The Turkish warplane in question was minding its own business, a symbol of peace, when it was viciously shot down out of the sky by the barbaric Syrian regime.

The Turkish plane in question was an F-4 flying along the edge of Syrian territorial waters at Mach 2, as a demonstration of NATO resolve that Assad has to make a deal.

The brave Turkish pilots merely followed standard procedure in demonstrating resolve to Syria that NATO won't tolerate the brutality of the Assad government, which meant briefly crossing into Sryian airspace, since the coastline has undulations that make it impractical at high speeds to turn all the time.

Proving that Syria is ready for war, and having invited Russian troops into the Middle East, the Syrians had tracked the Turkish warplane with hostile intent, waiting to lure it into a trap, since they hadn't fired before.

Using advanced Russian weaponry, the Syrians then instantly blew the Turkish warplane out of the sky, proving to Russia that they could take out an F-4 with Russian weapons, a Syriam live fire exercise with two brave Turkes as the target.

Now the F-4 is not a new plane, although it kind of begs the question: How would Syria do against an F-16 using Russian weapons? How about a Super Hornet? How about a Raptor?

It seems like Ivan would like to know the answers to those burning questions of international politics.

Some would say we might as well see how the Super Hornet and the Raptor's do against Russian air defenses, and make the Syrian Air Force come out to defend high valued targets like an air defense installation, and see if the old kill ratios hold, which is Ivan's motive, to see if we've still got it.

If we don't do that, Ivan will assume that they don't hold anymore. Or, of course, it could just be a baby test of such things, if leveling the air defense installation in question is a reasonable Tit for the Syrian Tat as to that strategy of cooperation, Tit for Tat, or else you look weak, and the other party challenges resolve again.

finis