Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2
Discussion
MOTORVATOR said:
QuickQuack said:
MOTORVATOR said:
QuickQuack said:
MOTORVATOR said:
pingu393 said:
SlimJim16v said:
MOTORVATOR said:
SlimJim16v said:
The countries suffering from Russia's blockade of Ukraine should send their navies to protect and escort Ukraine's exports. From what I've read in the articles linked above, the s
t has already started hitting the fan in poorer countries.
The useless UN should be doing something.
The Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits are closed to all warships other than those returning to base so would require a bit if escalation from Turkey Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova to put anything meaningful Navy wise in there.t has already started hitting the fan in poorer countries.The useless UN should be doing something.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/16/t...
NATO is not involved as you say, however it would take those four countries to be in agreement for the Montreaux convention to be relaxed as the closure is on rather shaky ground anyway. You would need to transit three of those countries waters to get to where you want to be and likely utilise the Moldovan coastal access agreement for access to keep Ukraine out of the loop as much as possible.
So yeah get a couple of NATO warships in there as protection by putting the finger up to Putin but you still haven't resolved the issue of the minefields?
Saying that, only Black Sea states are allowed to transit their capital war ships through the straits (with the exception of certain circumstances which are currently do not apply), and so any NATO ship passing through couldn't be a capital ship or exceed 10,000 tonnes, and can only remain in the Black Sea for a maximum of 21 days, all of which rather limits the usefulness of such a venture.
"He stated that the Turkish government has warned all countries (whether bordering the Black Sea or not) not to send warships via the straits to the Black Sea during the Russia-Ukraine war. He emphasized that no such attempt has occurred thus far."
'Turkish minister’s statements are considered as an official declaration of the Turkish government regarding the passing regime over the straits.'
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/02/turke...
It would be dangerous for Turkey as it would place it directly against Russia even though the two are not at war, but it is theoretically possible. In fact, if you had followed the Op Ed link near the bottom of the page that you've linked to written by the same author who happens to be an ex-Turkish naval officer, you would've seen that the author says exactly the same same thing, feasible but dangerous for Turkey.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/02/op-ed...
And here's the full text of the original Montreux Convention that the Turkish government signed:
https://www.kiyiemniyeti.gov.tr/userfiles/file/mev...
You've posted a link there to editorial opinion four days earlier to refute what they actually did four days later!
Of course yes Turkey can change it's mind at any time in the future but as of now the straits are closed to any warships from any country, as I stated initially, and you argued was not quite correct and it was only the aggressor country banned? The Ministers statement was quite clear ALL countries.
It's all semantics anyway as I very much doubt Romania / Bulgaria want a couple of tooled up carriers / destroyers on their doorstep right at this moment and if they sailed into Ukraine waters it would be no different than us putting boots on the ground or aircraft in their skies to protect rail and highway movements for Ukr.
What had been stated in the chain above was fundamentally incorrect, which was what I was correcting. Montreux Convention allows Turkey multiple options, and the Turkish government have only sent a warning to governments not to send warships through the straits rather than making full declaration that the straits are closed to all military vessels. There's a huge diplomatic difference between the two.
If you look at the statements/answers of the Foreign Minister, you'll note that he intentionally uses language to describe what Turkey is allowed to do with references to several articles of the Montreux Convention along with a warning sent to gavernments not to send warships across the straits, all the while also emphasising that Turkish government retains full discretion over what happens. None of the statements or answers to any questions have said directly that the "straits are closed" because not closing them gives the Turkish government more leverage. This is a diplomatic way of giving clear message to the Russian government not to try to get any more war ships through, a restatement of the intent of Turkey to try to remain "neutral" on surface as the Turkish government knowns nobody is in a hurry to send any war ships through, but still leaving the door ajar if there is a need. It's good diplomatic play.
