TheDiscordium t1_iufi5ep wrote
They need a peaceful escort from the USS Gerald R. Ford and its strike group.
KikiFlowers t1_iufr8gz wrote
Ford isn't in the black sea, carriers are too heavy to get through the canal leading in. Additionally Turkey has rules and regulations to getting into the black sea, regarding warships.
TheDiscordium t1_iufrf3b wrote
Ford is actually in Canada right now — this much I knew. What I didn’t know is it couldn’t move through the Bosporus Strait.
alumidi OP t1_iufsjsj wrote
>Transit of aircraft carriers into the Black Sea is not specifically prohibited in the body of the Convention. But the 15,000-ton limitation imposed on non–Black Sea nation warships effectively precludes their transit.
TheDiscordium t1_iufsrn3 wrote
Yup. Other parts of a carrier strike group could go through pending approval.
piercet_3dPrint t1_iugjol4 wrote
The U.S. never signed the Montreux convention. We go along with them because turkey is a NATO state, but we don't have to. The main reason you would never see a carrier in there is we don't need to. The ones in the Mediterranean would not have appreciably less fighter range to cover the area one in the black sea would cover, and would have more room to work anyways.
oksapar t1_iuh2s5z wrote
> We go along with them because turkey is a NATO state, but we don't have to.
You have to since it's Turkish waters and you need Turkey's permission to pass through it. Turkey and Turkish public wants to avoid a war as much as possible, so Turkey might refuse to give access to US carriers just like it refused to give access to US troops into Iraq in 2003.
StukaTR t1_iuh6kd5 wrote
>just like it refused to give access to US troops into Iraq in 2003.
Wholly different set of events. In 2003, Erdogan gov failed to get the required amount of votes through parliament to allow US soldiers basing in Turkey.
Montreux is different. It's an internationally binding agreement, one which we like a lot. Turkey doesn't need US or US ships to help secure Black Sea. It's our sea.
oksapar t1_iuhcc8s wrote
> one which we like a lot. Turkey doesn't need US or US ships to help secure Black Sea. It's our sea.
Yes, I didn't say anything different, except Turkey might deny US carriers access to Blacksea as it's Turkish waters..
dragdritt t1_iuh8ud5 wrote
>It's our sea.
Seeing as Russia is doing whatever it wants, that statement doesn't mean much
StukaTR t1_iuh90hq wrote
Are we at war with Russia? Is US?
uncleofsquanchy t1_iukbepe wrote
>The U.S. never signed the Montreux convention. We go along with them because turkey is a NATO state, but we don't have to
r/ShitAmericansSay
Outrageous_Dot6735 t1_iuj3orj wrote
It's Turkish waters so they can refuse passage.
piercet_3dPrint t1_iuj6pmd wrote
It's a strait, they would normally be unable to refuse passage to a ship transiting from one location to the other in convention with normal international navigation law. China considers the Taiwan strait to be theirs, we drive through that all the time to annoy them anyways. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2943&context=ils#:~:text=Straits%20used%20for%20International%20Navigation,of%20the%20high%20seas%2FEEZ.
SeaworthinessFew2418 t1_iuk2mov wrote
Yes but the straight of Taiwan is hundreds of miles wide. The Bosporus straight is like 1 km wide at its thinnest, and passes right through one of turkeys biggest cities. It's more like the Hudson River, and letting another nations warships pass right past the statue of liberty... If you don't have permission it's gonna be a serious problem.
Modal_Window t1_iug6tru wrote
What warship? This is an air transport vessel.
pedepoenaclaudo t1_iuga1n2 wrote
It transports air... To float... Like a ship... 😳
DirkMcDougal t1_iugpiv2 wrote
Bosporus is not a canal. It's a strait over 2k ft wide. A Ford, or any other carrier could Tokyo drift through it sideways if she wanted to. The only reasons they don't are legal and tactical.
[deleted] t1_iuhafoe wrote
[removed]
ziptofaf t1_iufver3 wrote
I mean, this is pretty much why Russia even agreed in the first place (it was definitely NOT their newlyfound humanity, Russians are free of such burdens). UK was in actual talks to send their fleet to protect these ships and most likely under the table told Russia that their compliance is not necessary. USA already told Russia that if they see a nuke they will perform a magic trick that makes Black Sea fleet disappear which also implies using navy.
So now that Russia is officially withdrawing from this deal they are effectively testing West. We have the means to enforce it, now can we actually act on it? If NATO vessels actually arrive in the region you can bet that Russia will instantly go "oh, deal is back on, we have got what we wanted from our negotiations". Since let's be fair - British fishing boats have tied with entire might of the Russian Baltic fleet before and it's safe to assume Russia has not improved much since.
captsmokeywork t1_iugemtj wrote
Which explains the increasing anti uk rhetoric in the last few weeks.
HodorsGiantSchlong t1_iuh21jk wrote
If Ukraine keeps going, the US will have to find another fleet to threaten.
TheDiscordium t1_iuhh3sy wrote
North Korea has some menacing canoes.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments