Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

Isos wrote:

RTN wrote:

Isos wrote:because Russia may blow up Turkey and make them loose the european part making the strait half Greek with a Russian base there and no Turkish navy.

The Su 24 shot down was Russian. The F-16 that shot it down was Turkish.

The president that begged Putin was turkish. The S-400 that he was obliged to buy was russian.

The president that appologized was turkish. The planes that couldn't enter Syria anymore and protect turkish soldiers being bombed were Turkish. The su24 that bombed a house full of turkish soldiers was Russian.

The helicopter that was destroyed a week after su-24 accident was turkish. The manpad used by PKK was Russian.

Lol Thr f-16's don't need to enter Syrian Airspace they have munitions that can hit anywhere they want inside of Syria from their own airspace, that part of your argument is invalid.

Turkey gives S-400 to US for examination in return Turkey gets discount on F-35. Make no mistake, both Turkey and US hate Russia. Nothing Russia can do can change that fact.

Turkey bought the S-400s to protect themselves from the US and Israel and HATO. The US can't sell F-35s to Turkey now because Turkey has S-400 and its radars and will find out how unstealthy the F-35 really is and wont want any.

Turkey was part of the consortium that built F-35s... they made wing parts... kicking them out of the programme has been difficult and expensive... there is no way they will let them back in just like that.

The US supported a coup attempt to overthrow Erdogan and has the leader of the coup in the US and wont hand him over... why do you think Turkey would ever trust America again?

if Russia pulls out of the convention then it cannot transit the straight if the turks go "You may no longer have your ships enter our waters". The Entire point of the convention was to prevent the Turks from being able to do this from countries that have ports in the black sea.

Being close to Turkish territory they got control of the straights via the convention but only on the agreement that they would not use it to hold the countries of the Black Sea to Ransom. The Ukraine is a new country that didn't exist when the convention was signed so they can't have signed it and it is their only access to the world via shipping. Blocking their access to world trade could be considered an act of war. Blocking Russian access to the Med would be considered the same if no reason and no time lines for change were given.

The Straights are territorial waters of Turkey you biased, revisionist.

Sailing from international waters to international waters is a legitimate thing that the US herself has tried to exploit. In this case Russia would be just exercising her right to access international waters from home waters.

Russia has no say if they pull out on what they can send through the straights at that point Turkey can tell them to go to hell and Russia cannot do jack shit.

The convention is what gives Turkey say about traffic through the area, by withdrawing from the agreement Turkey loses its authority.

The Straights AREN'T INTERNATIONAL WATERS and freedom of transit don't apply to them. You don't know what you are talking about at all.

They are transit from international waters to international waters.

Btw yes any foreign ship that violates sovereign waters can be destroyed.

Of course they can but when the ship you want to sink is carrying classified information and possibly nuclear weapons do you want to risk it? Especially if they can defend themselves unlike say an Su-24 that is not carrying any air to air missiles...

You would give them a warning sure, but any ship or plane that enters your airspace or territorial waters can be destroyed legally.

Yeah, like the AEGIS class cruiser in Iranian territory that shot down an Iranian Airbus and murdered hundreds of people "defending itself".

Sounds like even when you are in enemy territory you can defend yourself and get a medal for it too.

The Su 24 shot down was Russian. The F-16 that shot it down was Turkish.

Yes, they surprise ambushed an aircraft that they claim entered their airspace for about 8 seconds.

Lol Thr f-16's don't need to enter Syrian Airspace they have munitions that can hit anywhere they want inside of Syria from their own airspace, that part of your argument is invalid.

Previously Turkish and Israeli aircraft entered Syrian airspace with impunity... not so much these days.

That's off topic and not comparable. Iran is not both sides of the Straight and it is many times the width.

Doesn't matter if the same country has both sides... if you are leaving the Red Sea after having just passed the Suez canal and head down towards the gulf of Aden there is a narrow channel less than 24 miles across between Yemen and Djibouti... if each country strictly limited access to their waters then there would be no gap down the middle you could legally sail through. And further up from the narrowest point there are a few islands that would definitely fill the gap with their legal limits too.

But also pointing out the observation too that it's rather funny how soon this is created, with similar style posting of nonsense, right after another is banned.

If he follows the rules then there is no reason to ban him, there is no evidence he and UW are the same member.

Isos wrote:

Lol Thr f-16's don't need to enter Syrian Airspace they have munitions that can hit anywhere they want inside of Syria from their own airspace, that part of your argument is invalid

Lol yes of course they need. Every time they went inside Syria they needed russia authorization.

The only time they didn't need it was when they used their drone but most ended destroyed once SAA moved enough AD radars and systems there.

Then you have zero idea about the munitions the F16's have, they carry air to ground missiles that can hit deep inside Syria from their own airspace.

The F-16's do not need to enter Syrian Airspace to bomb the SAA/

@garry

Doesn't matter if they transit from international waters or not, You are wrong. Russia may not send ships through the straights at all if they leave the convention if Turkey tells them no.

That stretch of water is theirs and if there is no convention freedom of transit rules do not apply, Your making stuff up by trying to pretend otherwise.

Turkey doesn't lose anything if Russia leaves the convention.... it's beyond stupid you even said that. What gives Turkey say is the fact that is THEIR TERRITORIAL WATERS, The convention was made and designed to prevent the Turks from being able to deny black sea nations use of ports in the black sea. Since without the convention Turkey can just tell anyone "No you may not sail any type of ship through our waters".

