Turkey closed the straits of Bosphorus - Russia gives a last chance/warning - Turkey reopens

a reply to: intrptr
What I was denying was the suggestion that they were IN Syria illegally.
Not so, if they were living there before the boundary even existed.

a reply to: DJW001

This makes Turkey the most powerful player in the region, and Putin's propagandists are trying to kick dust in everyone's yes so that they don't notice the emperor is not wearing any clothes.

Turkey is but a border country NATO is using to get at Assad. The ones exposed are the US and "Coalition" Clandestine operations to overthrow Syria. The US is at odds with Russia because Russia is actually supporting the Syrians to throw out the insurgents, all 21 flavors.

Lol, kind of hard to fight terrs and make assad go all in one sentence, isn't it?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DJW001

This makes Turkey the most powerful player in the region, and Putin's propagandists are trying to kick dust in everyone's yes so that they don't notice the emperor is not wearing any clothes.

Turkey is but a border country NATO is using to get at Assad. The ones exposed are the US and "Coalition" Clandestine operations to overthrow Syria. The US is at odds with Russia because Russia is actually supporting the Syrians to throw out the insurgents, all 21 flavors.

Lol, kind of hard to fight terrs and make assad go all in one sentence, isn't it?

it doesnt make them strong players because of the straits at all.

1) British conquered once the straits and since Turkey is paying rent
2) straits are protected under international laws, that none of the super powers can break at will and individually.
3) Turks first act and they use their brains a bit later... that cause them many problems.
4) (old news) Bulgaria in coop with Russia to open 1 more canal, because as I said it doesnt make you strong player, but if its monopoly, we see lots of corruption phenomena.


Ports make you strong players, place that boats can repair also make you strong player and country laws friendly for sailors and companies.

Turkey in tha past, I cannot give you exact chronology, I cant remember the date, tried to take over the straits, but they failed. Egypt port and strait is a stronger player than turkey wannabe... Even if turks violate the international laws (act of war), Russia still have 2 more options, but it cost them double the trip and money. Instead of 4 days, they need 8 days. If Bulgaria/Russian strait becomes reallity, then things will change.

a reply to: intrptr

Nice try. The armed turkish militias ("Turkmen", what a gentle Euphemism) are also trying to overthrow syria, illegally.

Did you feel the same way when Russia is doing that in Ukraine?

Seems you find it okay for Russia to do it, but when another country does it you don't...why is that?

originally posted by: Ploutonas
1) British conquered once the straits and since Turkey is paying rent.

You sure about this? I assume you're talking about the climax of the First World War, but I would be surprised if the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne involved a perpetual rent to Britain.

Turkey in tha past, I cannot give you exact chronology, I cant remember the date, tried to take over the straits, but they failed.

The Turks were in de facto control of the straits from the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 to their defeat in 1918, since they controlled the land on both sides.

a reply to: intrptr

Turkey is but a border country NATO is using to get at Assad.

Except NATO is made up of many nations that aren't involved in the actions in Syria, so how is NATO involved?

Remember NATO members can act on their own without NATO being involved...NATO may be briefed on what that country is doing, it doesn't mean they are involved.

The US is at odds with Russia because Russia is actually supporting the Syrians to throw out the insurgents, all 21 flavors.

The same way the Russian's are toward the US because they back groups that want Assad gone...so what's your point?

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Ploutonas
1) British conquered once the straits and since Turkey is paying rent.

You sure about this? I assume you're talking about the climax of the First World War, but I would be surprised if the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne involved a perpetual rent to Britain.

Turkey in tha past, I cannot give you exact chronology, I cant remember the date, tried to take over the straits, but they failed.

The Turks were in de facto control of the straits from the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 to their defeat in 1918, since they controlled the land on both sides.

i studied the think and we still have the same input... they pay rent

originally posted by: Ploutonas
Even if turks violate the international laws (act of war)

?

Can you quote this law? Those straights are Turkish, under Turkish authority, unless they finally decided to sign UNCLOS...

a reply to: intrptr

Turkey is but a border country NATO is using to get at Assad. The ones exposed are the US and "Coalition" Clandestine operations to overthrow Syria. The US is at odds with Russia because Russia is actually supporting the Syrians to throw out the insurgents, all 21 flavors.

If NATO is "using" Turkey, why doesn't Putin provide proof at the UN, then start bombing supply lines in Turkey the way the US bombed the Ho Chi Min Trail in Cambodia? I guess he has no proof, is afraid, or both.

Lol, kind of hard to fight terrs and make assad go all in one sentence, isn't it?

Assad is the terrorist. This just in:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Ploutonas
What, from the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923? Or some other agreement? Can you cite the clause?
The exact words enforcing the payment of a rent to Britain? What is the amount supposed to be?

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Ploutonas
Even if turks violate the international laws (act of war)

?

Can you quote this law? Those straights are Turkish, under Turkish authority, unless they finally decided to sign UNCLOS...

search for Montreux Convention, turkey wouldnt been allowed even to pay rent, if they didnt agreed. Now any violation of that, I believe they lose any authority of it.

Turkey denied to sign up the Unclos in 1994, but they are bind under Montreux Convention.

(Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Turkish Straits), (Turkish: Montrö Boğazlar Sözleşmesi) is a treaty concerning the regime of the Straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles. The agreement, signed in 1936, gives control of the Straits of Bosphorus and Dardanelles in Turkey and regulates military activity in the region. The contract grants to Turkey full control of the Straits and guarantees the free navigation of civilian vessels in peacetime. The terms of the contract have been source of controversy for years, particularly for the transit of Soviet warships through the straits to the Mediterranean Sea.

Signed on July 20, 1936 in the Swiss town of Montreux. It entered into force on 9 November 1936 and registered in the League of Nations on 11 December 1936. There still valid today, with some modifications.

The Contracting Parties to the Treaty (Parties: Black Sea States: Bulgaria, Romania, Soviet Union, Turkey, Australia, France, Greece, Italy, England, Yugoslavia) recognize and affirm the principle of freedom of transit and navigation by sea in the Straits " in time of peace, merchant vessels shall enjoy complete transit freedom and navigation in the Straits, by day and night, under any flag with any kind of load. "The agreement gives Turkey full control of the Straits and guarantees the free navigation of civilian vessels in peacetime. It allows Turkey militarization of the Straits. It allows the passage of warships of the Black Sea Countries with one week's notice and under certain terms displacement, size, armament. It reduces considerably the passage of warships not owned by States Black Sea (crossing warning threshold displacement ships, armament limitation, non-crossing aircraft carriers, etc.).

When it came into force, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in November 1994, requested in application of the restatement of the Treaty of Montreux, to be compatible with the rules governing international shipping. However, long-term Turkey's refusal to sign the UNCLOS means that the Treaty of Montre remains in force without further changes

Since 1994 (1998 slight modification) Turkey applies the "Maritime Highway Code for the Turkish Straits» (Maritime Traffic Regulations for the Turkish Straits and the Marmara Region), which introduced a new regulatory regime 'in order to ensure safety navigation and environmental protection in the region ', but without violating the principle of free transit of Montreux. The new regulations have caused some controversy when Russia, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Ukraine and Bulgaria objected. However, these changes were adopted by the International Maritime Organisation on the grounds that they had not intended to affect "the rights of any ships using the Straits under international law."

some reference
"Montreux Convention (1936)." The Columbia Encyclopedia, 2004
"Montreux Convention." Chambers Dictionary of World History, 2005

So, today turkey attempted to violate the agreement, but they step back after few hours.

originally posted by: Ploutonas
Turkey denied to sign up the Unclos in 1994, but they are bind under Montreux Convention.

Since we are in agreement as to which treaty is the current authority, how is it that we are in disagreement as to whom, that treaty specifically states, is the authority?

Montreux gives Turkey full control.

Note, per your own sources, that Turkey 'applies'...it does not legislate, nor does it defer to other legislation. The Turk's allowing passage through straits is at their leisure. No different than me allowing people to cut across my yard today, and posting up a no trespassing sign tomorrow. I allow their transit at my leisure. That never implies, under any law, that I am bound to allow said transit at all times because I did once, even for an extended period.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Ploutonas
Turkey denied to sign up the Unclos in 1994, but they are bind under Montreux Convention.

Since we are in agreement as to which treaty is the current authority, how is it that we are in disagreement as to whom, that treaty specifically states, is the authority?

Montreux gives Turkey full control.

under conditions, if they violate any conditions, they lose it, the drums of war. That alone proves turkey never owned the straits, but under conditions. If turks could do anything they want in the straits, it would look like India, nobody would even bother to pass through. It would be in the blacklist straits... dangerous for the free world.

originally posted by: Ploutonas
under conditions, if they violate any conditions, they lose it, the drums of war. That alone proves turkey never owned the straits, but under conditions.

Good luck with that...lol.

All of this aside, even per the non-amended agreement, Russia has kind of screwed herself.

Article 13 pretty clearly states that any military vessel (Black Sea power or not) must submit notification to the Turkish government through diplomatic channels, to gain passage rights.

Channels Russia cancelled just recently...yes?

Now, per the amended agreement, Article 21 is pretty clear that Turkey does not have to be at war to close the straits to military vessels of her choosing. Turkey only need feel 'threatened with imminent danger of war' to apply Article 20, which negates Articles 10 through 18, and defers control of all military transit to the Turkish government.

Regardless of which side anybody is on, in regards to Turkey/Russia, I'm fairly certain that they are well within 'imminent danger of war' territory.

So, where exactly would Turkey be in breach of any of the 'conditions'?

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
lame, and here i thought something exciting or out of the ordinary was happening in the world. life is so drab.

Yeah, same here ... otto-man. And here I was wondering if there was a war brewing.

Damn!

I bet those two Putin and Obama got to an agreement or something, just to disappoint the world.

a reply to: peck420

I think they notify IMO or a similar organization, not controlled by turks. What makes you think that turks controlling everything there. It says a week early notification.

But I also think that military vehicles including warships, dont notify and they cannot be checked. I have no idea what truly happens in the straits and military stuff, beause I didnt study military things. But I know a cargo ship, will never get any convenience from a military craft. We have to avoid them, not avoid us. Military warships will never notify and use the free world trade radio stations... They have their own laws.

originally posted by: Ploutonas
I think they notify IMO or a similar organization, not controlled by turks.

They must notify whomever the Turk's deem so, per the Montreux Convention.

What makes you think that turks controlling everything there.

The current governing law for the area in question.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not a fan. I would much prefer if the global community got together and actually set something formal, binding, and fair in place and bound by all nations. But, I don't get to enact my will upon others...so, until governing bodies decide to do so, the current law is the current law.

Unfortunately, the current law states that Turkey is bound by Montreux, and only Montreux until they see fit to sign onto a treaty/agreement/convention that will replaces it.

a reply to: peck420

I found it in english...

en.wikipedia.org...

This is interesting " Turkey was authorised to close the Straits to all foreign warships in wartime or when it was threatened by aggression " but in our case, turkey is the aggressor.

a reply to: Ploutonas
Have you found the clause which specifies the rent being paid to Britain?
I'm still curious about that one.
I'm not sure that our Chancellor of the Exchequer knows about it.

originally posted by: Ploutonas
a reply to: peck420

I found it

The convention was one of a series of agreements in the 19th and 20th centuries that sought to address the long-running "Straits Question" of who should control the strategically vital link between the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea. In 1923 the Treaty of Lausanne had demilitarised the Dardanelles and opened the Straits to unrestricted civilian and military traffic, under the supervision of the International Straits Commission of the League of Nations.

and its not monitored by turks.

The Treaty of Lausanne was superseded by the Montreaux Convention, signed, sealed, and ratified by all parties involved.

Do you know what that means? Aside from having a place in history, the Treaty of Lausanne has no bearing, legal or otherwise, on the the current convention.