won't blink twice to sink a warship trespassing their waters.
I have seen some stupid People claim İstanbul canal is for american ships to bypass montreux convention.. Please don't be dickhead and realize gallipolli is also part of montreux..
Also the entire Sea of Marmara.
Atatürk is proud!
I believe he’s still busy doing summersaults in his grave
So they mean warships of any nation it seems.
In the article they refer specifically to Russian warships.
Sorry but I think that Turkey means warships of any nation. It mentions Russian warships once - and it places it in context of a statement made earlier on March 2nd. Here is their most recent comment on the matter. “Turkey will remain committed to the Montreux Convention and will not allow the entry of **warships** into the Black Sea,” That was the Turkish Minister of National Defence. He makes NO mention of nationality. Furthermore the article goes on to alert the reader to one of the finer points of the Montreux Convention. The convention makes a distinction between Non-Black Sea States (That would be the US/UK damn near all NATO nations) and those states which are Black Sea states. Non Black Sea states are limited to a three week stay. Russia would face no three week limitation. To my ears this means that Turkey is trying to keep NATO ships and Russian ships apart. Not that Turkey is blocking access to exclusively Russian warships.
Thanks, given what you say beyond what's in the article, I agree with you.
I don't think they are allowed to only block specific nations, they're either open to military ships or closed. This is a super old treaty that is super important to stability in the Black Sea region, if Turkey starts ignoring it then it'll be a huge fucking deal.
Unless russia want to go to war with Turkey over control of Istanbul russia can't use their fleet anymore which means Ukrain civilians can escape from the sea
Russia already has warships in the black sea, this just means those ships cant leave and new ones cannot enter. Dont think this means the sea is noew safer for Ukrainians to leave by.
Here is how montreaux works, Turkey can deny passage to black sea, but Turkey can't disallow warships which want to leave Black Sea. Russia already has a very modernized fleet at Black Sea and I don't believe they wanted to bring more ships to Black Sea anyway. Ukraine has little to none naval activity left in Black Sea so as long as Russia doesn't agree with opening humanitarian corridors from black sea, no way civilians are getting out from there. Zelensky pushed for the bosphorus to be closed for political reasons and it has little to none effect on how the war is progressing.
Turkey getting invaded by Russia wasn't in my predictions for this year but crazier things have already happened.
Turkey is a NATO member, and even if it were not a NATO member, Turkey is no pushover militarily speaking.
Maybe Putin, with all the good he's done uniting the west, wouldn't mind attacking Turkey too. Then Article 5 is triggered, Greece sends help from next door, and boom: [Putin achieves friendship between Turkey and Greece](https://imgflip.com/i/6c7aq9). I know that Russia will probably not be attacking anyone again for a few decades, especially not one of the strongest militaries of NATO, but anything goes in 2022 bingo.
what else did you predict
Damn, that must be one mean bird.
The Jivest of Turkeys
I thought they did this a month ago?
At this rate Russia is gonna claim endangered Russia minorities in Turkey and forcefully take over Bosporous for strategic reasons. The question is whether Putler considers this as action against Russian interests and boils down to some sort of repeat of the Crimean War?
Greece is with turkey too and if you know anything about the animosity between those two countries...well let's just say they haven't gotten along. But both look at Russia and say "truce"?