After several days since the Russian warplane was shot down over Syria by the Turkish air force, the incident still has attention of the two countries’ officials. During the time, the Russians have disparaged the Turkish leaders, reserving their right to respond to Turkey in an appropriate way. Meanwhile, a series of aftermaths immediately followed the Turkish downing of the Russian jet, which included holding anti-Turkey rallies in Moscow, exchanged summoning of the both sides’ ambassadors, downgrading the military and trade ties with Turkey and the Russian resolution growing stronger to keep on attacks against the terrorist groups in Syria. On the other hand, still different analyses are coming out about Turkey’s real motives of its action, as well as about the outlook of the two countries’ relations in the future, all of which show the impacts of the case on the upcoming developments in West Asia region and specifically in Syria. But what is so noticeable in the analysts‘ viewpoint is the intentionality of the Turkish action which could derive from a series of reasons and motives including the country’s efforts to move out of the regional isolation. In fact it seems that the Turks to break out of isolation and to make a difference in the region’s process of developments saw no other way, and to break the ice of conditions affecting the current developments they resorted to this aggressive move. Because all of the Turkey’s plans and designs made in the past years for Syria’s future have recently been spoiled. On the one hand, the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has not stepped down from power as Ankara demanded, and on the other hand, the Turkish plan for establishing a no-fly zone along the shared border line with Syria was totally a failure. Meanwhile, the Europeans and the Western countries’ stances are much different now compared to the primitive days of the conflict in Syria, and they presently accept President al-Assad’s presence and role in Syria’s transitional period. This is certainly considered a remarkable political loss for Ankara. Moreover, other factors persuading the Turks to carry out the attack were the challenges surfaced as a result of the Russian fighter jets' attacks on the Syrian Turkmen living in Syrian-Turkish border areas. The Turkish government claimed that the Russian fighters targeted the Turkmen. The Russian move came while Turkey was focusing on forging an anti-Assad Turkmen armed organization in Syria’s border areas with Turkey. Another aspect of the incident could be Turkey’s attempt to highlight once again the Eastern-Western polarization on Syria case. Because following the Paris terrorist attacks, France has become interested to join the Russian-Iranian anti-terror alliance. Thereby, it was not impossible that an anti-terror coalition, attended by the Western countries, could be formed in the region. Such an anti-terror coalition and actions run counter to Turkey’s regional interests. On the other hand, the point must be added that the Turkish army and government could not conduct the attack by themselves and they very likely have made the move, at least, with a full coordination with the US and NATO. Actually, the Turkish army is totally dependent to NATO and as the Turkish military experts admit their country’s fighters are not allowed to take off unless they had coordinated with NATO’s command center. They must be in full touch, the experts add. Additionally, the way the US and the Western leaders reacted to the incident indicates that the Turkish attack had been coordinated, and through targeting the Russian warplane, they wanted to send a specific message to Russia. The West and NATO seek to communicate the message to the Russians that if they want to continue their strikes in Syria and adopt the same pattern in other points of conflict, they would face the Western reaction. Therefore, it is not invalid to suggest that the Turkish role in the incident is confined to being the NATO’s and West’s proxy, and the role solely comes as a result of Turkey sharing borders with the Russian operation area in Syria. Concerning the repercussions of the incident, it is likely that Russia sets on agenda use of economic instruments to press Ankara, because Turkey’s membership in NATO remarkably drops off any possibility of war with Russia because Russian conflict with Turkey would mean conflict with NATO. But, the Russian commercial ties with Turkey would be severely downgraded, as Moscow could use the gas bargaining chip to press Ankara. Turkey imports about %60 of its natural gas from Russia, and stopping gas supply by the Russians could be a huge economic blow to Turkey, leaving the Turkish government engulfed by many troubles. Generally, the trend of the Syrian crisis’ developments and circumstances is moving in a way that shows Turkey is being isolated further. This isolation is politically considered a win to Russia. Therefore, it could be claimed that downing the Russian warplane has caused the Russians to be resolved to fight more strongly against ISIS terrorist group. On the other hand, it is presently observed that the Western media’s pessimism about Turkey’s counterproductive role in war against terrorism and in the Syrian crisis is on the rise. For example, many news reports published by the Western media harshly criticize Turkey for purchasing ISIS’ oil. These issues could majorly affect the Syrian crisis. Anyway, following the incident, the Western countries’ cooperation with the anti-ISIS alliance would be boosted, as there would be a host of developments and modifications in the strategy of fight against ISIS and other terrorist groups. This article originally appeared on Alwaght. com