Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheDiscordium t1_iufrf3b wrote

Reply to comment by KikiFlowers in U.N. says it agreed with Turkey, Ukraine on plan to move 16 vessels under Black Sea grain deal by alumidi

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.

24

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.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/march/turkey-montreux-convention-and-russian-navy-transits-turkish

28

TheDiscordium t1_iufsrn3 wrote

Yup. Other parts of a carrier strike group could go through pending approval.

6

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.

−3

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.

12

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.

7

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..

0

dragdritt t1_iuh8ud5 wrote

>It's our sea.

Seeing as Russia is doing whatever it wants, that statement doesn't mean much

−1

StukaTR t1_iuh90hq wrote

Are we at war with Russia? Is US?

8

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

2

Outrageous_Dot6735 t1_iuj3orj wrote

It's Turkish waters so they can refuse passage.

1

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.

0

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.

2