The problems and contradictions of North Africa, the war in Libya, analysis of the processes taking place in this area are still in the center of attention of the world community. And this is justified, now in this region the course of world politics is largely determined for years to come, due to which the analysis of the processes that accompanied the development of the war in Libya is extremely relevant. Well-known expert Anatoly Tsyganok argues about this on the pages of the Arms of Russia news agency. " >

11:44 / 13.01.12

NATO war in Libya: analysis, lessons

The problems and contradictions of North Africa, the war in Libya, analysis of the processes taking place in this region are still in the center of attention of the world community.

And this is justified, now in this region the course of world politics for years to come is largely determined, due to which the analysis of the processes accompanying the development of the war in Libya is extremely relevant. Well-known expert Anatoly Tsyganok argues about this on the pages of the Arms of Russia news agency.

The main lesson that the United States taught not only to Libya, but to the whole world - they showed the technology of intervention. First, public opinion is prepared against a certain state by putting it on the list of unreliable. Then the procedure of search and punishment for "sins" before the world civilization begins. Further, various bans and sanctions (embargo) are announced. Then, within a month, there follows a period of "holding" in harsh conditions until the maximum possible weakening. During this period, "reconnaissance in force" is carried out, all possible targets are determined. Potential allies of the future victim are neutralized. And only after this does open preparation and conduct of military aggression begin.

Wars with the confrontation of powers - coalitions, the confrontation of armies are being replaced by a global permanent war, which is waged continuously in all parts of the Earth by all possible means: political, economic, military, technical, information. In these operations, the norms of international law are violated. The civilian population is used to test the latest technological developments.

Moreover, in the intervention against Libya, the United States, Britain and France, with the support of a number of other NATO countries, attempted to legitimize their aggression with the aid of an Arab fig leaf in the form of Qatari aircraft and ground troops. Evaluating the created groupings for the conduct of hostilities against Libya, one can state the absolute technical superiority of the United States in the space grouping, electronic warfare systems, sea and air-based cruise missiles, navigation systems in the operational and tactical level.

The military operation of the United States and NATO with the lured National Council against Gaddafi's semi-guerrilla army raises a lot of questions. The Libyan war, which has many differences from the past wars waged by the United States and NATO, attracts the attention of specialists. For military specialists, the process of creating air and sea groupings and the actions of special units of the USA, France, Great Britain, and Italy is of particular interest. Operational camouflage of NATO and Libya forces, NATO aerospace operations, the strategy and tactics of the US and NATO forces, the tactics of the rebels, Gaddafi's government troops.

The use of new weapons in the operation, information and psychological warfare, financial warfare, environmental warfare, combat and material support. Spatial scope of NATO's Operation Allied Defender: North America, Canada, most of Europe, Turkish Asia. The hostilities were conducted throughout Libya, control over ships throughout the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea.

If we adhere to the accepted classification of wars and conflicts, the main criterion of which is the number of victims and refugees, then the 9-month conflict in 2011 in northern Africa ranked third after Iraq and Afghanistan. The total number of those killed and wounded is unknown. As of July, the Libyan Red Cross has more than 1,100 civilians killed in NATO bombing, including 400 women and children. More than 6,000 Libyan civilians were injured in the bombing, many seriously. During the armed conflict, more than 400 thousand refugees were forced to leave Libya. Total losses of refugees - up to 6,000 people.

Before the February events of 2011, GDP per capita in Libya, calculated at purchasing power parity, was $ 13,800. This is more than twice as much as in Egypt and Algeria, and one and a half times more than in Tunisia. There were 10 universities and 14 research centers, preschool institutions, schools and hospitals in the country that met world standards. Libya ranked first among African states in terms of human development and life expectancy - 77 years. (For comparison: in Russia, the average life expectancy is a little over 69 years). By the way, Libya got into the Guinness Book of Records as a country in which for the period 2001-2005. the lowest inflation rate was 3.1%.

The main thing is that human rights, if they are understood as the right to a dignified existence, were realized in Libya to a much greater extent than in democratic Russia, Ukraine or Kazakhstan. Gaddafi made it clear that he saw the future economic development of Africa in general and Libya in particular more connected with China and Russia than with the West, helping to understand that it was only a matter of time before the CIA put its contingency plan first. to overthrow the Libyan government. So it was not concern for a person that made Western democracies take a course to overthrow the existing government in Libya. Riots in Libya, which escalated into a civil war, began in mid-February. The country was effectively divided into the West and the East controlled by Gaddafi, which were held by the armed forces of the rebels.

The death of civilians is the main claim of the international community to the Gaddafi regime. Earlier, the rebels fighting against the troops of the dictator asked the permanent members of the UN Security Council to impose an air blockade against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi. The Arab League spoke out in favor of a ban on aviation flights and the Gulf Cooperation Council over Libya. NATO and the UN Security Council are discussing military measures against the Libyan authorities, where more than 2,000 people have already become victims of the civil war.

France and Great Britain have proposed a draft resolution on Libya to the UN Security Council. The UN Security Council demands an immediate ceasefire and violence against civilians in Libya; introduces a ban on all flights over Libya, except for humanitarian flights and the evacuation of foreigners; authorizes any action to protect civilians and the territories inhabited by them, with the exception of the entry of occupation troops; authorizes the inspection of those ships and aircraft on which weapons and mercenaries can be delivered to Libya; introduces a ban on all flights to Libya; freezes the assets of the Libyan leadership; expands the list of Libyan officials against whom movement sanctions have been imposed.

The vote in the UN Security Council on the Anglo-French draft Security Council Resolution No. 1973, which actually paved the way for military intervention, revealed a unique international political situation: the BRIC countries on the issue of Libya showed disagreement with Europe, especially with the United States: Brazil, Russia , India, China (and from European countries Germany) did not support Resolution No. 1973.

The consequences of double standards are obvious: - an external arbiter became one of the parties to the conflict (and there were no innocent people there) and ceased to be an arbiter; - unilateral support led to the preponderance of the forces of one of the conflicting parties, which only intensified the civil confrontation and claimed an even greater number of lives. The confirmation of the "double standard" for "friends" and "aliens" is Bahrain, where dozens of people were killed during similar protests; there is an American naval base.

If we analyze the wars over the past 20 years, we can see that the decisive factor in them was not only the military defeat of the armed forces of the defending army, but the political isolation of the leaders. This was the case on January 17, 1991, when the US launched Operation Desert Storm against Iraq; this was the case in August-September 1995, when NATO aircraft conducted the "Moderate Force" air operation against the Bosnian Serbs, which played a role in stopping the Serb offensive and changing the military situation in favor of the Muslim-Croatian forces; this was the case on December 17-20, 1998, when the combined US-British forces conducted Operation Desert Fox in Iraq; this was the case during the NATO military operation "Allied Force" (originally called "Resolute Force") against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from March 24 to June 10, 1999; with the same preparation, on October 7, 2001, the United States, at the head of NATO troops, launched Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

Libya and Russia. Tripoli, however, did not forget that Russia, which was considered a friendly state, in 1992 sharply changed its attitude towards Libya and in fact fully supported the introduction of a regime of international sanctions against it. Several years later, as is known, the Russian position changed. However, the first, very strong resentment remained, as did the distrust of Moscow's policy. Overcoming this is very difficult. Apparently, this is why Tripoli did not fulfill the agreements reached in April 2008 on the purchase of Russian weapons, despite the fact that in return Russia wrote off the debt of the Soviet era in the amount of $ 4.5 billion to Libya.

