- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 13,445
- Reaction score
- 3,180
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.
interesting, not all that surprising if all the claims are true.
Erdogan was practically prostrating for Putin when they shot down the Russian plane years back and he wasn’t sure how Russia would react.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.
what would happen? would the west invade? bomb Istanbul? impose sanctions over a sovereign decision?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.
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.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.
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...
Do you realize how batshit insane that sounds?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.
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.
Do you realize how batshit insane that sounds?
We'll just steamroll countries....
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.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.
and how does the six fleet get there? they fly it in?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...
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.
and how does the six fleet get there? they fly it in?
montreaux convention allows passage of civilian ships, not military.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.
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.
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.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.
Because they are already formally on the waiting list?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia–NATO_relations#:~:text=Georgia is not currently a,be admitted in the future.&text=Cooperation officially began in 1994,NATO-run Partnership for Peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia–European_Union_relations
interesting, not all that surprising if all the claims are true.
That seems an entirely credible scenario, fits right into the Russian playbook