Click to see full-size image
On November 30th, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg gave a press conference, prior to the Allied Foreign Ministers meeting.
⚠️ LIVE SOON ? 13:00 CEST ⚠️
?️ | Pre-Ministerial press conference previewing two days of #NATO #ForMin online meetings. https://t.co/5dfgMZOk3O
— Jens Stoltenberg (@jensstoltenberg) November 30, 2020
Ministers will discuss the NATO 2030 initiative and the continued adaptation of the Alliance, Russia’s military build-up, the rise of China, and NATO’s mission in Afghanistan.
Jens Stoltenberg outlined that NATO has supported the US and other allies throughout the years, and also pointed attention to the New START which is running out in February 2021, and it is in limbo.
He also said that the Black Sea region needs addressing.
“Good afternoon.
NATO Foreign Ministers will meet over the next two days to address key issues. We will discuss the NATO 2030 project and the continued adaptation of our Alliance. As well as Russia’s military build-up. The rise of China.
And our mission in Afghanistan. We went into Afghanistan to support the United States after the 9/11 attacks. And to ensure that the country is never again a platform for international terrorists to attack our homelands. We have been there for almost two decades. And the country has come a long way. We now see an historic opportunity for peace. It is fragile, but it must be seized.
As part of the peace process, we have adjusted our presence. The United States has recently decided to further reduce its troop numbers. But NATO’s training mission continues, with over half of the forces from European Allies and partner nations. No one wants to stay in Afghanistan longer than necessary. In the months ahead, we will continue to assess our presence based on conditions on the ground. We face a difficult dilemma.
Whether to leave, and risk that Afghanistan becomes once again a safe haven for international terrorists. Or stay, and risk a longer mission, with renewed violence.
Whatever path we choose, it is important that we do so together, in a coordinated and deliberate way.
Ministers will also address Russia’s military build-up around the Alliance.
Russia is modernising its nuclear arsenal and fielding new missiles. It is deploying more forces in our neighbourhood, from the High North to Syria and Libya.
We also see an increased Russian presence as a result of the crises in Belarus and Nagorno-Karabakh. So, Ministers will discuss what more we should do to respond to Russia’s growing military activity.
And to maintain the arms control regime. Including limitations on nuclear warheads, as the New START treaty is due to expire next February. We will also be joined by the Foreign Ministers of Georgia and Ukraine in a separate session. To address the security situation in the Black Sea region. And our support for these two valued partners.”
Regarding the Black Sea situation, Stoltenberg, first of all, said that the aim of NATO 2030 is to strengthen NATO as a political Alliance, and that also means working, strengthening, working with partners, including with a partner like Georgia.
“We are working closely with Georgia in the Black Sea, in the Black Sea Region. We provide political support, but also practical support to Georgia. We have stepped up our support by also now doing more in the maritime domain, including with the training of the Coast Guard. We have more sharing of air traffic radar data, and are working jointly to address hybrid threats, as well as conducting joint exercises in the Black Sea Region.”
This is what Stoltenberg specifically answered to a question about the Black Sea.
The question came from Robert Lupitu from Calea Europeana:
“… how does NATO intend, and how will NATO continue to strengthen its defence posture in the Black Sea, considering also the incoming Biden administration, and what’s your take on that for the Black Sea? And also, given the recent exercises that both Allies, Romania and the United States had in the Black Sea in the Mihail Kogălniceanu air base a few days ago?”
Stoltenberg answered the following:
“The Black Sea Region is of strategic importance for NATO and all NATO Allies, and we are working closely with our two highly-valued partners, Georgia and Ukraine, in the Black Sea Region, and, of course, also three NATO Allies, Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania are littoral states. So, NATO has a significant presence in the Black Sea Region. We have a maritime presence; we recently had Allied ships exercising there. And we also have a deployment of a training brigade, a Romanian-led multinational brigade in Romania.
So, we have increased the NATO presence in the Black Sea Region and we are working closely with Ukraine and Georgia as partners, because we have seen that Russia has violated the territorial integrity and sovereignty of these two countries, with the illegal annexation of Crimea, and the presence of Russian forces in parts of what is actually recognised Georgian territory.
We are stepping up our political support, our practical support, and we see that Russia is increasing their military presence, not least in Crimea. And that’s reason why we need to further strengthen our presence in the region, and to also address this with our partners Georgia and Ukraine, as we’re going to do on Wednesday when we meet with the foreign ministers from these two partner countries.”
Essentially, Stoltenberg claims that NATO plans to further increase its presence in the Black Sea, through Ukraine and Georgia. Russia is still seen as the aggressor, and it is encroaching on both countries’ territories and they are “valued NATO partners” and need to be used in the pressure against Moscow.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
This move was expected … since BP and Jens Stolderberg (NATO) are partners in the pipeline Baku-Ceyhan pipeline. And as I have rewritten … THE WAR IS NOT OVER THERE.
