In Turkey, announced a project that will not be covered by the Montreux Convention

In Ankara, they decided to substantively consider the project, which, it is alleged, will not be subject to the Montreux Convention. Recall that under the Montreux Convention, the presence of warships of non-Black Sea states in the Black Sea is limited in number and tonnage. In addition, the document implies the closure of the Bosphorus by Turkey in case of war.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that a tender for the implementation of the Istanbul project will be announced soon. This project involves the construction of a canal with that name. And the Istanbul canal will have to become an alternative to the Bosphorus Strait - during the transition from the Sea of ​​Marmara to the Black Sea and vice versa.

Erdogan said seismological and hydrological studies have already been carried out involving more than two hundred scientists.
Ankara notes that during the operation of the new channel, the Turkish treasury will receive additional income of about $ 1 billion annually.

The channel project in Turkey has been discussed before. However, so far everything remained at the level of rumors and behind-the-scenes discussions. Now, the Turkish authorities intend to seriously begin to implement the project.

Meanwhile, the Russian ambassador to Turkey believes that the appearance of the Istanbul channel "will not change the legal regime of the Montreux Convention."

Comments

[Victor_B]

They have been dreaming / talking about such a channel for many years.
In itself, such a decision does not contradict anything, and, in fact, what does the Montreux Convention have to do with it?
The Bosphorus is really overloaded, plus it goes through Istanbul, and there both tankers and military and gas carriers and accidents happen.
Well, they’ll dig a canal and what can’t be passed along the Bosphorus?
Can an AB with a warrant get into a trap?
Americans are not fools.

[Insurgent]

Russian ambassador to Turkey believes that the appearance of the Istanbul Channel “will not change the legal regime of the Montreux Convention

And the diplomat knows what he’s talking about.
After all, restrictions on the tonnage and time spent in the Black Sea for warships of countries that do not represent the region are not determined by the passage of one or another strait (channel), but refer to the Black, "internal" sea as a whole.
And nothing else.

But, they are crocheted from diplomacy, of course, something and somehow get out.

But the katran in the sea, so that the herring does not doze off.

[Victor_B]

Quote: Insurgent

After all, restrictions on the tonnage and time spent in the Black Sea for warships of countries that do not represent the region are not determined by the passage of one or another strait (channel), but refer to the Black, "internal" sea as a whole.

As far as I understand, it just says about the "straits", so if we go past the straits, the convention is already on the side!

КConference on the regime of the Black Sea Straits was held June 22 - July 21, 1936 in Montreux (Switzerland) with the participation of the USSR, Turkey, Great Britain, France, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Yugoslavia, Australia and Japan [3]. The conference was convened at the proposal of Turkey in order to revise the convention on the regime of the Black Sea Straits adopted at the Lausanne Conference of 1922-23.

Pedivicia.

[Insurgent]

Quote: Victor_B

As far as I understand, it just says about the "straits"

And ABM straits, and ABM Black Sea ...

Briefly:

Key provisions of the convention

The Montreux Convention retains the freedom of passage through the straits for merchant ships of all countries in both peacetime and wartime. However, the convention establishes a different mode of passage for warships for the fleets of the Black Sea and non-Black Sea states. Subject to prior notification by the Turkish authorities, the Black Sea states may navigate their warships of any class through the straits in peacetime. For warships of non-Black Sea powers, significant class restrictions have been introduced (only small surface ships pass) and tonnage. The total tonnage of military vessels of non-Black Sea states in the Black Sea should not exceed 30 thousand tons (with the possibility of increasing this maximum to 45 thousand tons in case of an increase in the naval forces of the Black Sea countries) with a stay of not more than 21 days. In the case of Turkey’s participation in the war, and also if Turkey considers that it is directly threatened by war, it is granted the right to allow or prohibit passage of any military vessels through the straits. The convention consists of 29 articles, four annexes and one protocol. Articles 2–7 deal with the passage of merchant ships. Articles 8–22 deal with the passage of warships. The key principle of freedom of passage and navigation is set forth in Articles 1 and 2. Article 1 reads: “The High Contracting Parties recognize and reaffirm the principle of freedom of passage and navigation by sea in straits”. Article 2 reads: “In peacetime, merchant ships enjoy complete freedom of passage and navigation in the straits day and night under any flag with any kind of cargo.”

The International Straits Commission was abolished, allowing the full resumption of Turkish military control over the straits and the redistribution of the Dardanelles. Turkey is authorized to close the straits for all foreign warships during wartime or when it was threatened by aggression. It is allowed to refuse transit from merchant ships belonging to countries at war with Turkey. The Convention eliminated the international strait commission provided for in the Lausanne Convention, with the transfer of its functions to the Turkish government.

Black Sea Powers: Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, the USSR until 1991, Russia since 1991, Ukraine since 1991, Georgia since 1991

In general, all this "montrya" is viable and relevant only in peacetime. As soon as something happens, there will be another "conversation".

[Shurik70]

Che, I did not understand the idea of ​​an "alternative to the Bosphorus".
This alternative is usually spoken by those who are annoyed by Turkey’s control of the Bosphorus. So they talk about the alternative.
WHY ALTERNATIVE TO TURKEY ?? !!

And if about the Montreux Convention, it doesn’t matter which channel. That they let AUG through it is nonsense.

[Oquzyurd]

When Montreux concluded, 3-3,5 thousand ships a year passed through the Bosphorus. Now it is a figure of 41-41 thousand ships a year. Congestion and queues are inevitable, and there are also accidents with dangerous goods. Many large ships stand in line, from 3 up to 6 days. And such ships a day cost from 30 to 70 thousand dollars. per day, depending on the tonnage. The passage through the Bosphorus is free, but the turn is in monetary terms. And the channel, according to the calculations, will let the tanker pass on the same day, for 30-40 thousand dollars. Here and the owners of the companies will count the money, Is it worth waiting at best for at least 3 days in line and lose about 120-180 thousand dollars, or if you pay 40 thousand to jump through the channel.

[Shurik70]

Um ... I searched the Internet. They are going to launch the channel by the year 2023.

The length of the waterway will be 43 km, the width of the new canal is about 400 meters, and the depth is about 25 meters. "Istanbul" will be laid parallel to the Bosphorus and will become its alternative. 150-160 cargo ships can pass through the canal per day - the same number as the Bosphorus now passes

[Oquzyurd]

I don’t know where you found it) The actual width is 250 m, the depth is 22,5 m. They plan to build it in 7 years, a preliminary estimate of 16 mln.dol. I watched the programs dedicated to this project for a long time. Everywhere to talk about the above numbers.

[Shurik70]

Quote: Oquzyurd

I don’t know where you found)

Right here. Although the article is from the summer of 2018, and the terms could change, but not long

https://news.rambler.ru/world/40606902-zachem-turtsiya-sobiraetsya-proryt-parallelnyy-bosforu-kanal/

[Insurgent]

Quote: Shurik70

an article from the summer of 2018, and the terms could change, but not long

As practice shows: Maybe everything!
Even the length can change to some extent, if the channel suddenly runs into some kind of obstacle, for example ... a bureaucratic

[Sergey39]

Quote: Shurik70

WHY ALTERNATIVE TO TURKEY ?? !!

This alternative is not needed by Turkey. The United States, as always, is trying to act with the wrong hands.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Sergey39

The United States, as always, is trying to act with the wrong hands.

Right in the eye.

[Caretaker]

Quote: Shurik70

Che, I did not understand the idea of ​​an "alternative to the Bosphorus".
This alternative is usually spoken by those who are annoyed by Turkey’s control of the Bosphorus. So they talk about the alternative.

To understand it (Erdogan) is not difficult.
Like "If we fail to come to an agreement with Russia, we will build a canal and let NATO warships pass without restrictions."

[Alex777]

The Montreux Convention is primarily beneficial to Turkey.
Turkey and only Turkey ensures its implementation.

[orionvitt]

Quote: Insurgent

As soon as something happens, there will be another "conversation"

As soon as something happens and Turkey closes the straits, that is, the option to "close" Turkey itself. Figuratively speaking. They will not understand in any way that if they have not raked out luli for a long time, then they have not become "cool". Moreover, it has no allies among its neighbors. Is that old Europe with states, and then only in words. But I can imagine, if the opportunity presents itself, with what pleasure and pleasure, Turkey will be torn apart by neighbors. Since the time of the Ottoman Empire, everyone "loves" Turkey so much that they "cannot eat". And now, in principle, the same thing.

[AAK]

Colleague, your option with "closure" is a "de jure" war, and "de facto" is just a limited-scale military operation of the Russian Federation "forcing peace" with undefined goals, in which only the Air Force and missile units of the ground forces with non-nuclear equipment (the Strategic Missile Forces are not applicable for geopolitical reasons, it will be a "casus belli" against the Russian Federation for the whole world). The landing operation of the Russian Federation, even to capture the strait zone, cannot be feasible, since Turkey in this area has a grouping of the Army / Air Force / Navy stronger than the Southern Military District and the Black Sea Fleet of Russia. Plus the US and the rest of NATO will intervene. While the Russian Federation does not have an unblockable exit to the Mediterranean and the BV, pulling Turkey's mustache makes no sense, regardless of love or dislike for it from other neighbors.

[orionvitt]

Quote: AAK

Colleague, your option with "closure" is a "de jure" war

You didn't read it very carefully. I wrote not about the "closure" of the straits, but figuratively speaking, about Turkey itself as a major player. The political situation inside the country is not stable, there are no normal allies, there is no resource base, it has gotten involved in dangerous games with the entire Arab world, the Kurdish issue has not been resolved, Europe, to put it mildly, is not happy, and so on. Why fight in a straight line when Turkey has so many pain points?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Victor_B

As far as I understand, it just says about the "straits", so if we go past the straits, the convention is already on the side!

And if "on the side", then no restrictions. That Turkey is absolutely not profitable.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Spade

Quote: Victor_B

As far as I understand, it just says about the "straits", so if we go past the straits, the convention is already on the side!

And if "on the side", then no restrictions. That Turkey is absolutely not profitable.

Come on. This "side" will bring money - this time; this "side" - the property of Turkey, which she will close to everyone, whenever she wants - that's two. Which of the following is not beneficial to Turkey?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Doliva63

Which of the following Turkey is not profitable?

Waiver of the Convention.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Spade

Quote: Doliva63

Which of the following Turkey is not profitable?

Waiver of the Convention.

Did she give her up?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Doliva63

Did she give her up?

No.
What do they have nothing more to do?
The Montreux Convention provides them with far more opportunities to influence the legal status of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles than the Convention on the Law of the Sea

But there are more and more strange conversations about "Turkey will refuse"

[Andrey Gladkikh]

You will not "pass by" the straits. After the construction of the planned canal, you will pass the Bosphorus. And in the convention we are talking about the straits, that is, about the Dardanelles too. But the planned channel does not bypass the planned channel. And no one is planning a channel to bypass the Dardanelles.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Insurgent

Indeed, the restrictions on the tonnage and time spent in the Black Sea of ​​warships of countries that do not represent the region are not determined by the passage of a strait (channel)

applies. The Convention is about the status of straits (specifically, the Bosphorus and Dardanelles), and not about the status of the Black Sea.
But that is how the authors are right - this will not affect Conventions, because there will be no Convention on the new channel (if any).

[Andrey Gladkikh]

The force of the Convention, of course, will not affect the channel. But it is impossible to enter the channel bypassing the Dprdanelles. And the passage of the Dardanelles is regulated by the Convention.

[cost]

Erdogan announced that a tender for the implementation of the Istanbul project would be announced soon. This project involves the construction of a canal with the same name.

Interestingly, have descendants of the Black Sea diggers already submitted an application for participation in the tender?

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Rich

Interestingly, have descendants of the Black Sea diggers already submitted an application for participation in the tender?

What kind of tender is there if pensions are cut.

[knn54]

SPARDS fall under the convention. Not a channel.
The Sea of ​​Marmara is quite clean, but when the channel is built ALL drains, first of all, from the Danube will get there from the Black.
I wonder if there weren't more than two hundred British scientists?

[MstislavHrabr]

Do I understand correctly that the Black Sea will become cleaner ?!

[New Year day]

Quote: knn54

from the Danube will get there from the Black.

And from the Mediterranean to Black what gets?

[Oquzyurd]

One can say no. The Mediterranean Sea is a spectator of what is happening. Above, the currents flow from the Black Sea to the Marmara Sea and create a huge water cycle in the Marmara, mixing creates dead rain and leaves the bottom of the Sea of ​​Marmara, and gas precipitates from the bottom .For this reason, the Sea of ​​Marmara is almost lifeless and has no fish resources. The Krugovorot, however, creates a backstream in the depth of 55-60 meters, from the Sea of ​​Marmara to the Black Sea.

[To be or not to be]

Water defensive line in Thrace ??
From Europe? However...

[Bagatur]

For Istanbul, it’s an ecology disaster!

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Victor_B

What does the Montreux Convention have to do with it?

despite the fact that it (the Convention) applies only to the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles (they are called the term Straits in the text of the document). If the Turks (or anyone else) build their canal into the Black Sea, the Montreux Convention will not receive it. With all the consequences.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Victor_B

In itself, such a decision does not contradict anything, and, in fact, what does the Montreux Convention have to do with it?

The channel will not fall under international jurisdiction; Turkey will rule the ball. Sponsors for this venture, more than enough.

[Maz]

Will the Chinese build?

[core]

gas carriers are forbidden to go there.

[smart ass]

It makes no sense to drive any number of NATO ships into the Black Sea, all of them are obviously doomed. Bastions, balls, vks. Black Sea even do not have to go to sea

[maidan.izrailovich]

Yes, more than once discussed the project of such a channel.
The fact is that this channel allows you to bypass only one strait. And the convention extends to two straits.
Definitely, it was a mistake to establish trade relations with Turkey. Yes, and at our expense. Turkey is an unfriendly country for us. And besides supporting Syria, it is also necessary to support the Kurds. What does it mean in their quest for an independent state. This will weaken Turkey. And the ambition will be less.

[ZVS]

And the Montreux convention that Turkey will have the right to launch at least the entire 6th US fleet into the Black Sea. This channel is one of the possibilities of pressure on Russia.

[Pavel57]

For the Turks, the project is profitable. It is not very expensive. Politically make changes to the status quo.

[bessmertniy]

First, let them build it, and only then tie the activities of the canal to international treaties. It is still unknown how much they will dig the channel. Will Erdogan wait until the first ship passes through it?

[Starover_Z]

Quote: bessmertniy

Will Erdogan wait until the first ship passes through it?

Oh, rightly said! Research, this is not a channel yet, but who will dig, who will go to investors? Maybe Russia with the right of plenipotentiary control of the movement on the channel for 49 years? No, such a building is almost equal to Alaska - for 99 years!

[bessmertniy]

Say there are precedents for the construction of sea channels - Suez, Panama. They were built for a long time, and were an expensive pleasure.

[Oquzyurd]

The Turks have a giant company structure, established production of building materials. After the Chinese, they are the second largest in the world in construction. Qatar has already stated that it is ready to pay for the project. They are likely to win the tender. Estimated channel in the region of 16 mln.dol.

[Brturin]

Quote: Starover_Z

Researches, this is not a channel yet

Quote: bessmertniy

There are precedents for the construction of sea channels - Suez, Panama.

Suez and Panama - but they are not built in the seismic zone, but Istanbul - "" We are very closely following the events, "said Marco Bonhof from GFZ. The reason for such close attention of experts to the earthquake in Turkey is explained by the fact that Istanbul is on the line of one of the most dangerous geological faults in the world, the so-called North Anatolian fault. " Last year was 20 years of the 1999 earthquake and they are waiting for a new one - "We expect an earthquake with a magnitude of 7,5 in Istanbul" - January, Turkish Interior Minister Suleiman Soylu. Research, research, but the Bosphorus is millennia, but what will happen to this channel ....

[Oquzyurd]

The depth of the geological faults is 21 km, near Istanbul. The channel depth is 22-23 meters)

[voyaka uh]

If they give it to Chinese firms, they will dig it in a few months. The Chinese are raising such projects effortlessly.
The speed is 10 times higher than that of Europeans.

[Oquzyurd]

A 43 km channel, they’ll build it in 7 years. An estimate of 16 mln dollars. Qatar is ready to pay for the project) Montreux covers the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. And the channel is only for unloading the Bosphorus. If the channel passed by the Dardanelles, then yes, they would have broken Montreux. And so there are no violations, the card clearly shows everything ..

[Insurgent]

Quote: bessmertniy

First let them build

First, let them get out of the "Idlib Loop" safe and sound ...

[Aviator_]

It is still unknown how much they will dig the channel.

There are nearby subcontractors who dug up the whole sea, a channel for them - trifles.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Pavel57

Politically make changes to the status quo.

There will be more opportunities to blackmail.

[svp67]

Meanwhile, the Russian ambassador to Turkey believes that the appearance of the Istanbul channel "will not change the legal regime of the Montreux Convention."

Until, until it changes ... until they dig a canal from the Sea of ​​Marmara to the Gulf of Saros ... and this will be much smaller in size than the planned "Istanbul".
And I remember that the head of the USSR Foreign Ministry, Gromyko, "offered help" from the USSR to Turkey, in digging through a couple of such channels, "in case of emergency" ... "strikes of nuclear missiles", but this is so, "a fallback", to remember that Russia has not only the Aerospace Forces, EW and SSO, but one more "ally"

[Aleks2048]

I want the Turks ... Well, maybe even economically sound ... Dig a channel ... Set up traffic on it ... Troublesome ... Expensive ... Turks are not so economically strong and politically stable. But let's say a miracle happens and they dig a canal and even make it a worker.

Recall that the Montreux Convention limits the number and tonnage of the presence of warships of non-Black Sea states in the Black Sea.

So what does the convention have to do with it? Or do the Turks want to say that in case of war they will close the Bosphorus and will not close the channel? So no one in the Russian Federation had hoped that the Turks would close the Bosphorus for the NATO countries during the war. I think that such nonsense

In Ankara, they decided to substantively consider the project, which, it is alleged, will not be subject to the Montreux Convention.

Aimed at domestic consumption by the Turkish electorate.

[Pardus]

Quote: Alex2048

I want the Turks ... Well, maybe even economically feasible ...

The channel "Istanbul", unfortunately, has another purpose, military. This is primarily interesting to the United States. The status of the Turkish Straits is regulated by the Montreux Convention. According to her, the time and tonnage of vessels of non-Black Sea countries, to which the United States belongs, are very limited. They can be in the Black Sea for only 21 days. According to their plan, the new channel should solve this problem for the USA and NATO, because it is possible that the Montreux Convention will not apply to the new channel.

[abrakadabre]

They can be in the Black Sea for only 21 days. According to their plan, the new channel should solve this problem for the USA and NATO, because it is possible that the Montreux Convention will not apply to the new channel.

From whether the ship got through the Bosphorus or through the canal, the period of 21 days will not change and will remain unchanged.
Turks can generally make two-way traffic with two shipping lanes. For example, through a canal to the Black Sea, through the Bosphorus back. Or vice versa.

[Zaurbek]

So there will be another agreement.

[Pardus]

Quote: Zaurbek

So there will be another agreement.

This is still a big question. The states and their NATO allies do not need a new treaty, and they are unlikely to agree to a new treaty. I think they will go to the conclusion of a new agreement only if it reflects exclusively their interests.

[Thrifty]

As long as ours do not fit in there, this is the construction of a new channel! The Turks themselves and for their money even build a highway on Venus!

[7,62x54]

What to do to Russia? Dig a channel Persian Gulf - Caspian Sea - Black Sea.

[sagitch]

It seems to me that the United States, a malicious violator of this convention. And Shura Balaganov can shake the air as much as desired, while Panikovsky has long been creeping around his section.

[Aviator_]

The main thing here is to recall how the violation of the convention ended for Panikovsky.

[Warrior MorePhoto]

Quote: bessmertniy

First, let them build it, and only then tie the activities of the canal to international treaties. It is still unknown how much they will dig the channel. Will Erdogan wait until the first ship passes through it?

According to the Turkish side, by 2023. It would seem unrealistic terms, but the construction industry is very seriously developed among the Turks. Until 2014, in Russia, a lot of companies were exactly Turkish.
Time will tell.

[Pardus]

The cost of the project is estimated from 10 to 20 billion dollars. The completion of the project is planned five years after the start of work. This project is primarily beneficial to the United States. In the event of the successful implementation of this project, the sixth US fleet, strengthened by the allies, will be able to stand on a permanent basis on the Black Sea, for example, in Bulgaria or Odessa after the reconstruction of its port, already in 2025.

[Oquzyurd]

You read Montreux, there are two straits under this convention, see where the canal is on the map, and you will see that the canal runs parallel to the Bosphorus, and the Dardanelles are not touching. That is, the canal does not violate Montreux in any way. It is impossible to use the canal to violate Montreux, since The Dardanelles stands like a castle on the way, and blocks the likelihood of a violation.

[Whalebone]

And why do they need it?

[Whalebone]

And the Bosphorus will take the Russian Federation. Norm topic.

[K-50]

The Turks can tear down the whole piece of territory on which Istanbul (Constantinople) stands, even though underground - dig underwater tunnels. This is their business. The Montreux doctrine extends to the Black Sea and regulates the presence in it of warships of non-Black Sea countries.
They want, we can even help them dig a channel.
I wonder how many megatons are enough to do such a job?

[Izotovp]

It is time to finally substantively return to the project of the canal from the Caspian Sea to the Red Sea through Iran.

[demo]

And if "tomorrow" the power in Iran changes?
And then the Americans will be in the Caspian?
This is the first.
Second.
A more aggressive ocean biota will certainly destroy the Caspian biota.

[Izotovp]

I agree. Serious arguments.

[Jurkovs]

Quote: Izotovp

It is time to finally substantively return to the project of the canal from the Caspian Sea to the Red Sea through Iran.

There, the whole question ran into the definition of property. Under the Iranian constitution, a country cannot have military foreign bases or any other violation of the country's jurisdiction. That is, the channel will belong to Iran and Russia will not be able to influence it. In the future, we can see American destroyers in the Caspian Sea. Therefore, we wish to have joint ownership and a military base at the entrance. In general, the project is there, the desire of Russia and Iran is. Iran also allocates money, but it cannot pull construction itself, and Russia does not allow this construction. Therefore, the territorial waters of the Caspian are still not divided. Iran wants the canal to go out in their waters, but we do not want this.

[Thompson]

the convention expressly speaks of limiting the tonnage and time spent in the BLACK SEA
and it doesn’t matter how they get there .. by straits or canals

[demo]

Meanwhile, the Russian ambassador to Turkey believes that the appearance of the Istanbul channel "will not change the legal regime of the Montreux Convention."
The Ambassador is mistaken.
Will change. Even as a change.
You just have to take and read the convention.

I have one feeling that Turkey can never, under any circumstances, be either another, but also a good neighbor?
What should happen so that the one who leads our state is not known where, begins to think about the consequences of their actions?

[Amateur]

In Ankara, they decided to substantively consider the project, which, it is alleged, will not be subject to the Montreux Convention.

So what? No Montreux extends to the Baltic Sea, but no one drives carrier squadrons into it, because it is also small and by coastal means incl. aviation is "shot through" through and through. Like the Black Sea.
Another scarecrow for the nerve.

[9PA]

Edik distracts the attention of his people from Syria

[Jurkovs]

Erdogan is just stupid. If the American fleet is constantly on duty in the Black Sea tomorrow, it will not be profitable for Turkey itself. Out of a desire to stab Russia in something, I’m ready to sacrifice my own interests.

[nikvic46]

Turkey forgot about Gromyko’s statement regarding two channels and Istanbul.

[vik669]

... only here Istanbul, unfortunately, will not be!

[Kerensky]

For me, it’s such a purely commercial project. 150 boards per day. Normally unload the Bosphorus. Again, a national project, prestigious!

[PValery53]

Indeed, the Montreux Convention is a document about the status of the Black Sea. And according to Turkish logic (Turks - they are Turks!) The construction of a new channel will change the status of the Black Sea! Now, if the Turks build on their territory a new sea, the size of the Black Sea, then we can talk about the status of the old Black Sea. In the meantime, let them not fool themselves and other countries.

[Brigadier]

"Meanwhile, the Russian ambassador to Turkey believes that the appearance of the Istanbul Channel “will not change the legal regime of the Montreux Convention»."

He laughed heartily, imagining the value of the opinion of the Russian ambassador to Turkey!