Military Review

In the foreign press: the Istanbul Canal may ultimately become an ideal option for the United States to bypass the Montreux Convention

100

The Turkish and Greek press are discussing the growing confrontation between NATO and Russia. There is an increasing number of military maneuvers, mutual, to put it mildly, hostile rhetoric, etc. Against this background, the idea was voiced that the United States may try to take steps to overcome the limitations of the Montreux Convention.


Recall that we are talking about the 1936 convention, according to which navigation through the Bosporus and Dardanelles is regulated, as well as the total tonnage of warships of countries that do not have access to the Black Sea, in this very Black Sea. The cornerstone of the convention is that the total tonnage of ships of non-Black Sea states at a time should not exceed 30 thousand tons when they are in the Black Sea area. Moreover, in any case, the time of stay is also limited for them - up to 21 days. Additionally, it is written that if Turkey considers that it is threatened by war, it can close the aforementioned straits.

Turkish journalist Erol Manisaly writes that today Recep Erdogan is "more cautious about the project," which he announced 10 years ago. Then the head of Turkey proposed to connect the Marmara and Black Seas with a double channel. According to Erdogan, this would allow unloading the Bosphorus. And according to the statement of the Turkish journalist, the President of Turkey today realizes that in the event of the appearance of the channel, Turkey may lose its actually privileged position, indicated by the Montreux Convention.

However, there is an opinion that for Erdogan the canal, the route of which was approved in 2018, could become the next stage of "deepening and expanding Turkish influence." After all, if a channel to the Black Sea is dug, then Ankara may altogether abandon the Montreux Convention as a defining treaty.



Despite the fact that the aforementioned Turkish observer has a different opinion, he supports the version that the Istanbul Canal (in Greece the project is called the Constantinople Canal) today is able to interest the Americans.

Meanwhile, the publication Pentapostagma also says that "the confrontation between the United States and Russia is preparing a new geopolitical and military reality." In particular, it was noted that for the United States, the Istanbul Canal may eventually become an ideal option for sending as many warships to the Black Sea as they want - in other words, bypassing the Montreux Convention. This process can only be limited by the capabilities of the same Istanbul Canal, if it is put into operation.

As noted in the foreign press, from the emergence of the channel "Russia may lose if it is not introduced as a supplement to the Montreux Convention on the traffic of warships of non-Black Sea states." After all, given the fact that Turkey is a NATO member, there can hardly be doubts that Ankara will prohibit the same US Navy ships from using the channel from the Sea of ​​Marmara to the Black Sea and vice versa.
Photos used:
Facebook / Donald Cook
100 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. cniza
    cniza 4 March 2021 10: 34
    +11
    There is an increasing number of military maneuvers, mutual, to put it mildly, hostile rhetoric, etc. Against this background, the idea was voiced that the United States may try to take steps to overcome the limitations of the Montreux Convention.


    In modern conditions, the Black Sea is too small ...
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 4 March 2021 10: 54
      -1
      everything flows, everything changes. you cannot enter the same sea twice ...
      the Montreux convention was invented for those conditions. everyone will pay for the new conditions, the new Gulf of Mexico shipping convention.
      1. DymOk_v_dYmke
        DymOk_v_dYmke 4 March 2021 13: 22
        +12
        Quote: antivirus
        everything flows, everything changes. you cannot enter the same sea twice ...

        Uh-huh. The statement of the question is empty. As well as his discussion
        1. The Montreux Convention determines the displacement and duration of the stay in the Black Sea of ​​warships of non-Black Sea countries. Dig through Turkey at least a hundred channels on its territory, -
        this will not change the provisions of the convention.
        2. The Convention allows Turkey to block the passage to the Black Sea in the event of a military threat, but, as I understand it, does not oblige. This will not change either. The regulation of the functioning of the canals built by Turkey at its own expense on its territory will be free to determine only it. hi
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 4 March 2021 13: 59
          -1
          like two fingers on the asphalt - then the Turks were the enemies of the Angles and the French. now how? is it easy to rewrite the convention - what will the sultan get from the collective west?
    2. rocket757
      rocket757 4 March 2021 10: 55
      +11
      For aviation, coastal missile systems, effective impact zone ...
      But again, well, back to the defining one ... with a vigorous power, simply fighting will not work.
      1. cniza
        cniza 4 March 2021 13: 14
        +6
        That's right, in relations with a nuclear power, there is no difference, the Black Sea or the Gulf of Mexico, to negotiate only at the table ...
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 4 March 2021 13: 49
          -1
          Big uncles will not negotiate with all sorts of little ones. They decide everything among themselves.
          1. cniza
            cniza 4 March 2021 14: 02
            +2
            How else? Everyone else will wait in the hallway ...
            1. rocket757
              rocket757 4 March 2021 14: 08
              +1
              Some even manage to talk in the corridors ... in vain, in general, the doors are good, they do not let outside noise through.
              1. cniza
                cniza 4 March 2021 14: 33
                +2
                Well, a helluva lot of clever "helmet" will be screwed on their heads right away ...
                1. rocket757
                  rocket757 4 March 2021 15: 03
                  0
                  Well, yes, we haven’t come up with a robot helmet yet, but there is a functionally similar thing.
    3. kit88
      kit88 4 March 2021 10: 57
      +18
      Everything is complicated somehow.
      But what if the United States simply spit on all the laws and treaties, as they always do, and simply introduce whatever it needs into the Black Sea?
      What will be the reaction in the world?
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 4 March 2021 11: 28
        +2
        Quote: kit88
        Everything is complicated somehow.
        But what if the United States simply spit on all the laws and treaties, as they always do, and simply introduce whatever it needs into the Black Sea?
        What will be the reaction in the world?

        Totally agree!

        What responsibility foreseen and occurs to the perpetrator for violation of the Convention? Less than a convention-breaker in the Golden Calf.

        Some and all will be outraged on this.

        After all, if a canal in the Black Sea is dug, then Ankara may altogether abandon the Montreux convention as a defining treaty.


        Yes, it’s easier for her to spit on this piece of paper. Which will happen as soon as the Turks consider that it is profitable for them
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 4 March 2021 14: 00
          0
          but only the silence of our Balls and Bastions holds the straits in their geographic coordinates. ............ and Istanbul.
      2. Piramidon
        Piramidon 4 March 2021 11: 33
        +11
        Quote: kit88
        But what if the United States simply spit on all the laws and treaties, as they always do, and simply introduce whatever it needs into the Black Sea?

        Well, they will cram into the Black Sea like herring into a barrel, so what? The easier it will be to destroy them. There will be no need to look for them in the ocean. The sea is shot through by coastal batteries and aircraft (even assault)
      3. Simargl
        Simargl 4 March 2021 12: 00
        0
        Quote: kit88
        What will be the reaction in the world?
        The sea itself is quite deep. Everything will fit. True, the fish will become unusable.
        1. Piramidon
          Piramidon 4 March 2021 15: 02
          +2
          Quote: Simargl
          The sea itself is quite deep. Everything will fit. True, the fish will become unusable.

          Some scientists say that in the Black Sea, at a depth of more than 200 meters, there is solid hydrogen sulfide and there is no life there anyway. So let them lie there, like in a mausoleum
          1. Simargl
            Simargl 4 March 2021 16: 47
            +2
            Quote: Piramidon
            at a depth of more than 200 meters, there is solid hydrogen sulfide and there is no life there anyway
            Not continuous, of course, but the content is such that there are definitely no fish there. But I think there are very simple ones.

            Quote: Piramidon
            So let them lie there, like in a mausoleum
            The enemy at the bottom looks very good.
      4. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 4 March 2021 12: 12
        0
        What if the US just spit on all the laws and treaties

        we have good teachers (China)
        We will master the filling of artificial islands in the Black Sea closer to Turkey,
        but how cool it sounds - Annexation of the Black Sea
        in addition, design and survey work is already underway along the canal from the Caspian to the Persian Gulf through Iran
        1. Piramidon
          Piramidon 4 March 2021 15: 31
          0
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          We will master the filling of artificial islands in the Black Sea closer to Turkey,

          And what for is such a waste? Can't we get it from Crimea?
          1. Romario_Argo
            Romario_Argo 4 March 2021 15: 38
            -3
            And what for is such a waste?

            poured an island or rather a ridge of islands 50 km away. southwest of Sevastopol in the sea and moved the border 90 km (50 + 40 (border 20 miles)
            we will also be able to place on them BPRK, air defense missile systems, electronic warfare
            1. Piramidon
              Piramidon 4 March 2021 15: 51
              0
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              poured an island or rather a ridge of islands 50 km away. southwest of Sevastopol in the sea

              Stupid projection. Just to collect likes? How simple it is with you - "fill the islands". What do you think it will result in? Yes, with this money, you can additionally deploy more than a dozen "Bastions" and build a couple of dozen aircraft.
              1. Romario_Argo
                Romario_Argo 5 March 2021 11: 35
                0
                how simple it is with you. we have finances for the islands and for dozens of planes, etc.
                there would only be a desire - more precisely, a decree (P) or an order (W) (!)
      5. Invoce
        Invoce 4 March 2021 13: 29
        +1
        Quote: kit88
        Everything is complicated somehow.
        But what if the United States simply spit on all the laws and treaties, as they always do, and simply introduce whatever it needs into the Black Sea?
        What will be the reaction in the world?

