Non-humanitarian mission. How Libya was destroyed

Snezhanova L.N., NIRSI analyst

Since mid-February, the country has been engulfed in civil war. The West, which made a political choice and expected a quick overthrow of the regime by rebel forces, miscalculated. The leader of the Jamahiriya Gaddafi, being in conditions of international isolation, does not give up and continues to resist. A stalemate has developed, the outcome of which no one can predict: regional conflicts and “revolutions” have so far been amenable to external control. International institutions and organizations are discrediting themselves one after another and demonstrating ineffectiveness. Some states are committing direct violations of international law. Experts talk about the collapse of the Westphalian system. G8 countries compare the consequences of the Libyan revolution with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Russia is increasingly demonstrating a policy of concessions to the West and risks losing its geopolitical place in a rapidly changing world.

REASONS FOR THE INTERVENTION OF THE WORLD COMMUNITY

The starting point for the escalation of the current Libyan conflict, which has moved from domestic political confrontation to the international level, is formally considered to be February 21. In the context of ongoing political instability, when the protesters completely rejected the government's offer to surrender their weapons, Muammar Gaddafi decided to forcefully suppress the protests. Due to the fact that the chosen method was an air strike, and the opposition was physically dispersed among the civilian population, the shelling resulted in massive civilian casualties. This version was later officially confirmed by the UN Secretary General, who, as the main reason for international intervention in the Libyan conflict, stated that the organization condemns any violence by the authorities against civilians, but “only in Libya are people shot from guns.”

Extra-systemic forces immediately accused Gaddafi of genocide of the Libyan people. In the international arena, the colonel’s actions were condemned by almost all countries. On March 12, members of the League of Arab States (LAS) asked the UN to close the country's airspace to prevent Gaddafi from using aviation against the rebels. Some observers have called the Arab League request key to giving NATO a free hand to demonstrate support for Western actions in the region and avoid obvious parallels with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

On March 17, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, which provided for the introduction of a no-fly zone over Libya, demanded an immediate ceasefire from the parties, and also opened up the possibility of foreign intervention. The official goal was to prevent violence against civilians; for this it was supposed to use “any means other than ground operations.” In addition, all foreign accounts of the Libyan National Oil Corporation, associated with Gaddafi, and the country's Central Bank were frozen. The resolution was voted for by 10 UN member countries, including the USA, France and the UK; India, Brazil and Germany abstained, and Russia and China did not use their veto power.

MILITARY INTERVENTION IN LIBYA: FROM US TO NATO

On March 19, the operation of NATO coalition forces began, called “Odyssey. Dawn”, consisting of: USA, France, Great Britain, Canada, Italy. Later it was joined by Belgium, Spain, Denmark, Norway and Qatar. The Pentagon outlined the stages of the planned operation: the first involves neutralizing Libyan air defenses, then the targets should be the Libyan Air Force and Gaddafi's residence in Tripoli, the final stage involves striking directly at the Libyan army. US President Barack Obama clarified that the operation is of a limited military nature in order to protect the civilian population of Libya.

On March 20, Tripoli, Misrata, Benghazi and Zuwar were subjected to coalition air attacks. In total, the US and British Navy fired 110-112 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya. Under the pretext of destroying the command post of the Libyan troops, the residence of the leader of the Jamahiriya was also bombed.

The rebels welcomed the Allied actions. The official Libyan authorities accused the West of “barbaric attacks” on military and civilian targets, which resulted in “numerous casualties,” and the UN of “unleashing aggression against Libya”: “We asked the United Nations to send an international mission to establish the truth, but they sent missiles “summed up the chairman of the General People’s Congress of Libya, Mohammed Abdel Qassem al-Zawi. Muammar Gaddafi, in his televised address to the population, announced the start of arming citizens to “liberate the territory from the aggressor,” and declared the Mediterranean and North Africa a “war zone.”

The allies themselves, reporting on the success of the operation and the losses of the Libyan side, are still forced to admit the presence of inconsistencies: the expected mass desertion from Gaddafi’s regular units, as a result of which the independent collapse of the regime was expected, did not happen, the stated goals of the operation were not achieved within the expected time frame, but the image damage on the international arena is becoming increasingly clear.

