The war in Libya is the next stage in the redivision of the world. London continues to lie about the operation to overthrow Gaddafi

The main event of the week was the start of the Western military operation against Libya. At night, the first airstrikes were carried out on the infrastructure of this North African country, and the bombing continues. As has happened more than once in recent history, NATO countries are acting under the guise of a UN Security Council resolution and humanistic slogans about the inadmissibility of suppressing armed rebellions using military force inside Libya.

The situation around Libya has been heating up all week - the government troops of the condemned Muammar Gaddafi have almost regained control over the country, and then European leaders sounded the alarm: we have already declared that the bloody Libyan leader is outlawed, and he is returning to power. And so, in order to prevent such injustice, it was decided to bomb Libya.

So-called targeted airstrikes are becoming the main weapon of world humanism - the example of Libya clearly demonstrated all the humane aspirations of both Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama and the famous peacemaker Nicolas Sarkozy. Experts say that the victims of the bombings will far exceed the number of victims of the civil war in Libya.

In order to get an idea of ​​what is happening in Libya now, in conditions of total disinformation, it is enough to simply call a spade a spade. The aggression of the leading world powers against a sovereign country began with the approval of the UN Security Council: 10 in favor with 5 abstentions. The hastily adopted resolution is an example of all kinds of violations of international law. Formally, the goal of the military operation against Colonel Gaddafi is to protect the civilian population; in reality, it is to overthrow the legitimate government of a still independent state.

Of course, no one absolves the Libyan leader of responsibility for his 40 years of, to put it mildly, extravagant rule. His endless wanderings, irrepressible ambitions, expressed in support of national liberation movements of a terrorist nature, his provocative speeches at international forums - all this has long turned him into a political outcast. However, much more serious reasons were needed to start the war. Gaddafi’s refusal to agree with France on the supply of modern weapons to Libya and his reluctance to privatize his oil industry is what may be behind such a sudden war.

The final decision to launch a military operation against Libya was made on March 19 in Paris. Nicolas Sarkozy, who at the beginning of the week was accused by Gaddafi's son of receiving money from Libya for the election campaign, by Saturday was already trying on the Napoleonic cocked hat of the conqueror of North Africa. Despite the harsh rhetoric, the United States readily gave the lead in this highly dubious endeavor to the French president.

From the moment the first French bomb fell on Libyan territory, no one will question what the Security Council meant when it included in resolution 19-73 the phrase authorizing “all measures for the protection of the civilian population.” From now on there is only one measure - bomb. It doesn’t matter that for some reason a ceasefire was demanded only from the Libyan authorities, thereby leaving the armed rebels the opportunity to settle scores with Gaddafi under the cover of Western bombs. It is unlikely that anyone will remember in the near future that the resolution did not take into account the interests of the majority of Libyans loyal to the authorities. Moreover, the text of the Resolution indicates that the Security Council does not consider this part of the population at all to be the people of Libya in need of protection.

The fact that the Resolution does not spell out a mechanism for monitoring Gaddafi’s fulfillment of the demands placed on him indicates that no one was seriously interested in the Libyan authorities’ readiness to compromise. But he was ready. On the evening of March 19, Russia, which abstained from voting for the resolution in the Security Council, expressed regret over the outbreak of war. “We firmly proceed from the inadmissibility of using the mandate arising from Security Council Resolution 19-73, the adoption of which was a very controversial step, to achieve goals that clearly go beyond the scope of its provisions, which provide for measures only to protect the civilian population,” said a representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Alexander Lukashevich. India and China have already joined Russia’s position

The obvious successes of the Libyan army in suppressing the armed rebellion forced them to hurry not only with the adoption of the resolution. The capture by Gaddafi's troops of the so-called capital of the rebels, the city of Benghazi, could confuse all the cards. It is much easier to start aggression, acting as a savior. More difficult - like the Avenger. The resolution, obviously to please the Arab world, does not yet allow ground operations by the Western allies. However, this is deceit and sooner or later the coalition troops, under one or another, most likely a peacekeeping pretext, will be forced to invade Libyan territory. There are already two coalition landing ships off the Libyan coast, and their number should increase significantly in the coming days.

