9 ms·

NATO has really benefited from having Turkey as a member in this war (which is essentially a proxy war between Russia and NATO)-Turkey exercised its right to cl

NATO has really benefited from having Turkey as a member in this war (which is essentially a proxy war between Russia and NATO)-Turkey exercised its right to close the Bosporus to military ships not based there, which prevents Russia from reinforcing its Black Sea fleet. An ex-NATO Turkey might have taken Russia’s side and left the straits open. Closing them disadvantaged Russia far more than anyone else, since Ukraine really doesn’t have a navy any more, and other major naval powers were never likely to directly intervene on Ukraine’s side.

NicoJuicy 5y ago
Turkeye is balancing things. They also closed it for NATO and did it after Russian ships arrived.
- skissane 5y ago
  Turkey does have some recent history of "balancing" with Russia, but I'm not convinced its decisions on the Straits are an example of that. My understanding is that under the Montreux Convention, Turkey closes it for everybody involved in the war or nobody, I don't believe it allows Turkey to block one side of a conflict's ships but not the other, unless it is a conflict in which Turkey itself is directly involved. (In a direct war between Russia and NATO, Turkey would probably just tear up the Convention anyway–but doing so in peacetime would likely be considered by Russia to be an act of war.) In practice, however, closing the Straits has a much more negative impact on Russia than NATO, since the major NATO naval powers (US, UK, France) were never likely to send ships near Ukraine anyway, and as non-Black Sea states the Montreux Convention subjects them to special limits to which Black Sea states are not subject. In fact (according to some sources), the Straits are still officially open for the US/UK/French/etc navies, so long as they don't directly join the conflict – although I imagine they'd be rather hesitant to exercise that right at the moment, due to the risk Russia might interpret such an act as hostile. If it is true they allowed some Russian ships through before closing it–that could have been simply the slowness of government decision making, plus the legal complexities involved, rather than a deliberate "balancing" act. If anything, I think this conflict has caused Turkey to turn away from the "balancing" and move more firmly into the NATO column. Reminding NATO of their value helps silence the ongoing "can we expel Turkey?" debate, refusing to do so would have given it more steam. Turkey has been selling its TB2 drones to Ukraine, which Ukraine has been using to great effect against Russia – not a very good example of "balancing". Ukraine's successful use of Turkish drones is very helpful to Turkey, because it gives them more information on how they perform in an actual conflict (which they already had to some extent with the Syrian civil war, the KPP, etc, but Russia is a very different kind of adversary from the Syrian government or the Kurds), and also helps attract potential buyers.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    I think we reached more or less the same conclusion. I don't think the Barayktar has such a significant influence, but it could be a smart move from Ukraine to have add some difficulties to the balancing part of Turkeye. Not sure about the last part though.
  - nradov 5y ago
    The UK did send a warship near Ukraine in 2021 (before the start of the current war), and the Russian military might have fired warning shots at it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57583363 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57583363
  - maratc 5y ago
    > major NATO naval powers (US, UK, France) were never likely to send ships near Ukraine Not only they were likely, they actually did that in 2020 and 2021, as a part of joint war games with Ukraine. According to what I read, some 30 ships participated.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  What would NATO ships do there? "Balancing" would only make sense if NATO was directly a part of the conflict.
  - skissane 5y ago
    If NATO was directly part of the conflict, Turkey as a NATO member would be expected to be 100% on NATO's side, not "balancing" its allies against their enemy. If it was still trying to "balance" in that situation, it would either stop real fast or else end up expelled from NATO. In an actual shooting Russia-vs-NATO war, nobody would care about the legal niceties over whether NATO members can be expelled – the other members would just agree to do it, and the lawyers can debate the legality of it when the war is over.
  - xdennis 5y ago
    Romania and Bulgaria only have access to the Black Sea. My understanding is that if a Romanian warship goes to a military exercise in the Mediterranean, then it won't be allowed to return, just like Russian ships can't.
    - skissane 5y ago
      Sources are inconsistent on this topic – some say Turkey has closed the Straits to all warships, others say it has only closed the ships to the official parties to the conflict, which is currently only Russia and Ukraine (arguably Belarus too, but that's irrelevant to this, since as a landlocked state they have no navy), and that other naval ships, including Bulgarian and Romanian, are still allowed through, so long as they don't actively join the war. I'm not entirely sure which set of sources are right, but I suspect the sources claiming a narrower closure are more likely to be correct. Putting that aside, even the official parties to the war are allowed through the straits to return their ships to their home ports (unless Turkey is directly involved in the war, in which case Turkey can block all enemy vessels, even those returning to their home port). Since the only coastline and naval bases of Bulgaria and Romania are on the Black Sea, that rule covers their entire navies. It only really disadvantages Russia, since Russia is the only Black Sea state (other than Turkey) with naval bases outside of the Black Sea. It means Russia can't send reinforcements to the Black Sea from their Pacific, Baltic or Arctic fleets. In a scenario in which Romania or Bulgaria actively joined the war, it would be a direct Russia-NATO war, including Turkey. In such a dire scenario, Turkey would likely announce the unilateral suspension of the Montreux Convention for the duration of the war, and allow NATO warships unlimited passage. Russia would consider such a unilateral suspension of the Convention to be an act of war, but in such a scenario Turkey and Russia would already be at war anyway.
KptMarchewa 5y ago
And, Turkey delivers one of the most useful weapons Ukraine has - Bayraktars.
- chrisweekly 5y ago
  Bayraktar: Turkish-built UAV (drone)
- eru 5y ago
  Btw, just to be clear: Bayraktar drones aren't the best drones by a long shot. What's special is that they are really good drones for their price.
sorokod 5y ago
a proxy war between Russia and NATO That is not how people of Ukraine see this.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  With the US alone investing 40 billion dollars in the war, they're simply wrong if they don't see it this way.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    As I have always understood the concept of proxy war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war there should be another party behind Russia prompting it's actions (since it attacked)
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      My understanding is that a proxy war requires at least one of the belligerents to be acting through a proxy, not necessarily both. For example, here is a wiki page [0] about the Iran-Israel proxy conflict/war, which is fought between Israeli and Palestinian combatants. Either way, this is a just a matter of how you choose to define the term. The important point that I'm trying to make is that, while Ukraine is of course fighting for its own sake (not trying to claim here they are only a puppet or something - as is Palestine in the other example), it's also clear that NATO is massively involved in the conflict, with its own aims for the war which may or may not be entirely aligned with Ukraine's (or Ukrainians') best interests. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_conflict https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_co...
    - pc86 5y ago
      This seems like pedantry. One side can be a proxy while the other side isn't, right?
      - eru 5y ago
        Yes. And one side can fight a war, while the other side is fighting a special military operation.
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
> which prevents Russia from reinforcing its Black Sea fleet After the successful attack on Moskva I'm not even sure it's beneficial to NATO or not. Of course it is in the best interests of Ukrainians to keep these ships at bay, but from NATO's point of view this could be an excellent occasion to make some significant blows at Russian fleet.
trashtester 5y ago
> which is essentially a proxy war between Russia and NATO This is kind of like seeing WW2 pre PH as a proxy war between the USA and Germany.... Ukraine is clearly a part in this war, as they have shown by their heroic ability to resist. Nato is clearly on Ukraine's side. You are right that NATO benefits greatly from still having Turkey on the team, though. Also, I think Turkey is not super supportive of Putins's attempts to annext territory by force and/or vassalize their neighbours through invasions. Next time, they could annex Georgia, and I'm pretty sure that would be seen as a grave threat by Turkey.

NicoJuicy 5y ago

Turkeye is balancing things. They also closed it for NATO and did it after Russian ships arrived.

skissane 5y ago
Turkey does have some recent history of "balancing" with Russia, but I'm not convinced its decisions on the Straits are an example of that. My understanding is that under the Montreux Convention, Turkey closes it for everybody involved in the war or nobody, I don't believe it allows Turkey to block one side of a conflict's ships but not the other, unless it is a conflict in which Turkey itself is directly involved. (In a direct war between Russia and NATO, Turkey would probably just tear up the Convention anyway–but doing so in peacetime would likely be considered by Russia to be an act of war.) In practice, however, closing the Straits has a much more negative impact on Russia than NATO, since the major NATO naval powers (US, UK, France) were never likely to send ships near Ukraine anyway, and as non-Black Sea states the Montreux Convention subjects them to special limits to which Black Sea states are not subject. In fact (according to some sources), the Straits are still officially open for the US/UK/French/etc navies, so long as they don't directly join the conflict – although I imagine they'd be rather hesitant to exercise that right at the moment, due to the risk Russia might interpret such an act as hostile. If it is true they allowed some Russian ships through before closing it–that could have been simply the slowness of government decision making, plus the legal complexities involved, rather than a deliberate "balancing" act. If anything, I think this conflict has caused Turkey to turn away from the "balancing" and move more firmly into the NATO column. Reminding NATO of their value helps silence the ongoing "can we expel Turkey?" debate, refusing to do so would have given it more steam. Turkey has been selling its TB2 drones to Ukraine, which Ukraine has been using to great effect against Russia – not a very good example of "balancing". Ukraine's successful use of Turkish drones is very helpful to Turkey, because it gives them more information on how they perform in an actual conflict (which they already had to some extent with the Syrian civil war, the KPP, etc, but Russia is a very different kind of adversary from the Syrian government or the Kurds), and also helps attract potential buyers.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  I think we reached more or less the same conclusion. I don't think the Barayktar has such a significant influence, but it could be a smart move from Ukraine to have add some difficulties to the balancing part of Turkeye. Not sure about the last part though.
- nradov 5y ago
  The UK did send a warship near Ukraine in 2021 (before the start of the current war), and the Russian military might have fired warning shots at it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57583363 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57583363
- maratc 5y ago
  > major NATO naval powers (US, UK, France) were never likely to send ships near Ukraine Not only they were likely, they actually did that in 2020 and 2021, as a part of joint war games with Ukraine. According to what I read, some 30 ships participated.
KptMarchewa 5y ago
What would NATO ships do there? "Balancing" would only make sense if NATO was directly a part of the conflict.
- skissane 5y ago
  If NATO was directly part of the conflict, Turkey as a NATO member would be expected to be 100% on NATO's side, not "balancing" its allies against their enemy. If it was still trying to "balance" in that situation, it would either stop real fast or else end up expelled from NATO. In an actual shooting Russia-vs-NATO war, nobody would care about the legal niceties over whether NATO members can be expelled – the other members would just agree to do it, and the lawyers can debate the legality of it when the war is over.
- xdennis 5y ago
  Romania and Bulgaria only have access to the Black Sea. My understanding is that if a Romanian warship goes to a military exercise in the Mediterranean, then it won't be allowed to return, just like Russian ships can't.
  - skissane 5y ago
    Sources are inconsistent on this topic – some say Turkey has closed the Straits to all warships, others say it has only closed the ships to the official parties to the conflict, which is currently only Russia and Ukraine (arguably Belarus too, but that's irrelevant to this, since as a landlocked state they have no navy), and that other naval ships, including Bulgarian and Romanian, are still allowed through, so long as they don't actively join the war. I'm not entirely sure which set of sources are right, but I suspect the sources claiming a narrower closure are more likely to be correct. Putting that aside, even the official parties to the war are allowed through the straits to return their ships to their home ports (unless Turkey is directly involved in the war, in which case Turkey can block all enemy vessels, even those returning to their home port). Since the only coastline and naval bases of Bulgaria and Romania are on the Black Sea, that rule covers their entire navies. It only really disadvantages Russia, since Russia is the only Black Sea state (other than Turkey) with naval bases outside of the Black Sea. It means Russia can't send reinforcements to the Black Sea from their Pacific, Baltic or Arctic fleets. In a scenario in which Romania or Bulgaria actively joined the war, it would be a direct Russia-NATO war, including Turkey. In such a dire scenario, Turkey would likely announce the unilateral suspension of the Montreux Convention for the duration of the war, and allow NATO warships unlimited passage. Russia would consider such a unilateral suspension of the Convention to be an act of war, but in such a scenario Turkey and Russia would already be at war anyway.

KptMarchewa 5y ago

And, Turkey delivers one of the most useful weapons Ukraine has - Bayraktars.

chrisweekly 5y ago
Bayraktar: Turkish-built UAV (drone)
eru 5y ago
Btw, just to be clear: Bayraktar drones aren't the best drones by a long shot. What's special is that they are really good drones for their price.

sorokod 5y ago

a proxy war between Russia and NATO That is not how people of Ukraine see this.

tsimionescu 5y ago
With the US alone investing 40 billion dollars in the war, they're simply wrong if they don't see it this way.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  As I have always understood the concept of proxy war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war there should be another party behind Russia prompting it's actions (since it attacked)
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    My understanding is that a proxy war requires at least one of the belligerents to be acting through a proxy, not necessarily both. For example, here is a wiki page [0] about the Iran-Israel proxy conflict/war, which is fought between Israeli and Palestinian combatants. Either way, this is a just a matter of how you choose to define the term. The important point that I'm trying to make is that, while Ukraine is of course fighting for its own sake (not trying to claim here they are only a puppet or something - as is Palestine in the other example), it's also clear that NATO is massively involved in the conflict, with its own aims for the war which may or may not be entirely aligned with Ukraine's (or Ukrainians') best interests. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_conflict https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_co...
  - pc86 5y ago
    This seems like pedantry. One side can be a proxy while the other side isn't, right?
    - eru 5y ago
      Yes. And one side can fight a war, while the other side is fighting a special military operation.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

> which prevents Russia from reinforcing its Black Sea fleet After the successful attack on Moskva I'm not even sure it's beneficial to NATO or not. Of course it is in the best interests of Ukrainians to keep these ships at bay, but from NATO's point of view this could be an excellent occasion to make some significant blows at Russian fleet.

trashtester 5y ago

> which is essentially a proxy war between Russia and NATO This is kind of like seeing WW2 pre PH as a proxy war between the USA and Germany.... Ukraine is clearly a part in this war, as they have shown by their heroic ability to resist. Nato is clearly on Ukraine's side. You are right that NATO benefits greatly from still having Turkey on the team, though. Also, I think Turkey is not super supportive of Putins's attempts to annext territory by force and/or vassalize their neighbours through invasions. Next time, they could annex Georgia, and I'm pretty sure that would be seen as a grave threat by Turkey.