And no, it wouldn't take those 4 countries for the convention to be relaxed; it would only take one, Turkey. Turkey can decide to do apply the rules of the Montreux Convention as it sees fit, and the other three have no say over it. The straits are the sovereign territory of Turkey.
I wonder what happens to the conscript POW's from the Donbas captured by Ukraine. They are Ukranian and they didn't want to fight. Do they end up free in Ukraine contributing to the war effort?
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Saturday 21st May 08:30
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Saturday 21st May 09:00
QuickQuack said:
What they've implemented is not on shaky ground at all; it's a well established treaty which has been challanged multiple times, especially by USSR/Russia, and pretty much always unsuccessfully. It's on as solid a ground as it gets.
What had been stated in the chain above was fundamentally incorrect, which was what I was correcting. Montreux Convention allows Turkey multiple options, and the Turkish government have only sent a warning to governments not to send warships through the straits rather than making full declaration that the straits are closed to all military vessels. There's a huge diplomatic difference between the two.
If you look at the statements/answers of the Foreign Minister, you'll note that he intentionally uses language to describe what Turkey is allowed to do with references to several articles of the Montreux Convention along with a warning sent to gavernments not to send warships across the straits, all the while also emphasising that Turkish government retains full discretion over what happens. None of the statements or answers to any questions have said directly that the "straits are closed" because not closing them gives the Turkish government more leverage. This is a diplomatic way of giving clear message to the Russian government not to try to get any more war ships through, a restatement of the intent of Turkey to try to remain "neutral" on surface as the Turkish government knowns nobody is in a hurry to send any war ships through, but still leaving the door ajar if there is a need. It's good diplomatic play.
And no, it wouldn't take those 4 countries for the convention to be relaxed; it would only take one, Turkey. Turkey can decide to do apply the rules of the Montreux Convention as it sees fit, and the other three have no say over it. The straits are the sovereign territory of Turkey.
As I said you are just arguing semantics. It's shaky from the point of view they have had to declare it a war themselves in order to implement what they have done. Currently the Straits are warned against ALL warships (closed) as advised by the Turkey government minister and it is irrelevant what you or I 'think'. I actually agree with you though that Turkey can change it's mind, even come to that if Russia were to request a replacement vessel to Moskva.What had been stated in the chain above was fundamentally incorrect, which was what I was correcting. Montreux Convention allows Turkey multiple options, and the Turkish government have only sent a warning to governments not to send warships through the straits rather than making full declaration that the straits are closed to all military vessels. There's a huge diplomatic difference between the two.
If you look at the statements/answers of the Foreign Minister, you'll note that he intentionally uses language to describe what Turkey is allowed to do with references to several articles of the Montreux Convention along with a warning sent to gavernments not to send warships across the straits, all the while also emphasising that Turkish government retains full discretion over what happens. None of the statements or answers to any questions have said directly that the "straits are closed" because not closing them gives the Turkish government more leverage. This is a diplomatic way of giving clear message to the Russian government not to try to get any more war ships through, a restatement of the intent of Turkey to try to remain "neutral" on surface as the Turkish government knowns nobody is in a hurry to send any war ships through, but still leaving the door ajar if there is a need. It's good diplomatic play.
And no, it wouldn't take those 4 countries for the convention to be relaxed; it would only take one, Turkey. Turkey can decide to do apply the rules of the Montreux Convention as it sees fit, and the other three have no say over it. The straits are the sovereign territory of Turkey.
And getting through the straits is one thing but setting up a military protection zone to bring Ukranian grain into and through Bulgarian / Romanian waters needs their agreement as well. Just sitting anchored up in Turkish controlled waters isn't very helpful is it? Moldova do hold a key as they have access to Ukranian waters set in stone which is what gives them maritime access to the Black Sea and likely the best / only way to do any actual shipping from Ukraine.
None of which is possible anyway without a mine clearing operation.
Well Ru tried to shoot down some Israeli jets yesterday. Putin obviously believes in go big or go home...He's turning the world into a very scary place.
Got to hope whatever ailment he has is painful and robs him of any shred dignity before he finally FOAD.
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/russia-missile-atta...
Got to hope whatever ailment he has is painful and robs him of any shred dignity before he finally FOAD.
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/russia-missile-atta...
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
Well Ru tried to shoot down some Israeli jets yesterday. Putin obviously believes in go big or go home...He's turning the world into a very scary place.
Got to hope whatever ailment he has is painful and robs him of any shred dignity before he finally FOAD.
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/russia-missile-atta...
Hope he drank some of his own tea. Got to hope whatever ailment he has is painful and robs him of any shred dignity before he finally FOAD.
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/russia-missile-atta...
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
Well Ru tried to shoot down some Israeli jets yesterday. Putin obviously believes in go big or go home...He's turning the world into a very scary place.
Got to hope whatever ailment he has is painful and robs him of any shred dignity before he finally FOAD.
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/russia-missile-atta...
That's it mad Vlad... take on one of the most advanced and well equipped militaries in the world.Got to hope whatever ailment he has is painful and robs him of any shred dignity before he finally FOAD.
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/russia-missile-atta...
Based on Russia's performance in Ukraine, the Israelies will swap them like flies. Oh yes, Israel have nukes as well don't they?
Fecking idiotic.
TriumphStag3.0V8 said:
That's it mad Vlad... take on one of the most advanced and well equipped militaries in the world.
Based on Russia's performance in Ukraine, the Israelies will swap them like flies. Oh yes, Israel have nukes as well don't they?
Fecking idiotic.
He's possibly emulating Saddam Hussain & trying to get the Arabs on his side.Based on Russia's performance in Ukraine, the Israelies will swap them like flies. Oh yes, Israel have nukes as well don't they?
Fecking idiotic.
TriumphStag3.0V8 said:
That's it mad Vlad... take on one of the most advanced and well equipped militaries in the world.
Based on Russia's performance in Ukraine, the Israelies will swap them like flies. Oh yes, Israel have nukes as well don't they?
Fecking idiotic.
When you are an out and out thug intimidation and violence is all you have.Based on Russia's performance in Ukraine, the Israelies will swap them like flies. Oh yes, Israel have nukes as well don't they?
Fecking idiotic.
TriumphStag3.0V8 said:
That's it mad Vlad... take on one of the most advanced and well equipped militaries in the world.
.
Or ...is he (just as in theory we are for Ukraine) merely supplying more advanced weaponry to a friendly country to help themselves defend against aggressive military incursions by a more powerful neighbour.....?.
MOTORVATOR said:
QuickQuack said:
What they've implemented is not on shaky ground at all; it's a well established treaty which has been challanged multiple times, especially by USSR/Russia, and pretty much always unsuccessfully. It's on as solid a ground as it gets.
What had been stated in the chain above was fundamentally incorrect, which was what I was correcting. Montreux Convention allows Turkey multiple options, and the Turkish government have only sent a warning to governments not to send warships through the straits rather than making full declaration that the straits are closed to all military vessels. There's a huge diplomatic difference between the two.
If you look at the statements/answers of the Foreign Minister, you'll note that he intentionally uses language to describe what Turkey is allowed to do with references to several articles of the Montreux Convention along with a warning sent to gavernments not to send warships across the straits, all the while also emphasising that Turkish government retains full discretion over what happens. None of the statements or answers to any questions have said directly that the "straits are closed" because not closing them gives the Turkish government more leverage. This is a diplomatic way of giving clear message to the Russian government not to try to get any more war ships through, a restatement of the intent of Turkey to try to remain "neutral" on surface as the Turkish government knowns nobody is in a hurry to send any war ships through, but still leaving the door ajar if there is a need. It's good diplomatic play.
And no, it wouldn't take those 4 countries for the convention to be relaxed; it would only take one, Turkey. Turkey can decide to do apply the rules of the Montreux Convention as it sees fit, and the other three have no say over it. The straits are the sovereign territory of Turkey.
