Russia's Defence Ministry said on Wednesday it would deem all ships travelling to Ukrainian ports to be potential carriers of military cargo and their flag countries to be parties to the conflict on the Ukrainian side.
  • Troy@lemmy.caEnglish
    13·
    1 year ago

    Battle of the Atlantic, pt II, coming up next! Flood the black sea with cheap corvette class ships! Depth charges for breakfast!

    No seriously, I’d hate to be in the risk assessment side here. Do you try to provoke an attack by going anyway? So that you have an excuse to respond in full force?

    • maporita@lemmy.mlEnglish
      221·
      1 year ago

      Turkey won’t allow military ships to pass the Bosporus in any direction while there’s a war on. This prevents Russia from reinforcing their Black Sea fleet but also prevents Western navies from entering.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        9·
        1 year ago

        That is not correct.

        The Montreux Convention:

        • Guarantees “complete freedom” of passage for all civilian vessels in times of peace. In peacetime, military vessels are limited in number, tonnage and weaponry, with specific provisions governing their mode of entry and duration of stay. If they want to pass through the Strait, warships must provide advance notification to the Turkish authorities, which, in turn, must inform the parties to the convention.

        • In wartime, if Turkey is not involved in the conflict, warships of the nations at war may not pass through the Straits, except when returning to their base.

        • When Turkey is at war, or feels threatened by a war, it may take any decision about the passage of warships as it sees fit.

        Montreux Convention signatories who are also allies of Ukraine are not at this point active belligerents in the Ukrainian war, so technically, it would be 100% above board for any of them to send a military vessel into the Black Sea.

        Incidentally, the US is not a signatory to the Convention.

      • Windex007@lemmy.worldEnglish
        91·
        1 year ago

        If the West decided to go hot, Turkey not letting western navies into the Black Sea wouldn’t really make a difference to the continued existence of the Black Sea fleet

      • DanglingFury@lemmy.worldEnglish
        81·
        1 year ago

        I feel like everytime someone “closes” a section of sea the US sends a carrier group right on through just to prove a point. I’m sure this is different because turkey is a tasty bird often served at Thanksgiving.

        • lntl@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          4·
          1 year ago

          I think the geography of the Bosporus would give the fleet inside the Black Sea an advantage over those attempting to enter. Those attempting to enter would need air support to soften up defenses before sailing the strait

          • Jaysyn@kbin.social
            79·
            1 year ago

            If the USA actually wanted to get into the Black Sea, there is literally no power on Earth that could stop that from happening.

            • lntl@lemmy.sdf.org
              1·
              1 year ago

              Awhile I expect the same as you do David triumphed over Goliath and the Football Giants defeated the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII. It would be a messy campaign.

            • kingthrillgore@kbin.social
              24·
              1 year ago

              Except for one: Russia’s nuclear arsenal. We have to assume it is at wartime readiness despite the rest of their military being second best to Wagner.

              • sethboy66@kbin.social
                3·
                1 year ago

                The difference between peacetime and wartime readiness for nukes only relates to tactical nukes; at least when it comes to an competent nuclear power, nuke are always at the ready at a moments notice. They launch nukes, we launch in retaliation, major destruction spread out over large swaths of land, both sides nuclear capabilities are gone (other than subs that were already deployed and didn’t launch their payload). U.S. sails into the Black Sea.

                Nukes aren’t designed to stop navies.

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          The Montreux Convention specifically prohibits “aircraft carriers”. This is the reason Russia has historically played cute naming games by calling their carriers “aircraft-carrying cruisers”, and additionally equips them with missile payloads somewhat comparable to cruisers or destroyers from other countries.

          Also, the US is an ally of Turkey, despite currently strained relations. The US conducting a freedom of navigation cruise through the Bosphorus Strait would cause far, far more problems than it would solve at the moment.

          • sethboy66@kbin.social
            21·
            1 year ago

            The U.S. isn’t a signatory to the convention and nations exist in a state of anarchy, one cannot (in an official capacity) impose their will over another without consent. There are other agreements between Turkey and the U.S. which would permit any and all passage, so in the absence of the Montreux Convention (which is indeed absent in this case) the U.S. can sail a carrier right on through without breaking any agreed-upon rules.

      • Troy@lemmy.caEnglish
        21·
        1 year ago

        So the whole merchant fleet needs to fly Turkish flags and get a Turkish navy escort then.

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        59·
        1 year ago

        Sounds like what you’re saying is Ukraine needs more droneboats to clear Russia off the Black Sea.

    • TheYang@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      No seriously, I’d hate to be in the risk assessment side here. Do you try to provoke an attack by going anyway? So that you have an excuse to respond in full force?

      Nobody in power in the world actually wants to respond in full force.