4 ms·

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

skissane 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
What would NATO ships do there? "Balancing" would only make sense if NATO was directly a part of the conflict.
- skissane 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago

What would NATO ships do there? "Balancing" would only make sense if NATO was directly a part of the conflict.

skissane 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.