The beginning of a military campaign implies the intensification of information warfare. To ensure that no one has any doubts about the legality of the aggression, in order to hide the real scale of what is happening, all media resources will now be used. Local information battles waged with the Gaddafi regime over the past month will now turn into a continuous propaganda front line. Stories about hundreds of thousands of refugees from the bloodthirstiness of a dying regime, materials about death camps and mass graves of Libyan civilians, reports about a courageous and desperate struggle, doomed defenders of free Benghazi - this is what the average person will know about this war. The real civilian casualties that are inevitable during bombing will be hushed up so that over time they will be included in abstract lists of so-called “collateral losses.”

Next week will mark 12 years since the start of a similar NATO peacekeeping operation in Yugoslavia. So far, events are developing as if they were a carbon copy. Then an ultimatum demanding the withdrawal of troops was presented to Milosevic precisely at the moment when only a few days remained before the complete destruction of Albanian militant units in Kosovo by the Yugoslav army. Under the threat of immediate bombing, the troops withdrew. However, airstrikes were not long in coming. Then they lasted 78 days.

For now, NATO has formally distanced itself from the war in Libya, leaving its members to decide for themselves how far they are willing to go. It is quite obvious that the skies closed by the allies and air support for the rebels will sooner or later turn Gaddafi’s military operation to restore order in the country into a banal massacre. French or British pilots will observe all this from a bird's eye view, occasionally striking at concentrations of armed people and equipment on the ground. This also happened in Yugoslavia, but during the civil massacre in 1995.

The war has already begun. It’s hard to guess how long it will last. One thing is clear: Gaddafi is doomed to join Milosevic and Hussein sooner or later. However, now something else is important: how will the authorities of other states in the rebellious region perceive this trend? In fact, in order to protect themselves from the “triumph of freedom”, they are left with only two possible ways. The first is to speed up our own nuclear programs in one way or another. The second is to actively create or mobilize terrorist networks on the territories of democracy-importing states. The story of paying for Nicolas Sarkozy's election campaign is evidence of how Arab money can work in Europe. If they can do it this way, then they can probably do it differently.

The capture and occupation of Libya is primarily a military victory for NATO. Every step of aggression was led and directed by NATO air, sea and ground forces. NATO's invasion of Libya was largely a response to the Arab Spring, the popular uprisings that swept the Middle East from North Africa to the Persian Gulf. The NATO attack on Libya was part of a larger counter-offensive aimed at containing and reversing the people's democratic and anti-imperialist movements that had overthrown or were preparing to overthrow pro-American dictators.

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

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

"I am very pleased to welcome Minister Gaddafi to the State Department. We value the relationship between the United States and Libya. There are many opportunities for us to deepen and expand our cooperation, and I very much look forward to the further development of this relationship" (examiner.com 2/26/2011)

Between 2004-2010, major commodity multinationals, including British Petroleum, Exxon Mobile, Haliburton, Chevron, Conoco and Marathon Oil, together 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 Libyan special forces. Even the White House budget for 2012 included a grant for training Libyan security forces. General Dynamics signed a $165 million contract in 2008 to equip Libya's elite mechanized brigade (examiner.com).

On August 24, 2011, WikiLeaks published cables 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 noted ongoing training programs for Libyan police and military personnel and expressed strong US support for the Gaddafi regime's crackdown on radical Islamists - the same ones who now lead the pro-NATO "rebels" occupying Tripoli.

What made the NATO countries so dramatically change their policy of courting Gaddafi and, within a matter of months, move on to a brutal and bloody invasion of Libya? The main reason was popular uprisings that posed a direct threat to Euro-American dominance 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, faces the fate of Libya .

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

It is absolutely clear that the entire war against Libya, both strategically and materially, is a NATO war. The portrayal of a hodgepodge of monarchists, Islamic fundamentalists, London and Washington exiles and defectors from Gaddafi’s camp as a “rebellious people” is pure 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 lasted even 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 weapons stocks, killing and wounding thousands of soldiers, officers and civilian militia. Before the NATO invasion, the mercenary "rebels" could not advance beyond Benghazi, and even after Western intervention they had great difficulty holding onto their captured positions. The advance of the “rebel” mercenaries was only possible under the cover of murderous, continuous air attacks by NATO forces.

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

NATO managed to achieve diplomatic support for the invasion of Libya by passing relevant resolutions at the UN, mobilizing pocket rulers from the Arab League 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" came under the complete control of NATO.

NATO imposed economic sanctions on Libya, taking away its oil revenues. NATO mounted an intensive propaganda campaign portraying imperialist aggression as a "popular uprising", carpet bombing of a defenseless anti-colonial army as a "humanitarian intervention" to protect "civilians". The orchestrated media campaign went far beyond the liberal circles usually involved in such actions, convincing “progressive” journalists and their publications, as well as “left-wing” intellectuals, to present imperial mercenaries as “revolutionaries” and to tar the heroic six-month resistance of the Libyan army and people of foreign aggression. Pathologically racist Euro-American propaganda disseminated lurid images of government troops (often depicting them as "black mercenaries"), portraying them as rapists taking massive doses of Viagra, while 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, taking brave "Che Guevara" poses 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...

At the end of the NATO devastation, the mercenary "rebels" showed their true "talents" as bandits, punitive forces and executioners of death battalions: they organized the systematic persecution and execution of "suspected collaborators with the Gaddafi regime", and also succeeded greatly in robbing houses, shops, banks and public institutions belonging 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 guest workers with their families. The “chaos” described in the media in Tripoli arose as a result of the actions of the distraught “liberators.” The only quasi-organized force in the Libyan capital turned out to be al-Qaeda militants - NATO's sworn allies.

According to "rebel" technocrats, NATO's 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 of February 2011. The major oil companies have already lost hundreds of millions in profits, and will lose billions in the next ten years due to the flight, murder and imprisonment of thousands of highly experienced Libyan and foreign specialists in a variety of fields, skilled workers and immigrant technicians, especially given the destruction of Libyan infrastructure and telecommunications 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 the alternative African communication system. The recolonization process, with the participation of NATO forces and mercenary UN "peacekeepers", will be chaotic and bloody, given the inevitable fights and conflicts between warring factions of fundamentalists, monarchists, neo-colonial technocrats, tribal and clan leaders, when they begin to squabble with each other over private fiefdoms. Imperial and local claimants to oil wealth will fuel the “chaos”, and continuous discord between them will aggravate the already difficult life of ordinary citizens. And all this will happen to what was once one of the most prosperous and prosperous nations, with the highest standard of living in Africa. The irrigation networks and oil infrastructure built under Gaddafi and destroyed by NATO will lie in ruins. What can I say - the example of Iraq is before everyone's eyes. NATO is good at destruction. To build a modern secular state with its administrative apparatus, universal education and healthcare, social infrastructure - this is beyond his power, and he will not do it. The American policy of "rule and destroy" finds its highest expression in the juggernaut of NATO.

What were the motives behind the decision of NATO leaders and strategists to carry out a six-month bombing of Libya, followed by an invasion and crimes against humanity? The numerous civilian casualties and widespread destruction of Libyan civil society by NATO forces completely refutes 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 similar considerations. The main motive for NATO's actions can be found in the policy of Western imperialism associated with a counter-offensive against the massive popular movements that overthrew the US-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 fighting several colonial wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia), and Western public opinion demanded the withdrawal of troops due to the enormous costs, imperial leaders felt that the cost of the issue was too great to back down , and it is necessary to minimize losses. NATO's overwhelming dominance in the air and sea has made it much easier to destroy Libya's modest military capabilities and has allowed it to bomb cities, ports and vital infrastructure virtually unhindered, as well as impose a total economic blockade. It was assumed that intensive bombing would terrorize the Libyan people, force them to submit and bring NATO an easy and quick victory without losses - what Western public opinion most dislikes and fears - after which the "rebels" would march triumphantly into Tripoli.

Arab people's revolutions were the main concern and the main motive behind NATO's aggression against Libya. These revolutions undermined the long-term pillars of Western and Israeli dominance 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 began to spread throughout the region. In Bahrain, home to the main US Navy base in the Middle East, in neighboring Saudi Arabia (a key US strategic partner in the Arab world) there were massive civil society protests, while in Yemen, ruled by US puppet Ali Saleh, a massive popular opposition movement unfolded and armed resistance. Morocco and Algeria were swept by popular unrest, with demands for democratization of society.

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

The Arab revolutions took the US, EU and Israel by surprise. Their intelligence services, deeply penetrating into all the stinking crevices of their clients' secret institutions, were unable to predict the massive explosions of popular protest. The popular uprising comes at the worst possible time, especially for the United States, where support for NATO's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has plummeted due to the economic crisis and cuts in social spending. Moreover, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US-NATO troops were losing ground: the Taliban movement managed to become a real “shadow government”. Pakistan, despite its puppet regime and submissive generals, faced widespread opposition to the air war against its citizens in the border areas. US drone strikes on militants and civilians have caused sabotage and supply disruptions to 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 way possible, i.e. destroy an independent, secular regime like Libya and thus raise its rather damaged prestige and, most importantly, give the “decadent imperial power” a new impetus.

The United States launched its counter-offensive from Egypt, supporting the seizure of power by the military junta, led by former associates of Mubarak, who continued to suppress the pro-democracy and labor movement, stopping all talk of economic restructuring. The pro-NATO collective dictatorship of the 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 Egypt's march to democracy. In Tunisia, events developed in a similar way: the EU, especially France, and the United States supported the personnel reshuffling of the overthrown regime, and these old-new neocolonial politicians led the country after the revolution. They were given generous funds to ensure that the military-police apparatus would continue to exist, despite the people's dissatisfaction with the conformist policies of the “new” regime.

In Bahrain and Yemen, NATO countries pursued a dual course, trying to maneuver between a mass pro-democracy movement and pro-imperial autocrats. In Bahrain, the West called for "reform" and "dialogue" with the Shiite majority population and for a peaceful resolution to the conflict, while continuing to arm and protect the monarchical government and find a suitable alternative should the existing puppet be overthrown. The NATO-backed Saudi intervention in Bahrain to protect the dictatorship, and the subsequent wave of terror and arrests of opponents of the regime, exposed the true intentions of the West. In Yemen, NATO powers supported the brutal regime of Ali Saleh.

Meanwhile, NATO powers began to exploit internal conflicts in Syria, providing weapons and diplomatic support to Islamic fundamentalists and their small neoliberal allies, with the aim of overthrowing the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Thousands of Syrian citizens, police 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 Syria's secular population and religious minorities.

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 interfere with 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 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, could not protect Libya from NATO aggression.

Libya was deliberately destroyed during a six-month campaign of continuous NATO air and naval bombing. This campaign of destruction of a sovereign country should have served as an object lesson for the Arab mass popular movements: NATO is ready at any moment to launch a new destructive blow, with the same force as on the Libyan people. The imperial countries are not in decline at all, and the fate of Libya awaits any independent anti-colonial regime. 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 and cannot be any alternative to the imperial banks, the IMF and the World Bank.

By destroying Libya, the West showed the Third World that, contrary to those pundits who ranted about the “decline of the American Empire,” NATO is ready to use its superior and genocidal military power to install and support puppet regimes, no matter how sinister, obscurantist and reactionary they may be, as long as they fully obey the instructions of NATO and the White House.

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

NATO's invasion of Libya tells freedom fighters around the world that independence comes at a great price. Even the slightest deviation from imperial dictates can result in 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 Gaddafi's sons 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 senior officials with the West became a prerequisite for their betrayal and desertion, significantly facilitating NATO's victory over Tripoli. NATO powers believed that the uprising in Benghazi, a dozen defectors from Gaddafi and their military control of the 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-up” of the regional military-civilian “uprising” and the propaganda blow of the imperial media against the Libyan government were quite sufficient to convince the majority of Western left-wing intellectuals to take the side of the mercenary “revolutionaries”: Samir Amin, Immanuel Wallerstein, Juan Cole and many others supported “rebels”... demonstrating the complete and final ideological and moral bankruptcy of the pathetic remnants of the old Western left.

The seizure of Libya marks a new phase of Western imperialism and its desire to restore and strengthen its dominance over the Arab and Muslim world. The continuing advance of the Empire is evident in the growing pressure on Syria, the sanctions and arming of the opposition to Bashar al-Assad, the continued consolidation of the Egyptian military junta and the demobilization of the pro-democracy movement in Tunisia. How far this process will go depends on the popular movements themselves, which are currently experiencing a decline.

Unfortunately, a NATO victory over Libya will lead to a strengthening of the position of militaristic hawks in the ruling classes of the US and EU, who argue that the “military option” is bearing fruit and that the only language that “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 its bombing and shelling of the Gaza Strip.

At the beginning of 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 African Sahara region will suffer from the fall of Gaddafi. Generous Libyan assistance in the form of grants and loans gave African states a significant degree of independence from the oppressive conditions of the IMF, World Bank and Western bankers. Gaddafi was a major donor and enthusiast of regional integration. His large-scale regional development programs, oil production, housing and infrastructure projects employed hundreds of thousands of African immigrant workers and specialists, who sent significant amounts of money earned in Libya back to their countries. Instead of Gaddafi's positive economic contribution, Africa will receive a new outpost of colonialism in Tripoli, serving the interests of the Euro-American Empire on the continent.

However, despite the West's euphoria over its victory in Libya, the war will only deepen the weakening of Western economies, depriving them of enormous resources to wage prolonged military campaigns. Continued cuts in social spending and austerity programs have frustrated all the efforts of the ruling classes to stir up chauvinistic sentiments and force their people to celebrate yet another “victory of democracy over tyranny.” The overt aggression against Libya has raised concerns among Russia, China and Venezuela. Russia and China vetoed UN sanctions against Syria. Russia and Venezuela sign a new multibillion-dollar military agreement strengthening Caracas' defense capabilities.

Despite all the euphoria in the media, the “victory” over Libya, grotesque and criminal, which destroyed 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 global recognition of an independent Palestinian state. The Western left's lack of solidarity with independent Third World regimes and movements, expressed in its support for pro-imperial "rebels", is compensated by the emergence of a new generation of radical leftists in South Africa, Chile, Greece, Spain, Egypt, Pakistan and elsewhere. These are youth whose solidarity with anti-colonial regimes is based on their own experiences 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 NATO leaders and bring them to justice for the genocide of the people of Libya? Could the apparent link between costly imperial wars and declining economies lead to a revival of the 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 it also revives hope that the people can fight, resist and withstand the massive bombing and shelling of the most powerful military machine in human history. It is possible that when the heroic example of the Libyan resistance is realized and the fog of false propaganda clears, 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.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has officially completed its military operation in Libya. According to Alliance Secretary General Rasmussen, Operation Unified Defender was “one of the most successful in the alliance.” The Secretary General welcomed the fact that the organization acted quickly, “effectively, with flexibility and precision, with the participation of numerous partners from the region and beyond.”

But in reality The Libyan war once again confirmed the weakness of the bloc, especially its European component. European countries, without the United States, still do not represent a significant fighting force. At the initial stage of the war, the United States cleared the “field” - 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 have seen that NATO prefers to use the “big bully” strategy. The Alliance behaves like a group of punks who skillfully choose a obviously weaker enemy who will not fight back. The main role in the operation is played by the psychological suppression of the enemy (information warfare), the enemy’s will to resist is broken even before the operation begins, and as a result, the war simply turns into a beating. The Libyan leadership never realized the fact (or lacked the will) that the West can only be frightened by a total war, with attacks not only on military but also on civilian infrastructure. This mistake of Milosevic and Saddam was repeated by Gaddafi.

Libya's armed forces were weaker than the armies 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 some time. The hopes that the forces loyal to the Colonel would disperse after the start of the war were not justified. Gaddafi was able to hide some of the equipment, they began to use civilian cars in order to be indistinguishable from the rebels, move only when there were no enemy aircraft in the air, and 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, ammunition, and communications equipment; their units were trained by military advisers; military experts helped in organizing the actions; attack helicopters and drones were thrown into battle, and foreign gunners began to help guide them to the target; It was possible to take the capital only using the special forces of Qatar, the UAE, and PMC fighters; in addition, according to a number of experts, special forces from France, Great Britain, and the USA were also used.

This confirms the opinion that NATO (without the US and Turkish armies) cannot fight a high-intensity war, including ground operations. The European armed forces lack experience and capabilities; even France and Great Britain quickly ran out of precision-guided ammunition for the Air Force and had to buy more from the Americans. European countries lag behind the United States in such advanced areas as combat drones. Some countries cannot support their allies at all (due to reluctance to fight, or lack of physical ability), or their participation was purely symbolic.

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

NATO is trying to play the role of arbiter, helping the “offended and oppressed.” As a result, the country degrades, sliding down to a lower 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 for now.

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

In fact, the Alliance completed its task:

The regime of Muammar Gaddafi has been liquidated, 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. Personnel losses are unknown. Officially, there are none, although information has appeared about 35 killed British special forces soldiers. According to information from the vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, doctor of military sciences, captain of the first rank Konstantin Sivkov, the British lost 1.5-2 thousand people in Libya, the French 200-500 people, the USA 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 will apparently be repaid by the exploitation of Libyan hydrocarbons. The cost of the operation in the United States amounted to about 1 billion dollars, in England - approximately 500 million. Other countries spent even less, for example Canada spent $50 million. At least it's definitely not the $1 trillion that was spent on the Iraq War.

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

OUR NEWSPAPER

WAR IN LIBYA

Galina Romanovskaya

MONEY, WATER AND OIL
That's all the US and NATO are interested in in Libya

Western politicians so tirelessly tell us how necessary and important it is for the whole world to overthrow the tyrant and madman Maummar Mohammed al-Gaddafi, they so passionately and ardently try to convince us of the need for this action in the interests of the Libyan people and the peoples of Africa as a whole, they so strive to give this has a certain revolutionary freshness, calling all this nothing more than the “Arab Spring” and the “awakening of humanity”, which, it seems, only a very narrow-minded person can doubt the truth of this. However, every day there are more and more such “narrow-minded” people who doubt or openly condemn the actions of the United States and NATO, which is obedient to it. And increasingly, US actions are called quite openly: an invasion of sovereign Libya or its occupation.

The prepared and trained “rebels,” whom the Obama administration affectionately calls “rebels” and for some reason dubbed “rats” by the Libyan people, did not help in this regard. The massive information attack throughout the entire space of planet Earth did not help either. And “spring” itself dragged on until autumn. The promised $1.7 million for Gaddafi's head did not help either. And even secret intelligence, which is purposefully supplied to the TNC (Transitional National Council), as confirmed by British Defense Minister Liam Fox, did not help either.

So what's the deal? Why do the people, “tired of the bloody dictator,” resist so much and do not bring his head out on a platter to their fiery “liberators” and “fighters” for their freedom?

You don't have to look far for answers.

These “uncivilized,” “dark” people, who have not tasted the delights of Western democracy, see the obvious that the businessmen of liberalism and democracy are hiding from their “enlightened” people. The Libyan people see the underside of this cheating “game of marked cards”: its only goal is to destroy the real freedom of this very people in order to profit at their expense. That is why, shoulder to shoulder with them (the people), the fighters of the “Arab Socialist Renaissance Party” of the Baath, as well as the rulers of the desert - the Tuaregs, who know firsthand the charms of colonial power, stand in the ranks of the liberation struggle.

Let’s try to understand what really stands behind the invasion of Libya.

MONEY

The idea is persistently imposed on us that Gaddafi is robbing his people and is mired in corruption. However, the Central Bank of Libya belongs to the people: it is 100% state-owned. Unlike the central banks of America, England and EU countries. For example, in the USA, the Federal Reserve System (actually performing the role of the Central Bank) is in private hands, and the state only acts as an eternal beggar, because the right to issue money belongs to a group of people, the full list of which remains a secret even to the American people. According to the rules of this predatory financial system, the state must borrow money for the development of the country or extensive state social programs from financial tycoons at a high usurious interest rate, and then return it back, and even with a profit for them, their loved ones.

Exactly the same situation is observed in the EU. The European Central Bank, which consists of the National Central Banks of European countries and proudly calls itself “the people’s bank of the European Union,” is very problematic to call it people’s. The state's share in these banks is either zero or not decisive. As a result, Bulgaria, for example, deprived of its own currency unit, must bow down for a loan at the same usurious interest rates. And it’s not hard to guess that year after year the country’s debt will grow like a snowball. As a result, the country will be forced, in order to somehow cover its debts, to begin to surrender its territories, that is, to sell its sovereignty, its wealth and plunge further into the abyss of regression. A brilliant model of enslavement, isn't it?

The situation in Libya is different. The Libyan state and its people themselves decide on issues relating to their national currency. Libya itself decides how much, when and for what purpose to issue the required amount of money. And by definition, the global financial elite, who love to organize controlled crises on any scale, cannot manage Libyan financial flows here. What a bummer!

In addition, the Libyan national currency is not colored candy wrappers, even green ones, it is backed by gold of the highest standard. As of September this year, the Libyan Central Bank's gold reserves amounted to 143.8 tons of pure gold, worth approximately $6.5 billion. This is 17% of Russia's gold and foreign exchange reserves (841.1 tons in September 2011). Where will Libya's gold go now? - after mercenaries supported by NATO troops occupied Tripoli? - you can guess.

One thing can be said with certainty: that if the opposition wins, Libya will face a modernization of the financial system. The Libyan central bank will become fully controlled by the Federal Reserve System (FRS), and then the financial flow tap will be turned on or off as needed by the financial tycoons. Then the new Libyan government, already completely manual (puppet), will carry out not the will of the people, but the will of the overseas masters. But you and I will not hear about this in the fiery speeches of the “network revolutionary” Obama and his comrades Cameron and Sarkozy.

WATER

But, most likely, this was not the only reason for the invasion of the blessed land of Libya? Of course not. For a long time, American hawks watched the strange actions of the leader of Libya from a height of space flight. This dark, uncivilized “abrek” intended to give his people the most valuable and important thing in the sizzling desert - water, which is life itself. Artificial rivers ran across all of Libya: from south to north, west and east. Five huge reservoirs were built - artificial lakes, to which all living things were drawn. And all this was done by the Libyan people with their own money, without any international loans! The project was fully funded by the Libyan government.

Gaddafi’s project, which was dubbed the “Great Man-Made River,” is truly amazing: 500 thousand sections of pipeline over more than 4 thousand kilometers of the Sahara Desert, carrying people up to 6 million cubic meters of water per day; the use of unique fiber optic technologies that allow monitoring the performance of the pipeline 24 hours a day from a single control center is one of the most ambitious projects of the 21st century, which the Libyans themselves call the eighth wonder of the world.

The project cost the country $30 billion. However, although the project is not cheap, the Libyan people immediately felt a big difference: for a liter of their water or $3.75 for the same liter of water, which businessmen were happy to sell to them after the desalination of sea water.

Those who lost their profits also felt this difference. In addition, water is a strategic reserve. Scientists equate Libya's fresh water reserves to the 200-year volume of the Nile River. And this is a very compelling argument for invasion. Firstly, how dare you, and secondly, who gave you permission? People? Lord, what nonsense, the people are dark barbarians to whom we will give democracy and enlightenment. And you will be happy, and we will have profit!

Interesting are the words of Gaddafi himself at the opening ceremony of the next section of the artificial river on September 1, 2010, where he literally said the following: “After this achievement of the Libyan people, the US threat against Libya will double!”

Agree that the words of the leader of the Jamahiriya turned out to be prophetic.

Francis Thomas in his article “Libya's Great Man-Made River Project And NATO War Crimes” writes that, knowing the importance of this river in in an arid region of the world, knowing that turning off the water supply would lead to a humanitarian catastrophe, NATO nevertheless did just that. By starting a war, NATO did everything to ensure that the project of the century remained unfinished. The inevitable outflow of specialists, the complete destruction of a unique pipe production plant As a result of the bombing and the destruction of the pipeline itself, 70% of Libyans were left without water. The journalist laments: “By the way, attacking civilian targets is a war crime.” They know this, Francis, but when you really want it, it can be justified All!

OIL

However, there is still something that does not allow the world elite to sleep peacefully, to which former US Vice President Dick Cheney belongs. In his speech to the US Congress in 1999, he said the following: "Oil remains the fundamental business of government." And then he stated with regret that the fattest pieces of the oil pie are under the control of foreign governments (what bad luck!). He further added: "While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil reserves and still low oil prices, is where the big prize ultimately lies."

Here it is, the coveted prize, here it is, the dream of the oligarchy, this is what the oil barons are licking their lips at and where they are directing their gaze. And, if they cannot buy these foreign governments in order to gain access to the wealth of their countries, then they work according to the scheme that has been worked out for years: they stage a small coup or a big war under the slogans of fighting human rights violations and trampled freedoms in order to install their own puppet government there with the same obvious goals. These are some simple political technologies.

HOW DID WE ALLOW THIS?

Gaddafi may have a halo of a hundred suns shining above his head, or horns may be breaking through his thick hair, whether he is an angel or a demon - this does not change anything. It’s like Krylov’s: “It’s your fault that I want to eat”! In other words, it's lunch time, gentlemen, it's lunch time!

The fact that in America everything was planned long ago and decided at the highest level long before the start of the notorious “Arab Spring” is evidenced by the words of the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, US Army General Wesley Ken Clark, who stated literally the following. That in 2001 he received a paper from the office of the US Secretary of Defense, which indicated the goals of the five-year plan: “we start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, then Somalia, Sudan, and then return to Iran.” And, as world events show, the plan is working.

Of course, Gaddafi is not an angel - he is a man. But, fortunately for his people, he is the one who does not pander to the world government and its desires to profit at the people's expense. It was he who called on African countries to abandon payments in dollars and euros.

It was Maummar Muhammad al-Gaddafi who called on all of Africa to unite as a single continent with its 200 million inhabitants. After all, only by joining forces can we finally solve the problem of poverty and destitution in Africa, which everyone only talks about, preferring to limit themselves to talking.

It is not difficult to imagine what kind of reaction followed the “arbitrariness” of the Libyan leader: from hysterical cries from French President Nicolas Sarkozy that Gaddafi poses a real threat to the financial system, to direct occupation by NATO troops, which act as the repressive apparatus of the world government and serves precisely his interests.

American blogger and activist, writer David Swanson, not without desperation and good reason, asks a question that worries him: “Do NATO countries know that NATO serves US political goals?”

Good question, David, and, most importantly, important and timely.

It would be interesting to ask this question to our president and government!

Five years ago, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution that marked the beginning of Western intervention in Libya and a bloody civil war that continues to this day.

Verdict on international law

On the night of March 18, 2011, the UN Security Council adopted resolution No. 1973, which many called a death sentence on international law. On March 19, a full-scale military operation began in Libya.

But in order for the world community to calmly swallow such a dubious document, it was necessary to create the ground and prepare. This is done, as a rule, with tools of information influence. Long before the adoption of the above-mentioned resolution, the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was called in the media nothing more than a “bloody tyrant” who tortured thousands of people in prisons and who executed his own people in batches. That is why in the text of the resolution itself the emphasis was placed on the need to comply with the legitimate demands of the people - that part of them that rebelled against the ruling regime. The interests of those who were loyal to Gaddafi (and these were the majority) are not discussed in the resolution.

Beginning of the intervention

The events that followed the adoption of the resolution simply cannot be called anything other than an attack on the country. The Pentagon was developing plans for military aggression against Libya, which outlined the step-by-step actions of the American military: the destruction of aviation, the destruction of air defense systems, the destruction of coastal missile systems and a blockade of naval aviation. So it certainly didn’t look like a humanitarian intervention, as it was called in the West.

By the time the resolution was adopted, the US Navy, which arrived on the shores of Libya back in February, was already ready to begin hostilities; it only needed to get the go-ahead from the international community.

The first targets of American aircraft bombing were not only military infrastructure, but also government buildings, as well as Gaddafi’s residence. According to Middle Eastern media, dozens of civilian targets were also attacked. Images of destroyed Libyan cities, the atrocities of the NATO military and hundreds of dead children spread all over the world.

Non-humanitarian mission

It is worth recalling that Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa, and the best oil in terms of its quality. The main industrial sectors in the country were, respectively, oil production and oil refining. Due to the huge influx of oil money, Gaddafi made the country rich, prosperous and socially oriented. Under the “bloody tyrant” Gaddafi, 20 thousand km of roads, factories, and infrastructure facilities were built.

As for foreign policy, Libya was quite independent, but there were many contenders for its resources. Among the Russian companies, Russian Railways, Lukoil, Gazprom, Tatneft and others were actively working in Libya. The West was no less active in Libya. The United States hoped to persuade Gaddafi to begin the privatization of the Libyan National Oil Corporation in order to safely buy up its assets and gain unlimited access to the country's resources. But Gaddafi did not agree to this.

After this, Gaddafi becomes a “bloody tyrant” and an “executioner” of his own people, and a revolution generously financed by the West begins in the country.

The results of the protracted civil war are now known to everyone: thousands of dead, hundreds of thousands of refugees, a country completely destroyed by fighting, mired in poverty. But why President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to a decision that was disastrous for Russia’s only ally in North Africa and allowed the destruction of everything that his predecessor Vladimir Putin had achieved in this country still remains a mystery to many.

Shortly after the events described, US President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for his contribution to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and resolving the situation in the Middle East. In 2016, on the fifth anniversary of the NATO intervention, the alliance began preparations for a new invasion of Libya.