Can the Bosphorus be closed to the Russian fleet?
The Ukrainian leadership seeks to maximize the use of the incident in the Kerch Strait to increase international pressure on Russia. On November 29, the commander of the Ukrainian Navy, Igor Voronchenko, called for the closure of the Black Sea straits for Russian warships.
- Voronchenko said at a conference on maritime security held in Kiev.
Note that this statement was not made by authorized persons, that is, not by the President of Ukraine, and not by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but by the head of the Ukrainian naval forces.
The indicated inconsistency of the statement with the speaker’s rank, by the way, does not make the situation strange, but rather clarifies it.
Voronchenko’s desire to close the Bosphorus and Dardanelles for the Russian Navy is a PR, and at the same time a test ball, will it be possible to push Ukraine’s foreign partners to take action in this direction.
Although it cannot be ruled out that the Ukrainian authorities authorized for such actions conducted, or are conducting closed consultations with the United States and NATO on this issue, in fact the situation provides very few opportunities to hang the “Ukrainian castle” on the Straits.
First of all, the article 19 mentioned by Voronchenko does not give an unambiguous justification for the closure of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles proposed by him. We give it in full:
“During the war, when Turkey is not a belligerent, warships will enjoy the right of complete freedom of passage and navigation in the Straits, on conditions identical to those specified in Articles 10-18.
However, the warships of any belligerent Power shall not have the right to pass through the Straits, except in cases falling under the application of Article 25 of this Convention, and also in the case of assistance provided to a State that has been the victim of an attack, by virtue of a mutual assistance treaty binding Turkey, concluded within the framework of the Statute of the League of Nations, registered and published under the provisions of Article 18 of the said Statute.
In the exceptional cases provided for in the preceding paragraph, the restrictions referred to in Articles 10-18 will not apply.
Despite the prohibition of passage established in paragraph 2 above, warships of belligerent powers, coastal or non-coastal to the Black Sea, separated from the ports of their main parking lot, may return to these ports.
The warships of the belligerents are forbidden to carry out all kinds of captures in the Straits, to exercise the right to inspect and to carry out any hostile actions ”
Obviously, for legal reasons to prohibit Russian warships from passing through the Straits, it will be necessary to recognize Russia as a belligerent. Meanwhile, the Russian Federation did not declare war on Ukraine and qualifies the history in the Kerch Strait as a provocation and a border incident, so even pro-Western international bodies, most likely, will not have enough determination to declare Russia a “belligerent power”.
And article 25, repealing all prohibitions on the passage of military courts even for belligerent powers, generally removes the question of whether the closure of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles is possible:
Of course, the closure of the Straits is detrimental to the rights of Russia, although the League of Nations has long ceased to exist, and the United Nations has emerged as its counterpart. Of course, this is also a very shaky justification for the impossibility of closing the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, but, I think, this will be enough for Russian diplomacy.
Articles 10-18 of the Montreux Convention are not relevant in the framework of this publication, since they stipulate the rules for passage by the Straits of military vessels of various categories, terms, tonnage, etc.
More important than another. Of course, the international regime for using the Bosporus and Dardanelles has a long history, and since 1936 it has been regulated by the Montreux Convention, which then replaced the London Convention of 1841. However, both of them were the results of agreements and a balance of power between the great powers that existed at that time, and were a rather conditional guarantee of observing the restrictions that were indicated in these conventions.
In fact, Turkey has always been and is the real mistress of the Straits.
Thus, only Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government can implement the decision to close the Bosphorus and Dardanelles for Russian warships.
Considering the fact that Erdogan uses Russia as a "geopolitical balancer", thereby compensating for the country's dependence on the United States and NATO, Ankara is at odds with Moscow because of the ambitions of the Ukrainian politicians and the military will never go.
I am sure that the international community will nevertheless make a decision and acknowledge that aggression against the state of Ukraine was carried out ... In this regard, and with the provisions of the Montreux Convention, namely paragraph 19, we will try to ask for the closure of the Bosphorus Strait in the Turkish Republic, so that the Russians knew how to violate international law
- Voronchenko said at a conference on maritime security held in Kiev.
Note that this statement was not made by authorized persons, that is, not by the President of Ukraine, and not by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but by the head of the Ukrainian naval forces.
The indicated inconsistency of the statement with the speaker’s rank, by the way, does not make the situation strange, but rather clarifies it.
Voronchenko’s desire to close the Bosphorus and Dardanelles for the Russian Navy is a PR, and at the same time a test ball, will it be possible to push Ukraine’s foreign partners to take action in this direction.
Although it cannot be ruled out that the Ukrainian authorities authorized for such actions conducted, or are conducting closed consultations with the United States and NATO on this issue, in fact the situation provides very few opportunities to hang the “Ukrainian castle” on the Straits.
First of all, the article 19 mentioned by Voronchenko does not give an unambiguous justification for the closure of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles proposed by him. We give it in full:
“During the war, when Turkey is not a belligerent, warships will enjoy the right of complete freedom of passage and navigation in the Straits, on conditions identical to those specified in Articles 10-18.
However, the warships of any belligerent Power shall not have the right to pass through the Straits, except in cases falling under the application of Article 25 of this Convention, and also in the case of assistance provided to a State that has been the victim of an attack, by virtue of a mutual assistance treaty binding Turkey, concluded within the framework of the Statute of the League of Nations, registered and published under the provisions of Article 18 of the said Statute.
In the exceptional cases provided for in the preceding paragraph, the restrictions referred to in Articles 10-18 will not apply.
Despite the prohibition of passage established in paragraph 2 above, warships of belligerent powers, coastal or non-coastal to the Black Sea, separated from the ports of their main parking lot, may return to these ports.
The warships of the belligerents are forbidden to carry out all kinds of captures in the Straits, to exercise the right to inspect and to carry out any hostile actions ”
Obviously, for legal reasons to prohibit Russian warships from passing through the Straits, it will be necessary to recognize Russia as a belligerent. Meanwhile, the Russian Federation did not declare war on Ukraine and qualifies the history in the Kerch Strait as a provocation and a border incident, so even pro-Western international bodies, most likely, will not have enough determination to declare Russia a “belligerent power”.
And article 25, repealing all prohibitions on the passage of military courts even for belligerent powers, generally removes the question of whether the closure of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles is possible:
Nothing in this Convention shall prejudice the rights and obligations arising from the Statute of the League of Nations for Turkey or for any other High Contracting Party which is a member of the League of Nations.
Of course, the closure of the Straits is detrimental to the rights of Russia, although the League of Nations has long ceased to exist, and the United Nations has emerged as its counterpart. Of course, this is also a very shaky justification for the impossibility of closing the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, but, I think, this will be enough for Russian diplomacy.
Articles 10-18 of the Montreux Convention are not relevant in the framework of this publication, since they stipulate the rules for passage by the Straits of military vessels of various categories, terms, tonnage, etc.
More important than another. Of course, the international regime for using the Bosporus and Dardanelles has a long history, and since 1936 it has been regulated by the Montreux Convention, which then replaced the London Convention of 1841. However, both of them were the results of agreements and a balance of power between the great powers that existed at that time, and were a rather conditional guarantee of observing the restrictions that were indicated in these conventions.
In fact, Turkey has always been and is the real mistress of the Straits.
Thus, only Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government can implement the decision to close the Bosphorus and Dardanelles for Russian warships.
Considering the fact that Erdogan uses Russia as a "geopolitical balancer", thereby compensating for the country's dependence on the United States and NATO, Ankara is at odds with Moscow because of the ambitions of the Ukrainian politicians and the military will never go.
Information