Il 20 September 2018 the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Air Force, general Amikan Norkin, he hastily arrives in Moscow to present his version of events. After checking the evidence presented by Norkin and comparing it with the other recordings, It turns out that Israel is blatantly lying.

Il 17 September 2018 France, Israel and the United Kingdom carried out a joint operation on Syrian targets. During the short fights, a Russian reconnaissance plane was shot down by friendly Syrian fire. Analysis of recordings shows that an Israeli F-16 hid behind the Ilyushin Il-20 to mislead the Syrian defense.

The destruction of a Russian military plane by Israel, during a joint British-French-Israeli operation, it aroused amazement in all the chancelleries. If there was, since the beginning of the conflict, seven years ago, a red line regarding Syria, this was that the various protagonists should never have endangered the Russian forces, Americans and Israelis.
Few things are known with certainty about what happened, but it is certain that:
A British Tornado has taken off from Cyprus bound for Iraq. During the journey it violated Syrian airspace to scan the Syrian defenses and make the allied attack possible.
Less than an hour later, four Israeli F-16s and a French frigate, Auvergne, they fired on targets in Syria, in the governorship of Laodicea. Syrian anti-aircraft defense protected the country by firing S-200 counter-missiles at French and Israeli missiles.
During the battle an F-16 was shielded by a Russian Ilyushin Il-20, who was carrying out a surveillance and localization mission of jihadist drone launch stations in the area. The Syrian defense fired a missile aiming at the heat signature of the Israeli plane. Theoretically he could have destroyed the Russian plane by mistake.
However, this is a daring hypothesis: the S-200 missiles are in fact equipped with a system for recognizing friendly and enemy targets, a fact that the Russian Defense Ministry first confirmed, then denied. Be that as it may, Ilyushin was destroyed without it being known for certain by whom or how.
The cowardice of the British and French authorities led them to censor any information about their responsibilities in the operation. London had no comment, Paris denied the facts. Nor BBC nor France-Television they dared to address the issue. In these two countries the real nature of foreign policy is, now more than ever, removed from democratic debate.

Immediate interpretation of the facts

We do not know whether the destruction of the Russian plane and the consequent death of the 15 men on board are to be blamed, which is very unlikely, to the Israeli pilot, or to the Israeli army or allies who were carrying out the attack.
A possible conflict between four nuclear powers depends on the answer to this question. The situation is therefore extremely serious. There are no precedents since the establishment of the Russian Federation, a fine 1991.
The British-French-Israeli aggression is the response to the Russian-Turkish agreement signed in Sochi a few hours earlier. It comes after the refusal of the United States, at the beginning of September, to bomb Syria under a false pretext and send a US delegation to the Arab world to distance itself from British-French initiatives [1].
The Sochi agreements were signed by Türkiye under strong pressure from Russia. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had refused to sign the Memorandum in Tehran on the withdrawal of jihadist and Turkish forces in Idlib and President Vladimir Putin had responded harshly to him: on the one hand, reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria [2], on the other, underlining, for the first time, illegitimacy, according to international law, of the Turkish presence in Syria. Very worried, ten days later Erdoğan accepted an invitation to Russia.
The Sochi agreement, thanks to Russian energy contracts, it distances Turkey a little further from NATO and at the same time forces Ankara to withdraw, in fact, from part of the occupied Syrian territory, under the pretext of more effective protection of the pseudo "rebels" gathered in the Idlib governorate [3]. What's more, Turkey has only one month to confiscate the heavy weapons of its Al Qaeda and Daesh friends in the demilitarized zone [4].
For London, Paris and Tel Aviv the agreement is evidently unacceptable because:
predicts, a termine, the end of the jihadist army, which has been framed for decades, organized and manipulated by London [5];
it implies the end of the dream of a French mandate over Syria and the establishment of a new French colony in the north of the country, under the misleading name of Kurdistan (the only legitimate Kurdistan is the one within the borders recognized by the Sèvres Conference of 1920: not in Iran, not in Iraq, not in Syria, but in present-day Türkiye [6]);
implies, with a stable Syria protected by Russia, the end of Israeli rule in the region.

Medium-term interpretation of the facts

The British-French-Israeli military alliance has not been in action since the Suez Canal crisis, In the 1956. At the time, Anthony Eden, Guy Mollet and David Ben Gurion had jointly deployed their forces to humiliate the Arab nationalists, in particular the Egyptian Gamal Abdel Nasser, and restore the English and French colonial empires («Operation Musketeer»).
Exactly the same thing happened with the attack on Laodicea: as confirmed by the general secretary of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, none of the targets were tied, not even remotely, to Iran or Hezbollah. This British-French-Israeli action was not even in any way linked to the international fight against jihadists, in general, is Daesh, in particular. It cannot even be linked to the desire to overthrow the Syrian Arab Republic or its president, Bashar al-Assad. The main objective was to kill military scientists, in particular the rocket specialists from the Institute of Technical Industries of Laodicea.
We are therefore faced with the resumption and continuation of the policy of targeted killings, that Israel has been conducting for about twenty years against scientists, initially Iraqi, then Iranians, now Syrians. It is one of the pillars of colonial policy: prevent subjugated peoples from reaching the same level of education as their masters. Once upon a time, Westerners prevented slaves from learning to read by punishing them with the death penalty. This policy was relaunched with the British-French-American bombing (14 April 2018), whose only demolished target was the Barzeh scientific research center [7], then with the breaking of the agreements 5+1 with Iran (JCPoA), which forced this country to close nuclear physics faculties (8 maggio 2018).
The tasks are divided: jihadists the destruction of the past, to Westerners the destruction of the future.

Long-term interpretation of facts

After Russia deployed, il 13 September 2015, its troops to help Syria fight against terrorists, the allies of the United States understood that it would not be possible to carry out the US plan without risking a world war. With the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House, the allies have progressively called into question their war objectives, they abandoned those of the "Friends of Syria" and each of them fell back on their own historical strategies [8].
This is the logic that led them to reconstitute the alliance that caused the Suez crisis. And it is again this logic that pushed Germany to distance itself.
Since the beginning of the First World War the English empires, French and Russian decided on the division of the world — negotiated by Mark Sykes, Georges Picot and Sergueï Sazonov — to be implemented on the day of victory. During the war the Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsar, so that the parts of the world destined for the Russian empire were put back into play. The war is over, only the part of the plan that concerned the Middle East was implemented, under the name «Sykes-Picot» agreements.
So Russia's return to the stage of international politics calls into question the British-French colonial partition of the Middle East. The foreseeable clash took shape a few days ago with the killing, accidental or intentional, of the Ilyushin Il-20 during the joint British-French-Israeli operation.

How to react

The astonishment of the international community at the abrupt resurgence of a century-old conflict can be measured by the White House's silence on Twitter.
During the Suez crisis, the Israeli troops involved were double the sum of the English and French ones. The total number of forces combined was 250.000 men. It was an operation of much larger scope than that of Laodicea. Nonetheless, the two sequences reflect the same diplomatic logic and are likely to cause the same developments.
During the Suez crisis, in the midst of the Cold War, the Soviet Union threatened the United Kingdom, France and Israel of nuclear response if they had not withdrawn from Egypt. NATO initially supported the Europeans, threatening Moscow with starting a world war, then he comes to his senses. At the height of the Cold War, the United States temporarily supported the USSR to defuse the madness of the Europeans.
Leaving it to the Europeans would have meant throwing the Arab countries into the arms of the Soviets. Furthermore, it was not credible to accept the Franco-British intervention at a time when the West was denouncing the repression of the Hungarian revolution by the Warsaw Pact.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Vice President Richard Nixon launched a monetary attack on the pound, sent US naval and air forces to interfere with the British-French-Israeli device and prevented the use of French military equipment financed with US funds.
International peace was safeguarded thanks to third-party personalities, such as the UN Secretary General, Day Hammarskjöld (murdered three years later, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize posthumously), the Canadian Foreign Minister, Lester B. Pearson (also a Nobel Peace Prize winner) and the leader of the Non-Aligned Countries and Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru.
The Suez crisis has profoundly reorganized not only international political life, but also the national one of the United Kingdom, France and Israel.
Bypassing the European veto in the Security Council, the UN General Assembly ordered the invaders to withdraw and created the first UN intervention force.
In the UK, the House of Commons demanded an end to colonial policy in favor of promoting London's economic interests through the Commonwealth.
Communists in France, Gaullists and Poujadists [9] (including Jean-Marie Le Pen) they united against centrists and socialists: a political configuration that never recurred again. Six years later, President De Gaulle believed that recognizing Algeria's independence would put an end to military collaboration with the colonial state of Israel and therefore resumed the policy of friendship and collaboration with the Arab peoples that has always characterized France, except for the colonial parenthesis [10].
The position of the Westerners in the aggression of Laodicea is all the more difficult because, in violation of the agreements, the Israelis informed Moscow only long after the operation began and only a minute before the launches. For its part, the Pentagon claims that it was not informed at all. Well, let us remember that the mutual non-aggression agreement between Israel and Russia exists only because Israel is the US arsenal in the Middle East and, together with Italy, hosts the main US ammunition stocks for the entire region. Having not notified the Pentagon of the operation in advance, Israel cannot benefit from US protection and, consequentially, the mutual non-aggression pact may be called into question by Russia.
The Russian response will depend on the White House's position, which is not known at the moment. Russia's action should be guided by the desire to lower, if possible, tension and at the same time the desire to maintain one's ability to dissuade, punishing the guilty party, or the guilty, that the Kremlin will have identified. There is no need for Russia to make the sanction public, provided that the relevant offices are informed.

The Russian response

Russia may choose to consider the destruction of its plane an error by the Israeli pilot, or the Israeli army, or of the three States involved (United Kingdom, France and Israel). The Russian Defense Minister, Sergei Shoigu, he called his Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman to inform him that he holds Israel responsible for the incident and reserves the right to respond. Shortly after, President Putin said: «This is a chain of tragic events, because our plane was not shot down by an Israeli aircraft". Putin wanted to distinguish the current situation from that of the destruction of the Sukhoi 24-M, voluntarily shot down by the Turkish Air Force in November 2015. Russia is therefore moving to publicly designate Israel as solely responsible and to secretly sanction the three states involved.
The Israeli chargé d'affaires in Moscow, Keren Cohen Gat, was summoned to the Foreign Ministry while, reflexively, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, attempted to place responsibility for the incident on Iran. An Israeli delegation, led by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Amikam Norkin, she therefore rushed, with unprecedented speed, in Moscow where he disputed the Russian Defense Ministry's claims and said that Israel was innocent and that Syrian negligence was to blame.
President Trump, great admirer of Richard Nixon's foreign policy, considers the Laodicean attack an opportunity to end British-French-Israeli support for the US Deep State. However Trump, in the midst of the legislative election campaign, he cannot give the impression of supporting his Russian rival and wanting to strike at his allies. He is therefore looking for a way to present this radical change of direction to internal public opinion. In this perspective Trump, in an interview with Hill TV, condemned US involvement in the Greater Middle East, decided by George Bush Jr in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks 2001.
Il 23 September the spokesperson of the Russian Defense Ministry, general Igor Konashenkov, presented the summary of Russian intelligence and the information received from Syria and Israel:
First, he accused the Jewish state of deliberately violating the mutual non-aggression agreement 2015 because he did not warn Russia of the attack in advance and lied about the targets.
He then accused Israel of having endangered civilian flights in this area of ​​the Mediterranean and of being responsible for the destruction of the Ilyushin Il-20.
He also denounced that no assistance was given to the Russian soldiers while the plane was crashing.
He accused General Norkin of lying by claiming that Israeli jets had already returned to Israel when the Russian plane went down.
In the end, he rejected any accusation of amateurism by the Syrian defense.
Konashenkov, however, refrained from calling the United Kingdom and France into question, although the criticisms leveled against Israel also concern these two countries.
If the White House could figure out a way to give voters a version of events that was acceptable to them, Russia could ban UK, France and Israel any intrusion into maritime space, land and air in Syria, in the absence of authorization from Damascus. London and Paris should stop bombing threats, under any pretext (even the false use of chemical weapons), and withdraw their special forces. The measure should be decreed in general for each protagonist, with the exception of the United States and, a Idlib, for Turkey.