Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bosonic

(3,746 posts)
Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:14 PM Apr 2014

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

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Russia complains of US presence in Black Sea (Original Post) Bosonic Apr 2014 OP
A copy of the Montreux Convention (PDF) Agnosticsherbet Apr 2014 #1
Not just any destroyer--I believe it's the Donald Cook, a ship newly fitted TwilightGardener Apr 2014 #2
And the Testosterone Games continue...... DeSwiss Apr 2014 #3
Watch the definitions in that treaty. happyslug Apr 2014 #4
Is this treaty still valid? christx30 Apr 2014 #5
Would you junk the UN Charter? former9thward Apr 2014 #9
hey russia what did u do with the complaint of YOUR presence in crimea leftyohiolib Apr 2014 #6
Putin complains of US presence in Black Sea warrant46 Apr 2014 #7
World complains of Russian presence on Ukranian border hugo_from_TN Apr 2014 #8
Your part of "World" needs to wake up a little ... Nihil Apr 2014 #10
Next: DiverDave Apr 2014 #11

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
2. Not just any destroyer--I believe it's the Donald Cook, a ship newly fitted
Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:41 PM
Apr 2014

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)
3. And the Testosterone Games continue......
Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:59 PM
Apr 2014
''All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force.'' ~George Orwell


- All that fire-power, it'd be a shame not to at least flaunt it. Idiots.......

K&R

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
4. Watch the definitions in that treaty.
Thu Apr 3, 2014, 02:31 PM
Apr 2014

I love the definition of "Aircraft Carrier" in that treaty:

(2) Aircraft-Carriers are surface vessels of war, whatever their displacement, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft. The wording of the present Annex is taken from the London Naval Treaty of March 25th, 1936. rating aircraft at sea. The fitting of a landing-on or flying-off deck on any vessel of war, provided such vessel has not been designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea, shall not cause any vessel to fitted to be classified in the category of aircraft-carrier.

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)
5. Is this treaty still valid?
Thu Apr 3, 2014, 02:43 PM
Apr 2014

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)
9. Would you junk the UN Charter?
Thu Apr 3, 2014, 07:00 PM
Apr 2014

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.

 

Nihil

(13,508 posts)
10. Your part of "World" needs to wake up a little ...
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 08:07 AM
Apr 2014

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.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Russia complains of US pr...