What if Turkey closed the Bosphorus strait?

a reply to: Tyrion79

If it was most nations I would have no doubt things would cool off. Putin and Erdogan, only slightly more stable than Kim.

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

I was mistaken. I knew Turkey could close the Strait to Russia, I just had the reason wrong. It's a 1982 Amendment that allows Turkey to do so.

Well, then they should use this option.

Or they should both stop acting like spoiled brats.

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

How is it war? The straights and transit rights is based on the Montreux Convention and does not fall under UN/International laws. It says Black Sea nations have transit rights with civilian / commercial vessels. Military vessels can be and are restricted.

If war occurs involved nations can be blocked from transit.

In April 1982, the Convention was amended to allow Turkey to close the Straits at its discretion in peacetime as well as during wartime.

1936 CONVENTION REGARDING THE REGIME OF THE STRAITS ****PDF LINK ****

If Turkey closed the straights its tough luck for Russia.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Or they should both stop acting like spoiled brats.

This should be an opportunity to negotiate peace there ... not an excuse for a larger war.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

How is it war? The straights and transit rights is based on the Montreux Convention and does not fall under UN/International laws. It says Black Sea nations have transit rights with civilian / commercial vessels. Military vessels can be and are restricted.

If war occurs involved nations can be blocked from transit.

In April 1982, the Convention was amended to allow Turkey to close the Straits at its discretion in peacetime as well as during wartime.

1936 CONVENTION REGARDING THE REGIME OF THE STRAITS ****PDF LINK ****

If Turkey closed the straights its tough luck for Russia.

Oddly In a way this would help ukraine. It means shipping through Crimea would be greatly reduced meaning the expense of upkeep drastically increses. Ironically the move of Russia to syria as a distraction may cost him more then he bargained for.

a reply to: bjarneorn

Turkey can't close the strait unless they declared war.
Or if they could claim they're "threatened".

Montreux Convention, 1936, international agreement regarding the Dardanelles


. The Turkish request for permission to refortify the Straits zone was favorably received by nations anxious to return to international legality as well as to gain an ally against German and Italian expansion. The former signatories to the Treaty of Lausanne (1923; see Lausanne, Treaty of

) together with Yugoslavia and Australia met at Montreux, Switzerland, in 1936 and abolished the International Straits Commission, returning the Straits zone to Turkish military control. Turkey was authorized to close the Straits to warships of all countries when it was at war or threatened by aggression. Merchant ships were to be allowed free passage during peacetime and, except for countries at war with Turkey, during wartime. The Black Sea powers (principally the USSR) were authorized to send their fleets through the Straits into the Mediterranean in peacetime. The convention was ratified by Turkey, Great Britain, France, the USSR, Bulgaria, Greece, Germany, and Yugoslavia, and—with reservations—by Japan.

a reply to: Tyrion79

No they can close it at their discretion in war and peace time.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In April 1982, the Convention was amended to allow Turkey to close the Straits at its discretion in peacetime as well as during wartime.

Also military vessel transit is restricted.

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: bjarneorn

Turkey can't close the strait unless they declared war.
Or if they could claim they're "threatened".

Montreux Convention, 1936, international agreement regarding the Dardanelles


. The Turkish request for permission to refortify the Straits zone was favorably received by nations anxious to return to international legality as well as to gain an ally against German and Italian expansion. The former signatories to the Treaty of Lausanne (1923; see Lausanne, Treaty of

) together with Yugoslavia and Australia met at Montreux, Switzerland, in 1936 and abolished the International Straits Commission, returning the Straits zone to Turkish military control. Turkey was authorized to close the Straits to warships of all countries when it was at war or threatened by aggression. Merchant ships were to be allowed free passage during peacetime and, except for countries at war with Turkey, during wartime. The Black Sea powers (principally the USSR) were authorized to send their fleets through the Straits into the Mediterranean in peacetime. The convention was ratified by Turkey, Great Britain, France, the USSR, Bulgaria, Greece, Germany, and Yugoslavia, and—with reservations—by Japan.

It was amended in 1982. They can.

In April 1982, the Convention was amended in order to allow Turkey to close the straits at its discretion, in peacetime and in wartime.

www.ingepo.ro...

You are right, they need an excuse to do so, and need to be "threatened" ... I think in this case there are no shortages of such claims they could use to do so.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04 and a reply to: Xcathdra
Ok, thank you for pointing it out.

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: OccamsRazor04 and a reply to: Xcathdra
Ok, thank you for pointing it out.

I learned a bit too. I had no idea it was a 1982 amendment that gave them the power, I remember it being talked about during the Crimea incident though so I knew Turkey theoretically could do so.

a reply to: mash3d

The straits have already been shut down and there is no access for Russian ships.

www.infowars.com...

a reply to: southbeach

The article refers to the same 1936 agreement.
Does it still apply?

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: mash3d

The straits have already been shut down and there is no access for Russian ships.

www.infowars.com...

I posted that earlier but frankly info wars isnt a reliable source. I'll wait until I see it on other news maybe it is breaking news or maybe it isnt. I don't don't the fact Russian ships are on hold at the moment. Question is will they close it or not telling them to hold may be just sending a message to Putin.

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: mash3d

The straits have already been shut down and there is no access for Russian ships.

www.infowars.com...

Infowars is like a broken clock. Every once in a while it happens to be right, but is certainly not a reliable source for what you need to know.

a reply to: dragonridr

What is a reliable source then?
CNN BBC SKY News?
I have noticed a current theme on here when people link to news websites and they are dismissed as not reliable yet the mainstream media are the biggest propagandists and are totally unreliable as being honest.
Please source me a website that is 100% the bastion of truth.

a reply to: southbeach

Thanks for pointing that out. I had been thinking about this for the past couple of days but I had no idea they had actually done it. As far as treaties goes international maritime law can be a bit of a mess from what I've read. I'm not sure what the status of Crimea is. Are they a State of Russia? and independent country, kissing cousins? I'm not sure if they are covered in the Montreux convention. Russia could just take all of it's ships and slap a Crimean flag on them. Overnight Crimea gets a new navy and they could challenge the straits. I know that sounds weird but it's the kind of mind game Putin would pull.

"According to the Russian Ministry of Transport, in 2013, 74,300 vessels crossed the Straits in both directions. In 2015, the cargo turnover of the ports of the Azov and Black Seas has increased by 5.2 percent, against the previous year. According to Russia’s Transneft Company, 24.6 million tons of Russian oil were exported via Black Sea terminals in 2014. Russian cargo is protected not only by the Convention but also by the fact that only a few operators work under the Russian flag."

sputniknews.com...

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: dragonridr

What is a reliable source then?
CNN BBC SKY News?
I have noticed a current theme on here when people link to news websites and they are dismissed as not reliable yet the mainstream media are the biggest propagandists and are totally unreliable as being honest.
Please source me a website that is 100% the bastion of truth.

Wow a defender for info wars who would think that would happen. Any way to answer your question say the bbc had an article they would have contacted turkeys government to confirm. The validity of the story always depends on the source of the information. Say cnn flew a reporter into one if the Russians ships being blocked passage again you could say the story has evidence. Alex Jones tends to just spout out garbage and just makes it up as he goes. He dies nothing to research the claims made and has no problems reposting something he's seen on a blog without verification.

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: dragonridr

What is a reliable source then?
CNN BBC SKY News?
I have noticed a current theme on here when people link to news websites and they are dismissed as not reliable yet the mainstream media are the biggest propagandists and are totally unreliable as being honest.
Please source me a website that is 100% the bastion of truth.

Infowars flat out makes crap up non stop. No one is asking for 100% right.

What if Turkey closed the Bosphorus strait?
I actually believe this will happen
it would be risky, but a great move
Coupled with the downing of its aircraft it would politically topple Putin internationally and probably domestically as Russia would almost certainly not attack.
Definitely an ace card for Turkey and NATO imo.

a reply to: all2human

Could help Putin quell unrest at home though.