The bombing of Libyan cities by NATO forces caused a wide international outcry. The Russian Foreign Ministry qualified the operation as “indiscriminate use of force” and demanded its cessation, and assessed the actions of the coalition as significantly beyond the powers granted by the UN mandate. The Chinese Foreign Ministry also expressed its regret at the start of the operation. An emergency meeting of the Arab League members was also convened, where the organization’s Secretary General Amr Musa also stated that the allies’ actions did not correspond to the stated goals: “We asked for the closure of airspace and the protection of civilians, but not at the cost of the death of other civilians.” From Arab countries about further support for Operation Odyssey. Dawn” was announced only by Qatar and the UAE.

Under these conditions, the US leadership decided to officially transfer the command of the military campaign to NATO forces. Previously, Turkey opposed this turn of events, however, the country’s position changed, and Ankara announced the transfer of a submarine and four frigates to the alliance forces. Hillary Clinton announced "all of our 28 NATO allies will join the operation." On March 31, Operation Unified Protector began under the auspices of the North Atlantic Alliance. But the US attempt to create the appearance of a formal change of leadership failed quite quickly. First, analytical calculations appeared that the newly appointed NATO commander in Libya, Canadian Air Force General Charles Bouchard, reports directly to US Navy Admiral James Stavridis, who leads the alliance forces in Europe. Then the United States itself announced the end of its direct participation in the Libyan operation, but the next day it turned out that “due to bad weather in Libya, the United States responded positively to NATO’s request to continue airstrikes in Libya throughout Monday.” “Indirect” assistance, which Pentagon representatives reported officially, amounted to the supply of ammunition, including guided “smart bombs”, spare parts and technical support to the countries participating in the operation in the amount of $24.3 million since April 1.

WHY IS THE USA AT WAR?

The officially stated goals of participation in the Libyan operation were announced by the US President a few days after the start of the bombing, when a number of US congressmen accused him of not informing legislators about the undertaken military campaign. Barack Obama's half-hour explanation boiled down to outlining the US moral duty to maintain world peace: “Some countries may turn a blind eye to atrocities committed in other countries. But not the United States of America,” “preventing the victory of the tyrant Gaddafi over the opposition is in the strategic interests of the United States<…>I report to you that we have stopped Gaddafi’s offensive.” Anticipating logical criticism, Obama clarified that the United States does not intend to repeat the Iraqi scenario of the war, which “required eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives and almost a trillion dollars.”

However, the expert community noted Obama’s departure from commenting on why “American planes bombed Libya, and not, for example, Yemen or Bahrain, where the authorities just as brutally suppressed protests.” The president and the Republicans were also not satisfied with the explanations, despite clarifications about the limited US role in the operation and assurances that the international community would share the “US mission” in Libya. In particular, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Leytinen, and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Cornyn, drew attention to the fact that the president has not outlined any clear goals, means of achieving, or a time frame for the third war for American taxpayers. . According to Market Place estimates, cited by American media, a day of war in Libya costs the United States $100 million; As of the end of March, the US had spent about $1 billion.

The end of May and the beginning of June in the US Congress was marked by similar debates - the House of Representatives demanded that Obama “compellingly justify” the need for the operation in Libya, communicate its goals, costs and impact on the other two wars waged by the United States - in Iraq and Afghanistan. The president's response came a few days later: "We have destroyed Osama bin Laden, defeated al-Qaeda, stabilized the situation in most of Afghanistan to such an extent that the Taliban will not be able to strengthen their position<…>"It is time for Afghans to take responsibility for the situation in the country." Thus, Barack Obama hinted that the American presence in Afghanistan, where 100 thousand troops are currently stationed, is coming to an end, but left the question of a military campaign in Libya open. However, American legislators are not particularly insistent on ending the operation in Libya, seeking only accountability for the military budget.

As for actions at the foreign policy level, the American side is currently making attempts to simulate control over the ongoing processes in Libya, but it is quite obvious that they did not direct these processes. The nature of revolutions is spontaneous, and the adventurous nature of the operation is increasingly revealing itself. The United States is trying to integrate itself so that, under favorable circumstances, it will not only gain control over Libya’s energy sector, but also the opportunity to influence policy in this strategically important region.