No progress was made with the implementation of a $ 2.3 billion contract received by Russian Railways for the construction of the Sirte-Benghazi railway, although the branch was planned to be opened in September 2009. The Kremlin's hopes for Libya on the issue of creating a "gas OPEC", in which Russia considered Tripoli as one of its main partners, did not come true. Libya declined to participate in the organization, thereby endangering the entire project. At the same time, until recently, Libya was ready to host a Russian naval base in the port of Benghazi. On the eve of the events, a detachment of warships of the Russian Northern Fleet, headed by the Peter the Great nuclear-powered missile cruiser, visited Libya. The Baltic Fleet patrol ship "Fearless" also entered the port of Tripoli, heading for the coast of Somalia. As the Libyan leader hoped, the Russian military presence was supposed to be a guarantee of non-aggression on Libya by the United States.

Libyan group of forces and means. The Libyan armed forces had sufficient potential to withstand external aggression. As for air defense, Gaddafi had 4 anti-aircraft missile brigades equipped with S-200VE "Vega" anti-aircraft missile systems, 6 brigades of S-75M Desna air defense systems and 3 brigades of S-125M "Neva-M" and "Kvadrat" ("Wasp"), as well as portable air defense systems SA-7 of the old Soviet model. In total, experts estimate at least 216 anti-aircraft missiles.

Libya also had up to 500 mobile-based tactical and operational-tactical missiles. The naval forces of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya included the navy, naval aviation and coast guard.

The Libyan fleet consisted of eleven warships, including two Project 641 submarines, two Project 1159 frigates, one Project 1234 corvette, one PS-700 amphibious assault ship, five Project 266ME minesweepers and fourteen missile boats (six Project 205 and eight type "Kombatant-2G"), as well as up to twenty auxiliary vessels and more than fifty high-speed remote-controlled vehicles. The naval aviation consisted of 24 combat-ready helicopters, including 12 anti-submarine and 5 out of service.

Another 6 faulty vehicles were formally registered in the Navy. In 2008, the Libyan Coast Guard included up to 70 patrol boats of various displacement. The ships of the Libyan fleet were based in the naval bases of Al-Khurna (headquarters of the Navy), Al-Hum and Tobruk. The bases in Benghazi, Derna, Bordia, Tripoli, Tarabelus, Darua were also used as maneuvering bases. The submarines were based at Ras Hilal, and the naval aviation at Al Gidrabiyala. Mobile batteries of SS-C-3 anti-ship missiles from the coastal defense were deployed on vehicle launchers in the Tobruk, Benghazi and Al-Denmark regions.

Libyan Air Force numbered 23,000 personnel (including air defense). We had 379 combat aircraft, including 12 bombers (six Tu-22 and Su-24MK), 151 fighter-bomber (40 MiG-23BN, 30 Mirage 5D / DE, 14 Mirage 5DD, 14 Mirage F- 1 AD, 53 Su-20/22), 205 fighters (45 MiG-21, 75 MiG-23, 70 MiG-25, 15 Mirage F-1 ED), 11 reconnaissance aircraft (4 Mirage 5DR, 7 MiG- 25RB). There were also 145 helicopters: 41 combat (29 Mi-25, 12 Mi-35), 54 multipurpose (4 CH-47, 34 Mi-8/17, 11 SA-316, 5 Agusta-Bell AB-206) and 50 training Mi-2. It must be said that it is a great success for the West in its military operation against Libya that Russia, which joined the anti-Libyan UN Security Council sanctions on March 10, did not manage to substantially implement the military contracts concluded with Tripoli in 2008. Military experts note that the Western coalition would have had a much harder time if Gaddafi had purchased modern weapons before the start of the war - fortunately, oil revenues made it possible to acquire effective air defense systems and combat aircraft. But the Libyan leader could not choose between Russia and France, as a result, the ground forces of the Jamahiriya did not find effective protection from air strikes.

It was assumed that Libya, in particular, will acquire 12 multipurpose Su-35 fighters, 48 ​​T-90S tanks, a number of anti-aircraft missile systems / SAM / S-125 "Pechora", "Tor-M2E" and S-300PMU-2 " Favorite ", as well as diesel-electric submarines of Project 636" Kilo ". In addition, Russia was going to supply Libya with spare parts and carry out maintenance, repair and modernization of previously purchased military equipment, including the Osa-AKM air defense system and T-72 tanks. It was also about the supply of Russian-made small arms and light weapons, as well as a batch of sea mines worth $ 500 million. on the preparation of a deal on aircraft and air defense systems totaling about $ 1.8 billion. All these modern and very effective weapons did not get to Libya and are unlikely to ever get there.

The decision on the US-NATO operation in Libya is "Odyssey Dawn". In fact, the United States and NATO conducted four operations in the Mediterranean (Great Britain's Ellami, France's Harmatan, Canada's Mobile, NATO's Allied Defender). In addition to the obvious one - the implementation of the UN Security Council Decision, there are hidden goals. The main goal: to solve the problem of North Africa by conquering a bridgehead in Libya. Geopolitical goal: to expel China from Libya, to prevent the Russian fleet from being based in Libya and Syria. Political: punish Gaddafi for refusing to join the United Command of the US Armed Forces in Africa, deprive Europe of control over Libya's oil reserves. Military - to defeat the armed forces of M. Gaddafi, to test in real combat conditions the theoretical provisions of the Joint Command of the US Armed Forces in the African zone, to test the possibilities of a rapid build-up of the NATO grouping and preparation for an operation in desert combat conditions.

Military - technical - to conduct mass tests in real combat conditions of new weapons: the Ohio-type Florida submarine missile carrier, the Tomahawk Block IV (TLAM-E) tactical cruise missile, the EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft of the US Navy, the Eurofighter Typhoon of the British Air Force, heavily armed ground support aircraft АС-130U, unmanned helicopter МO-8В Fire Scout.

Information and psychological: to experience new forms of information and psychological warfare using the American propaganda aircraft Lockheed EC-130E Commando Solo and conducting special propaganda against the troops of M. Gaddafi and the population of Libya. Banking - to exclude and prevent Gaddafi from creating a new banking system in Africa, which threatened to leave the IMF, the World Bank and various other Western banking structures out of African affairs. Financial - use financial weapons. Repeat the success of the CIA in Iraq, where four army corps commanders were bribed.

By the beginning of the operation, in relative proximity to the Libyan coast, a large grouping of the US and NATO Air Force and Navy was created. Twenty-five warships, Western Coalition submarines, including three US Navy ships carrying Tomahawk missiles, and auxiliary vessels from the US 2nd and 6th fleets, including the aircraft carrier Enterprise, landing helicopter carriers Kersage and Ponce ", As well as the flagship (headquarters) ship Mount Whitney. The deployment of ships of the 2nd and 6th US fleets in the adjacent Libyan territory made it relatively easy to prohibit the navigation of surface warships on the high seas.

A powerful American - NATO aviation group of reconnaissance aviation and electronic warfare was created. In the air operation Odysseus. Dawn "participated from the USA: fighter-bombers, multifunctional light fighter, carrier-based attack aircraft, strategic bombers, high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, ground support aircraft, command and control and reconnaissance aircraft, tanker aircraft, helicopters, military transport aircraft, coastal patrol aircraft, military transport aircraft.

US and NATO strategists miscalculated, assuming that the military operation would be completed in a few weeks. Initially, the military operation in Libya was designed for a period until June 27. Later, Western countries decided to extend their presence in the skies over the Jamahiriya. NATO and its partners have decided to extend their mission in Libya for another 90 days, until the end of September. At the end of September, the leadership of the North Atlantic bloc extended the hostilities until the New Year. During the nine months of the war, the failure of political and military coordination in the NATO bloc was demonstrated. France, which initiated the military operation, could not have done anything with M. Gaddafi without American jammers, tankers, AWACS aircraft and cruise missiles. The British, in order to use a dozen Tornado fighter-bombers for the sake of prestige, had to leave most of their fleet in England without spare parts and stop flights of the country's air defense fighters. The Libyan operation is a very limited military conflict. And if the Europeans, already a month or two after its start, are experiencing a shortage of ammunition, then one should ask, what type of war were they even preparing for? This war once again showed the level of worthlessness (without the United States) of the military machine of Europe (NATO) and the level of its degradation.

Key lessons:

First. International law can be violated and turn into a new Law if its "expediency" is approved by the eight leading countries of the world;

Second. Events in the Middle East have shown that the principle of force is becoming the main dominant principle of international law. Therefore, any country should think about its security.

Third... Double standards have become the rule in international politics;

Fourth. The West can no longer rely solely on US leadership. While the United States continues to be much of the "indispensable power" it has been for the past 60 years, it is no longer enough for international initiatives to be successful.

Fifth. WITH Countries with new economies, primarily BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China), which are expected to be capable of throwing an economic challenge to the West in this century, do not now demonstrate the ability for political and diplomatic leadership. Thus, of the five states that abstained during the vote in the UN Security Council on Resolution 1973 regarding Libya, four are leaders in the group of states with a new economy: Brazil, Russia, India, China.

Sixth. The world community has become more sensitive to the problem of the use of military force, whether in Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan or Libya, considering it from the standpoint of adequacy.

Seventh. The war in Libya has once again shown that the absolutization of military power does not eliminate political problems, but, on the contrary, postpones their solution in time. Almost everywhere where the US and NATO use military force, the problems are not being solved, but are exacerbated. To restore them, according to the convictions of the United States and NATO, others should.

Eighth. France returned to NATO's military organization, re-establishing a Franco-British privileged partnership, while Germany placed itself outside the Atlantic context.

Ninth. The military actions showed that the Libyan army of M. Gaddafi is able to fight against the United States and NATO, the rebels and the armed formations of Al-Qaeda for nine months.

Conclusions:

1. The rate of development of an unfavorable military-political situation can significantly outstrip the rate of creation of a new Russian army with perfect means of warfare.

2. Military aggression against Russia is possible in the event of a maximum weakening of the economic, military and moral potential, the lack of readiness of citizens to defend their homeland.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has officially completed the military operation in Libya. According to Alliance Secretary General Rasmussen, Operation United Defender was "one of the most successful in the alliance." The Secretary General was delighted with the fact that the organization acted quickly, "efficiently, with flexibility and precision, with the participation of numerous partners from the region and from outside it."

But in reality The Libyan war once again confirmed the fact of the bloc's weakness, especially its European component. European countries, without the United States, still do not represent a significant combat force. At the initial stage of the war, the United States cleared the "field" by suppressing the enemy's air defense, control and communications systems, and then actually withdrew from the operation. Letting your NATO partners end the war.

We saw that NATO prefers to use the “big bully” strategy. The Alliance behaves like a group of punks, which skillfully selects an obviously weaker enemy who will not give back. The main role in the operation is played by the psychological suppression of the enemy (information war), the enemy's will to resist is broken even before the start of the operation, and as a result, the war turns into simply a beating. The Libyan leadership never realized the fact (or lacked the will) that the West can only be frightened by an all-out war, with strikes not only on the military, but also on the civilian infrastructure. This mistake of Milosevic and Saddam was repeated by Gaddafi.

The armed forces of Libya were weaker than the army of Yugoslavia or Iraq, but the air operation dragged on for 7 months. Gaddafi's units were even able to successfully resist the rebel forces for quite a long time. The hopes that the forces loyal to the Colonel would scatter after the outbreak of the war did not come true. Gaddafi was able to hide some of the equipment, they began to use civilian cars so as not to differ from the rebels, to move only when there was no enemy aircraft in the air, camouflage was successfully used. As a result, even during the defense of Sirte, the Colonel's supporters had heavy weapons. It turned out that it was impossible to win without more serious intervention. The rebels could not win, even with the complete dominance of NATO forces in Libyan airspace. Therefore, the scope of the operation was expanded: the rebels were supplied, including heavy equipment, with ammunition and communications; their units were trained by military advisers; military experts helped in organizing actions; attack helicopters and drones were thrown into battle, foreign gunners began to help them aim at the target; the capital was captured only using the special forces of Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, PMC fighters, in addition, according to a number of experts, the special forces of France, Great Britain, and the United States were also used.

This confirms the view that NATO (without the US and Turkish armies) cannot wage high-intensity warfare, including ground operations. The European armed forces do not have enough experience, capabilities, even France and Great Britain quickly ran out of high-precision ammunition for the Air Force, they had to buy more from the Americans. European countries are lagging behind the United States in such an advanced direction as combat drones. Some countries cannot support their allies at all (due to their unwillingness to fight, or lack of physical ability), or their participation was purely symbolic.

In addition, another feature of the new NATO campaigns (including future ones) is emerging, the main emphasis in the war will be on the "fifth column", to support any opposition forces, from liberals and nationalists to radical Islamists. Liberal ideas, nationalism, radical Islamism have become a kind of "battering ram" for the West, tools for dismantling states. In Libya, liberal democrats, separatists of Cyrenaica, Islamists (including Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb - AQIM), a number of tribes who wanted to raise their status in the informal hierarchy of the country came out against their own state.

NATO tries to play the role of an arbiter, helping the "offended and oppressed". As a result, the country is degrading, sliding down a level, into neo-feudalism. We see that NATO is turning into the "overseer" of the New World Order, while losing its combat functions, the Alliance can "punish" the guilty, but will not be able to fight a serious enemy, at least not yet.

How can we not recall Brzezinski, with his desire to drag Russia and Turkey into the "Atlantic Alliance", the Russians and Turks would become excellent "cannon fodder" in future wars.

In fact, the Alliance has fulfilled its task:

Muammar Gaddafi's regime has been eliminated, as has the Libyan Jamahiriya project. The destabilization of North Africa and the Middle East continues.

NATO losses in military equipment are insignificant, one F-15. The personnel losses are unknown. Officially, they are not there, although there was information about 35 dead soldiers of British special forces. According to the vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Doctor of Military Sciences, Captain First Rank Konstantin Sivkov, the British lost 1.5-2 thousand people in Libya, the French 200-500 people, the United States about 200 fighters, Qatar more than 700 people. The main losses occurred during the assault on the Libyan capital, Tripoli.

The financial costs are relatively small and, apparently, will be repaid by the exploitation of Libyan hydrocarbons. The cost of the United States operation was about $ 1 billion, in England - about $ 500 million. The rest of the countries spent even less, for example, Canada spent $ 50 million. At least that's not exactly the $ 1 trillion that was spent on the war in Iraq.

The West was able to mobilize a number of Arab countries (mainly monarchies) against Libya. In fact, this is a split of the Islamic world, into allies of the Western world and opponents. On the side of the West in the Libyan war, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates actively fought. Apparently, the monarchies of the Persian Gulf will become an instrument of NATO in the confrontation with Syria and Iran.

The operation of NATO countries in Libya came to an end: it stopped a minute before the onset of November 1. Although the planes of the alliance were still on duty in the sky yesterday, and ships were patrolling the coast, the summing up of the first results of the last war of the West has already begun. And, according to preliminary estimates, everything went very well.

Causes

The West's involvement in the Libyan conflict was due to several reasons. First, Muammar Gaddafi, who was not distinguished by excessive good-naturedness, surpassed himself when he initially sent troops to disperse demonstrations in Benghazi. He did not even try to enter into a dialogue with the opposition and find out what they actually want. Against the backdrop of the relatively peaceful revolutions that have just ended in Tunisia and Egypt, this brutality has greatly impressed the West. The first long speech of the dictator after the start of the uprising only strengthened the impression: Gaddafi, clearly not himself, for a long time listed how and for what he would hang and shoot fellow citizens who doubted his greatness and genius. The reputation of the leader of the Jamahiriya was dubious before, but after such speeches it finally collapsed. Gaddafi himself did his best to turn public opinion against him. In the eyes of the West, he became the embodiment of evil, and the rebels became heroic freedom fighters.

When in mid-March these fighters began to lose city after city and found themselves on the verge of defeat, Gaddafi kindly provided supporters of NATO intervention with another argument, promising that his troops would go around house after house and kill opponents - "like rats and cockroaches." Perhaps the dictator just wanted to express himself more vividly, but in the United States and Europe his words were perceived unequivocally: Gaddafi is going to cut out the entire Benghazi, staging a genocide of an unprecedented (for the 21st century) scale. With a shudder, the French and Italians imagined hundreds of thousands of Libyans sailing north in search of salvation from the delights of the Jamahiriya.

Second, the United States and Europe in mid-March had to urgently save their image in the eyes of the Arab street. The fact is that until the last moment the West supported its friends - the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators, and took the suppression of the uprising in Bahrain with ill-concealed relief. Ordinary Arabs were very angry at such blatant hypocrisy of the "defenders of democracy": suffice it to say that after the Egyptian revolution, the attitude towards Barack Obama among the inhabitants of Arab countries was worse than towards such an American president as George W. Bush. At least he did not pretend to be a friend of Muslims.

Gaddafi, on the other hand, was ideally suited for the role of the "bad guy", in which you can recoup and show yourself to be the protectors of the interests of the common people. The Libyan dictator has contrived to win universal hatred - both at home and abroad, in the West and in the East, and among the leaders of countries, and among ordinary citizens. It was difficult to imagine a more suitable candidate for an exemplary flogging.

Well, the third circumstance that prompted the West and some Arab countries to intervene is, of course, oil. If the main item of Libyan export were, for example, rutabaga, then the interest in the events taking place there would be much more modest. That is, some sanctions against the "evil" Gaddafi, probably, would have been introduced in this case as well. But as far as direct military participation is concerned, this is highly doubtful.

For the supporters of the military operation, everything turned out as well as possible: Gaddafi was officially condemned even by Arab leaders (the corresponding resolution of the League of Arab States), Benghazi, according to his own words, was on the verge of genocide, and the country was full of excellent, high-quality oil that everyone needs and always. Well, how can we not interfere?

In the American leadership, however, voices were also sounded against: then Defense Secretary Robert Gates resisted for a long time, declaring that his country did not need a new military adventure. However, the opinion of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton turned out to be more significant, and as a result, the United States supported the invasion.

Operation

The main instigators of the entire operation were the French. President Nicolas Sarkozy, using the above arguments, achieved first British and then American approval of his venture. Together, they all began to put pressure on the UN Security Council. The sanction of this structure was absolutely necessary for the start of the operation, since the Americans made it clear to their allies that otherwise they would not start another war.

Russia and China initially opposed and yielded only when words about a complete ban on the participation of foreign ground forces in a possible operation were included in the draft resolution. However, at the same time, the Russians and the Chinese did not pay due attention to the line, which later became the justification for all subsequent NATO actions in Libya. It is about the part of the resolution where the countries establishing a "no-fly zone" over Libya are entitled to use "all necessary measures to protect the civilian population."

On March 17, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973. Before the seal on this document had dried properly, the French pilots had already been seated in the cockpits of combat aircraft.

In the early morning of March 19, a huge convoy of Libyan government troops heading for Benghazi to "crush rats and cockroaches" was destroyed in a matter of seconds by air strikes. France was the first to take "all necessary measures to protect the civilian population."

This agility surprised even the allies. The Italians, on whose airfields in Sicily part of the French aviation was based, were very offended. Sarkozy did not even tell the owners where the planes headed on the morning of March 19. According to The Washington Post, Clinton was able to reconcile the allies. True, for the Americans themselves, what happened was also somewhat unexpected. The start of their war (with picturesque start-up Tomahawks and clever comments from the generals) was scheduled for the evening of the same day. The French, with their raid on the column, ruined the whole show.

However, the operation began. More precisely, three separate operations began - British, French and American. Later, the allies were joined by aircraft from Canada, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Holland, Norway, as well as non-NATO Sweden, Qatar, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.

Turkish ships and the formidable navies of Bulgaria and Romania also took part in the naval operation to blockade the coast of Libya.

At first, the actions of this motley company were coordinated by the Americans, but on March 31, the overall command of the operation, called the United Defender, passed to NATO.

Immediately after the start of the bombing, it seemed to many that Gaddafi's troops would instantly crumble under such pressure. However, in reality, everything turned out to be much more complicated. The loyalists began to camouflage their positions, hide military equipment in buildings, move only when the sounds of working jet engines cannot be heard from the sky. This tactic bore some fruit - the rebels were almost driven from Sirte to the city of Ajdabiya, where a front line was established for many months. The bombing continued, but there was little sense from them: Gaddafi's troops were firmly in their positions, and the motley units of his opponents could not do anything about it. Moreover, some oppositionists refused to fight at all, demanding that the aviation do all the work for them.

The war became protracted: NATO, for objective reasons, could not kill all Gaddafi's equipment, and the rebels were too lazy to do it. The alliance began to realize with annoyance how stupid their allies on earth were. I had to change tactics.

"All necessary measures"

From the very beginning of the Libyan operation, the actions of NATO countries and their allies had little to do with providing a "no-fly zone" and "protecting civilians." Gaddafi's planes did not even try to rise from the airfields, but to make out from a ten-kilometer height who is peaceful down there, and who is not very, is difficult even for NATO falcons.

As a result, under the cover of a passage about "all necessary measures," the alliance's aviation actually took over the work of providing air cover for the opposition forces. NATO generals were even at first indignant when the rebels asked them to bomb "here, there, and a little more over there." However, then they resigned themselves: the unofficial task of the "United Defender" was the attack. Namely, the military defeat of the Libyan army and the elimination of Gaddafi. The leaders of the alliance and its member countries at all levels denied that this was the case, but no one took their words seriously.

As the task changed, the methods of work had to change. To begin with, it was necessary to do something with the rebels, the formations of which were similar to anything, but not to the army. NATO members tried to somehow organize and train their wards. For this purpose, military advisers were sent to Benghazi. What they had to do with establishing a "no-fly zone" or protecting civilians remained a mystery. Nevertheless, the leaders of the opposition began to be trained. For example, they had to explain that waving flags, shooting in the air, shouting and jumping for joy in modern combat can be fraught with undesirable consequences. Before that, many rebels were killed at the hands of snipers, who caught them precisely for these activities.

Having put together some kind of more or less permanent detachments, the coalition members presented them with camouflage, body armor and helmets. However, this was of little use: in the hot Libyan sands, many fighters still preferred T-shirts - one brighter than the other - and loose pants. As a result, I had to give up on the appearance of the "soldier". Another serious misfortune of the rebels was the lack of any coordination between the warring parties. The Qataris and the British have shipped handheld radios to Benghazi. This, probably, affected the quality of communication, but caused new difficulties: the rebels, tuning in to the wave of the loyalists, began to kill time, arguing on the radio with opponents. Those, however, were not against: the two-way radio exchange was filled with "goats", "dogs", "rats" (where can we go without them?), "Cockroaches" and other unpleasant animals.