Again wrong you, biased revisionist, what you are talking about are spots where freedom of transit does exist, the Straights are one of three areas where that doesn't apply. You are openly lying.

What gives Turkey say is the fact that is THEIR TERRITORIAL WATERS, The convention was made and designed to prevent the Turks from being able to deny black sea nations use of ports in the black sea.[/What gives Turkey say is the fact that is THEIR TERRITORIAL WATERS, The convention was made and designed to prevent the Turks from being able to deny black sea nations use of ports in the black sea.

So you are saying that the convention was to prevent Turkey from trapping Black Sea fleets inside the Black Sea and denying them access to international waters... so if Turkey decides to block all traffic in either direction how is that convention to STOP TURKEY FROM DOING THAT WORKING OUT?

The Convention only makes sense for Russia if it allows them access to the Med, if Turkey decides to blockade the Russian Black Sea Fleet, then that is an act of war... they might decide on a range of counter measures including withdrawing from the convention, or turning off the gas via South Stream I and II... or a range of options in between... like a massive ground attack on Idlib... it is Syrian territory so they can ignore complaints from Turkey... it is their territory.... they can do as they please...

Your wrong on a few points.

1. The Turks have used them on the SAA many times during the Idlib offensive last year and The Russians did shit about it.

2. They have a lot of those missiles and can easily get more.

3. F-16's have never had a need to enter SAA Airspace. Manpads alone where enough to neutralize the SAF, not to mention they have SAMs all over Idlib now and the SAA doesn't have the equipment to deal with SAMS.

GarryB wrote:

What gives Turkey say is the fact that is THEIR TERRITORIAL WATERS, The convention was made and designed to prevent the Turks from being able to deny black sea nations use of ports in the black sea.[/What gives Turkey say is the fact that is THEIR TERRITORIAL WATERS, The convention was made and designed to prevent the Turks from being able to deny black sea nations use of ports in the black sea.

So you are saying that the convention was to prevent Turkey from trapping Black Sea fleets inside the Black Sea and denying them access to international waters... so if Turkey decides to block all traffic in either direction how is that convention to STOP TURKEY FROM DOING THAT WORKING OUT?

The Convention only makes sense for Russia if it allows them access to the Med, if Turkey decides to blockade the Russian Black Sea Fleet, then that is an act of war... they might decide on a range of counter measures including withdrawing from the convention, or turning off the gas via South Stream I and II... or a range of options in between... like a massive ground attack on Idlib... it is Syrian territory so they can ignore complaints from Turkey... it is their territory.... they can do as they please...

Congrats you finally managed to understand the point of the convention, I am proud of you.

It's an act of war IF Turkey does it without any reason etc, They aren't at war or there isn't a risk of war. If one of the two conditions are met then it is perfectly legal for the turks to seal access to respective black sea power. It is not an act of war if say Russia leaves the convention and the Turks tell them to "Fuck off".

I would say its working pretty well, considering Russia has been traveling the straights with very little problems. Using it to supply the Turks enemies etc the SAA with freedom.

I am not here to argue what your personal thoughts on the convention are or how you feel it works, a Russian response etc, your welcome to your opinions on that subject, I was simply correcting your false statements about the legality of the straights.

I was responding to someone who said the Turks might block all trade and traffic through the straights, withdrawing from the convention is not something Russia would do lightly because at the moment it stops the US sending carriers and enormous numbers of ships into the Black Sea like they love to do to show they can.

It is not an act of war if say Russia leaves the convention and the Turks tell them to "Fuck off".

If Russia leaves the convention then the rules and options of the convention can be ignored by Russia so from their perspective access to the Med is now based on international rules and not Turkish dictats.

Using it to supply the Turks enemies etc the SAA with freedom.

The fact that the Turks chose to support terrorist groups is the fundamental problem, and their stupidity in continuing to support them is their own problem... I think the fact that eventually they will end up being pushed back into Turkey will become obvious and they might realise their best option would be a proper wall on their territory and withdrawing their forces into their own territory and shoot anyone trying to enter or put them on buses and deliver them to the nearest EU country and let them deal with them.

In return I am sure Assad would be happy to kill as many of those terrorists as they can and deal with Turkeys Kurd problem too.

No the rules cannot, again you are ignoring and twisting facts if what you said was the case the USSR would have never signed the treaty to start with.

This is well-known facts, Russia doesn't get a say in what it can send through turkish waters at that point regardless of whats on one side or the other.

Should Russia leave the convention, yes they could stop all vessels baring a Russian flag from entering their sovereign waters.

I love when you hate the legality of things when it works against the Russians and openly lie about it but if it's for their benefit you think its the best thing ever.

You can whine all you about it but what i have said is the facts, don't like the facts? go get a corner to cry in.

No the rules cannot, again you are ignoring and twisting facts if what you said was the case the USSR would have never signed the treaty to start with.

When the USSR was created they had the choice of continuing to honour agreements and treaties and conventions the Russian monarchs had signed or not, and the Ukraine could decide for itself whether to do the same in 1991 when it got its independence.

Considering that Turkey was allowing them access to the Med why would they leave such an agreement?

If Turkey said they couldn't traverse the straights ever again then why remain bound by the convention that governs the use of the straights?

Should Russia leave the convention, yes they could stop all vessels baring a Russian flag from entering their sovereign waters.

I am suggesting they leave the convention if Russian vessels are already barred from passing through the straights, so leaving the convention would not matter in that sense anyway.