Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Equally significant is that Russia and Turkey have no land border. Russia would be primarily dependent on launching amphibious actions across the Black Sea; that's a huge ask against any foe.
The challenge is that no warring nation can pass ships into or out of the Black Sea. That’s a significant limitation for Russia if they want to expand beyond Ukraine.
 
I assume anyone can get more ships into the Black Sea, you just have to capture the Turkish straight first, which means capturing Istanbul before you can get your ships through
 
Last edited:
Russians recruiting in Africa

On the news it says they are running classes in Africa to teach the Russian language and then offering Russian citizenship afterwards to anyone who agrees to fight for Russia

 
Last edited:
The challenge is that no warring nation can pass ships into or out of the Black Sea. That’s a significant limitation for Russia if they want to expand beyond Ukraine.
Ships with a home port on the Black Sea have the right to return to base unfettered by Turkey, even during a war. Whether or not Russia can transfer ships from, say, the Northern Fleet to the Black Sea fleet and still enjoy this privilege is beyond my ken.
 
Ships with a home port on the Black Sea have the right to return to base unfettered by Turkey, even during a war. Whether or not Russia can transfer ships from, say, the Northern Fleet to the Black Sea fleet and still enjoy this privilege is beyond my ken.
They need to be able to leave as well. Also if they are at war with NATO then they will be very vulnerable going through the straight.
 
Ships with a home port on the Black Sea have the right to return to base unfettered by Turkey, even during a war. Whether or not Russia can transfer ships from, say, the Northern Fleet to the Black Sea fleet and still enjoy this privilege is beyond my ken.
pretty sure that only applies to civilian ships, any warships turkey can block if the country in question is in a conflict. If Russia could move warships into the black sea to replace losses they already would have done so
 
pretty sure that only applies to civilian ships, any warships turkey can block if the country in question is in a conflict. If Russia could move warships into the black sea to replace losses they already would have done so
I think that is only if Turkey are themselves at war or at risk of war. Need to check, it must be eight years since I read up on it.

Edit: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume 173/v173.pdf pp 221 - 225 (note French and English pages interleaved but with same page numbers)
 
Last edited:
I think that is only if Turkey are themselves at war or at risk of war. Need to check, it must be eight years since I read up on it.
Your correct about ships returning to a home port, im guessing that turkey would reject passage to a Russian warship thats being transferred from another fleet,
Closing the strait off to Russia does not violate the 1936 Montreux Convention.

The treaty covers the various straits that connect the Mediterranean Sea with the Black Sea and has been ratified by the League of Nations, the failed predecessor of the United Nations. The treaty has remained unchanged since it has been ratified.


Here’s how the treaty works: Turkey guarantees freedom of passage for all civilian and commercial vessels during peacetime.

Military ships can also pass through, under certain conditions, and only if advance warning is given.

According to Article 19, when there’s a war that doesn’t involve Turkey, warships from the warring states can’t use the straits — unless they’re returning to home bases in the Black Sea.

Turkey has the discretion to close the strait to warships of all nations party to a conflict. It may also do so if it fears an “imminent danger of war.”
 
I believe Turkey hasn't let any warships in or out since this started. They are being very strict on this one to avoid any accusations of favouritism. This also extends to the three minesweepers the UK sold to Ukraine recently.
 
Reuters article from a few days after Russia's Feb 2022 attack:

Balancing its Western commitments and close ties to Moscow, Ankara has in recent days called the Russian attack unacceptable but until Sunday had not described the situation in Ukraine as a war.
The rhetorical shift allows Turkey to enact the articles of the 1936 Montreux Convention that permits it to limit naval transit of its Dardanelles and Bosphorus straits during wartime, or if threatened.
Yet Cavusoglu reiterated that Turkey cannot block all Russian warships accessing the Black Sea due to a clause in the pact exempting those returning to their registered base.
"There should not be any abuse of this exemption. Ships that declare returning to their bases and passing through the straits should not be involved in the war," Cavusoglu said.
 
Last edited:
Not sure (given the reputation of Russia arms) they want any russia arma, more likely they will look to develop the tech themselves based on shared knowledge.

Strategic consequence - you mean russia threatening outside of the Ukrainian war? Possibly UK?

There's a lot Russia could do, think of everyone who dislikes the West, NATO plus our allies and what Russia could provide to them in the future, even in terms of just knowledge.

