Russian news agency RT is reporting that an airplane of Nordwind Airlines (a Russian charter service) was attacked by ground to air missiles as it flew through Syrian airspace today on a flight from Egypt to Russia. According to the story, the pilots managed to evade the missiles. There are a great many odd things about the report, but the main question raised by the news is whether or not this is a manufactured excuse for Russian armed forces to get involved in the fighting in Syria.
First of all, it is hard to imagine that and Airbus plane could avoid being hit by missiles fired at it. Most likely, the pilots would not even be aware that the missiles were closing on their craft.
Second, it is more than strange to think that either side in Syria would be interested in firing at a plane flying at 35,000 feet. At that height, there would be no easy way to know the identity of the aircraft, and firing blindly at an unidentified craft makes no sense.
Third, it is the Assad forces that have weapons like anti-aircraft missiles. Russia has long been a friend of Syria and a supporter of Assad. It seems extremely unlikely that the Assad forces would attack a Russian plane.
In other words, the story just does not make sense; it seems patently phony. Nevertheless, if one wanted to have a justification to use Russian planes to attack the rebels in Syria, claims that those rebels shot missiles at civilian Russian aircraft would work just fine. Also, if one wanted to justify sending Russian troops to seize the port of Tartus where Russia has a naval base, then unprovoked attacks on Russian planes again work just fine.
I hope that we are not witnessing the opening of heavy Russian involvement in Syria. It is imperative that the United States makes clear to the Russians in the clearest possible terms that we strongly oppose the introduction of any Russian troops into Syria.
First of all, it is hard to imagine that and Airbus plane could avoid being hit by missiles fired at it. Most likely, the pilots would not even be aware that the missiles were closing on their craft.
Second, it is more than strange to think that either side in Syria would be interested in firing at a plane flying at 35,000 feet. At that height, there would be no easy way to know the identity of the aircraft, and firing blindly at an unidentified craft makes no sense.
Third, it is the Assad forces that have weapons like anti-aircraft missiles. Russia has long been a friend of Syria and a supporter of Assad. It seems extremely unlikely that the Assad forces would attack a Russian plane.
In other words, the story just does not make sense; it seems patently phony. Nevertheless, if one wanted to have a justification to use Russian planes to attack the rebels in Syria, claims that those rebels shot missiles at civilian Russian aircraft would work just fine. Also, if one wanted to justify sending Russian troops to seize the port of Tartus where Russia has a naval base, then unprovoked attacks on Russian planes again work just fine.
I hope that we are not witnessing the opening of heavy Russian involvement in Syria. It is imperative that the United States makes clear to the Russians in the clearest possible terms that we strongly oppose the introduction of any Russian troops into Syria.
No comments:
Post a Comment