this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024

115 points (96.7% liked)

World News

39011 readers

2789 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world

115

Turkey says UK minehunters can’t be sent to Ukraine (www.politico.eu)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Two British minehunter ships destined for Ukraine cannot travel through Turkish waters, Ankara stressed Tuesday, citing an international pact.

U.K. Defense Secretary Grant Shapps announced last month that Ukraine's armed forces had struck a deal to procure the Sandown Class vessels from Britain's Royal Navy as the war-torn country grapples with Russia's continued blockade of the Black Sea.

But Turkey confirmed it had informed its NATO allies that the ships would not be allowed to travel through its waters.

all 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 32 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The Montreux Convention has been around for just shy of 100 years. So this is news to nobody, additionally they have turned away Russian ships too. The convention clearly states that ships of war of belligerent powers cannot transit the bosphorus straits.

Best I can tell reading it if the British had kept them in their Navy. Sailed them into the Black Sea and then just randomly decided to give them to the Ukrainians that would have worked. Also they're not very big ships I believe they could sail up the Rhine and down the Danube. There is a canal that connects those two rivers and it looks like the ships fit.

Ultimately though Ukrainians may not be able to effectively deploy them at the moment without having them destroyed. They do not have the naval capability to protect them. So it may be in their best interest to not have them in the Black Sea and till the war is over.

[–] dukatos@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

They can't use Danube. There is no way they can pass through Hungary and Serbia.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Just tape a bunch of C-5 galaxys together and hang it underneath in a big net.

Yeet it into the black sea just off Odesa.

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

That is a good point. I wonder what if any freedom of navigation treatise exists for the Danube. I am not sure if the Danube River Conference is still a thing or what it said on ships of war.

Still I think that ultimately they couldn't be deployed until after hostilities cease.

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Turkey ass pieces of shit.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 35 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Turkey has long prevented warships from transiting the Bosporus Strait in wartime.

I wouldn’t want warships passing my capital city either.

[–] wwaxen@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They're minesweepers. That's like an unwarship.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 16 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I’m sure Russia considers it a military target and would have no compunction about targeting it with cruise missiles at it passes through a city with 15 million people.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Are you saying the Russians would target a boat filled with Brits in Turkey's waters? Because that sounds like an Article 5 moment. Hell, even if Ukraine takes control of the boats in England, attacking them in Turkish waters is a terrible idea.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 9 points 10 months ago

Turkey is not obligated to invite an attack by Russia, even if it would be suicidal.

This is just Turkey continuing a decades-old policy.

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

The "why do you make me hit you?" of war justifications.

[–] quindraco@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago

That would be Russia's fault, not the UK's or Ukraine's - and there is no end to the road of attempting Russian appeasement.

[–] meeeeetch@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

Ankara's their capital, but you're right to point out that this is nothing new.

The policy also ensures that no additional Russian warships get into the Black Sea.

[–] Altofaltception@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Look up the Montreux Convention.

[+] stevehobbes@lemy.lol -11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The Montreux Convention does not prevent ships from returning to their ports. Which is presumably exactly what ships they acquired are doing. Returning to their new port.

[–] Land_Strider@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The fuck does "returning to new port" mean? You don't fucking return to a new port. Stop trying to interpret even the agreements your ancestors put in place just because they don't suit how dumb of a move you did today. Internstional agreements aren't there to be imposed on others and lifted for you whenever you like.

As the other commenter said, there were and are alternatives. Should have utilized them. Turkey is keeping to the agreement, as it did when the matter was Russian warships last year. Were you crying for Russian warships then?

[+] stevehobbes@lemy.lol -6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Ships have a home port, as defined by the owner of the ship. If a ship is sold, it would typically get a new home port, owned by the new owner.

All of Ukraine’s ports are in the Black Sea. Hence any ship owned by Ukraine not currently in the Black Sea is sailing back to port.

Why is that hard to understand?

Russia has several deep water ports outside of the Black Sea. It’s a slightly different ballgame, wouldn’t you agree?

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

One cannot “return” to a new “home”.

You can return to your old home, or move to a new one.

[–] stevehobbes@lemy.lol -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Really? If you buy a house, the closing happens at the bank, then you can’t return to your home?

Of course you can.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That would be returning to somewhere you have been before.

You cannot return to somewhere you have not been.

[+] stevehobbes@lemy.lol -6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That’s semantics - you aren’t a lawyer obviously. Nor, I imagine have you actually read the convention.

Around February 27–28, Turkey refused permission for three out of four Russian warships to enter the Black Sea as their home base was not on the Black Sea.

Surely these two new ships home base is in fact the Black Sea.

[–] StorminNorman@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Dunno why you're dying on this hill when it literally says in the article that nobody expected the ships to be allowed to travel to the Black Sea. It's almost like the experts know more than some anonymous armchair expert on Lemmy...

[–] pelerinli@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

UK sends two ship after two years - good guys

Turkey sends hundereds of Bayraktars on day 1 - ass pieces of shit

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Turkey's balancing act to keep its Russian ties is very disappointing.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:

LONDON — Two British minehunter ships destined for Ukraine cannot travel through Turkish waters, Ankara stressed Tuesday, citing an international pact.

"Our pertinent allies have been duly apprised that the mine-hunting ships donated to Ukraine by the United Kingdom will not be allowed to pass through the Turkish Straits to the Black Sea as long as the war continues," a statement from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's communications directorate said.

The Turkish statement — challenging what it called "disinformation about U.K. mine-hunting ships" — stressed that the Turkish Straits are closed to Russian and Ukrainian warships while the conflict between the two countries continues, citing the Montreux Convention of 1936 which governs maritime traffic through those waters.

Approached for comment, a U.K. Ministry of Defense spokesperson pointed to a press conference by Shapps in London last month at which Ukrainian Admiral Oleksiy Neizhpapa said the vessels could not yet be brought to the Black Sea because of the pact.

But Neizhpapa also noted the ships would still have lots of work to do once the Russia-Ukraine war ends given the ongoing threat of mines in the Black Sea.

The original article contains 266 words, the summary contains 227 words. Saved 15%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!