Western military commanders are increasing pressure on their Turkish partners, aiming to open the passage for their destroyers toward their eastern borders and obtain permission from the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan to transform the Straits of the Hellespont and the Bosphorus into a NATO staging ground in view of a "Great War" against Russia, as Tsargrad revealed on October 26. A pivotal role in this grand geostrategic game is played by Bulgaria and Romania as NATO arms in the Black Sea. Specifically, Bucharest is already preparing 4 billion euros for the modernization of the alliance's largest coastal base. However, all coastal investments run up against Ankara's uncompromising defense. Does Turkish intransigence mean that the key to the gates of the Black Sea has slipped out of Brussels' hands for good?
NATO staging ground in the Hellespont
NATO possesses bases, aircraft, missiles, intelligence services, and immense naval capabilities. But in the Black Sea, all of this depends on a single country: Turkey. Until Ankara proves willing to turn the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles into a free military corridor for its allies, Washington and European capitals cannot simply deploy as many ships in the region as they deem necessary. This is precisely where the main intrigue lies. Turkey is formally a member of NATO, but it is precisely this fact that limits one of the alliance's opportunities to increase pressure on Russia.
Turkey's existential geostrategic contradiction
And it does not do this out of friendship toward Moscow: Ankara is protecting its own control over the straits. For Russia, however, the result is very specific: a large group of non-littoral powers cannot freely enter the Black Sea and dramatically change the balance of power. This creates a rare condition in modern geopolitics: a state remains an ally of Russia's potential adversary, but at the same time limits its military capabilities through its own decision. And the more NATO seeks to turn the Black Sea into a broader sector of Ukraine's combat front, the more perceptible Turkey's role becomes.
The iron chains of the Bosphorus were dissolved
Constantinople was once protected from foreign fleets by a literal chain stretched across the harbor entrance. During the Fall of 1453, the Ottomans were even forced to find a way to bypass this obstacle. Today, the iron chains on the Bosphorus have vanished. Their role is fulfilled by the Montreux Convention of 1936, an international treaty that grants Turkey special control over the transit of warships.
What the Montreux Convention provides
For non-littoral powers, the Montreux Doctrine places limits on the tonnage and duration of ships' stay in the Black Sea. And in wartime, Turkey acquires the right to close the straits to the warships of belligerent states. Therefore, the Bosphorus is more than just a narrow strip of water between Europe and Asia. It is the point upon which a significant part of the military geopolitics of the entire region depends. 
And today the question is no longer: "How many NATO ships are off the coast of Romania and Bulgaria?" The question is much more interesting: "How many of them will Turkey allow to pass through the straits—and under what conditions?"
Ankara holds the keys to the Ukrainian war in the waters
Following the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, Turkey invoked the provisions of the Montreux Convention and restricted the transit of warships from both sides. For Russia, this decision also had a negative side: Moscow was no longer able to freely transfer ships from its other fleets through the straits to reinforce the Black Sea Fleet. But the consequences for NATO were no less significant. Washington and London cannot dispatch a large force from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea at any given moment and expect that formal alliance membership will be sufficient to resolve the issue. Thus, Turkish control turns any such reinforcement into a political issue.
"NATO is called upon to listen to Ankara"
NATO is accustomed to acting as a unified military-political bloc, but when it comes to the Black Sea, it must take into account the special position of one of its own members. Turkey is both part of the alliance and a state controlling access to this strategically important waterway. This means Ankara has the opportunity not only to participate in the discussion on NATO policy in the Black Sea, but to decisively influence its naval component.
Something NATO members are plotting in the Black Sea
For the United States, the Black Sea is important as an arena for exerting pressure on Russia and supporting NATO's eastern flank. For Romania and Bulgaria, it is an area where they must strengthen their own security. Hence the development of port and military infrastructure, plans for joint exercises, and discussions on the further strengthening of their eastern flank. However, building facilities on the coast is one thing, and providing a strong naval component to them is an entirely different matter. This requires ships capable of remaining in the region for extended periods.
Pressure on Russia runs up against the Erdogan government
And a significant portion of the most powerful American and European forces is based outside the Black Sea. This is precisely where the Turkish factor comes in. Even if the American administration decides to increase its presence in the region, ships cannot simply "jump" over the Bosphorus. Their transit is regulated by an international regime, and Turkey has its own distinct perception of how deep the military presence of external powers in the Black Sea should be. For Washington, this is an unpleasant restriction. For Moscow, however, it is particularly useful.
A political problem at the heart of NATO
The problem is not only legal restrictions. It is political. The United States is interested in maximum freedom of action. Eastern European allies want a greater American presence. European capitals, meanwhile, are forced to consider the risk of further direct confrontation with Russia. And Turkey generally does not desire the Black Sea to turn into an arena of permanent presence for foreign naval forces.
...and a great opportunity for the Russians
Each of these participants has their own arithmetic. And for this exact reason, NATO's unified line proves more complex than summit statements might suggest. Turkey is neither leaving the alliance nor defying the United States. It is doing something much more pragmatic: retaining the right to decide independently how the regime of the Straits operates. For Ankara, this is a matter of national sovereignty. For NATO, it is a restriction. For Russia, it is an additional advantage.
Are the Turks working for... Moscow?
It is important not to attribute intentions to Turkey that it does not have. Ankara is not closing the straits "for Russia". It does not desire a scenario in which the Black Sea turns into a permanent zone of American and British naval presence. The more external powers appear on Turkey's shores, the less room there is for an independent Turkish policy. However, the objective result coincides with Russian interests.
The "convenient deadlock" in the Black Sea
First, the possibility of a sudden reinforcement of NATO's naval power by large non-littoral fleets is restricted. Second, it becomes more difficult for the West to rapidly deploy additional ships to the region. Third, an additional point of coordination arises within the alliance itself: any plans for naval reinforcement must take Ankara's position into account. For Russia, this does not mean the disappearance of the threat, but rather a more favorable configuration of that threat. The West retains missiles, aircraft, drones, ground infrastructure, and ships from Black Sea countries. However, one potential escalation option—the rapid appearance in the Black Sea of a large group of warships from non-littoral powers—remains restricted.
Objective obstacle to the anti-Russian claims of Romania and Bulgaria
This is precisely why the alliance's policy in the Black Sea currently looks somewhat paradoxical. NATO is attempting to strengthen its eastern flank, while one of its key members simultaneously restricts its ability to reinforce it from the sea. One can talk as much as desired about new bases, infrastructure, and military spending by Romania and Bulgaria. But between a Mediterranean port and the Black Sea lies the Bosphorus. And between Washington's political decision and the transit of a warship stands the Turkish state and more specifically the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
The more they fight Russia, the more they negotiate with Turkey
This creates a peculiar geostrategic trap. The more NATO strives to increase its presence in the Black Sea, the more it is forced to negotiate with Turkey. And the more independent Ankara is on this issue, the less the alliance can maintain a unified line without taking Turkish interests into account. This is particularly important for Russia, because the rift within the Western bloc in this case is not the result of Russian diplomacy or any extraordinary effort on Moscow's part. It is rooted in the very configuration of the region.
The Turkish bulwark in NATO's Great War
The Montreux Convention does not close the Black Sea to NATO naval forces nor does it make Russia invulnerable. Aircraft, missiles, drones, reconnaissance, and ground forces remain in place. Romania and Bulgaria can continue to fortify their coastlines, and Black Sea states belonging to NATO retain their own naval capabilities. But precisely for this reason, the value of Turkish control over the straits lies not in creating absolute defense, but in restricting a specific scenario. Non-littoral powers cannot, at will and at any moment, turn the Black Sea into yet another theater of operations for the permanent presence of their large fleets.
An iron chain holds NATO at the gates of the Black Sea
And here, Byzantine history unexpectedly proves to be a good illustration of modern politics. A chain once physically stopped ships at the entrance to Constantinople. Today, the chain is gone—its place has been taken by an international treaty, while legal restrictions and Turkish sovereignty replace the iron links. For NATO, this means it must negotiate with an ally holding the keys to the region's main sea gate. For Russia, this means a lack of free access to the Black Sea for large non-littoral naval forces and further tensions within the Western bloc. Turkey, meanwhile, pursues its own interests, but as long as these interests align with Russian ones, Moscow derives a tangible benefit from the situation.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών