© politicalpistachio.blogspot.com
In turn, The Washington Post believes that "NATO faced being thrust into a new Middle Eastern crisis... The incident marked a serious escalation in the Syrian conflict that is likely to further strain relations between Russia and the NATO alliance."
The Guardian argues that we've witnessed "a nerve-jangling event, that raised the spectre of a direct confrontation between two large powers: one a NATO member, the other nuclear-armed".
While it's clear that neither Russia nor NATO wants to go to war against each other, each side is trying to deal with the situation and identify the reasons that provoked the recent crisis and, what's even more important, to establish who's at fault.
Comment: The commentary and excuses of rats leaving the ship are piled high and deep as NATO/the West wiggles out of blame. It is evident, in this article anyway, that the some of the news sources cannot distinguish "church" from "state." How does one get a political and military alliance of NATO members against "Islamism?" ...not even Islam, but 'Islamism!"
However, another source opines: "Turkey's action, using US-supplied F-16 planes, was taken with the full knowledge and advance support of the US. In fact, given Turkey's vassal status as a member of US-dominated NATO, it could well be that Ankara was put up to this act of brinksmanship by the US."
By virtue of the West's alliance, should Russia retaliate against Turkey, NATO would be obliged to come to Turkey's defense. Kudos to Putin's restraint, and, unlike the US/NATO, to operating within the boundaries of international law.