SYRIA thread

[Brenus]

"If that happens Turkey will close the Straits for Russian ships and it would endanger the supply problems for Russian forces in Syria." Really? How Turkey would implement this? Shooting at Russian navy when, well, it is still not a war?
As aggressor, Turkey wouldn't be able to ask for help (we speak here of Turkish Forces invading Syria, Syria having a defence agreement wit Russia).

[Gilrandir]

"If that happens Turkey will close the Straits for Russian ships and it would endanger the supply problems for Russian forces in Syria." Really? How Turkey would implement this? Shooting at Russian navy when, well, it is still not a war?
As aggressor, Turkey wouldn't be able to ask for help (we speak here of Turkish Forces invading Syria, Syria having a defence agreement wit Russia).

First of all Turkey can issue to Russian ship a prohibition to pass through. If Russian ships nevertheless try to enter Bosphorus, Turkish ships from the three basis in and around the Sea of Marmara may use against Russia the same tactics Russia used while overrunning the Crimea: blocking the way of entrance with the ships. No shooting first and no aggressor status. And it would be not violating the Montreux convention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montre...of_the_Straits

Turkey was authorised to close the Straits to all foreign warships in wartime or when it was threatened by aggression; additionally, it was authorised to refuse transit from merchant ships belonging to countries at war with Turkey.

[Husar]

If they don't have a long chain they can raise, they can still lay a mine field. Or build a wall.

[Brenus]

“when it was threatened by aggression” Russia is not "aggressing" Turkey, that the flaw of your argument. It was not a Turkish plane that was sot-down by a Russian plane. It is not Russian troops that might cross Syrian border against the will of the recognised government. The lands Turkey want to invade were never part of Modern Turkey (unlike Sevastopol was part of Russia before Communist dictator Khrushchev gave it to his wife, oops, sorry Ukraine). And Turkey even claimed they want to fight the populations who are there...

“refuse transit from merchant ships belonging to countries at war with Turkey.” So, Turkey would have to declare war on Russia to do so legally. At the moment when Russia and USA signed a cease fire on Syria… Tsk tsk tsk, I don’t think USA will allow that…
Especially, if I have to believe the news (cease-fire Feb-27), Russia and USA Air Force will now work together and finally share maps…
Mmmm, that leave Recepo Erdoglini little options to attack now. Will he take the narrow window and take the risk to be left alone on a potential low level war against Russia/Assad/Kurds?

“blocking the way of entrance with the ships” No offence but the Ukrainian army/navy was not match for Russia. Russia is more than a match for Turkey, especially with Turkey behaviour. So, what if the Russian boats bloke the Turkish boats blocking their boats? That will look like Istanbul roads, traffic jam…

[Gilrandir]

“when it was threatened by aggression” Russia is not "aggressing" Turkey, that the flaw of your argument. It was not a Turkish plane that was sot-down by a Russian plane. It is not Russian troops that might cross Syrian border against the will of the recognised government.

“refuse transit from merchant ships belonging to countries at war with Turkey.” So, Turkey would have to declare war on Russia to do so legally. At the moment when Russia and USA signed a cease fire on Syria… Tsk tsk tsk, I don’t think USA will allow that…
Especially, if I have to believe the news (cease-fire Feb-27), Russia and USA Air Force will now work together and finally share maps…

There is no flaw in my arguments, because we were discussing might-have-beens. This is what you had said:

If some incidents arrived between Russian and Turkey, the Russian can move troops along the borders (sea).

My above mentioned speculations bore on what might happen next. Moving Russian troops along the border or the coast might as well be considered by Turkey as an aggression and it is entitled to react the way I assumed it could.

The lands Turkey want to invade were never part of Modern Turkey (unlike Sevastopol was part of Russia before Communist dictator Khrushchev gave it to his wife, oops, sorry Ukraine).

And that gives Russia a right to annex it? Then we might remember that the Crimea was once almost a part (as a vassal) of the Ottoman empire. Whose claim on it is more justified then?

“blocking the way of entrance with the ships” No offence but the Ukrainian army/navy was not match for Russia. Russia is more than a match for Turkey, especially with Turkey behaviour. So, what if the Russian boats bloke the Turkish boats blocking their boats? That will look like Istanbul roads, traffic jam…

You exaggerate the power of Russian Black Sea navy (which consists of out-of-date Soviet ships) and belittle the power of the Turkish navy whose principal base is right nigh in the Sea of Marmara. Turks will fight (if it comes to blows) on their own ground with their supplies and reinforcements at hand. Russia will have to drag whatever they can across all the expanse of the Black Sea.

[Sarmatian]

And that gives Russia a right to annex it? Then we might remember that the Crimea was once almost a part (as a vassal) of the Ottoman empire. Whose claim on it is more justified then?

Whoever gets to say "Stop quoting laws, we carry swords". Historically, those guys always have the strongest claim.

[Brenus]

“Moving Russian troops along the border or the coast might as well be considered by Turkey as an aggression and it is entitled to react the way I assumed it could.” Nope. If manoeuvring troops near a border was enough for a war, Russia (and before USSR) would have attack NATO or vive-versa long time ago.
I was referring to a move, during the Falklands, by Chile, that Argentina couldn’t ignore, reason why the British didn’t have to fight the best Argentinians troops and all the Argentinian Air Force, reason why until the end Maggy Thatcher did call the bloody Chilean dictator a friend.
So a blockade would be an act of war, not movement on the sea. Some can even imagine some air trespassing…

“And that gives Russia a right to annex it?” No it didn’t. But our discussion about Crimea when it stated was about the outcry of indignation from NATO/EU countries whereas the same took part at a similar operation in Kosovo. Then you decide we (I and some others) were pro Putin, pro-Russia and so and so…

“Whose claim on it is more justified then?” Hmmm, hard call: Ottoman Empire doesn’t exist anymore, Turkey want to kill the inhabitants of this region of Syria under probably false pretext (remind me a bit of Hitler’s polish attack, this one), whereas Russia still exists, Ukraine was given by a dictatorship’s act, and, I didn’t heard of fighting during and after the annexation… In fact, I vaguely remember someone (perhaps you) telling that Putin was doom because he will have to pay the pensions to the elders (one of the multiple reasons I was told he lost).

“You exaggerate the power of Russian Black Sea navy” You might be right, but as I said, it is not the question of war, but put a pressure impossible to ignore…

“Turks will fight (if it comes to blows) on their own ground with their supplies and reinforcements at hand” Err, NATO material, and no NATO involvement? A good blockade and Turkey’s supplies will go down very fast. Again reference to the Falklands, but Argentina lost this war at sea because (but not only) their missile Exocets AM39 and maintenance parts for the Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard were put on hold by the French suppliers. And they did quite a good use a small amount they had…