Taking into account internal American problems such as high unemployment and the impending crisis against the backdrop of the upcoming presidential elections in 2012, in which Obama has already officially announced his participation, it becomes clear why the United States is trying to avoid the Libyan events as much as possible in the information field, at least Bye. But what are the European NATO countries doing, essentially, doing all the “dirty work” in Libya?

WHY DOES EUROPE HAVE WAR?

As is known, France was the initiator of the military campaign in Libya, the second most active European participant is Great Britain. Experts considered the following versions as the main versions of the intervention of these countries in the Libyan war. First, the obligation of NATO member countries to show solidarity in the event of a threat to one of them - Barack Obama stated on February 26: “I have determined that the actions of Muammar Gaddafi, his government and his closest associates, including actions against the people of Libya, constitute poses an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." Secondly, the desire of leaders to raise their ratings within their own countries in the old proven way - with the help of a “small victorious war.” It was also noted that France behaved in a similar way in order to restore its image after the Egyptian and Tunisian events (the Mubarak regime was considered France’s most privileged partner in the Mediterranean Union), as well as to earn “political capital” in the European space and demonstrate its dominance on the continent as opposed to Germany. However, today it is obvious that neither Nicolas Sarkozy nor David Cameron counted on any extended deadlines, which led to such unpleasant consequences as growing discontent in public opinion and the flow of migrants to Europe, which had previously been essentially restrained by Gaddafi .

As is known, for some time Germany refrained from participating in the Libyan adventure, whose population is increasingly dissatisfied with the country’s participation in the Afghan campaign. The German expert community was polarized. Thus, German Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development Dirk Niebel stated that “a model of the political system in Libya without Gaddafi does not yet exist,” and Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière noted that establishing and enforcing a no-fly zone would eventually require a ground operation. As for critics of Germany's position of non-intervention in the Libyan war, one of their most ardent representatives was former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. And the country’s policy changed quite quickly: the current head of the German Foreign Ministry, Guido Westerwelle, who previously claimed that “no so-called surgical intervention exists, and any military action is associated with the death of civilians,” said that Germany “sees a future for Libya without dictator Gaddafi.” . Angela Merkel took a similar position, emphasizing that although Germany abstained from voting, “resolution 1973 is our resolution.” And on April 7, it became known that Germany intends to send military personnel to Libya as part of the EU military mission “Eufor Libya” to provide armed protection for humanitarian cargo. Thus, the lobby of pro-Atlantic forces outweighed the position of sensible forces in Germany, guided by the national interests of their country, and not by the imposed corporate goals of NATO.

The reasons for Italy's joining the coalition warring with Gaddafi are also of interest. Initially, Rome, like Berlin, denied this possibility, but after a telephone conversation with Barack Obama, Silvio Berlusconi changed his mind. It is also noteworthy that this decision was made several hours before the meeting with Nicolas Sarkozy, which observers regarded as an attempt by Italy to improve relations with France. The reason for the disagreement between these European countries was the decision of the Italian authorities to issue residence permits to Libyan migrants who arrived in Lampedusa and intend to move to France to ensure their free movement within the Schengen zone. Paris's response was the threat of closing the borders with Italy, which immediately caused concern on an EU scale. Thus, the Italian President’s agreement to cooperate with belligerent France and the alliance was intended to level out a bilateral conflict that risked acquiring pan-European proportions.

But perhaps the most exotic motivation for intervention in the Libyan campaign is attributed to Sweden, which not only is not a NATO member, but has also been distinguished for decades by its neutrality in wars - the last time the country fought in the Congo was in 1961-1963. As you know, after the visit of the NATO Secretary General to Stockholm, the Swedish Riksdag decided to send Gripen multirole fighters to Libya, supposedly intended for air patrol. Meanwhile, experts assessed this step not as Sweden’s desire to “ensure the protection of the civilian population” of Libya, but as PR for the aircraft through participation in a real conflict in order to increase their value during subsequent sale.

Thus, behind the official guise of pan-Atlantic solidarity and the desire to “protect the population of Libya from the dictator Gaddafi,” de facto hide very diverse reasons for the involvement of European states in the Libyan campaign. Apparently, Western countries will begin to reflect on the appropriateness of this step after the fact, when the issue of illegal migrants and rapidly growing enclaves will strengthen nationalist sentiments in their societies so much that not only the retention of power by their cabinets will be in question, but also, possibly, the integrity of the states themselves. One cannot but agree with some politicians who rightly drew attention to the fact that the intervention of Western countries in Libya increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks in Europe.

