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

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."
Photos used:
site of the president of Turkey
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

85 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Victor_B 9 March 2020 10: 42 New
    • 17
    • 4
    +13
    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.
    1. Insurgent 9 March 2020 10: 55 New
      • 26
      • 4
      +22
      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.
      Indeed, the restrictions on the tonnage and the 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), but refers to the entire Black, "inland" sea.
      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.
      1. Victor_B 9 March 2020 10: 58 New
        • 8
        • 2
        +6
        Quote: Insurgent
        Indeed, the restrictions on the tonnage and the 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), but refers to the entire Black, "inland" sea.

        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.
        1. Insurgent 9 March 2020 11: 09 New
          • 14
          • 2
          +12
          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."
          1. Shurik70 9 March 2020 11: 53 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            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 ?? !!
            belay
            And if about the Montreux Convention, it doesn’t matter which channel. That they let AUG through it is nonsense.
            1. Oquzyurd 9 March 2020 12: 07 New
              • 15
              • 5
              +10
              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.
              1. Shurik70 9 March 2020 12: 24 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                Um ... I searched the Internet. They are going to launch the channel by the year 2023.
                The length of the water artery will be 43 km, the width of the new channel is about 400 meters, and the depth is about 25 meters. "Istanbul" will be laid parallel to the Bosphorus and become its alternative. 150-160 cargo ships will be able to pass through the canal per day - as much as the Bosphorus now passes
                1. Oquzyurd 9 March 2020 12: 35 New
                  • 7
                  • 2
                  +5
                  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.
                  1. Shurik70 9 March 2020 15: 36 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    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
                    belay
                    https://news.rambler.ru/world/40606902-zachem-turtsiya-sobiraetsya-proryt-parallelnyy-bosforu-kanal/
                    1. Insurgent 10 March 2020 07: 54 New
                      • 3
                      • 2
                      +1
                      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 fellow
            2. Sergey39 9 March 2020 12: 08 New
              • 7
              • 1
              +6
              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.
              1. tihonmarine 9 March 2020 13: 26 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Quote: Sergey39
                The United States, as always, is trying to act with the wrong hands.

                Right in the eye.
            3. Caretaker 9 March 2020 12: 11 New
              • 8
              • 1
              +7
              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.
              It’s like, “If you don’t manage to reach an agreement with Russia, we’ll build a canal and we will let NATO warships through without restrictions.”
              1. Alex777 9 March 2020 15: 51 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                The Montreux Convention is primarily beneficial to Turkey.
                Turkey and only Turkey ensures its implementation. hi
          2. orionvitt 9 March 2020 14: 37 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            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 won’t understand that if they hadn’t raked the lyuley for a long time, then they didn’t become “cool” at all. Moreover, she has no allies among her neighbors. Unless old Europe with states, and then, only in words. But I imagine, if the opportunity arises, with what pleasure and pleasure, the neighbors will tear Turkey to pieces. Since the time of the Ottoman Empire, all of Turkey is so “loved" that they cannot "eat". And now, in principle, the same thing.
            1. AAK
              AAK 9 March 2020 15: 23 New
              • 7
              • 2
              +5
              Colleague, your option with a “closure” is a de jure war, and de facto is only a limited-scale Russian military operation “forcing peace” with vague goals, in which only the Air Force and missile units of non-nuclear warhead equipment (the Strategic Missile Forces are not applicable for geopolitical reasons, this will be a "bellie incident" against the Russian Federation for the whole world). The landing operation of the Russian Federation, even to capture the zone of straits, cannot be feasible, because Turkey in this area has a stronger SV / Air Force / Navy grouping than the South-East and the Black Sea Fleet of Russia. Plus, the US and the rest of NATO will intervene. As long as the Russian Federation does not have an unblocked access to the Mediterranean and to the BV, it makes no sense to pull Turkey with a mustache, regardless of the love or dislike of it from other neighbors
              1. orionvitt 9 March 2020 22: 42 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: AAK
                Colleague, your option with "closure" is the de jure war

                You have not read it very carefully. I did not write about the "closure" of the straits, but figuratively speaking, 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, got involved in dangerous games with the whole Arab world, the Kurdish issue is not resolved, Europe is not happy, to say the least, and so on. Why fight directly, if Turkey has so many pain points?
        2. Lopatov 9 March 2020 11: 56 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          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.
          1. Doliva63 9 March 2020 19: 06 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            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; it is a “side” - the property of Turkey, which it will close to all comers when it wants - these are two. Which of the following Turkey is not profitable?
            1. Lopatov 9 March 2020 19: 26 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: Doliva63
              Which of the following Turkey is not profitable?

              Waiver of the Convention.
              1. Doliva63 9 March 2020 19: 34 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Spade
                Quote: Doliva63
                Which of the following Turkey is not profitable?

                Waiver of the Convention.

                Did she give her up?
                1. Lopatov 9 March 2020 19: 41 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  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 on the topic “Turkey will refuse”
        3. Andrey Gladkikh 9 March 2020 17: 38 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          "Past the straits" you can’t "pass" in any way. After the construction of the planned canal, you will pass the Bosphorus. And the convention is about the straits, that is, about the Dardanelles too. And the planned channel does not bypass the Dprdanelles. And no one plans a channel to bypass the Dardanelles.
      2. Grigory_45 9 March 2020 12: 08 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        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).
        1. Andrey Gladkikh 9 March 2020 17: 43 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          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.
      3. rich 9 March 2020 12: 17 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        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? laughing
        1. tihonmarine 9 March 2020 13: 28 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          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.
    2. knn54 9 March 2020 11: 25 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      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.
      Interestingly, but was not among the "more than two hundred" British scientists?
      1. MstislavHrabr 9 March 2020 11: 52 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Do I understand correctly that the Black Sea will become cleaner ?!
      2. New Year day 9 March 2020 20: 17 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        Quote: knn54
        from the Danube will get there from the Black.

        And from the Mediterranean to Black what gets?
        1. Oquzyurd 9 March 2020 23: 25 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          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.
    3. To be or not to be 9 March 2020 11: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Water defensive line in Thrace ??
      From Europe? However...
      1. Bagatur 9 March 2020 19: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        For Istanbul, it’s an ecology disaster!
    4. Grigory_45 9 March 2020 12: 05 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      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.
    5. tihonmarine 9 March 2020 13: 05 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      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.
    6. Maz
      Maz 9 March 2020 14: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Will the Chinese build?
    7. core 9 March 2020 15: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      gas carriers are forbidden to go there.
    8. smart ass 9 March 2020 15: 39 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      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
    9. maidan.izrailovich 10 March 2020 03: 43 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      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.
    10. ZVS
      ZVS 10 March 2020 18: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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.
  2. Pavel57 9 March 2020 10: 52 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    For the Turks, the project is profitable. It is not very expensive. Politically make changes to the status quo.
    1. bessmertniy 9 March 2020 10: 57 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      First, let them build it, and only then tie the activities of the canal to international treaties. repeat It is still unknown how much they will dig the channel. Will Erdogan wait until the first ship passes through it? what
      1. Starover_Z 9 March 2020 11: 04 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        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? wink No, such a building is almost equal to Alaska - for 99 years!
        1. bessmertniy 9 March 2020 11: 12 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Say there are precedents for the construction of sea channels - Suez, Panama. They were built for a long time, and were an expensive pleasure. hi
        2. Oquzyurd 9 March 2020 11: 26 New
          • 5
          • 5
          0
          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.
        3. Brturin 9 March 2020 22: 41 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          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 were not built in the seismic zone, but Istanbul - "" We are very closely following the events, "said Marco Bonhof of the GFZ. The reason for such close attention to the earthquake in Turkey is due to the fact that Istanbul is on the line of of the most dangerous geological faults in the world, the so-called North Anatolian Fault. " Last year, there was 20 years of the 1999 earthquake and they are waiting for a new one - “We are expecting an earthquake of magnitude 7,5 in Istanbul” - January, Turkish Minister of Internal Affairs Suleiman Soilu. Investigations, surveys, but the Bosphorus is millennia, but what will happen to this channel ....
          1. Oquzyurd 9 March 2020 23: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The depth of the geological faults is 21 km, near Istanbul. The channel depth is 22-23 meters)
      2. voyaka uh 9 March 2020 11: 12 New
        • 11
        • 5
        +6
        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.
      3. Oquzyurd 9 March 2020 11: 18 New
        • 7
        • 3
        +4
        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 ..
      4. Insurgent 9 March 2020 11: 24 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Quote: bessmertniy
        First let them build

        To begin with, let them get out of the "Idlib loop" safe and sound ...
      5. Aviator_ 9 March 2020 11: 46 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        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.
    2. tihonmarine 9 March 2020 13: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Pavel57
      Politically make changes to the status quo.

      There will be more opportunities to blackmail.
  3. svp67 9 March 2020 10: 52 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    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 Saros Gulf ... and this will be much smaller in size than the planned Istanbul.
    And remember that the USSR Foreign Minister, Gromyko "offered help" from the USSR of Turkey, in digging a couple of such channels, "in the case of some kind of ..." by "nuclear missile strikes", but this is the "fallback option", that would be remembered that Russia has not only the aerospace forces, electronic warfare and MTR, but also another "ally"
  4. Aleks2048 9 March 2020 10: 59 New
    • 10
    • 3
    +7
    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.
    1. Pardus 9 March 2020 11: 58 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      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.
      1. abrakadabre 9 March 2020 13: 55 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        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.
  5. Zaurbek 9 March 2020 11: 02 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    So there will be another agreement.
    1. Pardus 9 March 2020 12: 01 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      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.
  6. Thrifty 9 March 2020 11: 17 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    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. 7,62h54 9 March 2020 11: 28 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    What to do to Russia? Dig a channel Persian Gulf - Caspian Sea - Black Sea.
  8. sagitch 9 March 2020 11: 29 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    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.
    1. Aviator_ 9 March 2020 11: 48 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      The main thing here is to recall how the violation of the convention ended for Panikovsky.
  9. Warrior MorePhoto 9 March 2020 11: 49 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Quote: bessmertniy
    First, let them build it, and only then tie the activities of the canal to international treaties. repeat It is still unknown how much they will dig the channel. Will Erdogan wait until the first ship passes through it? what


    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.
  10. Pardus 9 March 2020 11: 53 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    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.
    1. Oquzyurd 9 March 2020 12: 18 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      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.
    2. Whalebone 9 March 2020 12: 36 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      And why do they need it?
  11. Whalebone 9 March 2020 12: 36 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    And the Bosphorus will take the Russian Federation. Norm topic.
  12. K-50 9 March 2020 12: 40 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    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? what lol
  13. Izotovp 9 March 2020 16: 18 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It is time to finally substantively return to the project of the canal from the Caspian Sea to the Red Sea through Iran.
    1. demo 9 March 2020 17: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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.
      1. Izotovp 9 March 2020 17: 58 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I agree. Serious arguments.
    2. Jurkovs 10 March 2020 07: 16 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      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.
  14. Thompson 9 March 2020 16: 33 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    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
  15. demo 9 March 2020 17: 51 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    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?
  16. Amateur 9 March 2020 17: 53 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    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 does not extend to the Baltic Sea, but no one drives a carrier squadron into it, because it is also small and coastal means including aviation “shoots through”. Like the Black Sea.
    Another scarecrow for the nerve.
  17. 9PA
    9PA 10 March 2020 04: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Edik distracts the attention of his people from Syria
  18. Jurkovs 10 March 2020 07: 07 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    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.
  19. nikvic46 10 March 2020 08: 32 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Turkey forgot about Gromyko’s statement regarding two channels and Istanbul.
    1. vik669 11 March 2020 20: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      ... only here Istanbul, unfortunately, will not be!
  20. Kerensky 10 March 2020 13: 10 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    For me, it’s such a purely commercial project. 150 boards per day. Normally unload the Bosphorus. Again, a national project, prestigious!
  21. PValery53 10 March 2020 19: 21 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    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.
  22. Brigadier 11 March 2020 05: 26 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    "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! laughing