Use comma, or maybe move “there” to the beginning of the sentence
Just as there are exercises to strengthen the body … so there are exercises to strengthen the mind. Try to write the words together without a comma and in capital letters. For example:WEGREEKSWRITECHAPTERSTOBEMOREINTELLIGENT
That way you never get Alzheimer’s and create new brain synapses.
Well both Ukraine and Georgia are sovereign countries that can increase the presence of any force within their territories.
Not if they want to stay healthy,they are not sovereign they are Puppets,it could be the end of them if they keep pushing.
maybe it will be bad for them maybe good. but they have a right to make that decision themselves.
It would be terminal for them trust me,but let them try if they want,they are just prostitutes of the US.tell me would the US tolerate Russian troops in Florida or Mexico with the possibility of WMD missiles there pointed at the US?
Sorry, but no. Sovereign states don’t need the presence of any forces other than their own. Russia, China and Iran are sovereign states, Ukraine and Georgia are not.
where did you read that definition?:)))
Maybe I’m being too technical here but “sovereignty” is not a simple concept.
If you’re really interested I’ll recommend two books…
Sovereignty: The Evolution of an Idea, Robert Jackson Sovereignty: The Origin and Future of a Political and Legal Concept, Dieter Grimm
After reading them you’ll understand why “Russia, China and Iran are sovereign states, [while] Ukraine and Georgia are not.”
If to look at it from your point of view then Ukraine and Georgia have nothing to lose from placing NATO troops in their territory. International law recognizes Donbass and Crimea as part of Ukraine and Abkhazia with South Ossetia as part of Georgia. So technically Ukraine and Georgia already have foreign bases in their territory. As they say “A Wet Man Does Not Fear the Rain”
Crimea had a legit vote under/un regulations,so got nothing on crimea dumbass!
Actually they had 3 legit Referendums between 1991-2014. They voted every time for secession from Ukraine.
Dumbass?:)))) Its not my opinion, it is the opinion of majority of the world:))) What 1 or 2 countries, or specially people think, doesn’t matter
Nah, they are vassal colonies, very far from being sovereign.
Ok then their masters decide to put troops there. Still their decision
Only if they can force their way through. If not, they can’t. Resistance is Victory…
shouldn’t be a problem. they are very far from being sovereign
I meant militarily…
what militarily?
You are thinking in political terms… You cant force your way through if you cant back it up militarily.
who cannot back it up militarily?
Why are you playing dumb…? Come back when you have grown up…
I genuinely don’t understand what you mean. who cannot back deployment up militarily? NATO? what you mean?
The U.S. Who do you think is subverting these countries? Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Moldova… Georgia managed to break somewhat free after the war. Ukropisstan is dead man walking. And Armenia and Moldova are toy countries. But non the less CIA meddling is irritating, like cockroaches running in the dark.
So you are saying US cannot back a deployment militarily?:)
Not against Russia. They failed in Syria too.
So they will not be able to back it up in Ukraine and Georgia because they couldn’t in Syria?:))
They can’t back it up because they would be annihilated and Ukraine and Georgia with them,do the maths and while you are at it read a history book about the pricks who have tried it before.
Just a few days ago SF published a very good analysis of the US and NATO agenda for the destruction and carve up of Russia. Putin has played right into their trap by appeasing them and not creating any alliances. US is now firmly entrenched in Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan and almost all of the Soviet Stans, Armenia is infiltrated by Soros up to its ass. Russia needs to wake up as the NATO partners and their Zionist masters are about to do a Yugoslavia on the Volga.
Russia did say they knew about the plan for Armenia/Azerbaijan 2 years ago, so I’m inclined to say they have some sort of plan to deal with the ‘problem’. Beyond me, but my guess would be Russia is letting them get close to eventually hit the enemy hard. In the meantime, they will improve their own forces.
Again, only a guess. But it frustrates me as well to see what is happening.
Your guess is good, I think. It is judo, jiu-Jitsu approach by using energy of the opponent against him by swaying his moves in the last moments in desired direction.
They knew it but couldnt do a shit about it. After all Russia is caught up in a quagmire in Syria, Crimea, Ukraine, Libya. Their economy is in tatters and nobody likes Russia after they poured gasoline all over ME and denied its people even a crumb of freedom of choice.
lol. There’s a lot of projection there….
LOL!! i must have a word with your ward orderlies the meds are not working.
The West invaded Russia four times (1812, 1853, 1914 and 1941) in five generations yet today Russia remains sovereign and a constant reminder of the limits of Western supremacy. Don’t worry Putin knows what he is doing.
May I ask something;;Ιs it true that Mikhail Sakharov, of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSO), “committed suicide” while on duty in the Moscow Kremlin??. He was in the unit responsible for guarding the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin.
A very thick/large game is being played, such trained men do not commit suicide so easily.In conjunction with the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist … something big is being planned.
Sorry, I don’t know anything about Mikhail Sakharov.
As for the Iranian physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh he was targeted once before so I’m not seeing anything new here. Yes Netanyahu would like for the Americans to go to war with Iran but I doubt Washington is interested in getting bogged down in another war in the Middle East. The Pentagon is focusing on the new cold War, with Russia and China.