In addition, the reluctance of their wards to follow at least some kind of discipline added to the headaches for foreign instructors. The detachments are volunteer, so the feeling reigned in them that no one owed anything to anyone. Even the leaders of the National Transitional Council bitterly admitted that, in general, no one really listens to them.

One of the most common complaints of Gaddafi's opponents was this: over there, he has tanks, artillery and Grad installations, but we have only machine guns, there is nothing to fight with, help out. Despite the UN resolution prohibiting the supply of weapons to Libya, we had to help out: Qatar sent Milan anti-tank systems to Libya. Using such a weapon, it is quite possible to knock out an old Soviet tank. But to do this, you must at least approach him at the distance of the shot, and this is scary. “Milan” did not make the weather.

The result was a situation where Benghazi - a city filled with foreign aid, advisers, radio stations and ATGMs - did less for the general victory of the rebels. Realizing that the situation had reached an impasse, NATO had to act by other methods: first American drones were sent to Libya, and when there were few of them - attack helicopters. Such aircraft are much more convenient to use for "picking out" equipment from hangars and shelters than high-altitude jet aircraft. In addition, at least Misurata had western ground gunners.

But that's not all. At the final stage of the war - before the capture of Tripoli - special forces from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates quietly joined the rebels. It is known about at least one operation in which they took an active part - this is the seizure of Gaddafi's residence Bab al-Aziziya. After taking it, the rebels rushed to take away the warehouses, take pictures for memory and, as usual, shoot in the air. Foreign soldiers, meanwhile, were collecting documents and computer disks. Reasonable: Information about the Libyan dictator's dark deeds could later prove to be as valuable as Libyan oil.

In essence, the NATO-led operation, which began as a purely peacekeeping mission to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, turned into a full-fledged war - with the organization of supply and training of allied soldiers and officers, the use of special forces, the supply of weapons, the use of ground gunners and the like.

Outcomes

Yes, the main brunt of the war was borne by the Libyans, but without NATO support, it would have been immeasurably more difficult for them, if not possible at all, to achieve victory over the dictator's troops. Suffice it to say that the aircraft of the alliance made over 26 thousand sorties, hitting more than six thousand targets.

In general, Operation United Defender was successful - the goals (both official and unofficial) were achieved, and the loss amounted to one F-15, which crashed in the desert due to a mechanical failure. In Libya, a regime that is very loyal to the West and the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf came to power. The cost of the operation in the United States was about $ 1 billion, in the UK - about $ 500 million. The rest of the countries spent even less: the Canadians, for example, the war cost 50 million. Compared to the tens of billions that can be extracted from Libya in the form of oil, this is nothing. At least, certainly not the trillion that went to the war in Iraq.

However, the war in Libya has exposed some of NATO's weaknesses. It became, for example, quite obvious that without the United States, the alliance would turn to zero without a stick. A few examples: First, in the middle of an operation, the French and British ran out of smart bombs. I had to urgently ask the Americans to sell more. Secondly, the Tomahawk cruise missiles, with the help of which the Libyan air defense system was destroyed, only the United States has in the required quantity. Thirdly, the drones that destroyed camouflaged Libyan equipment are also American exclusive.

And in general, in the conditions of limited American participation, NATO countries fiddled with Libya for six months, which has old weapons, practically no aviation and air defense systems, and the army is far from the most powerful in the world. This raises an unpleasant question for the leadership of the alliance: what if the war were more serious?

In addition, many NATO countries either did not participate in the operation at all, or their participation (like the Romanians) was purely symbolic. United Defender came out quite disconnected. The participation of Qatar, for example, was much more active than all the Balts combined.

At the same time, after understanding the mistakes, the Libyan operation may become one of the few successful examples of Western intervention in the processes taking place in the Islamic world. Most Libyan residents assess NATO's work positively; the West did not have any complications with other Arab countries due to participation in the war.

And only a few Ukrainian nurses and a dozen observers on Russian state channels are crying for Gaddafi.

Is Europe fighting in Libya to defend the rights of Libyan tribes?

Why is Europe bombing Libya? Why suddenly the "smart" European bombs fell from heavens, helping a handful of representatives of different tribes, seen in support of al-Qaeda? Is it really a humanitarian mission that Europeans carry out at the call of their hearts and out of lofty motives?

There are more plausible reasons. Here they are.

America is mired in recession. Europe has sunk into economic chaos. Japan will never recover from a powerful earthquake. But despite the slowdown in the growth of the world's most advanced economies, oil prices are relentlessly rising.

In January 2009, Brent crude oil cost $ 70 per barrel. A year later, it cost $ 86. In January 2011, importers were already paying $ 95 per barrel. And now, with confusion in Egypt, Bahrain and Libya, the price of oil has jumped over $ 120 a barrel.

There are reasons for this, and speculators cannot be blamed for this. The cruel reality that our world is facing is that every year it becomes more difficult to obtain the energy resources necessary to maintain the status quo. And the war in Libya is just one component of the worldwide race for future energy supplies.

Political leaders are afraid to acknowledge the harsh realities of our oil-dependent world, because the consequences of those realities affect literally everything from stock markets and food production to the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency.

The Europeans are already beginning to act, but the United States has yet to come to terms with the "peak in oil". This theory says that world oil production has peaked and is now starting to decline. But the facts speak for themselves.

No country in the world has spent more money on oil exploration and production than the United States of America. No country in the world has drilled so many holes in the world in search of black gold. But despite record costs and unlimited access to the best and most advanced technology, US oil production has been steadily declining. This decline has continued for 40 years, despite new discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico, the Rocky Mountains, the sea, Alaska, and more recently the Bakken shale formation.

In 1970 America was producing nearly 10 million barrels of oil a day. Today it produces about half of this volume, despite the increase in the number of wells.

New methods of oil production, including the technology of injecting explosives into a well, followed by the explosion of rocks and the supply of powerful chemicals to extract oil, offer only hope for a temporary increase in production. But these attempts cannot change the general tendency of recession.

These are the facts based on the science of geology.

There are also some other facts based on reality. In a 2009 report that did not receive much fanfare, the US Department of Energy said the world could weather a slump in liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 "if there is no investment."

The Department of Energy does not officially recognize the "peak oil" theory, according to which it will not be possible to maintain production at the current level for a long time, since hundreds of thousands of old wells are close to depletion. But with its own data, it essentially confirms this theory.

In April 2009, the Department of Energy published a document titled “Satisfy Global Demand for Liquid Fuels”. It provides figures for the global production of liquid fossil fuels. Some facts are alarming. According to the ministry's forecasts, global fossil fuel production will increase steadily until 2030 and beyond. But it has no idea where the additional oil production will come from.

By listing all known fields in the pivot table, the DOE found that starting in 2012, there will be a slow but steady decline in production from active and new oil fields.

This is known data - and according to them, the global decline in production will begin next year!

According to the ministry, due to "unidentified" new deposits of liquid fuel, it will be necessary to bridge the gap between demand and supply, which is 10 million barrels per day, within five years. 10 million barrels a day is almost the same as the world's main oil-producing country, Saudi Arabia, produces daily.

Either the Department of Energy lives in a dreamland - or it fears the consequences of the oil famine.

Production at the world's largest 500 fields is steadily declining. About 60% of natural oil is produced there. Many of the top twenty fields are more than 50 years old, and in recent years, very few new gigantic oil-bearing areas have been discovered. These are also real facts.

