Turkish F-4 shotdown

Relations between Syria and Turkey have declined rapidly since the beginning of the civil uprising against Assad's regime with Turkey agreeing to house refugees fleeing from the civil war and Syria claiming that the border between the two countries has become a major gateway for the flow of illegal arms and fighters it claims are supporting the anti-government forces operating within the country. Matters seemed to have reached near boiling point with the revelation two days ago that a Turkish military aircraft undergoing testing of an indigenous radar system went missing near the Syrian border with the Syrian Government later confirming that it's air-defence network had shot down the Turkish F-4 Phantom because it had illegally entered Syrian Air-Space. 

Turkish F-4 Phantom

In response to this admission the Turkish Government made a statement confirming that the incident would be discussed during the next meeting of NATO powers and whilst the Turkish administration have repeatedly claimed that military intervention in Syria would not be the best course of action, other nations in the alliance with a more positive outlook on military intervention like the United States could utilize this shoot-down incident as possible reasoning for some form of military intervention or action against the Syrian regime and it's armed forces, this comes despite the fact the Turkish President confirmed later on the possibility that the Turkish aircraft could of illegally entered Syrian airspace, confirming the official statement from the Syrian Government.

Syrian claim of aircrafts movement

Of course this brings up more questions then awnsers. The Turkish Defence Ministry claims that it lost contact with its F-4 Phantom over the Turkish province of Hatlay whilst the Syrian Defence Ministry claim that its air-defence network engaged and shot down the aircraft 1km off the Syrian coast, several kilometres from the province of Hatlay and well within Syrian territory, so who is telling the truth? If the Turkish Defence Ministry is correct then the Syrian Air-Defence force acted prematurely and it could hint that some within the network are deeply fearful of the type of international intervention that was seen in Libya however if the Syrian Defence Ministry was correct it creates another series of questions that need to be answered, did this aircraft accidentally stray into Syrian air-space or was it ordered to? Opening the possibility that this was part of a test of the capabilities and loyalty of the Syrian Air-Defence network before an organized international intervention.

So we have three possible scenarios.

1. The Syrian Air-Defence Network acted out of fear of an international intervention and shot down a Turkish military aircraft within Turkish airspace with our without permission from higher up the command structure.
2. The Syrian Air-Defence Network shot down a Turkish military aircraft that accidentally strayed into Syrian air-space either in an act of fear or a signal to the international community.
3. The Syrian Air-Defence Network shot down a Turkish military aircraft that was performing intelligence operations against the Syrian air-defence network and was eliminated in a clear signal to the Western powers that outside military intervention like in Libya would be defended against far more comprehensively then in Libya

Only time will tell if any of these scenarios I have put forward are even remotely correct, although at the moment the evidence is currently pointing towards scenario number two as the most likely option.

Syrian Revolution

It has become a sad reality that the once peaceful Syrian revolution, a call for democracy and freedom has been hijacked by internal and foreign religious extremists that don't wish to create a democratic state and instead wish to use a de-stabilized Syria as a training centre for insurgents and as a weapon against the Iranian regime, this however has not hardly been covered by the mainstream media who appear to take the word of opposition groups operating outside and inside the country as gospel as it seems they continue to push towards military intervention.

Luckily for me and others news agencies like Russia Today continue to report such stories so one can discover what is actually happening inside the country and it certainly paints a disturbing picture. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are actively financing and arming the Syrian opposition fighters regardless of the groups actual ambitions for the country. These groups have been responsible for a wave of massacres and ambushes that have killed dozens of Syrian civilians and soldiers over the past few months, of course the Syrian regime itself is not completely innocent and it has it's own civilian militia that have carried out similar crimes in areas outside government control however the involvement of foreign powers in Syria's internal affairs leans towards the assumption that the Arab League is not interested in the UN peace plan and simply wishes to continue the current chaos in Syria.

Saudi Arabia has even been caught by secret cameras organizing an auction for people to sell off their own family members to carry out suicide attacks that have killed hundreds of civilians and members of the security services. It appears then that certain members of the Arab League have a vested interest in prolonging the current state of civil war inside Syria to either be used as a facility for training insurgents or as a weapon against Iran by destroying one of the countries only allies.