        Amers do not care about the world's reaction to their rudeness. Ham respects only strength! Russia needs to develop its armed forces and economy, plus defend its interests in foreign policy, as in the days of the USSR.
    4. Invoce
      Invoce 4 March 2021 13: 26
      +1
      [
      Quote: cniza
      There is an increasing number of military maneuvers, mutual, to put it mildly, hostile rhetoric, etc. Against this background, the idea was voiced that the United States may try to take steps to overcome the limitations of the Montreux Convention.


      In modern conditions, the Black Sea is too small...

      Unfortunately, modern Western politicians are deficient in IQ and common sense. They live one day, many of them have neither a sense of belonging to the Motherland, not children, and as a result, a sense of responsibility for what they have done to the future generation of fellow citizens
      1. cniza
        cniza 4 March 2021 13: 30
        0
        Quote: Invoce
        [

        Unfortunately, modern Western politicians are deficient in IQ and common sense.


        But this is the worst thing - children of computer games ...
        1. Quadro
          Quadro 4 March 2021 14: 57
          0
          Quote: cniza
          Quote: Invoce
          [

          Unfortunately, modern Western politicians are deficient in IQ and common sense.


          But this is the worst thing - children of computer games ...

          What does computer games have to do with it? Have we got stupid people only in the 21st century?
    5. Volga073
      Volga073 4 March 2021 22: 51
      0
      #ConstantinopleOur
  2. paul3390
    paul3390 4 March 2021 10: 41
    +11
    I don’t think that even if there is a possibility, someone will introduce a large fleet into the Black Sea, completely blocked by base aviation and coastal complexes .. Times are not the Crimean War tea .. And all NATO naval bases there are under an obvious blow. As well as the straits themselves and a possible channel. Nobody will allow, say, to accumulate a fleet, leading it through the canal, and to carry out a landing in the Crimea. The very fact of the beginning of accumulation will be a pretext for war. Unless, of course, someone with a Faberge is in power. Although the liberals - they will give everything to the West without any threat ...
    1. Ruslan Sulima
      Ruslan Sulima 4 March 2021 10: 46
      +2
      I agree, but not in everything) Russian Crimea itself speaks of the presence of Fauberge in power)
      1. Pereira
        Pereira 4 March 2021 10: 54
        0
        Then what does the refusal of Novorossiya say about a step away from victory? Given that, in the end, Russia received the entire set of sanctions along with shame? About foresight?
        Rather, the fact that the Faberge was one, one-time, and used up in the Crimea.
        1. Ruslan Sulima
          Ruslan Sulima 4 March 2021 11: 09
          +7
          Well, knowing the situation in the DPR, I would not make such statements)
          1. Pereira
            Pereira 4 March 2021 11: 25
            +1
            Knowing the current situation or the one that was at the time of preparation for the occupation of Mariupol, surrounded and abandoned by the ukrovoy?
        2. Ruslan Sulima
          Ruslan Sulima 4 March 2021 11: 25
          +5
          Just add.
          Normal people (I hope I am one of them) spoke back in 2014 about the impossibility of the Crimean scenario in Donbass. He himself defended the Donetsk Regional Executive Committee and constantly said that it was necessary to prepare for war! The alignment was clear then ...
          1. Pereira
            Pereira 4 March 2021 11: 28
            0
            The fact that the situation is different is obvious. It is also obvious that the Ukrainian army was saved from complete defeat and did not allow ours to reach at least the borders of the regions.
            And there anything could have happened.
            1. Ruslan Sulima
              Ruslan Sulima 4 March 2021 11: 38
              +2
              In this moment I do not argue, Mariupol had to be taken! Fuck international influences. The trouble is that the collusion still exists, someone did not dare to leave Ukraine without the largest port on Azov ...
              1. Pereira
                Pereira 4 March 2021 11: 47
                +3
                Not Ukraine, but a specific oligarch who transported metal through the port. You know your full name well.
                How much money he brought in for this is even difficult to imagine. It was for them that the people of Donbass were sold. Probably you as well.
                1. Ruslan Sulima
                  Ruslan Sulima 4 March 2021 11: 52
                  +2
                  Are you talking about Akhmet?) A condom that shouted that it would never leave Donbass ...
                  By the way, Donetsk players no longer have the Shakhtar football club, the occasional news about the home games played by the team smiles ...
                  1. Pereira
                    Pereira 4 March 2021 11: 54
                    +1
                    Yes, I know. I have been following the affairs of Donbass all these years. Plus, a friend fought in the Lugansk militia.
    2. Woodman
      Woodman 4 March 2021 10: 49
      0
      Quote: paul3390
      The very fact of the beginning of accumulation will be a pretext for war. Unless, of course, someone with a Faberge is in power.

