1. All the other ships but the Kuz were accepted by the turks, additionally. Russia at that time was permitted to build the ships there etc carriers and move them out of the black sea but could not move them back into it.
So they are not banned from the Black Sea, only banned from being based there... which is ridiculous because why would they want to base it there... that is just stupid.
It was special permission granted by the turks which they have the power to do.
They let it through because it does not meet the definition of being an Aircraft carrier.
Turkey was in a tough spot at the time it did not want to be caught between the USSR and the US, so it made small concessions like this to keep the soviets happy, the ships were allowed to sail out but never sail back in.
Turkey allowed it to pass because they accepted the definition of aircraft carrying cruiser...
2. Ah this document, I know it you should read page 20. Additionally nowhere in that document does it define what an AC is, its opinion. You could argue educated opinion but opinion never the less, so the document is worthless. This was also over 20 years ago standards and practices have long since changed.
The Document is from the US Navy and is non binding and merely shows the US interpretation of the treaty and its implications. Any definition there would have no meaning to the actual agreement any more than anything I say regarding my opinion does not effect the treaty either.
The facts are the facts.
The treaty bans the transit of aircraft carriers weighing more than 15k tons... the fact that the Kuznetsov and the Kiev class ships and incomplete carriers owned by the Ukraine all exited the Straits suggests they decided to not define them as being aircraft carriers.
3. Indeed there was an agreement, they could make the ships and sail them out of the straight but they couldn't sail them back into it, that is what the turks agreed to at the time.
That is irrelevant...
4. Doesn't change the facts it's banned from the Black Sea
It wasn't banned from the Black Sea... it was in the Black Sea.
5. You just lied on what the treaty states if you can't be honest do not talk, the only thing it states what defines an AC is this "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea."
The primary purpose of the Kuznetsov is to sink US carriers using Granit anti ship missiles. The aircraft are there to protect the ship from the US carrier aircraft that would be trying to stop it.
the Kuzen and the Amp ships fall under this definition.
What is a Kuzen? And these ships are landing ships designed to deploy naval infantry armoured units on to a beach that also carry aircraft to support its primary role of landing armour and troops.... which means it definitely not an aircraft carrier.
6. No, my statement wasn't stupid that's just how it is, the Montreux Convention didn't go into detail on what defines an AC sides that one line I gave you. You can complain and call that stupid all you want but I didn't write the thing that's just how it is.
The treaty was intended to be vague to make it flexible... they have had 90 years to revise it but they haven't... because it does what they want.... it keeps British and French and American aircraft carriers out and allowed Soviet carriers to be build and if needed repaired. These days the problem is moot because they wont be building or repairing real aircraft carriers in the Black Sea. They will more likely be building and also repairing them in the Far East shipyards.
If it was up to me I wouldn't risk it & would build them elsewhere but I don't believe Russia would commit to building these without being clear that Turkey won't cause an issue.
The new shipyards they have built to make large ships are in the Far East so it wont be an issue.
Again they accepted the others because they where primary cruisers but there is also another reason. In order for Turkey to fight the Soviet Union on the designation of ‘aircraft carrying cruisers’, it would need the full weight of NATO. What Turkey feared was that it lose its grip on the straits and other countries would get too much share of the control. So Turkey accepted the silly designation.
So Turkey accepted...
Turkey back then did not like what the USSR was pulling with the cruiser fiasco, trying to dress up the ships to violate the convention.
What are you talking about... why would Turkey give a fuck about the USSR sailing big ships through the Strait?
Violate?? There is not raping involved here. Turkey decides what goes through and they allowed them through... end of story.
There was no formal agreement on writing just a temporary agreement with words
Then how do you know it even happened?
There is no requirement for agreements... secret or otherwise... the Soviets said they are aircraft carrying cruisers and Turkey said OK.
Now times have changed the entire "aircraft-carrying cruiser" designation means nothing,
In the end Turkey gets to decide what "Aircraft carrier" Means Russia doesn't get an ass-end say in the matter.
Hahahahahaha... but what has changed? Why was Turkey so afraid of the Soviet Union and not afraid of losing control of the straits now?
If Turkey want to play silly buggers Russia can simply say they will not recognise the convention and just use the international laws on the right of passage through straits connecting international waters to other bits of international waters and sail through anything they like.
Russua has zero control over any of this and the Kuzen is banned from the straights as it was designed for the purpose of carrying large amounts of aircraft at sea.
So how did it get out of the Black Sea?
Turkey has control currently so it is in their interests to meet the needs of all the countries who have territory in the Black Sea including Russia.
The purpose was always to prevent Britain and France from sending large ships there to threaten Turkey ironically... and now it continues to do so as well as stopping the US sending ships in large numbers and for long periods too.