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.
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.
No but this doesn’t matter, the Montreux convention doesn’t bind the US but it does bind Turkey and the US still needs Turkey’s permission to pass through the straits, as they’re not international waters but Turkish territorial waters.
The whole Montreux convention is about how Turkey should govern the passing of civilian and military ships through the straits.
so in the absence of the Montreux Convention (which is indeed absent in this case)
False. See above.
the U.S. can sail a carrier right on through without breaking any agreed-upon rules
Turkey would be the one breaking the convention by letting that carrier through.
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.
No but this doesn’t matter, the Montreux convention doesn’t bind the US but it does bind Turkey and the US still needs Turkey’s permission to pass through the straits, as they’re not international waters but Turkish territorial waters.
The whole Montreux convention is about how Turkey should govern the passing of civilian and military ships through the straits.
False. See above.
Turkey would be the one breaking the convention by letting that carrier through.