Russia's Defence Ministry said on Wednesday it would deem all ships travelling to Ukrainian ports to be potential carriers of military cargo and their flag countries to be parties to the conflict on the Ukrainian side.
I feel like everytime someone “closes” a section of sea the US sends a carrier group right on through just to prove a point. I’m sure this is different because turkey is a tasty bird often served at Thanksgiving.
The Montreux Convention specifically prohibits “aircraft carriers”. This is the reason Russia has historically played cute naming games by calling their carriers “aircraft-carrying cruisers”, and additionally equips them with missile payloads somewhat comparable to cruisers or destroyers from other countries.
Also, the US is an ally of Turkey, despite currently strained relations. The US conducting a freedom of navigation cruise through the Bosphorus Strait would cause far, far more problems than it would solve at the moment.
The U.S. isn’t a signatory to the convention and nations exist in a state of anarchy, one cannot (in an official capacity) impose their will over another without consent. There are other agreements between Turkey and the U.S. which would permit any and all passage, so in the absence of the Montreux Convention (which is indeed absent in this case) the U.S. can sail a carrier right on through without breaking any agreed-upon rules.
I think the geography of the Bosporus would give the fleet inside the Black Sea an advantage over those attempting to enter. Those attempting to enter would need air support to soften up defenses before sailing the strait
Awhile I expect the same as you do David triumphed over Goliath and the Football Giants defeated the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII. It would be a messy campaign.
The difference between peacetime and wartime readiness for nukes only relates to tactical nukes; at least when it comes to an competent nuclear power, nuke are always at the ready at a moments notice. They launch nukes, we launch in retaliation, major destruction spread out over large swaths of land, both sides nuclear capabilities are gone (other than subs that were already deployed and didn’t launch their payload). U.S. sails into the Black Sea.
I feel like everytime someone “closes” a section of sea the US sends a carrier group right on through just to prove a point. I’m sure this is different because turkey is a tasty bird often served at Thanksgiving.
The Montreux Convention specifically prohibits “aircraft carriers”. This is the reason Russia has historically played cute naming games by calling their carriers “aircraft-carrying cruisers”, and additionally equips them with missile payloads somewhat comparable to cruisers or destroyers from other countries.
Also, the US is an ally of Turkey, despite currently strained relations. The US conducting a freedom of navigation cruise through the Bosphorus Strait would cause far, far more problems than it would solve at the moment.
The U.S. isn’t a signatory to the convention and nations exist in a state of anarchy, one cannot (in an official capacity) impose their will over another without consent. There are other agreements between Turkey and the U.S. which would permit any and all passage, so in the absence of the Montreux Convention (which is indeed absent in this case) the U.S. can sail a carrier right on through without breaking any agreed-upon rules.
Removed by mod
I think the geography of the Bosporus would give the fleet inside the Black Sea an advantage over those attempting to enter. Those attempting to enter would need air support to soften up defenses before sailing the strait
If the USA actually wanted to get into the Black Sea, there is literally no power on Earth that could stop that from happening.
Awhile I expect the same as you do David triumphed over Goliath and the Football Giants defeated the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII. It would be a messy campaign.
Mf forgot about the Mongolian navy.
Except for one: Russia’s nuclear arsenal. We have to assume it is at wartime readiness despite the rest of their military being second best to Wagner.
The difference between peacetime and wartime readiness for nukes only relates to tactical nukes; at least when it comes to an competent nuclear power, nuke are always at the ready at a moments notice. They launch nukes, we launch in retaliation, major destruction spread out over large swaths of land, both sides nuclear capabilities are gone (other than subs that were already deployed and didn’t launch their payload). U.S. sails into the Black Sea.
Nukes aren’t designed to stop navies.
Like the t14 armata?