Turkey has stated that it will not allow two former Royal Navy ships intended for Ukraine to pass through its waters.

The country issued the following statement:

“The claim in some media outlets that “mine-hunting ships donated to Ukraine by the United Kingdom were allowed to pass through the Turkish Straits to the Black Sea” is not true.

Türkiye immediately classified Russia’s special military operation against Ukraine as “war” and, in accordance with Article 19 of the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits, closed the Straits to warships of the belligerent parties (Russia and Ukraine). Türkiye, which has implemented the Montreux Convention impartially and diligently since 1936, maintains its unwavering determination and principled stance throughout this war to prevent the escalation of tension in the Black Sea.

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.”

Britain said last month two Royal Navy minehunter ships are being transferred from the Royal Navy to the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) in a move to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to operate at sea.

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said:

“These minehunters will deliver vital capability to Ukraine which will help save lives at sea and open up vital export routes, which have been severely limited since Putin launched his illegal full-scale invasion. This capability boost marks the beginning of a new dedicated effort by the UK, Norway and our allies to strengthen Ukraine’s maritime capabilities over the long term, enhancing their ability to operate in defending their sovereign waters and bolstering security in the Black Sea. As an island nation with a proud maritime history, the UK and Royal Navy are particularly well-placed to support this endeavour, which will form part of a series of new coalitions formed between allies to ensure an enduring military commitment in support of Ukraine.”

But Turkey says it will not allow the vessels to use its Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits as the nation has implemented the 1936 Montreux Convention.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

100 COMMENTS

      • Agree

        Its international law in time of war and also prevents the Russians reinforcing and transferring warships from their northern and pacific fleets (also the Med / Syrian base)

        • The convention is only for the straight. These MCMV are small enough to go up the Rhine, along the canal to the Danube and out into the Black Sea via Romania. It will take a month at those river speeds but that’s only a week longer than the sea voyage will take. I’m surprised there is no talk of this option in this article.

          If they do get there what defences will they have? Can a Phalanx be fitted?

          p.s. I’m not the same Tim as the one commenting below. I’ve asked George about duplicate names before and nothing changed. You can see my comment history is different and a few years longer.

    • Indeed, when I read yesterday that a Sandown class vessel had been allowed through and was in Romanian waters I was very surprised but the article was quite clear that it had happened and that Putin was angry and was attacking Turkey for the action. Did wonder why it had not been more widely reported. Just shows how little you can believe at face value. Surely the UK didn’t think that Turkey would simply allow it, certainly hope all the words spoken weren’t the product of naivety or we will all be doing a Corporal Jones and shouting Don’t Panic I fear with the resulting decrease I Already low confidence that the MOD has any real grasp on reality if so.

      • I would be shocked if HMG actually tried to get those boats transited through the strait..it would effectively mean the end of the convention, Russia would have had the legal right to go to the UN and get the whole agreement nullified and then Russia would have transit rights under international law for whatever warships it wanted to move into the Black Sea….as under Normal laws of the sea a neural state is prohibited from preventing warships from transiting a strait….it would have been a profoundly stupid geopolitical fuck up to have effectively nullified the Montreux convention, which is a huge geostrategic advantage for Ukraine.

      • Article stated that the Sandown class ex-HMS Blyth entered the Port of Constanta, Romania on 19 Dec 23. Ex-HMS Pembroke scheduled to arrive early in 2024. Hmmm…who knows, perhaps the genesis of a plan to transport certain retitled UKR assets into the Black Sea and shelter in Romanian territorial water until an opportune time, may yet be formulated by the appropriate bureaucrat(s). 🤔😳😁

    • IT’s international law mate, a law we helped draw up….Turkey would be in complete violation of an international agreement if it let those boats through and Russia would be in the right to take Turkey to the UN have the whole convention ripped up and then demand transit rights for half the northern fleet..which it would then get under international law…the only thing protecting Ukraine from a massive Russian navel reinforcement is that bit of international law that Turkey has been fair and proper in policing.

      • The 1936 Montreux Convention allows for warships to transit the Bosphorus if they are travelling to their home port, which would certainly apply to the Ukrainian mine hunters. The Turks may be taking a stricter interpretation to keep things simple.

        • Hi no it’s only if they are “returning” to their home port, not “travelling to” their home port…very clear different on that point. The wording was very specific and purposeful

          the exact wording around the exclusion from the ban on warships of nations at war from using the strait to return to base is:

          “(2) they are forced to make the voyage to return to their home base.”

          There is no place in article 19 for a ship to be newly based and allowed freedom of movement, that would have negated the purpose of the article within the convention which was to deescalate a budding conflict in the Black Sea by limiting the ability of nations to reenforce fleets during time of conflict.

  2. It’s been the case for the whole 2 years though…..nothing allowed in, nothing allowed out, unless It’s Commercial.. Turkey controls the flow.

  3. I agree with the Turkish Government. Just imagine if the Russians decided to re home the Baltic fleet to the Black sea!!!!.

      • Remember Turkey is in NATO because Stalin threatened to take out Turkey unless it gave Russia land and equal control over the Bosporus. Probably best not to stir up a serious threat on a long standing treaty for the sake of two mine clearance vessels which the Russians would probably take out at some point. The Ukranians have been fed a great number of smaller vessels via the Danube to help them in keeping the channels mine free and Romania and Turkey are helping in this effort too which considering their waters make up the far greatest part of the route helping bolster Romania seems the best means of support.

      • without the convention under international law Russia would be able to move whatever the hell it wanted across the straits as a neutral nation Turkey would not have a legal right to prevent passage…in the same way Russia can trundle whatever it wants through the channel.

  4. They don’t have to go via the Dardenelles anyway, they can take the Rhine and Danube (which are connected by canal).

      • That’s interesting I was wondering if that were possible, I would suspect they would be able to and makes the public pronouncements far less inane if so. Will try to check

      • It wasn’t possible last year when low water levels in the Upper Rhine were disrupting water borne traffic, but I don’t know if that has now changed.

        • We have high water in germany everywhere – so rhine and Main as well as danube should work. Not so Sure on the canal between those but it might work.

      • Im pretty sure that Ukraine has been exporting grain via barges along this route as an alternative to the Black Sea, so I would imagine a Sandown should be ok. I think the most likely issue, as pointed out above, would be permissions from countries along the route. However, minesweepers aren’t exactly the most game changing of war materiel sent to Ukraine anyway.

    • We chatted about this on Navy Lookout and it seems Ukraine would need the permission of Germany, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Serbia and Romania as these are to be classed as naval vessels. Even for a mine-clearance ship, a couple of those might well say no.

      I did wonder about taking all the guns off, loading them with some lightweight merchandise, then taking them as STUFT after they arrived. Not sure if they could get away with that though.

        • I meant actually take all the guns off and send them separately overland. Really register the ships as civilian. I’d be willing to take passage on one of these new Ukrainian cruise ships if my country requested it. I’m sure the scenery would be very pretty.

          Of course a Q-ship might be fun too.

      • Serbia would undoubtedly block passage being aligned with Russia in quite alot of traits ie attacking their Neighbours in the former yugoslavia

      • I think we can all guess which countries would say no. One is what happens before dinner time. It begins with H and ends with ungary.
        Victor would let one of putins private yachts through.
        The EU and NATO need to come up with a naughty step, demoting system for when countries aren’t going with what everyone else in the Alliances are. See how long there position stands when funding gets cut, not allowed to attend meeting etc.

        • The EU has been withholding funds from Hungary for several years already, however up until recently the PiS government in Poland were backing them at the council level which frustrated any actions against them.

    • Do you bridges on the linking canal meet Sandown Class air draught requirements?

      I make that about 9-10m to the roof of the bridge, and about 14-17m to the top of the mast, depending how much can be dismantled.

      • Great point. Commercial traffic works on 6m and even that isn’t enough during flood season. Oh well, it was fun imagining.

  5. With the war ongoing, I don’t see what good they would do for now anyway? There’s a high chance they would just be damaged and/or destroyed by the Russians, creating a potentially embarrassing situation. Would it not be more useful to keep them operating/training in areas of importance to the UK with primarily Ukrainian crews, but still officially as British Royal Navy vessels? That way the Ukrainians would keep their personnel competent with minimal threat to them and, if things were to escalate with the Russians, the RN would de facto have additional crews to work with.

    • It might be hard for Ukraine but this is the treaty and Türkiye is doing the right thing.
      There is an opportunity here for Ukraine to build up a ready to go navy for when it can get through the straits.
      A few frigates/gunboats or whatever they will need.

      • I don’t dispute that at all and I also think the Turks are doing the correct thing. I feel that, even if the Turks were allowing them through I don’t think they should be. The Russians are seething at the loss of Landing Ship Novocherkask and attribute part of the blame for this to the UK. The sinking of a Ukrainian ship, supplied to them by the UK would likely be seen as a way to get petty revenge and somewhat even the scores. These ships in the Black Sea would be a liability, a propaganda loss waiting to happen.

    • I agree a better option unless they operate in Romanian waters which would mean if attacked we have an Article 5 though does anyone think that would trigger much Response? So potentially equally embarrassing.

  6. There is or could be a more direct river route – the North Sea to the Black sea inland
    For about 25 years there has been a 106 mile canal linking the Rhine to the Danube which will fit the Sandown class minesweepers

    Only problem is passing through certain countries – neutral Switzerland and Hungary and Serbia who may say no

    • That’s fcked then. Geez you certainly learn who your friends are don’t you. Ironically Serbia might actually be the easiest of the three.

      • Not really, the current leadership is Pro Russian to the point allowing Russian recruitment of Serbs and harassment of Russians that fled the Conscription according to reports.

  7. Surely the UK Government knew this would happen if the vessels were under Ukrainian command. The vessels should have remained under UK command, as RN vessels, but with Ukrainian crews then they could have gone anywhere.

    • That would cause all sorts of issues for when they reached Ukraine. Putin would proclaim it as a British Provocation
      A better system would be to sell to an intermediate civilian company that takes it to Ukraine and then sells it. During the transit the ship would be civilian and immune (in theory) to attack.

    • No Turkey would still have been forced to say no under the convention..any warship that is transitioning to take part in the conflict is banned from transiting…

  9. FFS, what is it with this site and sending edited posts to the spam folder.
    I don’t know what all the fuss is about:

    As per the 1936 Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits  (which refers to passage to and from the Black sea via the Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits . Turkey is the arbiter of who can and cant travel through Turkish waters. In a nutshell Civilian traffic have no issues, but there are caveats on Military ships which is why on the 28th of Feb 2022 Turkey made this announcement
      Turkey Closes the Dardanelles and Bosphorus to Warships

    Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, made significant remarks to the press following the cabinet meeting held on 28 February evening. The primary topic of his announcement was Turkey’s course of action about the measures over the passing regime across the straits under the Montreux Convention. He stated that the Turkish government has warned all countries (whether bordering the Black Sea or not) not to send warships via the straits to the Black Sea during the Russia-Ukraine war. He emphasized that no such attempt has occurred thus far.

    “When Turkey is not a belligerent in the conflict, it has the authority to restrict the passage of the warring states’ warships across the straits. If the warship is returning to its base in the Black Sea, the passage is not closed. We adhere to the Montreux rules. All governments, riparian and non-riparian, were warned not to send warships across the straits.”

    In doing so Turkey has denied Moscow to reinforce its Black sea fleet (including 2 missile ships home ported in the Black sea , which lets be honest, it really would like to see transpire. If Ankara allowed in these 2 ‘Ukrainian ‘ ships it would open the door for Moscow. Even a blind man wearing welding goggles 100 feet underground in a blacked room on the dark side of the moon would see that, but hey all credit to the British Defence Minister for trying.

    • Interestingly, the bit about all governments is actually in breach of the convention..as it’s only nations at war/armed conflict that are banned under the convention…I suspect the west is not willing to push this as if the convention were to be legally challenged and fail, then the fall back position would be the laws of the sea on “strait transits” .which would make it illegal for Turkey to prevent any nations warships from transiting the straits..including Russian warships..so it’s not in the interests of the west to in anyway cast doubt on turkeys use of the convention in this cases..even if it’s not legitimate to ban all warship transits.

  10. I think you will find the convention does allow ships under 15000 tonnes. The convention was designed to stop battleships going through. Turkey is a member of Nato and therefore difficult to stop them unless it leaves. Edorgan wants something I suspect, but what ? Russia is hardly in a position to punish Turkey.

    • I think you are talking about two different things actually, yes there’s a displacement limit on what ships can regularly transit the Straits in normal conditions, but there is also the fact in the treaty that Turkey can ban ships of active combatants as the West called for at the start of the war.

      • It’s not “can” ban…it’s “must” ban..it’s simply not allowed in the convention for Turkey to allow transits of warships of nations at war unless they are returning to their home base.

          • article 20 is only when Turkey is at war and a belligerent state…

            the following applies to each article.

            1-18 peace
            19 belligerent states that are neutral to turkey
            20 belligerent states when Turkey is also a belligerent state
            21 Turkey believes and has evidence it is at threat of immediate war.

            turkey cannot use the content of each article out of the context it was written for. Otherwise it will simply be overturned at the UN.

    • Different parts of the convention..this is about article 19, if a nation is at war it is no longer allowed to transit warships into or out of the Black Sea…only exceptions are for ships returning to base ( returning not newly posted) or ships as part of a UN mission..the tonnage relates to transits by nations at peace.

        • No it has enacted article 19, it has no choice in that matter. Article 21 only comes into force if turkey believes it is under “immediate” threat of war. It has not stated as such and has not enacted article 21 as it has allowed a russian war ship through the strait to return to its base as per the requirements of article 19..enacted article 21 is essentially part of war mobilisation and means that all warships even those who’s base is the Black Sea are band. It has not enacted article 21 even during to many near war spats with greece.

          to be clear if Turkey tried to enact article 21 Russia would be at liberty to take Turkey to the United Nations to get the enactment overturned….as no nation is threatening Turkey.but Turkey clearly stated it was enacting article 19.

          As I noted before, the fact it’s said no other warships may pass goes beyond its legal power under article 19 but the west is not pushing it as A) no one wants to escalate by sending warships to the Black Sea B) they don’t want to have to take Turkey to the UN to get it overturned as that would jeopardise the future of the convention.

          • Turkey has blocked all warships which is an A21 power. Russia could go to the League of Nations by right, but it’s effectively Turkey’s choice. The LoN no longer exists, and any appeal to the UN would be subject to veto.
            If you read A21 you’ll see it also has a return to base provision.

  11. It’s actually really important that Turkey maintains the Montreux convention and it’s been completely down the line with its management of the straits using the convention and it has to be..Russia has been trying to play fast and loss and push the bounds of the convention..but Turkey has held firm if it was then to push the bounds for Ukraine..then it would have no answer to Russia requests and Ukraine would end up with half the Northern fleet parked on its doorstep…as is Russia is running out of navel assets in the Black Sea.

    The crux of it is Turkey maintaining the validity of article 19 of the convention, which says that Turkey “must” bar access to the straits of any belligerent powers at war, so as soon as your at war your not allowed to transit warships through the strait into or out of the Black Sea. Turkey does not have a choice on this its obligation is under international law.

    Now article 19 has one interesting caveat..and Russia has already tried to abuse this…Black Sea nations at war May transit warships through the strait back to their base in the Black Sea if they were separated from their base..but they have to have been based in the Black Sea before start of war…so Russia has sent a pretty large number of requests to Turkey for random warships to return to their base in the Black Sea..Turkey has done its due diligence and only allowed one ship to return..all the others were northern fleet ships Russia was trying to sneak into the back sea…

    So if Turkey let in these 2 ships as newly based in the Black Sea, it would break the convention and Russia could rightly go to the UN and whatever warships it wanted transiting through.

    One other interesting point is article 19 is that not only does it relate to ships going into into the Black Sea but also out of the Black Sea…so if Russia was ever at war with say Saudi Arabia it could not transit ships out of the Black Sea, to attack Saudi…the Black Sea fleet would be stuck in the Black Sea…that was one of Britain’s requirements in the convention…we did not want the Soviet’s sneaking battleships and subs out the Black Sea if we were ever at war….and just to show how the geopolitical situation always changes the US had nothing to do with the convention and refused to attend, as it was gong through a La la la stick our fingers in our ears and ignore the world moment.

  12. One final point if Turkey had allowed this it would have broken the 1936 convention..at which point Russia could have justified going to the Un to get the convention nullified…as Turkey and Ukraine would have broken the convention..at that point the standard laws of the sea would govern access to the straits and under the law of the sea a neutral power is not allowed to ban the transit of warships of powers at war through a strait ( only the 1936 convention bans these transits) which is why we have to let the Russian navy use the channel .

  13. So typical of this corrupt, lying and morally bankrupt Tory Government who care not a Jot for The Law
    In all honesty do any believe that Senior

    Government Legal advisors did not Impart legal wisdom to the MOD when the original announcement was made of this move .Note these are the only
    International waters that Ukraine has access to

    Just like ‘ The Rwanda legislation ‘ being pushed through Parliament this Government
    Is either so stupid or Gun Ho
    I rather lean heavily to Stupid because Law
    Makers cannot ever break the Law
    And with regards Rwanda tis akin to legislation that now requires all Dogs to be classified as being Cats

  14. Simple d9nt allow the ships through no euro fighters for Turkey and also no f16 fighter jets or engines etc from the yanks

    • They are upholding their obligations under Treaty, the exact same obligations thats stopping Russia from sending their ships through the Straits. I’m not sure where this anger is coming from tbh.

    • they are simply following international law..a law that we as a nation was fundamental in creating…an one which is protecting Ukraine from Russia re-enforcing the Black Sea fleet….if the legitimacy of the convention was to come under fire and Russia succeed in getting it overturned because Turkey and Ukraine broke the convention then only the international law of the sea on straits would apply and Russia could legally move whatever ships it wanted into the Black Sea.

  16. No surprise. Türkiye has always enforced the Montreux Convention, even in 1941/42 when it was leaning towards the Axis and under pressure to let Italian, German, Bulgarian and Rumanian ships and subs transit the narrows. The Germans instead had to invest a huge amount of effort to transport a small number of minor warships and auxiliary craft to the Black Sea.

  18. And the Headline on MSN says… “Turkey blocks Royal Navy ships sent to Ukraine as NATO falls apart”…. and to think millions believe their rubbish.

  19. Turkey’s position on this is defensible, but the argument that letting those mine hunters through the Bosphorus would somehow invalidate the Convention is not credible. Articles 20 and 21 state that Turkey can allow or prevent the passage of any warship it so chooses, if Turkey should “consider herself to be threatened with imminent danger of war”. In any case, the precise legal provisions of the Convention are of limited consequence because: a) It was only signed for a 20 year period, i.e. Russia could renounce it any time it wanted to; b) Treaty or no treaty- the Bosphorus is a 500m-wide channel through the middle of Istanbul, so if the Turks say you’re not going through there- you’re not going through there.

  20. In the context of Ukrainian & Russian Black sea war contested waters I wonder what value these very lightly armed & vulnerable MCM ships would be. Zero AA/SAM?ASuM, negligable surface capability, zero ASW. Just MCM or patrol. Better NATO gets some Corvettes built in Romania or Bulgaria for UKR.

  21. I have a sense that with the exception of one or two readers here, everyone knew that this was always going to happen. As much as some would protest, it also prevents Russia from bolstering their Black sea fleet.

    • Well it was always the case from the start. Ukraine may have been gifted these MH’s but there was never any chance they would ever get to the Black Sea. And No hope of them going via the Danube either.

    • I suspect our gov. and Turkey’s probably agreed this in advance so now the next time the Russians moan Turkey can point to this. Totally predictable.

  24. I’m pretty sure that those conventions don’t apply to ships returning to their home port in the Black Sea and that Russia rebased a few of theirs near the start.

  25. OK so we can’t send them via the Bosporus, nor via the Rhine – Danube canal as we can’t rely on Serbia or Hungary to give their permission. Besides which it is 2,300 miles and take a month and every lock, bridge etc is an easy target. All you need is 1 guy with an ATGW or TPG. So the idea is just a no no.
    However we are presently trialing the next generation of Autonomous mine hunting kit on the RFA Stirling Castle which is the former MV Island Crown. So why not just buy her sister ships and send them back to the Romanian yard where they were built as civilian OSV. Then do the same conversion we did and equip them for Ukraine and let them trial the kit out for real ?
    No treaty would be broken and we get to if the concept really works ?

  26. A pity that the 2 x MCMVs were not British owned and flagged to allow transit and then for ownership to transfer to UKR when in UKR designated home port. Someone did not think this through.

    • Another Sandown NCMV was sold to Romania in September and arrived in Constanta their main naval base near the mouth of the Danube just before Christmas
      This begs many questions as the 2 Ukrainian Sandown class have been training in the UK in Scotland for over a year

  27. Slightly off topic. Turkey has apparently greenlit the next stage of the project to build Anadolu’s sister carrier. The Trakya (Turkish for Thrace as Anadolu is for Anatolia) will probably be another Navantia design based on the Juan Carlos. I find this fascinating because Anadolu was originally built for the F-35B, which Turkey no longer can buy. They must be really happy with their drone carrier programme if they are purposely building another “aircraft carrier without aircraft”.

    All those people who claim the QECs are totally reliant on F-35B please take note.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here