Where did you get the info about Mikhail Sakharov? Because no news in Russian media and TG channels. Is this person exists?
They wrote it in Greek media, so I ask if the news is really true.
“Загнанных лошадей пристреливают, не правда ли? Телохранитель Путина “внезапно” застрелился на территории Кремля, при этом он находился при исполнении своих обязанностей.Погибшим оказался Михаил Захаров,сотрудник ФСО,отвечающего за личную охрану президента…” https://sobesednik.ru/proisshestviya/20201130-sotrudnik-fso-iz-lichnoj-ohran https://www.echedoros-a.gr/2020/11/blog-post_646.html
Eff! Greek it’s no Sakharov but Zakharov. And he was not Putin’s bodyguard but worked in FSO and these guys have a lot of duties besides of guarding members of Russian government. The guy was in process of divorce with his wife.
https://english.pravda.ru/news/society/145343-fso_kremlin/
This link confirms his death. So the news is TRUE. But this fact has many dark spots. “An unnamed source told TASS”
Yes if they know who that source is i.e. (somebody from government telling them a story but “not officially”) They know who he, she is, they just don’t say it, to avoid trouble
“Divorce with his wife” ???!!
Putin did it !!!
there is an article in Pravda about it, just says he was unhappy about not getting paid for overtime
Thank you for the link. You confirmed to me what I suspected.
Get off the fkn drugs,loser,seriously they will kill you if you ain’t strong enough to cope with: Try again? YOU LOST CRIMEA AND GEORGIA (MAIN$) AND BELARUS AND MOLDOVA AND C.I.S AND TURKEY AND IRAN AND SYRIA AND EGYPT AND MANY MANY OTHERS,ignorant soros bluffs!
Russia is gaining cia trolls are draining ??
Frankly, Putin’s partners will be Russia’s undoing.
Lets see who backs down if the trouble starts then:MONEYS ON ANTI LGBTQ DIPLOMACY:
dumb norwegian selling himself and the dumb norwegian nation to the morons in washington dc – he’s so stupid it’s hard to grasp just how dumb he is.
so even if he is a useful idiot for the morons, there is no will in nato to fight russia; france or italy or spain or turkey and a few more wouldn’t tag along if the morons demand actual attack on russia,
unfortunately the morons are in desperate need of the commodities in russia and are prepared to do almost anything to lay their sweaty and greedy hands on them. russia’s nukes tell you just how essential nukes are in today’s world and that is why Iran must nuke up and venezuela and so on.
Stoltenburg is a Nazi using Orwellian double speak,
Can’t play guitar for sht either:
Have you noticed they all have that same creepy appearance. Stoltenburg and his twin, Fauci.
Yes they have the same stare Nazis have trying to look tough.
I must admit to finding the Nanzi label more appropriate to their style. For me the Nazis, SS etc, etc, etc will always have that Nancy Pelosi wears Hugo Boss look about them and pure satire for intimidation. Seriously cannot take them seriously. Can you imagine Adolf and his cabinet dressed up for a ‘Pride Parade’, in Hugo Boss does ‘Rainbow’ attire, back in the 30s and 40s? That image immediately comes to mind when I see the 21st century version in the likes of Stoltenburg, Fauci, Donald Tusk and their peers.
Have you noticed t6ge NATO emblem has a hidden swastika in it?
NATO LOGO – Taken from 1000 Logos site:
NATO is an intergovernmental political and military alliance, which has among its members the United States of America, Canada and most of the countries of Europe. In was founded under the auspices of the United States in 1949 in the aftermath of the Second World War to counteract the influence of the Soviet Union in Europe. Since then the organisation has had seven enlargements and now unites 29 states.
The logo, its meaning and history
At the outset, after the signing of the Treaty in 1951, NATO used the flag of Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. The developers of the NATO emblem were tasked to find a variant that would be concise and simple, but at the same time bear the ideals and customs of the alliance. In October 1953 the current emblem version was accepted.
NATO Logo
In the centre of the emblem there is a quadrilateral white star belted by a thin white circle line. The star can be regarded as a compass or a wind rose. From the top of four star rays radiate four white stripes. The corners of the star point to the four sides of the world and the image of the compass symbolizes the correct direction towards peace taken by the alliance. The rays of the star point to NATO member countries situated in various parts of the world on both sides of the Atlantic; the circle line around the star is a symbol of their unity and cooperation, while the blue background of the star is a link to the colour of the ocean.
Lately, the logo has been modified to be used on official documents. It became more compact and consists of the “compass” emblem and the name of the alliance in English (NATO) and French (OTAN) languages placed one under another on the background of a black rectangle. The writings are made in well readable and elegant graphics very close to Garamond Serial Light font. The abbreviation “NATO” stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The emblem has the white NATO quadrilateral star with the traditional white circle line, but this time it divides square background into four fields in dark blue and light cerulean blue tones alternatel
……………………………….
Go back to 1947, when they were setting up the State of Israel in the same year that the CIA was launched. Allen Dulles, with the help of Earl Browder (Leader of the US Communist Party and grandfather of Bill) and Reinhard Gehlen, the German Lieutenant General and Intelligence Officer, Chief of the Wehrmacht Foreign Armies East Military Intelligence Service, came up with Operation Paperclip and decided who would be provided safe passage out of Europe, to settle in Canada, US and other nations.
Wasn’t Donald Tusk’s grandfather a member of the Wehrmacht branch of the SS? Plus Christina Freeland’s grandfather, part of their propaganda team? Together with so many from Ukraine and Poland, as I go off into the world of waffle. Plus, why is there so little Semitic DNA to be found in Israel, but, plenty of Zionist DNA, courtesy the Nomadic Turkic Tribes, who adopted Christianity, Islam and Judeaism, whilst studying Hebrew, as they mimicked those they despised.
…………………
Short history of NATO:
4 April 1949 – The North Atlantic Treaty was signed. The new Allies agreed “an armed attack against one of them… shall be considered an attack against them all”, and following such an attack, each Ally would take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” in response.
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (isn’t the Atlantic Council, set up in 1961 the admin branch of NATO and wasn’t Allen Dulles involved in setting up the Atlantic Council?).
Founded as a response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union, yet it was an Alliance Creation, post Operation Paperclip, to deter Soviet Expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American Presence on the Continent and encouraging European political integration. I wonder what the purpose of NATO and the Atlantic Council Admin Think Tank now is? Considering since the Warsaw Pact was dismantled, the Atlantic Council follows the ideology of the National Socialist Movement and instructs NATO to do the same.
30 Members of NATO
1949
Belgium Canada Denmark France Iceland Italy Luxewmbourg Netherlands Portugal United Kingdom
1952
Greece Turkey
1955
Germany
1982
Spain
1999
The Czech Republic Hungary Poland
2004
Bulgaria Estonia Latvia Lithuania Romania Slovakia Slovenia
2009
Albania Croatia
2017
Montenegro
2020
North Macedonia.
Remember back in 1989, when James Baker, the Secretary of State (US) promised Gorbechev, that they would not move an inch into Eastern Europe, if only he would dismantle the Warsaw Pact and get the Soviet Tanks off the streets of Eastern Europe. To be replaced with USA tanks, a couple of decades later.
So essentially the message from the Westablishments securocrats is let us help you (Ukraine, Georgia etc) put your asses on the line in order for us to try pressure the Russian Federation in being compliant to our exploitations.
totally brain dead…….. totally spaced out!!!!
Go home hato,you represent incests not constituates not nations in accord with sovereignty,you got your ass kicked in 08,learn from your cocaine addicted shills,good policy is stategic balance not persecution!
This shitty gentleman went to the same school as Pompous the Fat, where “we lied, cheated and stole”.
Black Sea, but, isn’t that protected by a convention, that should keep NATO out of the area?
Plus, since when have Ukraine and Georgia been NATO members?
Why are NATO leaders, either retired peace campaign activists or leaders from non-nuclear nations, with absolutely no knowledge or respect for mutually assured destruction?
By the way has anybody seen this video, off topic, but, connected to Corona, Operation Mockingbird and the Northcliffe-Rockefeller-Rothermere Tavistock Institute Project, that goes back to 1913?
https://media.sott.net/Sott_videos/Plandemic-2-INDOCTORNATION.mp4
“One ship per nation at the time” (don’t remember for how long by the convention) with 30 NATO members could make 3 – 4 frigates present all the time Of course, countries that have “blue navy” like US, UK, France, Germany, Italy etc….
Ukraine and Georgia are not “active members” yet as sovereign countries they can be participants of different programs (like “Partnership for peace”) in “cooperation” with NATO. As long as it is not against the convention, they can do whatever are they pleased to do. Many non NATO countries like Sweden, Finland,Serbia etc. are having different types of “cooperation” and participation in some of those programs.
Is it 21 days?
Might be, sorry don’t remember any longer. The bottom line… they can switch in new ships infinitely.
The Montreux Convention 1936/1951
Article 1. The High Contracting Parties recognize and affirm the principle of freedom of transit and navigation by sea in the Straits. The exercise of this freedom shall henceforth be regulated by the provisions of the present Convention.
SECTION 1. Merchant Vessels
Article 2. In time of peace, merchant vessels shall enjoy complete freedom of transit and navigation in the Straits, by day and by night, under any flag and with any kind of cargo, without any formalities, except as provided in Article 3 below. No taxes or charges other than those authorized by Annex 1 to the present Convention shall be levied by the Turkish authorities on these vessels when passing in transit without calling at a port in the Straits. In order to facilitate the collection of these taxes or charges merchant vessels passing through the Straits shall communicate to the officials at the stations referred to in Article 3 their name, nationality, tonnage, destination and last port of call (provenance). Pilotage and towage remain optional.
Article 3. All ships entering the Straits by the Aegean Sea or by the Black Sea shall stop at a sanitary station near the entrance to the Straits for the purposes of the sanitary control prescribed by Turkish law within the framework of international sanitary regulations. This control, in the case of ships possessing a clean bill of health or presenting a declaration of health testifying that they do not fall within the scope of the provisions of the second paragraph of the present article, shall be carried out by day and by night with all possible speed, and the vessels in question shall not be required to make any other stop during their passage though the Straits. Vessels which have on board cases of plague,. cholera, yellow fever, exanthematic typhus or small-pox, or which have had such cases on board during the previous seven days, and vessels which have left an infected port within less than five times twenty four hours shall stop at the sanitary stations indicated in the preceding paragraph in order to embark such sanitary guards as the Turkish authorities may direct. No tax or charge shall be levied in respect of these sanitary guards and they shall be disembarked at a sanitary station on departure from the Straits.
Article 4. In time of war, Turkey not being belligerent, merchant vessels, under. any flag or with any kind of cargo, shall enjoy freedom of transit and navigation in the Straits subject to the provisions of Articles 2 and 3. Pilotage and towage remain optional.
Article 5. In the time of war, Turkey being belligerent, merchant vessels not belonging to a country at war with Turkey shall enjoy freedom of transit and navigation in the Straits on condition that they do not in any way assist the enemy. Such vessels shall enter the Straits by day and their transit shall be effected by the route which shall in each case be indicated by the Turkish authorities.
Article 6. Should Turkey consider herself to be threatened with imminent danger of war, the provisions of article 2 shall nevertheless continue to be applied except that vessels must enter the Straits by day and that their transit must be effected by the route which shall, in each case, be indicated by the Turkish authorities. Pilotage may; in this case, be made obligatory, but no charge shall be levied.
Article 7. The term “merchant vessels” applies to all vessels which are not covered by Section II of the present Convention. SECTION II. Vessels of Wa
Article 8. For the purposes of the present Convention, the definitions of vessels of war and of their specification together with those relating to the calculation of tonnage shall be as set forth in Annex II to the present Convention
Article 9. Maval auxiliary vessels specifically designed for the carriage of fuel, liquid or non-liquid, shall not be subject to the provisions of Article 13 regarding notification, nor shall they be counted for the purpose of calculating the tonnage which is subject to limitation under Articles 14 and 18, on condition that they shall pass through the Straits singly. They shall, however, continue to be on the same footing as vessels of war for the purpose of the remaining provisions governing transit. The auxiliary vessels specified in the preceding paragraph shall only be entitled to benefit by the exceptional status therein contemplated if their armament does not include: for use against floating targets, more than two guns of a maximum caliber of 105 millimeters; for use against aerial targets, more than two guns of a maximum caliber of 75 millimeters.
Article 10. In time of peace, light surface vessels, minor war vessels and auxiliary vessels, whether belonging to Black Sea or non-Black Sea Powers; and whatever their flag, shall enjoy freedom of transit through the Straits without any taxes or charges whatever, provided that such transit is begun during daylight and subject to the conditions laid down in Article 13 and the articles following thereafter. Vessels of war other than those which fall within the categories specified in the preceding paragraph shall only enjoy a right of transit under the special conditions provided by Articles 11 and 12.
Article 11. Black Sea Powers may send through the Straits capital ships of á tonnage greater than that laid down in the first paragraph of Article 14, on condition that these vessels pass through the Straits singly, escorted by not more than two destroyers.
Article 12. Black Sea Powers shall have the right to send through the Straits, for the purpose of rejoining their base, submarines constructed or purchased outside the Black Sea, provided that adequate notice of the laying down or purchase of such submarines shall have been given to Turkey. Submarines belonging to the said Powers shall also be entitled to pass through the Straits to be repaired in dockyards outside the Black Sea on condition that detailed information on the matter is given to Turkey. In either case, the said submarines must travel by day and on the surface, and must pass through the Straits singly.
Article 13. The transit of vessels of war through the Straits shall be preceded by notification given to the Turkish Government through the diplomatic channel. The normal period of notice shall be eight days; but it is desirable that in the case of non-Black Sea Powers this period should be increased to fifteen days. The notification shall specify the destination, name, type and number of the vessels, as also the date of entry for the outward passage and, if necessary, for the return journey. Any change of date shall be subject to three days’ notice. Entry into the Straits for the outward passage shall take place within a period of five days from the date given in the original notification. After the expiry of this period, a new notification shall be given under the same conditions as for the original notification. When effecting transit, the commander of the naval force shall, without being under any obligation to stop, communicate to a signal station at the entrance to the Dardanelles or the Bosporus the exact composition of the force under his orders.
Article 14. The maximum aggregate tonnage of all foreign naval forces which may be in course of transit through the Straits shall not exceed 15,000 tons, except in the cases provided for in Article II and in Annex III to the present Convention. The forces specified in the preceding paragraph shall not, however, comprise more than nine vessels. Vessels, whether belonging to Black Sea or non-Black Sea Powers, paying visits to a port in the Straits, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17, shall not be included in this tonnage. Neither shall vessels of war which have suffered damage during their passage through the Straits be included in this tonnage; such vessels, while undergoing repair, shall be subject to any special provisions relating to security laid down by Turkey:
Article 15. Vessels of war in transit through the Straits shall in, no circumstances make use of any aircraft which they may be carrying.
Article 16. Vessels of war in transit through the Straits shall not, except in the event of damage or peril of the sea, remain therein longer than is necessary for them to effect the passage.
Article 17. Nothing in the provisions of the preceding articles shall prevent a naval force of any tonnage or composition from paying a courtesy visit of limited duration to a port in the Straits, at the invitation of the Turkish Government. Any such force must leave the, Straits by the same route as that by which it entered, unless it fulfills the conditions required for passage in transit through the Straits as laid down by Articles 10, 14, and 18.
Article 18. (1) The aggregate tonnage which non-Black Sea Powers may have in that sea in time of peace shall be limited as follows: (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) below, the aggregate tonnage of the said Powers shall not exceed 30,000 tons; (b) If at any time the tonnage of the strongest fleet in the Black Sea shall exceed by at least 10,000 tons the tonnage of the strongest fleet in that sea at the date of the signature of the present Convention, the aggregate tonnage of 30,000 tons mentioned in paragraph (a) shall be increased by the same amount, up to a maximum of 45,000 tons. For this purpose, each Black Sea Power shall, in conformity with Annex IV to the present Convention, inform the Turkish Government, on the 1st January and the 1st July of each year of the total tonnage of its fleet in the Black Sea; and the Turkish Government shall transmit this information to the other High Contracting Parties and to the secretary-general of the League of Nations. (c) The tonnage which any one non-Black Sea Power may have in the Black Sea shall be limited to two-thirds of the aggregate tonnage provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b) above; (d) In the event, however, of one or more non-Black Sea Powers desiring to send naval forces into the Black Sea, for a humanitarian purpose, the said forces, which shall in no case exceed 8,000 tons altogether, shall be allowed to enter the Black Sea without having to give the notification provided in Article 13 of the present Convention, provided an authorization is obtained from the Turkish Government in the following circumstances: if the figure of the aggregate tonnage specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) above has not been reached and will not be exceeded by the dispatch of the forces which it is desired to send, the Turkish Government shall grant the said authorization within the shortest possible time after receiving the request which has been addressed to it; if the said figure has already been reached or if the dispatch of the forces which it is desired to send will cause it to be exceeded, the Turkish Government will immediately inform the other Black Sea Powers of the request for authorization, and if the said Powers make no objection. within twenty four hours of having received this information, the Turkish Government shall, within twenty four hours at the latest, inform the interested Powers of the reply which it has decided to make to their request. Any further entry into the Black Sea of naval forces of non-Black Sea Powers shall only be effected within the available limits of the aggregate tonnage provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b) above. (2) Vessels of war belonging to non-Black Sea Powers shall not remain in the Black Sea more than twenty-one days, whatever may be the object of their presence there.
Article 19. In time of war, Turkey not being belligerent, warships shall enjoy complete freedom of transit and navigation through the Straits under the same conditions as those laid down in Articles 10 to 18. Vessels of war belonging to belligerent Powers shall not, however, pass through the Straits except in cases arising out of the application of Article 25 of the present Convention, and in cases of assistance rendered to a State victim of aggression in virtue of á treaty of mutual assistance binding Turkey, concluded within the framework of the Convenant of the League of Nations, and registered and published in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of the Convenant. In the exceptional cases provided for in the preceding paragraph, the limitations laid down in Articles 10 to 18 of the present Convention shall not be applicable. Notwithstanding the prohibition of passage laid down in paragraph 2 above, vessels of war belonging to belligerent Powers, whether they are Black Sea Powers or not, which have become separated from their bases, may return thereto.
Vessels of war belonging to belligerent Powers shall not make any capture, exercise the right of visit and search, or carry out any hostile act in the Straits.
Article 20. In time of war, Turkey being belligerent, the provisions of Articles 10 to 18 shall not be applicable; the passage ï£ warships shall be left entirely to the discretion of the Turkish Government.
Article 21. Should Turkey consider herself to be threatened with imminent danger of war she shall have the right to apply the provisions of Article 20 of the present Convention. Vessels which have passed through the Straits before Turkey has made use of the powers conferred upon her by the preceding paragraph, and which thus find themselves separated from their bases, may return thereto. It is, however, understood that Turkey may deny this right to vessels of war belonging to the State whose attitude has given rise to the application of the present article. Should the Turkish Government make use of the powers conferred by the first paragraph of the present article, a notification to that .effect shall be addressed to the High Contracting Parties and to the secretary-general of the League of Nations. If the Council of the League of Nations decide by a majority of two-thirds that the measures thus taken by Turkey are not justified, and if such should also be the opinion of the majority of the High Contracting Parties signatories to the present Convention, the Turkish Government undertakes to discontinue the measures in question as also any measures which may have been taken under Article 6 of the present Convention.
Article 22. Vessels of war which have on board cases of plague, cholera, yellow fever, exanthematic typhus or smallpox or which have had such cases on board within the last seven days and vessels of war which have left an infected port within less than five times twenty-four hours must pass through the Straits in quarantine and apply by the means on board such prophylactic measures as are necessary in order to prevent any possibility of the Straits being infected.
SECTION III. Aircraft
Article 23. In order to assure the passage of civil aircraft between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, the Turkish Government will indicate the air routes available for this purpose, outside the forbidden zones which may be established in the Straits. Civil aircraft may use these routes provided that they give the Turkish Government, as regards occasional flights, a notification of three days, and as regards flights on regular services, a general notification of the dates of passage. The Turkish Government moreover undertakes, notwithstanding any remilitarization of the Straits, to furnish the necessary facilities for the safe passage of civil aircraft authorized under the air regulations in force in Turkey to fly across Turkish territory between Europe and Asia. The route which is to be followed in the Straits zone by aircraft which have obtained an authorization shall be indicated from time to time.
SECTION IV. General Provisions
Article 24. The functions of the International Commission set on under the Convention relating to the regime of the Straits of the 24th July, 1923, are hereby transferred to the Turkish Government. The Turkish Government undertakes to collect statistics and to furnish information concerning the application of Articles 11, 12, 14 and 18 of the present Convention. They will supervise the execution of all the provisions of the present Convention relating to the passage of vessels of war through the Straits. As soon as they have been notified of the intended passage through the Straits of a foreign naval force the Turkish Government shall inform the representatives at Ankara of the High Contracting Parties of the composition of that force, its tonnage, the date fixed for its entry into the Straits, and, if necessary, the probable date of its return. The Turkish Government shall address to the Secretary General of the League of Nations and to the High Contracting Parties an annual report giving details regarding the movements of foreign vessels of war through the Straits and furnishing all information which may be of service to commerce and navigation, both by sea and by air, for which provision is made in the present Convention.
Article 25. Nothing in the present Convention shall prejudice the rights and obligations of Turkey, or of any of the other High Contracting Parties members of the League of Nations, arising out of the Convenant of the League of Nations.
SECTION V. Final Provisions
Article 26. The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible. The ratifications shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the French Republic in Paris. The Japanese Government shall be entitled to inform the Government of the French Republic through their diplomatic representative in Paris that the ratification has been given, and in that case they shall transmit the instrument of ratification as soon as possible. A proces-verbal of the deposit of ratifications shall be drawn up as soon as six instruments of ratification, including that of Turkey, shall have been deposited. For this purpose the notification provided for in the preceding paragraph shall be taken as the equivalent of the deposit of an instrument of ratification. The present Convention shall come into force on the date of the said proces-verbal. The French Government will transmit to all the High Contracting Parties an authentic copy of the proces-verbal provided for in the preceding paragraph and the proces-verbaux of the deposit of any subsequent ratifications.
Article 27. The present Convention shall, as from the date of its entry into force, be open to accession by any Power signatory to the Treaty of Peace at Lausanne signed on the 24th July, 1923. Each accession shall be notified, through the diplomatic channel, to the Government of the French Republic, and by the latter to all the High Contracting Parties. Accessions shall come into force as from the date of notification to the French Government.
Article 28. The present Convention shall remain in force for twenty years from the date of its entry into force. The principle of freedom of transit and navigation affirmed in Article I of the present Convention shall however continue without limit of time. If, two years prior to the expiry of the said period of twenty years, no High Contracting Party shall have given notice of denunciation to the French Government the present Convention shall continue in force until two years after such notice shall have been given. Any such notice shall be communicated by the French Government to the High Contracting Parties. In the event of the present Convention being denounced in accordance with the provisions of the present article, the High Contracting Parties agree to be represented at a conference for the purpose of concluding a new Convention.
Article 29. At the expiry of each period of five years from the date of the entry into force of the present Convention each of the High Contracting Parties shall be entitled to initiate proposal for amending one or more of the provisions of the present Convention. To be valid, any request for revision formulated by one of the High Contracting Parties must be supported, in the case of modifications to Articles 14 to 18, by one other High Contracting Party, and, in the case of modifications to any other article, by two other High Contracting Parties. Any request for revision thus supported must be notified to all the High Contracting Parties three months prior to the expiry of the current period of five years. This notification shall contain details of the proposed amendments and the reasons which have given rise to them. Should it be found impossible to reach an agreement on these proposals through the diplomatic channel, the High Contracting Parties agree to be represented at a conference to be summoned for this purpose. Such a conference may only take decisions by a unanimous vote, except as regards cases of revision involving Articles 14 and 18, for which a majority of three-quarters of the High Contracting Parties shall be sufficient. The said majority shall include three-quarters of the High Contracting Parties which are Black Sea Powers, including Turkey.
Signatories: Bulgaria, France, Great Britain, Greece, Japan, Rumania, Turkey, USSR and Yugoslavia.
The maximum aggregate tonnage of all foreign naval forces which may be in course of transit through the Straits shall not exceed 15,000 tons, except in the cases provided for in Article II and in Annex III to the present Convention. The forces specified in the preceding paragraph shall not, however, comprise more than nine vessels.
Just by looking a this it is about 3 – 4 frigates (+ – 15000 tons) not knowing exactly what ” Article II and in Annex III” bring on top of all that.
Thanks for post.
The fact is if Georgia and Ukraine ever tried joining Nato that should be a big red line for Russia they would be crossing the Rubicon,so at some point Russia should make it crystal clear if Nato try that then Russia would intervene in those Countries,otherwise there would be Nato Missiles not far from Moscow,that can’t tolerated.
NATO regulations strictly prohibit, does not accept into membership countries with frozen war conflicts and territorial disputes. Both Ukraine and Georgia have those situations. Even if US ignores basic procedures and tries to push Ukraine into becoming member, countries like Germany , France can always veto that. Europe would never jeopardize security, survival of EU, just to please US.
Since when did they care about rules?Germany and france will be bullied into line like the US Reich bitches they are.
OK tell me just ONE example where that basic NATO rule was completely ignored ?! I will accept that as possibility if you give the example. Georgia waits already 10 years for access to NATO (specially after NATO dispute with Russia for Crimea) yet Georgia is still waiting… So where is you US, to bully everybody into submission?! Germany and France doesn’t want nuke Armageddon over tiny Georgia with frozen conflict and territorial dispute. The moment Ukraine enters in the NATO, we will be immediately in WW3. Apart from some US lunatic generals , nobody wants that to happen really.
Stoltentroll is going full retard again. But than again he is from Denmark like Jens Holm… That explains a few things…
i am hoping and waiting for the day this chump says nato is being disbanded for good hahahahahha
Talking of NATO, issn’t the admin branch known as the Atlantic Council? Were they set up in the early 60s, just before the Cuban Missile Crisis and after Allen Dulles got thrown out of the CIA? Wasn’t Allen Dulles part of the Atlantic Council, back when they were launched?
So, why were the Atlantic Council, over in Russia, sniffing out oligarchs for contributions?
What was NATO set up for? Why were they not dismantled when the Warsaw Pact was dismantled, back in time? Why is the Atlantic Council funded by Biden’s Burisma and $oro$ Open Society Foundation, amongst others? Is Malloch Brown also linked into the Atlantic Council, together with Bill Browder, who just happens to be part of Integrity Initiative, which the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office Funds. Why are they also funding the White Helmets? Why are they investing so much in Ukraine? Wasn’t Boris Johnson the Foreign Secretary, in charge of the Uk Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that was helping with the Steele Dossier, which takes us back to the RT article below.
The article is interesting, and I have just copied the section related to Atlantic Council Funding. However, my main interest was what were the Atlantic Council doing in Moscow, drumming up funds, the night before the Russian was taken out in the American Hotel? What was that all about?
………………………..
Leaked emails show Anders Aslund, the Atlantic Council’s Russia-basher in chief, tried to solicit funds from Russian billionaires
“…Snouts in trough
The email tranche indicates Aslund wasn’t the only Council apparatchik determined to get the think tank’s proverbial mitts in the Alfa Bank till.
In July 2015, Council chief executive Fred Kempe emailed Petr Aven about a fully-fledged partnership between the Council and Letter One, an Alfa Bank affiliate, and suggested there was “a larger role” for him to personally play at the Council.
All the Council’s approaches to Alfa Bank were allegedly unsuccessful, but there’s no shortage of dubious institutions and individuals all too willing to lavishly bankroll the think tank. Its donors currently include the US embassies of UAE and Bahrain, Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, defense giant Raytheon, the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO), and the US State Department.
From 2006 – 2016, the Council’s annual revenue leaped tenfold, from $2 million to $21 million – a period in which, concurrently and not coincidentally, corporate and state budgets typically reserved for lobbying firms were increasingly directed to think tanks.
Its board of directors comprises well-connected US government veterans Henry Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Michael Hayden, David Petraeus, and many others. The emails related to Alfa Bank also name Council officials Richard Burt, Daniel Fried, John Herbst and Richard Morningstar, all previously US ambassadors to European and/or Eurasian countries.
Such close ties to the US national security state unquestionably allow for very effective, well-targeted lobbying on behalf of its bankrollers indeed. Except Alfa Bank refused to bite…”
https://www.rt.com/russia/508350-leaked-emails-aslund-funds/
Nato’s most important strategic defence areas are the Black Sea, Caspian Sea and the Arctic. Here all our hostile and aggressive enemies wish to squeeze US and Nato out from our homelands and away from our Allies with hidden WMD’s. Therefore we will defend Georgia and Ukraine against the monsters that surround them and those who wish to do us harm!