All countries have hands they’ve not played yet. Sorry but the aggressive rhetoric seems to be a scare tactic

The engagement of other countries directly undoes the political war and also opens up a second front which has a completely different landscape - russia would lose its small remaining navy, needing to build more and find yet more resources lost thay require funding..
If you’re meaning using Chinese naval hardware using African ports as bases? I think that boat has sailed - china will not want the politixal fallout nor expose the literal cracks in their hardware (a number if built carriers have cracks in their decks due to bad manufacturing that made the unusable).
Russia’s targets are the easy soft undersea or offshore assests - attacks would end up the loss of those vessels so instead a land based war of attrition enables BRICS support without bringing into war. If china get too involved it’s likely to see trade reduction resulting in china going deeper into the economic red. Internal political impact on Xi will limit.

Russia's Navy isn't small, do you think their entire Navy was in the Black Sea? They still have one of the largest Navies in the world, I'd guess 3rd behind the US and China. They have a lot of surface ships and submarines. I'm not being funny, but if you don't know this, should you be commenting on a war?


10-30 years and Putin will have died. The legacy will be a new generation of beainwashed russians ans politics. The duma cartel leadership will also have changed, and I suspect at that point they will have the financial fallout of Putin’s actions.
War is expensive and the spoils in ROI take years if jot lifetimes to recoup.

So in short I see russia only wanting to engage small conflicts and switching to economic and political war to separate nations, isolate in a form of silk road initiative.

In your post you simply remain vague and ambiguous - hinting threats. It is more likely that putin relies on sympathy to enable coercion of the political landscape and in the UK Brexit to divide a response.

I just don't think you know what you're talking about, like a lot of people in here.
 
Ships with a home port on the Black Sea have the right to return to base unfettered by Turkey, even during a war. Whether or not Russia can transfer ships from, say, the Northern Fleet to the Black Sea fleet and still enjoy this privilege is beyond my ken.

Rights of transit do not apply to either vessels of war or civilian transit where Turkey is a belligerent in the war involving the country (article 20 and article 5, respectively).

If Russia went to war, most likely the straight would be immediately closed to Russia.
 
NATO article five cannot be triggered in response to an attack on a warship so far from it's home waters.

Article 5 covers only member states' territories in Europe, North America, Turkey, and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer. The last part is there to specify that that attacks on islands such as Hawaii and the Falklands are not covered by article five.

Actually, on the above points (and I hope I don't accidentally give any bots a good idea to take back to their master here) if Putin really wanted to strike back at the UK, all he needs to do is send a large group of warships down to Argentina and ask their new far right government if they would like the British military removed form the Falklands. Luckily I think he's too dumb to think of something that outside the box.

If Putin did this the US Navy would 100% defend the Falklands, it wouldn't be a case of needing to trigger article 5, it would be a case of the US defending their ally. This would be an incredibly stupid move and would result in Russia losing every ship they sent down there. There's no chance they'd take on the Royal Navy and US Navy.
 
Last edited:
Reuters article from a few days after Russia's Feb 2022 attack:

Balancing its Western commitments and close ties to Moscow, Ankara has in recent days called the Russian attack unacceptable but until Sunday had not described the situation in Ukraine as a war.
The rhetorical shift allows Turkey to enact the articles of the 1936 Montreux Convention that permits it to limit naval transit of its Dardanelles and Bosphorus straits during wartime, or if threatened.
Yet Cavusoglu reiterated that Turkey cannot block all Russian warships accessing the Black Sea due to a clause in the pact exempting those returning to their registered base.
"There should not be any abuse of this exemption. Ships that declare returning to their bases and passing through the straits should not be involved in the war," Cavusoglu said.
And how many Russian ships have passed through the Bosphorus since the war began, Russia made sure they all of the Black Sea fleet was in the Black Sea (and a few others on “exercise”) before the war started, knowing that the Bosphorus would be closed to them as soon as they attacked Ukraine.
 
And how many Russian ships have passed through the Bosphorus since the war began, Russia made sure they all of the Black Sea fleet was in the Black Sea (and a few others on “exercise”) before the war started, knowing that the Bosphorus would be closed to them as soon as they attacked Ukraine.
Not sure why you are asking me this. I only wanted to point out to delta0 that it isn't as simple as he made out in post #80841
 
Not sure why you are asking me this. I only wanted to point out to delta0 that it isn't as simple as he made out in post #80841
It appears Russia has not moved ships through since the war started. The Montreux convention wouldn’t allow any ships to be used for the war even if they were going to a port in the Black Sea. The fleet is basically stuck in there until the war is over. If the war expands then unless Russia takes the areas around the straight they still can’t move the ships.
 
A lot of people didn't think he would be silly enough to invade Ukraine yet here we are. At this point I wouldn't put anything past him.

I swear if Putin never went into politics he could had a good career are poker player.

Ukraine isn't in NATO, although they did have a treaty with the US and UK that we would have their back. Sadly that wasn't worth the paper it was written on :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom