We know for sure that Syria intentionally shot down a Turkish — and thus protected by NATO — warplane in its airspace. We also know that Syria is comfortable enough to admit it.
Syria said Friday it shot down a Turkish military plane that entered Syrian air space, and Turkey vowed to “determinedly take necessary steps” in response.
It was the most clear and dramatic escalation in tensions between the two countries, which used to be allies before the Syrian revolt began in March 2011. Turkey has become one of the strongest critics of the Syrian regime’s brutal response to the country’s uprising.
Late Friday, Syria’s state-run news agency, SANA, said the military spotted an “unidentified aerial target” that was flying at a low altitude and at a high speed.
“The Syrian anti-air defenses counteracted with anti-aircraft artillery, hitting it directly,” SANA said. “The target turned out to be a Turkish military plane that entered Syrian airspace and was dealt with according to laws observed in such cases.”
It seems pretty clear that the Syrians know the consequences of their actions. NATO (including deluded US hawks who are happy to ignore the disastrous consequences of the drug war on the US border while talking up more intervention in the middle east) and the NATO-backed Syrian opposition has been looking for any excuse to get stuck into a new interventionist mission. We know that the NATO-backed opposition were prepared to try and get a British journalist killed in a false flag operation in order to trigger a Western intervention.
So why did Russia-armed Syria do it? And why (given the age of F-4 aircraft, it could easily have crashed of its own accord giving the Syrians a lot of plausible deniability) are they not at least denying that they shot it down?
Is it possible that the wider Eurasian anti-American coalition led by the Russians and the Chinese are confident that NATO will not intervene out of fear of triggering a wider war? After all the Russian naval base has been a great obstacle to NATO intervention. Libya didn’t have any Russian bases, and it took far less internal violence for NATO to intervene there.
Is it even possible that the Eurasians are trying to provoke NATO into another costly and damaging war? After all, the American Empire is much more indebted and militarily overstretched than it was before 9/11. Osama bin Laden’s goal of dragging the United States into the middle eastern quagmire, and thereby bankrupting America has been an unmitigated success. Could the Eurasians be trying to provoke a regional war in order to weaken NATO and draw attention away from their own weakened economic picture?
Or is this just a case of an overzealous Syrian military commander taking a potshot at an unidentified flying object and provoking a diplomatic crisis?
As someone who does not believe that war is in any way an economic stimulus and should be avoided beyond self-preservation, I hope that this crisis — and the wider Syrian situation — can be defused.
Those who want to see a big military-Keynesian stimulus may be hoping for an escalation…