WHO ARE NPCs?

As you know, in fact, until March, the Libyan rebels were a scattered force without leadership or a single command center, which simply could not even formulate a vision of its ultimate goal. This fact is partly an indirect confirmation of the spontaneous nature of the revolution, which was taken under the semblance of control only with the formation of the so-called National Transitional Council of Libya. Formally, its creation was announced on February 27, and it declared itself the “sole legitimate authority” of Libya on March 5. The former Minister of Justice Mustafa Abdel Jalil became the main NTC, and on March 23 the rebels announced the creation of an interim government.

Many observers noted that the Libyans, initially inspired by the success of the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, having embarked on the path of a coup and faced with resistance from Gaddafi, continued further struggle only out of fear for their lives - they understood that there would be no mercy to be expected from the colonel.

The fact that the NPS actually came under external control from the moment of its creation is evidenced by the following facts. Firstly, prompt legalization of the self-proclaimed regime by some countries. On March 10, the NPS was recognized by France as the “sole legal authority”. Subsequently, the example of Paris was followed by: Qatar, Spain, Maldives, Senegal, Italy, Gambia, UAE, Germany. Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia also announced a similar intention. It is noteworthy that the United States, represented by Senator John McCain, better known as Obama’s main competitor in the 2008 US presidential election, appealed to the international community to recognize the NPS, although they themselves have so far refrained from doing so. However, McCain promised to “increase pressure on the Obama administration” and achieve the status of legal authority for the NTC in order to “open access to funds and help them finance the insurrection.” The EU, Germany, USA, UK, France and Italy opened their representative offices in Benghazi, the capital of the rebels. British Foreign Secretary William Hague directly called on the rebels to prepare a plan for the post-war development of Libya. The NPC also stated that Russia also recognizes their government as legitimate, but the Russian Foreign Ministry explained that opposition representatives asked for their recognition not as the only legitimate representatives of the Libyan people, but as “a legitimate partner in negotiations on the future of Libya. It was in this capacity that we met with him,” summed up Sergei Lavrov. There is no doubt that such a future is planned for the organization: currently, active work is underway in the media field to rebrand the NPS to improve the image-forming components - now the official name of the armed forces of the NPS sounds like National Liberation Army, which, in the humble opinion of the initiators, will “better reflect the growing professionalism (of the rebels) and attempts to introduce military discipline.” As for the long-term goals of such a change of signs, this is clearly illustrated by the example of current Egypt, where the Islamist movement of the Muslim Brotherhood is not only excluded from the list of prohibited organizations in the country, and therefore legalized, but also intends to occupy from a third to half of the seats in the legislative meeting in future elections, however, already as the Freedom and Justice Party.

Sponsoring the opposition regime is the second confirmation of the external control of the Libyan revolution. Initially, the West used the need to provide humanitarian assistance as a pretext to finance the rebels: for example, Canada allocated $3 million to “help Libyan refugees,” and the EU allocated €70 million. But already in April, open support followed: the American ally in the Persian Gulf, Kuwait, sent $177 million to the NPS; however, the country’s representatives later clarified that they had sent financial assistance to pay workers’ wages. Kuwait and Qatar also assumed obligations to resell oil from areas captured by the rebels on the world market. The United States itself went further: the Obama administration, in cooperation with Congress, passed a law according to which it was decided to transfer Gaddafi’s frozen assets, estimated at $900 million, “to help the people of Libya.” In addition, Obama approved the allocation of $78 million to the Libyan opposition, members of the coalition fighting Gaddafi agreed to create a special fund to finance the NPS, and Italian Foreign Minister Franco Fattini announced that the international community was committing to allocate $250 million. “for the civil needs” of the population of the Jamahiriya. The NPS themselves announced that they had seized $550 million from the Central Bank of Libya and called on the international community to provide the opposition with at least part of Gaddafi’s frozen accounts abroad, which, according to them, are estimated at $165 billion. Official Tripoli, represented by Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim, spoke out against the use of frozen assets: “The country is not divided according to a UN resolution or referendum. It is illegal". The representative of the Libyan Foreign Ministry also rightly pointed out the fact that the contact group does not have a mechanism for distributing and exercising control over this money.

Thirdly, despite the fact that UN Resolution 1973 directly prohibits the supply of weapons to Libya, a number of countries began to interpret this provision as a clause that concerns exclusively the part of the Libyans fighting on the side of Gaddafi. There were reports that Qatar and Italy entered into a contract with the rebels for the supply of weapons, and similar negotiations were held with the Egyptian authorities. US Permanent Representative to the UN Susan Rice, and then the US President, also did not rule out the possibility of supplying weapons to the Libyan opposition, and French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé announced the same intention. However, an attempt was made to comply with some formalities: for example, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated that the operation was being carried out to protect the population, and not to arm them. The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry hinted at this contradiction between rhetoric and practical actions, expressing his condemnation of the supply of weapons to the rebels and joining the above-mentioned thesis of the head of the North Atlantic Alliance. Sergei Lavrov also emphasized that “the coalition’s intervention in the internal civil war is not authorized by the UN Security Council resolution.” The allies, of course, understand this themselves, but in conditions when the UN is silent, one can afford any convenient position without regard to international law. Thus, Deputy Assistant to the US President for National Security Ben Rhodes, who oversees strategic communications, said that decisions on the possible supply of weapons to the rebels in Libya should be made by countries individually “without regard to the UN Security Council resolution”, just in case, still clarifying that “for example, the United States provides non-military assistance to the Libyan opposition.” This approach has recently been replicated more and more often - the United States is diversifying its formulations, now it is busy supplying “food rations” and “portable radios,” for which another $25 million has been allocated. It is also noteworthy that, against the backdrop of statements about “deepening ties” between the Obama administration and the NPC, the US President himself does not hold direct meetings with the Libyan opposition; in particular, he avoided official contact with the representative of the Libyan National Council, Mahmoud Jibril, who received an audience in Washington. Moreover, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has already met with Jibril twice, said that such meetings are not expected in the near future, since her schedule is busy with a trip to Greenland for a meeting of the Arctic Council.

Considering the above-mentioned context of the Western countries’ comprehensive support for the NPS forces, it is noteworthy that back in March NATO officially recognized the presence of al-Qaeda terrorists in the ranks of the rebels, and the United States stated that it still has no idea with whom exactly they have case. Let us emphasize that this time we are not talking about a warning to Gaddafi or even about the official confirmation of one of the rebel commanders that he belongs to Al-Qaeda, but about a speech in the US Senate by the Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, Admiral James Stavridis. The general’s conclusions are also interesting: there is still no particular cause for concern, since there is no “tangible” presence of al-Qaeda in the opposition yet. Of course, the general said nothing about where the line of demarcation lies between the tangible and the intangible; As practice shows, such criteria are very conditional and vary depending on the foreign and domestic political situation of the United States. It is also symptomatic that this statement chronologically coincided with the announced plans to begin supplying weapons to the rebels, which inevitably leads to the conclusion that both the United States and NATO, having information about the heterogeneous and legally ambiguous composition of the rebels, are still consciously going to arming, sponsoring and almost legalizing, according to the most optimistic data, latent terrorists. However, the United States has similar experience, and more than one; such examples include both Afghanistan and Kosovo. It is also necessary to note that the US authorities deliberately misinform their citizens: for example, Barack Obama, speaking at the US State Department with a keynote speech on the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, said that the NPS is “legal and credible” authority, and the use of force during the operation was authorized by the UN Security Council.

HUNT FOR GADDAFI

Despite the fact that representatives of the coalition in every possible way deny such a formulation of the issue, it takes place for the following reasons.