      Uh ... The concentration of the Wehrmacht on the borders of the Union was not a pretext for war ... And the reason is hardly the absence of "Faberge".
      “Faberge” are meaningful only when the blow has already been inflicted and requires a response. And the decision to start a war is made on several other grounds.
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 4 March 2021 10: 55
        -5
        The concentration of the Wehrmacht on the borders of the Union was actually overshadowed. The strike forces were not revealed. And ours are by no means ready .. Besides, I think Comrade Stalin had other motives .. In particular, he could have feared, in the event of our preemptive strike, that Britain would conclude peace with Germany and enter the war on her side .. Hess's visit gave every reason for such fears.

        And here - well, imagine, an American strike fleet of several dozen ships in full combat plus landing is passing into the Black Sea. And goes to the Crimea. Your actions?
        1. Woodman
          Woodman 4 March 2021 11: 09
          -3
          Quote: paul3390
          Besides - I think Comrade Stalin had other motives too ..

          So I say - "Faberge" in such cases is not the main thing.
          Quote: paul3390
          And here - well, imagine, an American strike fleet of several dozen ships in full combat plus landing is passing into the Black Sea. And goes to the Crimea. Your actions?

          Wait. It will not take long to give the order for a nuclear missile strike. Moreover, this fleet will NOT be the primary target of such a strike.
        2. spolo
          spolo 6 March 2021 18: 05
          0
          You can burn London. Or Warsaw. I would even burn Zurich in the appendage ... for effect.
      2. KCA
        KCA 4 March 2021 11: 14
        +6
        "Uh ... The concentration of the Wehrmacht on the borders of the Union did not become a pretext for war ..."
        Yah? But in WWI, the reason for Germany's declaration of war on the Russian Empire was not even the fact of concentration of troops near the border, but the beginning of mobilization
        1. Woodman
          Woodman 4 March 2021 11: 31
          0
          Quote: KCA
          Yah? But in WWI the reason

          Those. Do you have an opinion that Comrade Stalin had problems with the Faberge?
          Quote: KCA
          for Germany to declare war on the Russian Empire

          Germany was ready for war and Germany wanted war, only a pretext was needed.
          Quote: KCA
          and the beginning of mobilization

          Caribbean crisis. In the underbelly of the United States, Soviet nuclear missiles. The US Navy is blockading the island. The USSR does not recognize the blockade. If someone had a "faberge" of the type in question, the planet would have plunged into the Third World War and there would have been hundreds of millions of victims. Would it be worth it?
    3. Yura
      Yura 4 March 2021 11: 58
      +1
      Quote: paul3390
      I do not think that even if there is a possibility, someone will introduce a large fleet into the Black Sea,

      I agree, for the passage of warships through the straits depends on
      ... The total tonnage of warships 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 the event of an increase in the naval forces of the Black Sea countries) with a stay of no more than 21 days. In the event of Turkey's participation in the war, as well as if Turkey considers that it is directly threatened by war, it has the right to authorize or prohibit the passage of any military ships 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 out 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 the straits." Article 2 states: “In time of peace, merchant ships enjoy complete freedom of passage and navigation in the straits day and night under any flag with any type of cargo.
      There will be another strait or ten, there is still a point from the total tonnage of foreign warships simultaneously located in the Black Sea.
      1. Avior
        Avior 4 March 2021 13: 44
        +1
        There will be not a strait, but a canal, but a Convention on the Straits
        1. Yura
          Yura 4 March 2021 13: 54
          0
          The Convention clearly stipulates the amount of tonnage in the Black Sea, this point is not tied to the straits, the passage of ships by Turkey through the straits is limited to this.
          1. Avior
            Avior 4 March 2021 14: 23
            0
            The Convention itself is tied to the straits as a whole, this is article 1.
            There is not a word about ships that will enter the sea through the Danube, for example.
            But the subtlety is that the channel bypasses only one of the straits, so there are nuances.
            1. Yura
              Yura 4 March 2021 14: 25
              0
              There are always nuances))) especially with regards to those who did not sign this convention. Such people can be forced to abide by other people's laws, only with their muzzle on the table.
              1. Avior
                Avior 4 March 2021 20: 00
                +1
                Turkey decides, she signed
            2. Yura
              Yura 4 March 2021 14: 29
              0
              And yes, a lot depends on who will build and participate in it. Whether the parties will declare compliance with the foundations of the Convention.
            3. Yura
              Yura 4 March 2021 14: 39
              0
              The convention is literal, it begins with the Basic Provisions of the Convention, followed by all the rest starting from the first paragraph. So, literally -

              Montreux Convention on the Status of the Black Sea Straits. Full text


              Key provisions of the convention

              The Montreux Convention preserves the freedom of passage for merchant ships of all countries, both in peacetime and in wartime. However, the regime of passage of warships is different in relation to the Black Sea and non-Black Sea states. Subject to prior notification to the Turkish authorities, the Black Sea powers may navigate their warships of any class in peacetime through the straits. For warships of the non-Black Sea powers, significant class restrictions have been introduced (only small surface ships pass) and tonnage. The total tonnage of warships 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 the event of an increase in the naval forces of the Black Sea countries) with a stay of no more than 21 days. In the event of Turkey's participation in the war, as well as if Turkey considers that it is directly threatened by war, it has the right to authorize or prohibit the passage of any military ships through the straits. During a war in which Turkey does not participate, the straits should be closed to the passage of warships of any belligerent power. The Convention abolished the international commission on the straits provided for by the Lausanne Convention and transferred its functions to the Turkish government.
  3. Avior
    Avior 4 March 2021 10: 41
    +3
    If the canal does not fall under the convention, then this will untie the Turks' hands and in fact give the opportunity to let the ships of the non-Black Sea countries into the Black Sea at their own discretion.
    1. Woodman
      Woodman 4 March 2021 10: 53
      -1
      Quote: Avior
      If the canal does not fall under the convention, then this will untie the hands of the Turks.

      If a decision is made to build such a canal, I will be very surprised if the Kremlin does not try to stage a coup in Turkey, or if the Kurds do not proceed to very active actions in the struggle for independence.
    2. orionvitt
      orionvitt 4 March 2021 12: 00
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      If the channel does not fit the convention

      Maybe I don't understand something, but it seems like a convention regulates the presence of foreign ships in The Black Sea rather than passing them through the straits. There is simply no other waterway, and even if there is (hypothetically), then there is no second Black Sea.
      1. Avior
        Avior 4 March 2021 12: 58
        +1
        No, it regulates the straits
        1. orionvitt
          orionvitt 4 March 2021 13: 04
          +1
          What about
          The cornerstone of the convention is that the total tonnage of ships of non-Black Sea states at a time should not exceed 30 thousand tons when they are in the Black Sea area. Moreover, in any case, the time of stay is also limited for them - up to 21 days.
          What do the straits have to do with it?
          1. Avior
            Avior 4 March 2021 13: 39
            0
            Given that Article 1 describes the subject of the Convention in black and white without any double interpretations
            These are the straits
            I have given article 1 below.
      2. Avior
        Avior 4 March 2021 13: 00
        +1
        . Section 1

        The High Contracting Parties recognize and reaffirm the principle of the right to freedom of passage and navigation in the Straits.

        The exercise of this right will henceforth be governed by the provisions of this Convention.

        The amount of tonnage at sea is determined only in the sense that Turkey is no longer allowed to pass through
  4. WHAT IS
    WHAT IS 4 March 2021 10: 46
    +10
    If, as planned, by 2025 it will be ready, then the Black Sea will turn into a gateway for anyone. First of all, for the warships of the 6th Fleet of the US Navy and its NATO allies. -the legal status of the future channel "Istanbul". Ideally - to defend that the Montreux Convention also apply to this channel. But something must be done anyway and urgently. When the Istanbul Canal goes into operation, it will probably be too late.
  5. newcomer
    newcomer 4 March 2021 10: 47
    +5
    What I do not understand, if the total tonnage of non-Black Sea state TV cannot exceed 30 thousand. t. in the Black Sea, then what's the difference through which channels the ships enter? It just might unload existing channels.
    1. Volodin
      Volodin 4 March 2021 10: 54
      +2
      Quote: newbie
      What I do not understand, if the total tonnage of non-Black Sea state TV cannot exceed 30 thousand. t. in the Black Sea, then what's the difference through which channels the ships enter? It just might unload existing channels.

      What is there to understand something ... The Montreux Convention concerns the Bosphorus. The channel is not the Bosphorus. Therefore, if you do not make "diplomatic efforts", the channel does not fall under the convention.
      1. newcomer
        newcomer 4 March 2021 10: 59
        +1
        Wait a second, the convention states that there is a certain tonnage in the Black Sea, and the Turks will have to withdraw from the convention under the convention if they either do not bring the new canal to the convention, or withdraw from it. I believe they will not go to either one or the other.
        1. maksbazhin
          maksbazhin 4 March 2021 12: 37
          +1
          We are talking about the passage of ships through the Bosphorus, there will be more than thirty on the Black Sea then it is impossible to cross the Bosphorus, but it is not prohibited through the channel.
      2. ghby
        ghby 5 March 2021 08: 03
        0
        Quote: Volodin
        What is there to understand something ... The Montreux Convention concerns the Bosphorus. The channel is not the Bosphorus. Therefore, if you do not make "diplomatic efforts", the channel does not fall under the convention.

        you're not right.
        Article 18


        1. The total tonnage that Powers that are not coastal to the Black Sea may have in this sea in peacetime is limited as follows:

        a) Except as provided in paragraph b) below, the total tonnage of the said Powers will not exceed 30000 tons;

        b) In the event that, at any given moment, the tonnage of the strongest fleet in the Black Sea exceeds at least 10000 tons the tonnage of the strongest fleet in this Sea by the date of signing of this Convention, then the total tonnage in 30000 tons provided for in paragraph a ), will be increased by the same amount, up to a maximum figure of 45000 tons. To this end, each coastal Power will report, in accordance with Annex IV to this Convention, the Turkish Government on January 1 and July July 1 the total tonnage of its fleet in the Black Sea, and the Turkish Government will transmit this information to the other High Contracting Parties, as well as to the Secretary General League of Nations;

        c) The tonnage which any of the non-coastal Powers will be entitled to have in the Black Sea will be limited to two thirds of the total tonnage provided for in paragraphs a) and b) above;

        d) However, in the event that one of the Powers not coastal to the Black Sea, or several of them, would like to send there, for humanitarian purposes, a naval detachment, then this detachment, which in general should not, in any case, exceed 8000 tons will be admitted to enter the Black Sea without the prior notification provided for in Article 13 of this Convention, by authorization obtained from the Turkish Government on the following conditions: if the total tonnage provided for in paragraphs a) and b) above is not reached and will not be exceeded by the detachment, the dispatch of which is requested, the Turkish Government will give the said permission as soon as possible upon receipt of the request addressed to it; if the named total tonnage has already been used or if it would have been exceeded by the detachment whose dispatch is requested, the Turkish Government will immediately inform the other coastal Powers of the Black Sea of ​​the request for authorization; if these Powers, within XNUMX hours after receiving the notification, do not present an objection to this, it will notify the Powers concerned, no later than within the appropriate two days, of the decision that it will take regarding their request.

        Any subsequent entry into the Black Sea by a naval detachment of non-coastal Powers will take place only within the free limits of the total tonnage provided for in paragraphs a) and b) above.

        2. Whatever the purpose of their stay in the Black Sea, warships of non-coastal Powers may not remain there for more than twenty-one days.
    2. paul3390
      paul3390 4 March 2021 10: 58
      +1
      Article 1 reads: “The High Contracting Parties recognize and reaffirm the principle of freedom of passage and navigation by the sea in the straits". That is, the restrictions on the number and tonnage in the Black Sea apply only to what passed through the straits ..
      1. newcomer
        newcomer 4 March 2021 11: 01
        -1
        Read a little further about the availability of a certain tonnage call on a particular sea.
        1. Avior
          Avior 4 March 2021 13: 04
          +1
          The convention only regulates the passage of the straits - this is written in article 1 - and does not apply to the Danube, Don and other waterways. These options were simply not envisaged at the conclusion of the Convention.
        2. Avior
          Avior 4 March 2021 13: 05
          +1
          Tonnage is limited by the Convention only for the passage of straits
    3. Avior
      Avior 4 March 2021 11: 00
      +3
      This is the Convention of the Straits
      Convention on the Regime of the Straits.
      And it limits the passage to the straits if the tonnage exceeds the specified
      If you drag it by dry land or along the Danube, it has nothing to do with the Convention.
      Such nuances were simply not foreseen there.
      1. newcomer
        newcomer 4 March 2021 11: 02
        0
        Already commented a little above.
  6. Mouse
    Mouse 4 March 2021 10: 47
    +3
    today Recep Erdogan is "more cautious about the project", which he announced 10 years ago

    10 years ago he said that today he is careful ... tomorrow he will change his mind altogether ...
  7. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 4 March 2021 10: 47
    +1
    Considering the financial condition of Turkey, I am plagued by vague doubts))) they will not give loans either, after Erdogan was rude to Makarona & Co. Not to mention the fact that the Black Sea is being shot through "through" DBKs from the Crimea and the Caucasian coast. And if you also add the Serpentine Island, then the Black Sea can be renamed "Putin's Lake")))
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 4 March 2021 10: 56
      +1
      it will be worse for him when the Aegean Sea is renamed "Putin's Bay"
  8. mark1
    mark1 4 March 2021 10: 50
    0
    How about this part
    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.
    affects the order of passage of warships ch.z. straits?
    1. Volodin
      Volodin 4 March 2021 10: 57
      -2
      Quote: mark1
      How about this part
      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.
      affects the order of passage of warships ch.z. straits?

      It influences in the most direct way - precisely on the passage through the straits, which are spelled out in the Montreux convention. And since there is no channel in the convention, of course, in the same Turkey they believe that the convention and its clauses do not apply to it in any way.
      1. mark1
        mark1 4 March 2021 11: 05
        0
        In this case, the Turks simply wash their hands and do not control the passage of the ships. But the part on tonnage and terms of stay was written not only for the Turks and not only signed by them. Those. on the face there will be a direct violation of the convention, and only with the help of a channel, without help ... It is clear that the crooks will try to interpret in their favor
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. mark1
            mark1 4 March 2021 13: 15
            0
            Not certainly in that way -
            The presence or absence of an additional waterway does not change the international legal regime established by the convention in relation to the Black Sea. [7]
      2. Alex_You
        Alex_You 4 March 2021 13: 18
        -1
        Quote: Volodin
        Quote: mark1
        How about this part
        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.
        affects the order of passage of warships ch.z. straits?

        It influences in the most direct way - precisely on the passage through the straits, which are spelled out in the Montreux convention. And since there is no channel in the convention, of course, in the same Turkey they believe that the convention and its clauses do not apply to it in any way.

        Doesn't affect in any way.
        ANKARA, December 27 - RIA Novosti, Fedor Smirnov. The presence or absence of an additional waterway in the form of the Istanbul canal between the Black and Marmara seas will not change the international legal regime of the Montreux convention, Russian Ambassador to Turkey Alexei Yerkhov told RIA Novosti.
        According to him, the convention, on the one hand, regulates the procedure for passage through the Bosporus and Dardanelles, and on the other, it establishes restrictions on the total tonnage of warships of the Black Sea and non-Black Sea states, as well as the duration of the stay in the Black Sea of ​​warships of non-Black Sea states.

        The restrictions apply specifically to the Black Sea area.
        https://ria.ru/20191227/1562947557.html
        1. maksbazhin
          maksbazhin 4 March 2021 13: 25
          +1
          As far as I understand, the Dardanelles also fall under the contract, and the new channel only unloads the Bosphorus, so the situation does not change?
          1. Alex_You
            Alex_You 4 March 2021 13: 28
            -1
            Exactly. No one is going to enter the 6th Fleet into the Black Sea through this channel. And this convention does not bother them either:
            2008: during the armed conflict in South Ossetia, an American military vessel with a significant displacement entered the Black Sea. In this regard, the question arose about the applicability of the Montreux Convention [4]. At the same time, the convention does not prohibit the entry into the Black Sea for auxiliary vessels of non-Black Sea countries with a displacement of more than 10 tons. And the standard displacement of the auxiliary USS Mount Whitney is about 000 tons.
          2. Avior
            Avior 4 March 2021 14: 19
            +1
            The channel bypasses only one of the straits - the Bosphorus.
            Therefore, the question requires clarification.
          3. Kayuk
            Kayuk 4 March 2021 22: 02
            0
            You understand correctly. The convention that restored Turkey's sovereignty over the Bosporus and Dardanelles from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean was adopted at the Conference on the Black Sea Regime. straits in July 1936 in Montreux (Switzerland). And it concerns precisely the passage of the straits. It is logical that if an additional strait (channel) to the Bosphorus is put into operation, the status of the Dardanelles will remain legally the same ... To officially ignore the Convention, it is necessary to dig another channel next to the Dardanelles, call both channels exactly, and then run through them into the Black Sea at least the entire US fleet.
        2. Avior
          Avior 4 March 2021 14: 20
          +2
          This is the Russian interpretation, it is predictable.
          The question is how Turkey interprets the convention
  9. Cowbra
    Cowbra 4 March 2021 10: 57
    0
    ... only for this you will have to quarrel with Greece, which sold France the rights to develop deposits in Cyprus, with France, which bought the rights, and somehow excuse herself before Erdogan for the coup and Gulen ... And this is quite difficult
  10. Pandiurin
    Pandiurin 4 March 2021 10: 58
    +1
    If the Turks build such a canal,
    they will be able to pass or not pass anyone they want, up to the fact that for each specific application for passage, their own individual decision. It is not profitable for the Turks to impose any restrictions on themselves.

    Another thing is that they can be collectively asked (pressured) to accept / sign an agreement as that regulating the passage through the new channel.

    The Turks will strongly push themselves to self-restrict themselves.
    And the "collective" of interested countries is too fragmented and has fundamentally opposite interests.
  11. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 4 March 2021 10: 59
    +1
    Well, well, will Turkey build a canal and trample American, British, French ships into the Black Sea from two cracks to "contain" Russia, and there are also ships from the Black Sea NATO countries? Isn't there not enough space by sea for an excess of large ships? Once again, pull Russia's nerves and test it for "weak" - yes, but to fight with Russia in this sea is more expensive for yourself.
  12. prior
    prior 4 March 2021 11: 00
    +1
    Well, a few more NATO "troughs" will enter the Black Sea. So what ?
    All ships of NATO countries can simultaneously enter the Baltic Sea without anyone's permission. So what?
    As long as Crimea is Russian, the Montreux Convention does not pose any particular potential danger to Russia.
    1. forty-eighth
      forty-eighth 4 March 2021 13: 36
      0
      What does Crimea have to do with it?
      In the 21st century, weapons have long covered the Black Sea, even from the peninsula, even from the mainland.
  13. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 4 March 2021 11: 37
    +1
    And it’s not that all this is being shot through by our missiles!
  14. alexmach
    alexmach 4 March 2021 13: 32
    0
    Today the Turkish President realizes that in the event of the appearance of the channel, Turkey may lose its actually privileged position, indicated by the Montreux Convention.

    How, then, can you lose the privilege of your position if you also have a channel?
    Э
  15. lvov_aleksey
    lvov_aleksey 4 March 2021 14: 03
    0
    there will be no war, and so we are already standing in the Mediterranean Sea, Syria, they will crawl with their sacred path!
    Forgot about Iran ...
  16. iouris
    iouris 4 March 2021 15: 53
    0
    As many ships as they want, they will be sent to the Black Sea, and the convention is not an obstacle. Meaning?
  17. asr55
    asr55 4 March 2021 19: 41
    0
    Turkey receives the main budget income from the Bosphorus. There is an Iranian project and then the end of Turkey.
  18. Volga073
    Volga073 4 March 2021 22: 47
    0
    #ConstantinopleOur
  19. Volga073
    Volga073 4 March 2021 22: 49
    0
    More, more NATO ships in the World Cup.
    All to the firing range!
  20. spolo
    spolo 6 March 2021 18: 14
    0
    Is there something preventing you from hanging a Georgian or Khokhlyan flag on Arli berki and catching a million of them in this puddle ??
  21. CommanderDIVA
    CommanderDIVA 6 March 2021 18: 33
    0
    This is more an economic project than a military one, because when civilian ships and warships pass through the straits, the Turks will probably receive some amount, well, there is a navigation fee, may the Moremans forgive me, in the conditions of a pandemic and its consequences, digging this new channel will cost a lot for the Turks money, this is at least a couple of tens of billions of euros, who will finance and build? only the Chinese will cope with this in a short time, the sultan always wants to get paid when passing through the planned channel, as well as through the straits
  22. vavilon
    vavilon 9 March 2021 12: 41
    0
    The Montreux Convention stipulates the limitation and the presence of non-Black Sea ships in the Black Sea, and how they get there through the Strait Mli does not matter