As I said you are just arguing semantics. It's shaky from the point of view they have had to declare it a war themselves in order to implement what they have done. Currently the Straits are warned against ALL warships (closed) as advised by the Turkey government minister and it is irrelevant what you or I 'think'. I actually agree with you though that Turkey can change it's mind, even come to that if Russia were to request a replacement vessel to Moskva.What had been stated in the chain above was fundamentally incorrect, which was what I was correcting. Montreux Convention allows Turkey multiple options, and the Turkish government have only sent a warning to governments not to send warships through the straits rather than making full declaration that the straits are closed to all military vessels. There's a huge diplomatic difference between the two.
If you look at the statements/answers of the Foreign Minister, you'll note that he intentionally uses language to describe what Turkey is allowed to do with references to several articles of the Montreux Convention along with a warning sent to gavernments not to send warships across the straits, all the while also emphasising that Turkish government retains full discretion over what happens. None of the statements or answers to any questions have said directly that the "straits are closed" because not closing them gives the Turkish government more leverage. This is a diplomatic way of giving clear message to the Russian government not to try to get any more war ships through, a restatement of the intent of Turkey to try to remain "neutral" on surface as the Turkish government knowns nobody is in a hurry to send any war ships through, but still leaving the door ajar if there is a need. It's good diplomatic play.
And no, it wouldn't take those 4 countries for the convention to be relaxed; it would only take one, Turkey. Turkey can decide to do apply the rules of the Montreux Convention as it sees fit, and the other three have no say over it. The straits are the sovereign territory of Turkey.
And getting through the straits is one thing but setting up a military protection zone to bring Ukranian grain into and through Bulgarian / Romanian waters needs their agreement as well. Just sitting anchored up in Turkish controlled waters isn't very helpful is it? Moldova do hold a key as they have access to Ukranian waters set in stone which is what gives them maritime access to the Black Sea and likely the best / only way to do any actual shipping from Ukraine.
None of which is possible anyway without a mine clearing operation.
You're right, absolutely no point in a naval force of any kind sitting in Turkish waters, and nothing at all is ever going to be viable without a mine clearing operation - which will have to be carried out at some point. I wonder who'll end up doing that. Maybe we should just drag the Russian Black Sea fleet through the mine fields and see if any stay afloat...
Given the Russians have been trucking the grain out of Ukraine, I wonder how viable it would be to use a similar tactic; move grain to down to ports in Bulgaria and/or Romania via railways and lorries, then use their ports. It would be difficult and dangerous, but not even attempting feels like it would lead to even bigger difficulties and dangers.
vonuber said:
Why are Israel bombing Syria anyway?
Actually never mind, that's a rabbit hole I don't want to go down.
They're bombing Hezbollah and Iranian forces who are helping prop up Assad. But the Russians are also there to help prop up Assad so fActually never mind, that's a rabbit hole I don't want to go down.
k knows why the Russians are firing on the Israelis. The report seems to suggest it's a warning to Israel not to take sides regarding Ukraine. Seems an utterly strange way of going about convincing another country not to be your enemy! mondeoman said:
BrettMRC said:
Russia now claiming victory at Mariupol.
The lords of all they survey - shame its a wasteland.What an absolute waste.
Has the rest of the war deteriorated into a slow grind? Any progress either way? All seems a bit quiet news wise.
pquinn said:
Not sure it's a great advert for your military to take that long to capture a small isolated city, and then only by bombing it flat. First order thinkers.
Has the rest of the war deteriorated into a slow grind? Any progress either way? All seems a bit quiet news wise.
According to Speak the Truth's channel, 7 miles progress for Russia in places recently. Has the rest of the war deteriorated into a slow grind? Any progress either way? All seems a bit quiet news wise.
AFAIC quite bad news for Ukraine but strategically changes nothing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff