International [NATO News] Putin: lifting Ukraine missile restrictions would "put NATO at war with Russia"

interesting, not all that surprising if all the claims are true.


Yeah dude, I think you can drop that particular line of inquiry. Rasmus Paludan is a quran-burning OG.
 
The leaders we've got just don't understand how to deal with these Eastern dictators. You can't come off as a beggar, because you'll only continue to be taken advantage of, again and again, until the well is completely dry. You need to have some sort of leverage over them, if not, then it's worthless to even attempt to bargain anything and he wasn’t sure how Russia would react.

If Erdogan realized that there's some sort of push-back coming because of his actions, he'd act a lot more reasonably. Right now, he just knows that he can do whatever he wants and get away with it. Every week he comes up with new demands and new reasons to feign outrage. His weak bullshit should have never been given any credibility.
Erdogan was practically prostrating for Putin when they shot down the Russian plane years back and he wasn’t sure how Russia would react.
 
I'd love to see Turkey, as a non-NATO member, try to deny the navies of the west access through the Bosporus and Dardanelles.
what would happen? would the west invade? bomb Istanbul? impose sanctions over a sovereign decision?
what's with this rhetoric?
would you trust somebody to be your ally if he immediately goes to this type of rhetoric the second any disagreement appears?
fuck, i think erdogan's an absolute cunt, but when i look and see this type of talk...
you know who talks like this? russia.
 
Long term, I honestly wonder if this isn't what's in the cards. Being allied to Turkey is problematic for just about every nation in NATO, not just Sweden. Besides the fact that dealing with Turks is like dealing with a traveling vacuum-cleaner salesman, there are vast cultural differences that lands European politicians in hot water time and time again simply by association.
Once Turkey stops being of vital importance (and with USA out of the middle east Turkey has lost some relevance already), drop them from the alliance and let them fend for themselves if they think they can handle it. I predict a bloody war between three to four of the regional MENA powers within a couple of years of Turkey going solo, especially if Russia loses influence in the region.
It’s the exact opposite, America withdrawing gives Turkey more relevance. We used to handle everything in the Middle East, now they have a free hand to do whatever they want.

Prior to the last decade, Turkey did not have much of a foreign policy, it was very isolationist.
 
what would happen? would the west invade? bomb Istanbul? impose sanctions over a sovereign decision?
what's with this rhetoric?

In a hypothetical scenario where Turkey has left NATO, Georgia has become a full-fledged member, Russia invades Georgia and the only way for NATO to assist it is by sending troops and warships into the Black Sea? And then Turkey denies access from the Mediterranean? Yeah I think NATO would steamroll that crossing, and annihilate anything that tried to impede it. Including by temporarily occupying Turkish Thrace.

would you trust somebody to be your ally if he immediately goes to this type of rhetoric the second any disagreement appears?
fuck, i think erdogan's an absolute cunt, but when i look and see this type of talk...

Uhhh, do you pay any attention to what Turkish politicians, pundits and netizens express on daily basis? The rhetoric from my side of the alliance is not the problem. NATO has managed to maintain an alliance with Turkey for decades, despite regular statements from Turkey about conquering Greece or ethnically cleansing Cyprus.

Besides, NATO is a pragmatic alliance. Some nations can maintain good relationships with the western world without being in it. Turkey, for a whole host of reasons, will suffer instant deterioration of relations without NATO. It's just the way it is, and Turkey knows it. That's not an argument for Turkey to discard its alliance, but an argument for Turkey to maintain it.
 
In a hypothetical scenario where Turkey has left NATO, Georgia has become a full-fledged member, Russia invades Georgia and the only way for NATO to assist it is by sending troops and warships into the Black Sea? And then Turkey denies access from the Mediterranean? Yeah I think NATO would steamroll that crossing, and annihilate anything that tried to impede it. Including by temporarily occupying Turkish Thrace.
Do you realize how batshit insane that sounds?
We'll just steamroll countries....
 
In a hypothetical scenario where Turkey has left NATO, Georgia has become a full-fledged member, Russia invades Georgia and the only way for NATO to assist it is by sending troops and warships into the Black Sea? And then Turkey denies access from the Mediterranean? Yeah I think NATO would steamroll that crossing, and annihilate anything that tried to impede it. Including by temporarily occupying Turkish Thrace.



Uhhh, do you pay any attention to what Turkish politicians, pundits and netizens express on daily basis? The rhetoric from my side of the alliance is not the problem. NATO has managed to maintain an alliance with Turkey for decades, despite regular statements from Turkey about conquering Greece or ethnically cleansing Cyprus.

Besides, NATO is a pragmatic alliance. Some nations can maintain good relationships with the western world without being in it. Turkey, for a whole host of reasons, will suffer instant deterioration of relations without NATO. It's just the way it is, and Turkey knows it. That's not an argument for Turkey to discard its alliance, but an argument for Turkey to maintain it.

Why we should accept Georgia as EU or NATO memeber?
Tell us.

Georgia is country actually helping ruSSia to supply their crude oil refineries with catalisators....
Also we from sattelites might see super huge rows with trucks on russian and georgian border......
On daily basis.

They like armenia are doing all the best in their abilities to help Russia to avoid sanctions effect.

More than this ....a lot of companies are relocated on paper to these countries for example in IT field to create proxies and to help ruSSia to bypass sanctions effect on real business.

They also doesn't respect european values and does have not lesser problems with nepotism in all levels and fields than the same ruSSia..
 
Do you realize how batshit insane that sounds?
We'll just steamroll countries....

That's what happens to countries that try to unilaterally restrict passage through international waters*. Turkey doesn't actually own the Bosporous Strait, in case you missed it.

But speaking of batshit insane, the notion of Turkey even getting the idea of restricting passage into their heads is batshit insane. They would never do it. So the whole discussion is kind of pointless.

*Ok, so there's the Montreux convention. But it can quite easily be circumvented without breaking it. Just say the U.S sixth fleet is based in Romania...
 
Last edited:
That's what happens to countries that try to unilaterally restrict passage through international waters*. Turkey doesn't actually own the Bosporous Strait, in case you missed it.
the strait is in the sovereign waters of turkey. there's zero international actors that have claim over it, nor could they, according to international conventions. they fucking own it.
T
*Ok, so there's the Montreux convention. But it can quite easily be circumvented without breaking it. Just say the U.S sixth fleet is based in Romania...
and how does the six fleet get there? they fly it in?
 
the strait is in the sovereign waters of turkey. there's zero international actors that have claim over it, nor could they, according to international conventions. they fucking own it.

No, passage through the Bosporus and Dardanelles is regulated by the Montreux convention. It is not the sovereign waters of anyone, as long as the convention is in effect. The convention is agreed upon by a number of signatories, not just Turkey. The Bosporus is simply too important for any one nation to control. One nation can't claim ownership over such important waterways, because they directly impact other nations. Or they can try, but that inevitably lead to big fucking wars.

We've had the same situation with Kattegat/Öresund and a bunch of other waterways through the centuries. Does Denmark control the western coast of the Öresund Strait? Yes. Does that mean it owns the Öresund Strait? No, the Copenhagen Convention of 1857 makes the Öresund Strait an international waterway. Can Denmark restrict any passage at all through the strait, while the convention is in effect? No. And neither can Sweden, which controls the eastern coast. Without the convention? Well, we could try...

If anything, the Montreux convention gives Turkey exceptional influence over the international waterways of the Dardanelles & Bosporus, given the cirumstances. And the only reason it has that is because the other signatories agree on it. Without the convention, and without NATO to back it up, the Bosporus and the Dardanelles would be just as open as the Danish Straits are. Because the alternative is not an alternative.

and how does the six fleet get there? they fly it in?

No, they say the fleet is registered and based in a port inside the Black Sea, which means Turkey can't deny passage without breaking the Montreux convention. Except carriers, but even that rule seems iffy to me. And like I mentioned above, in a situation where very nearly all signatories except Turkey are embroiled in a war involving the Black Sea, the Montreux convention is pretty much rendered null and void anyway, so who cares what it says then?
 
No, passage through the Bosporus and Dardanelles is regulated by the Montreux convention. It is not the sovereign waters of anyone, as long as the convention is in effect. The convention is agreed upon by a number of signatories, not just Turkey. The Bosporus is simply too important for any one nation to control. One nation can't claim ownership over such important waterways, because they directly impact other nations. Or they can try, but that inevitably lead to big fucking wars.

We've had the same situation with Kattegat/Öresund and a bunch of other waterways through the centuries. Does Denmark control the western coast of the Öresund Strait? Yes. Does that mean it owns the Öresund Strait? No, the Copenhagen Convention of 1857 makes the Öresund Strait an international waterway. Can Denmark restrict any passage at all through the strait, while the convention is in effect? No. And neither can Sweden, which controls the eastern coast. Without the convention? Well, we could try...

If anything, the Montreux convention gives Turkey exceptional influence over the international waterways of the Dardanelles & Bosporus, given the cirumstances. And the only reason it has that is because the other signatories agree on it. Without the convention, and without NATO to back it up, the Bosporus and the Dardanelles would be just as open as the Danish Straits are. Because the alternative is not an alternative.



No, they say the fleet is registered and based in a port inside the Black Sea, which means Turkey can't deny passage without breaking the Montreux convention. Except carriers, but even that rule seems iffy to me. And like I mentioned above, in a situation where very nearly all signatories except Turkey are embroiled in a war involving the Black Sea, the Montreux convention is pretty much rendered null and void anyway, so who cares what it says then?
montreaux convention allows passage of civilian ships, not military.
military ships cannot pass unless Turkey explicitly allows it.
seriously, all this "pretend the sixth fleet is registered in some black sea port" is mickey mouse level, man. come on now.
you think there's 8 year olds making decisions about what is or is not registered as a military ship? there's clear international conventions regulating such things.
 
montreaux convention allows passage of civilian ships, not military.
military ships cannot pass unless Turkey explicitly allows it.

Uh, no, the Montreux convention says Turkey can't deny warships passage through the Dardanelles/Bosporus even during wartime, as long as the ships are registred at a port within the Black Sea. Doesn't matter if the ships happen to be outside of the Black Sea at the moment when war were declared. To which the Turkish Ministry Of Foreign Affairs agree.

https://www.mfa.gov.tr/implementation-of-the-montreux-convention.en.mfa

The Montreux Convention, which is an essential element in the context of Black Sea security and stability, has been properly and impartially implemented by Türkiye for more than seven decades. In this regard, the successful implementation of the Montreux Convention since 1936 is a testimony of the balance carefully established by the Convention.

According to the Montreux Convention, merchant vessels enjoy freedom of passage through the Turkish Straits (Turkish Straits Vessel Traffic Services Centre regulates the passages according to the Maritime Traffic Regulations for the Turkish Straits dated 1998), while passages of vessels of war are subject to some restrictions which vary depending on whether these vessels belong to Black Sea riparian States or not.

Besides some general restrictions applicable to all, vessels of war belonging to non-riparian States are subject to specific restrictions such as those regarding maximum aggregate tonnage and duration of stay in the Black Sea.

The principal provisions of the Convention ruling the passages of vessels of war are outlined here-below:

Aircraft carriers whether belonging to riparian states or not, can in no way pass through the Turkish Straits.

Only submarines belonging to riparian states can pass through the Turkish Straits, for the purpose of rejoining their base in the Black Sea for the first time after their construction or purchase, or for the purpose of repair in dockyards outside the Black Sea.

The total number and the maximum aggregate tonnage of all foreign naval forces which may be in course of passage through the Turkish Straits are limited to 9 and 15.000 tons respectively.

The maximum aggregate tonnage which non-riparian States may have in the Black Sea is 45.000 tons.

In this regard, the maximum aggregate tonnage of the vessels of war that one non-riparian State may have in the Black Sea is 30.000 tons.

Vessels of war belonging to non-riparian states cannot stay more than 21 days in the Black Sea.

Passages through the Turkish Straits are notified to Türkiye through diplomatic channels prior to intended passages. The notification time is 8 days for vessels of war belonging to riparian States, and 15 days for those of non-riparian States.

seriously, all this "pretend the sixth fleet is registered in some black sea port" is mickey mouse level, man. come on now.
you think there's 8 year olds making decisions about what is or is not registered as a military ship? there's clear international conventions regulating such things.

No, that's actually pretty much how it works. The Montreux convention is a pretty Mickey Mouse-level convention, as many international conventions signed in the 1930's are. And seeing as NATO has no trouble getting Romania, or Bulgaria (or Georgia or Ukraine, in a hypothetical scenario where they are NATO members) to agree to house a U.S fleet or two, that settles the issue.
 
Uh, no, the Montreux convention says Turkey can't deny warships passage through the Dardanelles/Bosporus even during wartime, as long as the ships are registred at a port within the Black Sea. Doesn't matter if the ships happen to be outside of the Black Sea at the moment when war were declared. To which the Turkish Ministry Of Foreign Affairs agree.

https://www.mfa.gov.tr/implementation-of-the-montreux-convention.en.mfa





No, that's actually pretty much how it works. The Montreux convention is a pretty Mickey Mouse-level convention, as many international conventions signed in the 1930's are. And seeing as NATO has no trouble getting Romania, or Bulgaria (or Georgia or Ukraine, in a hypothetical scenario where they are NATO members) to agree to house a U.S fleet or two, that settles the issue.
riparian state is the key word. you have to be one of the few countries with black sea territorial waters to go through. that's it.
you can't bring the sixth fleet in by "registering it" in bulgaria.
that's a stupid scenario.
hey, just register Bulgaria as an american state, problem solved.
 
Turkey says it is "meaningless" to restore NATO dialogue with Sweden, Finland

3MRMUIWWRBLSDKIJEHULACZ6OY.jpg

Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu

ANKARA, Jan 26 (Reuters) - Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Thursday it was "meaningless" to hold a trilateral meeting with Sweden and Finland to discuss their NATO bids after protests this month in Stockholm.

Speaking at a news conference, Cavusoglu also said there is no offer to evaluate Sweden's and Finland's NATO membership seperately.

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has said his country wanted to restore NATO dialogue with Turkey after Ankara indefinitely postponed trilateral talks with Sweden and Finland over their membership.

https://www.reuters.com/world/turke...nato-dialogue-with-sweden-finland-2023-01-26/
 

Being on waiting list doesn't means that EU have duty to accept some country....
On waiting list country might be even 100 years in row...
Always might appear some problems why not to accept.
Or EU politicians might not manage to get positive voting result in ec ep etc...
 
+ actual political mod in EU is different than it is openly told ....because politicians usually are polite, talking nice and positive talks etc....

After 2008/2009 crisis scepticism about idea to enlarge EU or to allow countries adopt EUR had increased.
A lot of ppl regret that Greece and Italy were allowed to adopt EUR as currency...
Also mod against EU enlargement is cos .... immigration and subsidies...
More countries in? Lesser $ for existing countries ....

The same Ukraine...God help.
Or Georgia...
 
That seems an entirely credible scenario, fits right into the Russian playbook

Honestly wouldn't surprise me one bit if Erdogan was in on it as well.

I do agree with Turkey that all NATO talks should cease, permanently, there is no way that we can be militarily allied with such dishonest actors, who represent the kind of threat to their neighbours that we are seeking to defend ourselves from. Morally, it is impossible to justify being aligned with Turkey, while denouncing Russia.

Best plan going forward, for Finland and Sweden, is to make alliances between individual states. NATO is a crippled, rigid construct that struggles to remain united due to the changing circumstances from half a century ago. Its internal division and inefficiency to operate has already been exposed, no reason whatsoever to proceed any further while humiliating ourselves as a bunch of beggars seeking to be validated by a foreign dictator.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top