Firstly, We are talking about NATO's military-political campaign to remove Gaddafi. And if at first Western politicians preferred to bring to the fore the rhetoric about the “free choice of the Libyan people,” now it passes as a background, while the main demand of the allies has become Gaddafi’s abdication of power. Of some interest is how this agenda unfolded. As is known, the UN resolution does not contain a call for a change in the existing political regime in Libya; its demands are limited to a ceasefire by both warring parties. But, in fact, the personalized struggle with the head of the Jamahiriya began on March 3, when Barack Obama announced that Gaddafi had lost the right to lead the country and “must leave.” On March 26, the Washington publication published a statement by the US President, according to which the administration is seeking regime change in Libya. But the main part of the information campaign to remove Gaddafi from power was transferred to the shoulders of Europe: first, the President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy stated that this was a “political goal” of the EU, and then the President of France and the Prime Minister of Great Britain became the main speakers of this topic . Before the start of the international conference on Libya, held in London on March 29, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron said that Gaddafi must leave immediately, called on his supporters “before it’s too late” to stop supporting him, and on his opponents to “take the initiative and organize the process transfer of power." As a result of the conference, delegations from 40 countries, including the foreign ministers of the United States, France, Italy, the UN and NATO secretaries general, the heads of the League of Arab States and the African Union, came to the following opinion: Gaddafi should relinquish power and leave the country. Apparently, such a consolidated position seemed satisfactory to the United States, since on April 15 a joint statement by Barack Obama with the leaders of Great Britain and France was released. The article stated in plain text that the purpose of the bombing of Libya was to overthrow the colonel’s regime: “NATO must continue the operation in the Jamahiriya until Gaddafi leaves his post, so that the civilian population remains protected”, it turned out to be “in a position to independently choose its future” and was able to take the path of transition “from dictatorship to the constitutional process.” In May, the situation of delegation of statements that were not very democratic and simply ambiguous from a regulatory point of view from the United States to Europe was repeated. Following the results of the Rome conference on Libya, Sarkozy and Cameron called for increased international “military, political and economic” pressure “in order to isolate the discredited Gaddafi regime,” and Barack Obama limited himself to the laconic remark that “Gaddafi will inevitably leave” his post as a result actions of the North Atlantic Alliance. However, NATO did not see any pitfalls in such behavior; on the contrary, the organization’s secretary general confirmed that the alliance “will act until it completes its assigned tasks.” “We will continue to put strong military pressure on the Gaddafi regime, and I hope that thanks to these measures, as well as increasing political pressure and the actions of the Libyan opposition, it will be possible to achieve the fall of this regime,” said Anders Fogh Rasmussen. However, given the history of creation and funding channels of this organization, it is somewhat illogical to expect independence from it when making decisions.

Secondly, a number of facts indicate that The Western coalition is also considering the possibility of physically eliminating Muammar Gaddafi . First of all, it should be noted that, in fact, from the first days of the NATO operation, attacks were carried out on the places where the leader of the Jamahiriya was supposed to be stationed. Thus, on March 21, Gaddafi’s residence in Tripoli came under fire: the media reported 45 wounded, 15 of whom were in serious condition, the colonel himself was not injured and appeared in public the next day, calling for “fight to the end” and “ultimately win” all enemies. Libyan authorities accused the West of attempting to assassinate Gaddafi. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the operation does not involve hunting for Gaddafi, Barack Obama spoke in the same spirit: “There are no plans to use the US military to kill Muammar Gaddafi.” The coalition’s explanations boiled down to the fact that they didn’t even know whether the leader of the Jamahiriya was in his residence or not, and the main goal of the strikes was to disable the command post, which coordinates the actions of Gaddafi’s troops, and therefore “poses a direct threat to the Libyan people and prevents the establishment of a no-fly zone,” i.e. the actions taken “are within the framework of the UN resolution.” It is possible that such sophistry would have brought its results if it were not for the information, voiced the day before at a briefing in the Pentagon by the representative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, that Colonel Gaddafi’s palace is not included in the list of strategic objects coming under coalition fire . However, a series of coalition airstrikes on the residence in Tripoli were repeated several times. Their results were again the death of civilians, including the son and three grandchildren of Gaddafi, the destruction of buildings, including those not having military purposes - for example, damage to the Libyan television center was reported. The NATO command continued to insist that it had no information about Gaddafi’s whereabouts and was not seeking to destroy him, that the strikes were carried out exclusively on the military command infrastructure of the Libyan government forces, and that the targets were the headquarters of military units, and not individual people. British Defense Secretary Liam Fox went further, saying Gaddafi was a "legitimate target for such attacks." Apparently, the version about the “legality” of the colonel’s murder was liked by the US Secretary of State, who, repeating the “logical” chain about “bunkers-control centers,” warned Gaddafi that he “could become a victim of the very violence that he himself provoked.” The United States is actively working to “implement a political solution” to the conflict in Libya, but “the obstacle is Colonel Gaddafi,” Hillary Clinton concluded. This development of events also seemed attractive to Chief of the Defense Staff David Richards, who called on NATO to intensify airstrikes against Libyan targets and “seriously consider expanding the number of targets to hit”: “The only way to resolve the conflict will be the departure of Gaddafi. We are not making Gaddafi our direct target, but if it happens that he ends up at the command post and is killed, then it will be within the rules." It’s interesting that less than a month ago the media attributed to David Richards the statement that the UN resolution does not allow for a “hunt” for Colonel Gaddafi personally.” Italian Foreign Minister Franco Fattini also distinguished himself by announcing that Gaddafi “has most likely left Tripoli and is most likely wounded” as a result of the NATO bombing. Gaddafi's reaction was broadcast by Libyan state television: he emphasized that the hands of cowardly crusaders would not reach him. The colonel also stated that they could not kill him, even if they “physically destroyed him,” since he “lives in the hearts of millions of people.” Later, the Arab press disseminated information according to which Gaddafi was ready to leave his post in exchange for guarantees of immunity for himself and his loved ones; however, not a single official source confirms this. Representatives of the expert community believe that Gaddafi’s death would be the optimal political decision for the West: “The coalition troops have the illusion that if the leader and his inner circle are physically removed, the resistance will cease. Therefore, the main task of the opposition is to physically eliminate Gaddafi. If they fail to do this within a month, then the current situation will continue for a long time.” The colonel himself understands this; thus, in his address to the nation, Gaddafi stated: “We welcome death! Martyrdom is a million times better than surrender.”