I don't see any easy or even a difficult solution for the current strife in Syria however I think that the Russians and even the Iranians hold the key to ending the violence in Syria as quickly as possible, sadly however I don't think the powers that be have any interest in whatever the Russian Government is planning.

UK's failed foreign policy - Syria

Over the years I have found myself growing further to the stance of non-interventionism, researching civil wars and regional conflicts across history has taught me that often interfering in another countries internal or regional affairs often ends up to be a wasted effort and can also cause major problems further down the line, examples of Afghanistan, Iran and Nicaragua spring to mind.

This policy of non-interventionism puts me at odds with the increasingly aggressive foreign policy of the United Kingdom, of course the UK has always been partially aggressive but during the Cold War it kept within it's own sphere of influence (Former Empire) only interfering in places like Yemen and Oman when they were facing a clear danger from extremist insurgents or acting in self-defence in the case of Argentine aggression over the Falkland Islands. The United States were the one playing diplomatic and military chess with the Soviet Union with United Kingdom and other powers on both sides playing a minor supporting role, sadly this policy has changed

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent political, social and economic collapse in Russia created a tsunami of change not just in Europe but across the wider world, although Russia maintained it's seat on the security council it's leadership was Pro-Western and was facing more pressing internal issues to deal with then the  UNSC. The Chinese were also facing issues around economic reform and the return of Hong Kong province and could easily be persuaded to abstain on certain issues especially without the support of their former Soviet comrades.

Although the resolution permitting military action in Libya was allowed to pass through the UNSC, the passage of any similar bill aimed towards foreign intervention in Syria is practically impossible. United Russia (the ruling party in Russia) was severely damaged in the recent State Duma elections partially for it's inaction over Libya. Syria is also a key Russian ally in the region and on top of purchasing billions of Russian weapons and provides a key naval base for Russian naval patrols in the region the Syrian regime is also a key stabilizer of the Iranian regime and keep a relative close eye on various insurgent groups that if unwatched could not just threaten the region but also support Russian insurgents in the troubled Russian provinces of Dagestan and Chechnya

Tartus Naval Base

In my opinion the United Kingdom's policy on Syria seems to have been effected by emotions rather then logic, although the Syrian regimes use of the military to crack down on protesters has been excessive and criminal the United Kingdom acted too rapidly to close it's embassy and cut off all diplomatic ties with the Syrian regime even as far as calling it illegitimate. International pressure from countries like Russia and China have led to the Syrian regime writing and allowing the people to vote on a new constitution and although the constitution fails on several key areas it's a step in the right direction. International organizations like the Red Cross and it's local affiliation the Syrian Red Crescent have also been negotiating with the Syrian regime in order to bring humanitarian supplies into Homs and allow seriously wounded civilians to leave the city for more complicated medical treatment another step in the right direction for a diplomatic solution to this crisis.

Syrian Arab Red Crescent ambulances

People and government officials from various nations have been calling for various governments to arm the Free Syrian Army so it can fight against the Syrian regime however those that know even recent history would know that option is fraught with danger. The Syrian Military has surrounded the city with armour, artillery and heavy mortars in a siege formation, arming the Free Syrian people even with the most advanced light weapons and mortars would not provide them with the adequate fire-power to break the siege. The situation reminds me of the siege of Sarajevo when the Bosnian Defence Force was completely surrounded in a siege by forces of the Republic of Srpska and unable to break out because they lacked heavy weaponry of any kind, the siege of Sarjevo lasted for four years and cost the lives of 10,000 civilians and was only stopped after direct military intervention from NATO under the allowance of the United Nations, arming the rebels could create this scenario which would spell disaster for the people of Homs especially with no United Nations resolution allowing the use of military assets to alleviate the siege.

In my opinion only a concerted diplomatic effort with China, Russia, the Arab League and even Iran can create an environment for democratic and constitutional reform that will end the violent crackdown in Syria. The United Kingdom and NATO/EU powers however seem to have completely forgotten that diplomacy is even an option and considering any movement towards UN sanctioned military intervention will be blocked by Russia and China unless some Hama scale massacre is carried out that shifts public opinion towards allowing intervention. It seems likely then that the Syrian people will continue to suffer for many months if not years as the Syrian security services continue to attempt to quell the unrest and the impact of the economic sanctions is felt on the economy.