Earlier this month, the International Monetary Fund released its World Economic Outlook. As analyst Rick Munroe says, the IMF has admitted for the first time that a peak in oil production is coming, which will have serious consequences.

The authors of the report are generally optimistic about the ability of our world to cope with “a gradual and moderate increase in the oil deficit, but the very fact of recognizing this deficit is extremely important. According to the report, "the oil and other energy markets have entered a period of widening scarcity," and "a return to abundance is unlikely anytime soon."

“The risks cannot be underestimated,” the report says. "Research shows how catastrophic events [such as oil shortages] can affect human behavior in the most dramatic ways."

If oil shortages are real, where will America and Europe get their much-needed oil?

Some Americans believe there are huge lakes of oil lurking somewhere underground in Alaska and elsewhere. It is quite possible to start pumping them out - if only the government allows drilling. Even if this is true, then this question is very controversial.

Even if drillers are immediately given permission to drill unrestrictedly off the east coast and in Alaska, it will take years for a significant amount of oil to enter the market (and that is only if such a significant amount of oil is found at all). And if you carry out the necessary environmental studies and expertise, if you receive all the required permits, licenses, and so on, then the time from the appearance of workers on the drilling rigs to the appearance of gasoline in your tank will be about ten years.

Likewise, it will take a truly titanic effort to start production from recently discovered fields off the coast of Brazil. Oil Sands of Canada? They will help, but only slightly, because their development and mastering will be too difficult and expensive. But even the "oil-loving" Albert, and she revoked 20% of licenses for the development of deposits in tar sands, taking care of their natural reserves.

But while America has very little chance of securing oil supplies in the future, Europe's position is much more serious.

There is simply very little oil in Europe. The fields in the North Sea are rapidly depleting. Soon, almost all oil for Europe will be imported. And if the Old World does not want to depend more and more on extortionate deals with Russia, the views of Europe will inevitably rush towards Africa and the Middle East.

Only Russia and the OPEC countries have additional oil for supplies to the world market. And since Russia has nuclear weapons, only OPEC remains.

That is why Europe, with the support of NATO, is bombing Libya today.

In 2009, Muammar Gaddafi announced that Libya was looking for the best ways to nationalize its oil resources. Oil should belong to the people, he said, and then the state would be able to decide at what price to sell it. Quite predictably, such foreign oil companies as France's Total, British Petroleum, Spain's Repsol, Italy's ENI and America's Occidental Petroleum went into a tailspin. Hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake - not to mention Europe's economic prospects.

If Europe gets its way, Gaddafi will never be able to blackmail her again. Probably, other countries will take the hint: Europe is quite serious about the problem of energy resources!

The realities of a world experiencing an oil shortage guarantee us that European states will intervene much more actively and aggressively in Middle East affairs. And these realities are becoming more and more relevant due to the fact that America is leaving Iraq, and Iran is filling the vacuum that is being formed there.

Oil prices hit $ 121.75 per barrel yesterday. Get used to it. Soon, sky-high oil prices may become an unpleasant and permanent fact that America, Europe and the rest of the world will have to put up with. As the oil deficit deepens, Europe will increasingly penetrate the Middle East.

The capture and occupation of Libya is primarily a military victory for NATO. Each step of aggression was led and directed by NATO air, sea and ground forces. NATO's invasion of Libya was mainly a response to the Arab Spring, popular uprisings that swept the Middle East from North Africa to the Persian Gulf. NATO's attack on Libya was part of a larger counteroffensive to contain and reverse the popular democratic and anti-imperialist movements that overthrew or were about to overthrow pro-American dictators.

More recently, in May 2009, the ruling regimes of the US and the EU developed close military and economic cooperation with the Gaddafi regime. According to the British Independent (9/4/2011), official Libyan documents found at the Foreign Ministry describe how on December 16, 2003, the CIA and MI6 established close cooperation with the Gaddafi government. MI6 provided Gaddafi with information about the leaders of the Libyan opposition in England and even prepared a speech for him to help him in rapprochement with the West.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton introduced Mutassin Gaddafi to the press during her 2009 visit:

"I am very pleased to welcome Minister Gaddafi to the State Department. We highly value the relationship between the United States and Libya. We have many opportunities for deepening and expanding our cooperation, and I very much hope for the further development of these relations."(examiner.com 2/26/2011)

Between 2004-2010, major commodity multinationals including British Petroleum, Exxon Mobile, Haliburton, Chevron, Conoco and Maraton Oil, along with military-industrial giants such as Raytheon , Northrop Grumman, Dow Chemical and Fluor have made huge deals with Libya.

In 2009, the US State Department allocated a one and a half million grant for the education and training of the Libyan special forces. Even the 2012 White House budget included a grant to train the Libyan security forces. General Dynamics signed a $ 165 million contract in 2008 to equip the Libyan elite mechanized brigade (examiner.com).

On August 24, 2011, WikiLeaks published telegrams from the US Embassy in Tripoli, which contained a positive assessment of US-Libyan relations by a group of US senators during their visit to Libya in late 2009. The cables highlighted continuing education and training programs for Libyan police and military personnel, and expressed strong US support for the Gaddafi regime's crackdown on radical Islamists - the very same who now lead the pro-NATO "rebels" occupying Tripoli.

What made NATO countries so dramatically change their policy of courting Gaddafi and, within a matter of months, move to a brutal and bloody invasion of Libya? The main reason was popular uprisings, which carried a direct threat to Euro-American domination in the region. The total destruction of Libya, its secular regime, the highest standard of living in Africa, should serve as a lesson, a warning from the imperialists to the rebellious peoples of North Africa, Asia and Latin America: Any regime striving for greater independence, questioning the power of the Euro-American empire, awaits the fate of Libya ...

The six-month NATO blitz - more than 30,000 air and missile attacks on Libyan military and civilian infrastructure - is the answer to all those who claimed that the US and EU were "in decline", that "the empire is on its way." The "uprising" of radical Islamists and monarchists in Benghazi in March 2011 was supported by NATO with the aim of launching the broadest counter-offensive against anti-imperialist forces and carrying out a neo-colonial restoration.

NATO war and fake "uprising"

It is clear that the entire war against Libya, both strategically and materially, is a NATO war. The image of a hodgepodge of monarchists, Islamic fundamentalists, London and Washington exiles and defectors from the Gaddafi camp as a "people in revolt" is sheer false propaganda. From the very beginning, the "rebels" were entirely dependent on the military, political, diplomatic and media support of the NATO powers. Without this support, the mercenaries trapped in Benghazi would not have held out for a month. A detailed analysis of the main characteristics of the anti-Libyan aggression confirms that the entire "uprising" is nothing more than a NATO war.

NATO launched a series of brutal attacks from sea and air, destroying the Libyan air force, navy, fuel depots, tanks, artillery and ammunition supplies, killing and injuring thousands of soldiers, officers and civilian militias. Before the NATO invasion, the mercenary "rebels" could not advance beyond Benghazi, and even after the intervention of the West, they held the captured positions with great difficulty. The advance of the "insurgent" mercenaries was only possible under the cover of murderous, continuous air attacks by NATO forces.

NATO air strikes have resulted in massive destruction of Libyan military and civilian infrastructure - ports, highways, airports, hospitals, power plants and housing. A terrorist war was unleashed to undermine massive support for the Gaddafi government. The mercenaries did not have popular support, but NATO strikes weakened the active opposition to the "rebels".

NATO succeeded in securing diplomatic support for the invasion of Libya by passing resolutions at the UN, mobilizing Arab League pocket rulers and attracting financial support from the Gulf oil oligarchy. NATO has strengthened the "cohesion" of warring rebel clans and their self-appointed leaders by freezing the Libyan government's multibillion-dollar overseas assets. Thus, the financing, training and management of "special forces" were completely under the control of NATO.

NATO imposed economic sanctions on Libya, taking away oil revenues from it. NATO orchestrated an intense propaganda campaign, portraying imperialist aggression as a "popular uprising", carpet-bombing a defenseless anti-colonial army as "humanitarian intervention" to protect "civilians." The staged media campaign went far beyond the liberal circles usually involved in such actions, convincing "progressive" journalists and their publications, as well as "left" intellectuals, to represent imperial mercenaries as "revolutionaries" and smear black paint on the heroic six-month resistance of the Libyan army and people of foreign aggression. Pathologically racist Euro-American propaganda spread lurid images of government troops (often portraying them as "black mercenaries"), portraying them as rapists taking massive doses of "Viagra" when in reality their homes and families suffered from raids and naval blockades NATO.

The only contribution of the hired "liberators" to this propaganda production was posing for films and cameras, assuming the gallant poses of "Che Guevara" a la the Pentagon, driving around in light vans with machine guns in the trunk, arresting and torturing African migrant workers and black Libyans. The "revolutionaries" triumphantly entered Libyan cities and towns, which had already been burned to the ground and devastated by the NATO colonial air force. Needless to say, the media simply adored them ...

After the end of the NATO devastation, the mercenary "rebels" showed their true "talents" of bandits, punishers and executioners of death battalions: they organized systematic prosecutions and executions of "suspected collaborators with the Gaddafi regime", and also succeeded in robbing houses, shops, banks and public institutions that belonged to the overthrown government. To "secure" Tripoli and destroy any pockets of anti-colonial resistance, the "rebels" carried out group executions - especially of black Libyans and African migrant workers with their families. The "chaos" in Tripoli, described in the media, arose as a result of the actions of the distraught "liberators". The only quasi-organized force in the Libyan capital was al-Qaeda militants - NATO's sworn allies.

Consequences of the NATO seizure of Libya

According to the "rebel" technocrats, NATO destruction will cost Libya at least a "lost decade." These are rather optimistic estimates of the time it will take for Libya to restore the economic level in February 2011. The largest oil companies have already lost hundreds of millions of profits, and in the next ten years they will lose billions due to the flight, murder and imprisonment of thousands of the most experienced Libyan and foreign specialists in a variety of fields, skilled workers and technicians-immigrants, especially given the destroyed Libyan infrastructure and telecommunication system.

The African continent will suffer irreparable damage due to the cancellation of the African Bank project, which Gaddafi developed as an alternative source of investment, as well as due to the destruction of an alternative African communication system. The process of recolonization, with the participation of NATO forces and the UN mercenary "peacekeepers" will be chaotic and bloody, given the inevitable skirmishes and conflicts between the warring factions of fundamentalists, monarchists, neo-colonial technocrats, tribal and clan leaders, when they begin to squabble with each other for private fiefdoms. Imperial and local claimants for oil wealth will fuel "chaos," and continuous strife between them will exacerbate the already difficult lives of ordinary citizens. And all this will happen to the once one of the most prosperous and prosperous nations with the highest living standards in Africa. Irrigation networks and oil-producing infrastructure, rebuilt under Gaddafi and destroyed by NATO, will lie in ruins. But what can I say - the example of Iraq is before everyone's eyes. NATO is good at destroying. To build a modern secular state with its administrative apparatus, general education and health care, social infrastructure - this is beyond his power, and he will not be engaged in this. America's rule and destroy policy finds its highest expression in NATO's ruthless power.

Invasion motives

What were the motives behind the decision of NATO leaders and strategists to stage six months of bombing Libya, followed by invasion and crimes against humanity? Numerous civilian casualties and widespread destruction of Libyan civil society by NATO forces completely refute the claims of Western politicians and propagandists that the purpose of the bombing and invasion was to "protect civilians" from imminent genocide. The destruction of the Libyan economy suggests that the NATO attack had nothing to do with "economic gain" or any such considerations. The main motive for NATO actions can be found in the policy of Western imperialism associated with a counter-offensive against mass popular movements that toppled American-European puppets in Egypt and Tunisia and threatened to overthrow client regimes in Yemen, Bahrain and other countries of the Middle East.

Despite the fact that the US and NATO were already waging several colonial wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia), and Western public opinion was demanding a withdrawal of troops due to huge costs, imperial leaders felt that the cost of the issue was too high to back down , and it is necessary to minimize losses. NATO's overwhelming air and sea domination made it much easier to destroy Libya's modest military potential and made it possible to bomb cities, ports and vital infrastructure almost unhindered, as well as establish an all-out economic blockade. The intense bombing was supposed to terrorize the Libyan people, force them into submission and bring NATO an easy and quick victory without losses - something that Western public opinion dislikes and fears most - after which the "rebels" would march into Tripoli in triumph.

Arab people's revolutions were the main concern and the main motive behind NATO's aggression against Libya. These revolutions have undermined the long-term pillars of Western and Israeli domination in the Middle East. The fall of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak and his Tunisian counterpart Ben Ali shocked imperial politicians and diplomats.

These successful uprisings immediately spread throughout the region. Bahrain, home of the US Navy's main base in the Middle East, has seen massive civil society rallies in neighboring Saudi Arabia (a key US strategic partner in the Arab world), while a massive popular opposition movement has unfolded in Yemen, ruled by US puppet Ali Saleh. and armed resistance. Morocco and Algeria were overwhelmed by popular unrest, demanding the democratization of society.

The general trend of the massive Arab popular movements was to demand an end to Euro-American and Israeli domination in the region, horrific corruption and nepotism, hold free elections and find a solution to the problem of mass unemployment through the implementation of job creation programs. The anti-colonial movements grew and expanded, their demands radicalized, from general political to social democratic and anti-imperialist. The workers' demands were reinforced by strikes and calls for trial against the leaders of the army and police responsible for persecuting citizens.

The Arab revolutions caught the US, EU and Israel by surprise. Their intelligence services, deeply penetrating all the stinking crevices of their clients' secret institutions, could not predict the massive explosions of popular protest. The popular uprisings came at the most inopportune moment, especially for the United States, in which support for NATO's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has dropped sharply due to the economic crisis and cuts in social spending. Moreover, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US-NATO forces were losing ground under their feet: the Taliban had succeeded in becoming a real "shadow government." Pakistan, despite a puppet regime and submissive generals, has faced widespread opposition to an air war against its citizens in the border areas. US drone strikes against militants and civilians have triggered sabotage and supply disruptions to the occupying forces in Afghanistan. In the face of a rapidly deteriorating global situation, the NATO powers decided that they must counterattack in the most unequivocal manner, i.e. to destroy an independent, secular regime such as Libya, and thus to raise its pretty spoiled prestige and, most importantly, to give a new impetus to the "decaying imperial power".

The Empire Strikes Back

The United States launched its counteroffensive from Egypt, supporting the seizure of power by a military junta led by former associates of Mubarak, who continued to suppress the pro-democracy and labor movement, ending all talk of economic restructuring. The pro-NATO collective dictatorship of generals replaced the one-man dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak. NATO powers have provided "emergency" billions of dollars to keep the new regime afloat and derail the Egyptians' march towards democracy. In Tunisia, events developed in a similar way: the EU, especially France, and the US supported the personnel reshuffle of the ousted regime, and these old-new neo-colonial politicians took over the country after the revolution. They were given generous funds in order to be sure that the military-police apparatus will continue to exist, despite the dissatisfaction of the people with the conformist policy of the "new" regime.

In Bahrain and Yemen, NATO countries pursued a dual course, trying to maneuver between the massive pro-democracy movement and pro-imperial autocrats. In Bahrain, the West has called for "reform" and "dialogue" with the Shiite majority and for a peaceful resolution of the conflict, while continuing to arm and defend the monarchist power, as well as looking for a suitable alternative in the event of the overthrow of the existing puppet. The NATO-backed Saudi intervention in Bahrain to defend the dictatorship and the subsequent wave of terror and arrests of regime opponents exposed the true intentions of the West. In Yemen, NATO powers supported Ali Saleh's brutal regime.

Meanwhile, NATO powers have begun to exploit internal clashes in Syria, providing weapons and diplomatic support to Islamic fundamentalists and their small neo-liberal allies, with the aim of overthrowing the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Thousands of Syrian citizens, policemen and soldiers have been killed in this externally fueled civil war, which NATO propaganda portrays as state terror against "civilians", ignoring the killing of soldiers and civilians by armed Islamists, as well as the threat to Syrian secular population and religious minorities.

NATO invasion of Libya

The invasion of Libya was preceded by seven years of Western cooperation with Gaddafi. Libya did not threaten any of the NATO countries and did not in any way contradict their economic and military interests. Libya was an independent country that promoted a pro-African agenda and sponsored the creation of an independent regional bank and communications system, bypassing the control of the IMF and the World Bank. Libya's close ties with major Western oil companies and Wall Street investment firms, coupled with its military cooperation programs with the United States, have failed to protect Libya from NATO aggression.

Libya was deliberately destroyed during a six-month campaign of continuous NATO air and sea bombing. This campaign to destroy a sovereign country was supposed to serve as an object lesson for the Arab mass popular movements: NATO is ready at any moment to launch a new devastating blow, the same force as against the Libyan people. The imperial countries are not in decline at all, and any independent anti-colonial regime awaits the fate of Libya. It should have been clear to the African Union that there would be no independent regional bank created by Gaddafi or anyone else. There is no and cannot be any alternative to the imperial banks, the IMF and the MB.

By destroying Libya, the West showed the Third World that, in spite of those pundits who talked about the "decline of the American Empire," NATO is ready to use its superior and genocidal military power to establish and support puppet regimes, no matter how sinister, obscurantist and reactionary they are. if only they fully obey the instructions of NATO and the White House.

NATO's aggression, which destroyed a secular modern republic such as Libya, which used oil revenues to develop Libyan society, was a stern warning to democratic popular movements. Any independent Third World regime can be destroyed. A colonial puppet regime can be imposed on a conquered people. The end of colonialism is not at all inevitable; the Empire is returning.

NATO's invasion of Libya is telling freedom fighters around the world that independence is costly. Even the smallest deviation from the imperial dictatorship can cost the most severe punishment. In addition, NATO's war against Libya demonstrates that even far-reaching concessions to the West in the field of economics, politics and military cooperation (the example of the sons of Gaddafi and their neoliberal entourage) do not guarantee security. On the contrary, concessions can only whet the appetites of the imperial aggressors. The close ties of Libyan top officials with the West became a prerequisite for their betrayal and desertion, significantly facilitating NATO's victory over Tripoli. The NATO powers believed that the Benghazi uprising, a dozen defectors from Gaddafi and their military control of sea and air would ensure an easy victory over Libya and pave the way for a large-scale rollback of the Arab Spring.

The "cover" of the regional military-civil "uprising" and the propaganda blow of the imperial media on the Libyan government were quite enough to convince the majority of Western left-wing intellectuals to take the side of the hired "revolutionaries": Samir Amin, Immanuel Wahlerstein, Juan Cole and many others supported "rebels" ... demonstrating the complete and final ideological and moral bankruptcy of the pitiful remnants of the old Western left.

Consequences of the NATO war in Libya

The capture of Libya marks a new phase in Western imperialism and its desire to restore and consolidate its dominance over the Arab and Muslim world. The Empire's continued offensive is manifested in growing pressure on Syria, sanctions and arming opposition to Bashar al-Assad, in the ongoing consolidation of the Egyptian military junta and in the demobilization of the pro-democracy movement in Tunisia. How far this process will go depends on the popular movements themselves, which are currently in recession.

Unfortunately, NATO's victory over Libya will strengthen the position of militaristic hawks in the ruling classes of the US and EU, who argue that the "military option" is paying off and that the only language that the "anti-colonial Arabs" understand is the language of force. The outcome of the Libyan tragedy will strengthen the arguments of those politicians who welcome the continuation of the US-NATO military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and advocate military intervention in the affairs of Syria and Iran. Israel has already capitalized on NATO's victory over Libya by accelerating the expansion of its colonial settlements in the West Bank and intensifying the bombing and shelling of the Gaza Strip.

In early September, members of the African Union, especially South Africa, had not yet recognized the "transitional" regime established by NATO in Libya. Not only the Libyan people, but the entire sub-Saharan region will suffer from the fall of Gaddafi. Libyan generous aid in the form of grants and loans gave African states a significant degree of independence from the enslaving conditions of the IMF, MB and Western bankers. Gaddafi has been a major sponsor and enthusiast for regional integration. Its large-scale regional development programs, oil production, housing and infrastructure projects have provided jobs for hundreds of thousands of African immigrants - workers and professionals who sent large sums of money earned in Libya to their countries. Instead of Gaddafi's positive economic contribution, Africa will receive a new colonial outpost in Tripoli, serving the interests of the Euro-American Empire on the continent.

Nevertheless, despite the euphoria of the West from its victory in Libya, the war will only exacerbate the weakening of Western economies, robbing them of huge resources for long-term military campaigns. Ongoing cuts in social spending and austerity programs have brought to naught all the efforts of the ruling classes to whip up chauvinistic sentiments and force their peoples to celebrate yet another "victory of democracy over tyranny." The overt aggression against Libya has raised the concerns of Russia, China and Venezuela. Russia and China vetoed UN sanctions against Syria. Russia and Venezuela sign a new multibillion-dollar military agreement that bolsters the defenses of Caracas.

Despite all the euphoria in the media, the "victory" over Libya, grotesque and criminal, which has destroyed the secular Libyan society, in no way alleviates the deepening economic crisis in the US and EU. It does not diminish the growing economic power of China, which is rapidly moving ahead of its Western competitors. It does not end the isolation of the United States and Israel in the face of worldwide recognition of an independent Palestinian state. The lack of solidarity of the Western left with independent regimes and Third World movements, expressed in its support for pro-imperial "rebels", is compensated by the emergence of a new generation of left-wing radicals in South Africa, Chile, Greece, Spain, Egypt, Pakistan and elsewhere. These are young people whose solidarity with anti-colonial regimes is based on their own experience of exploitation, "marginalization" (unemployment), local violence and repression.

Should we hope for the creation of an international tribunal that would investigate the war crimes of the NATO leaders and bring them to justice for the genocide of the people of Libya? Could the apparent link between costly imperial wars and a downturn in the economy lead to a resurgence of an anti-imperialist peace movement demanding the withdrawal of all troops from occupied countries and the creation of jobs, investment in education and health care for workers and the middle class?

If the destruction and occupation of Libya means a time of shame for the NATO powers, then they also revive the hope that the people can fight, resist for six months and stand up against massive bombing and shelling of the most powerful military machine in human history. It is possible that when the heroic example of Libyan resistance is realized and the fog of false propaganda dissipates, a new generation of fighters will continue the battle for Libya, turning it into an all-out war against the colonial Empire, for the liberation of African and Arab peoples from the yoke of Western imperialism.

Return