Russia complains of US presence in Black Sea
Source: Hurriyet Daily News
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov Apr. 2 expressed concern about the U.S. presence in the Black Sea, saying Moscow contacted both Ankara and Washington over the issue amid ongoing tension between Russia and the West.
We have noticed that recently U.S. military vessels on a number of occasions have extended their presence [in the Black Sea] beyond the established limits and these extensions at times failed to meet the rules of the Montreux Convention, Lavrov said during a joint press conference with his Kazakh counterpart, Erlan Idrisov, in Moscow.
Lavrov was responding to a question over a U.S. guided-missile destroyer, USS Truxtun, which conducted joint exercises with Romanian and Bulgarian naval forces last month just a few hundred kilometers away from the annexed Crimean peninsula. The Truxtun has already left the Black Sea that had been scheduled before the Ukraine crisis.
We pointed this out both to the U.S. and of course to Turkey, which is in control of the [Bosphorus] Strait [and the Dardanelles]. Our position is that all the paragraphs of the convention ought to be strictly adhered to. We will monitor it, Lavrov said. The U.S. Navy is also sending another destroyer into the Black Sea in the coming days, NBC news reported, citing U.S. officials.
Read more: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/russia-complains-of-us-presence-in-black-sea.aspx?pageID=238&nID=64522&NewsCatID=359
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)with an anti-ballistic missile defense system, the same ship that pissed Russia off mightily when it was sent to the Mediterranean a couple months ago.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)- All that fire-power, it'd be a shame not to at least flaunt it. Idiots.......
K&R
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I love the definition of "Aircraft Carrier" in that treaty:
The category of aircraft-carrier is divided into two sub-categories as follows:
(a) Vessels fitted with a flight deck, from which aircraft can take off, or on which aircraft can land from
the air;
(b) Vessels not fitted with a flight deck as described in (a) above
The the old Soviet Carriers, were NOT carriers for they had Anti-Marine capacity, but the US Carriers being designed from day one as exclusive to be used to operate aircraft are Carriers. Paragraph (2)(b) was to cover something like the USS Langley, the first US Carrier, after it was converted to be a float plane support ship.
The Treaty also restricts how much tonnage is permitted in the Black sea, with priority for Black Sea countries over non-black sea countries.
Through I do LOVE the Opening Paragraph:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BULGARIANS,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, IRELAND AND THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA,
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE HELLENES,
HIS MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF JAPAN,
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ROMANIA,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE TURKISH REPUBLIC,
THE CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, AND
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF YUGOSLAVIA.
Six Kings, Two Presidents and one Committee signed the treaty, that is still in force in those countries that used to be Kingdoms and are now Republics (Greece, Romania, Bulgaria), against the successor Nations of the Soviet Union (Russia, Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia) and Yugoslavia (Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and the former Yugoslavian state of Macedonia) as while as the two remaining Kingdoms (Great Britain and Japan) and the two Republics that signed the Treaty (France and Turkey). The treaty also can be viewed as valid as to British successor states, Ireland and India and various other former colonies of Britain and France and those former Soviet States NOT bordering the Black Sea.
christx30
(6,241 posts)Wasn't it signed by the USSR, which no longer exists (for now, anyway)? I mean, if my grandfather signed a treaty with the Ottoman Empire saying that he wouldn't eat pizza on Friday, would he now be able to eat with impunity?
former9thward
(32,082 posts)It was signed by two permanent Security Council members that no longer exist -- the Republic of China and the U.S.S.R. How about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signed by the USSR. Junk that? Or just selected treaties that you would like to ignore.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)yeah exactly
warrant46
(2,205 posts)He thinks its his Bath Tub
hugo_from_TN
(1,069 posts)Nihil
(13,508 posts)There has been a "Russian presence on the Ukrainian border" ever since it came into being:
The border has inherited its location from the administrative territorial division between the Ukrainian SSR
and the Russian SFSR. It was created in 1991 and is a far descendant of custom borders between the
Cossack Hetmanate and the Tsardom of Russia of the 17th century.
i.e., the two countries were sharing that internal border before Ukraine split off to be a separate country
and it was "upgraded" to an international border.
DiverDave
(4,887 posts)"We are gravely concerned with the treatment of Russians in the U.S."