In addition to the two main options above for removing Gaddafi from power, there are other scenarios. At the beginning of April, there was a popular version in the media according to which negotiations with the colonel were conducted by former US Congressman Curt Weldon, who allegedly suggested that Gaddafi resign and voluntarily withdraw from the political field of Libya, taking the honorable place of chairman of the African Union. However, this story has not received official confirmation. But at present a very popular version is that The International Criminal Court (ICC) seeks an arrest warrant for Gaddafi, his son, Seif al-Islam, and the head of Libyan intelligence, Abdullah al-Sanusi. They are charged with committing war crimes, as they gave orders and instructions that led to the death of civilians during the confrontation with the rebels. Tripoli stated that Libya does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC, because did not sign the charter of the court, and also accused the investigation of bias, since the investigation is not being conducted in territories controlled by the rebels. The package of ICC charges is, indeed, somewhat exotic: it lists not only the “facts” of attacks on residential areas, including the use of cluster bombs, shelling of peaceful demonstrations, funeral processions heading to or leaving mosques, and obstruction of the supply of humanitarian supplies, but also mass use of Viagra by the Libyan military for the subsequent rape of women “with rebel flags” to intimidate the population. Observers emphasize that the UN Security Council approved the transfer of the Libyan issue to the ICC in record time, although previously it took from several months to several years to launch an official investigation into war crimes. Experts also draw attention to the fact that Gaddafi is currently being actively demonized in the eyes of the world community, moreover, in the format of a transition from the level of media wars to rhetoric in the government authorities of some countries. For example, a report appeared in the British Parliament “interpreting the murder of bin Laden as a precedent that applies to the head of the sovereign state of Libya”; the document is not the official position of the authorities, but this kind of discussion represents a very dangerous trend.

IS GROUND OPERATION POSSIBLE?

In the stalemate that has developed in Libya today, when none of the warring parties can defeat the other, and a diplomatic settlement also does not bring results, the version about the likelihood of a coalition ground operation in Libya has become increasingly heard. This option is as popular and as illegal as the possible assassination of Gaddafi, mentioned above. By the way, some political scientists are inclined to believe that the West may launch a ground operation precisely if it fails to kill Gaddafi. The main legal obstacle to a ground invasion is the UN resolution, which in no way authorizes such actions by the coalition. But, as it turned out, the United Nations allows very free handling of its documents by some states.

At the official level, the intention to conduct a ground operation is refuted by both individual members of the alliance and the NATO bloc as a whole. Thus, Barack Obama said that the United States “cannot afford” to conduct a ground operation in Libya following the example of Iraq, which “took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives and almost a trillion dollars.” British Prime Minister David Cameron and NATO Secretary General also denied the existence of such plans, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen even referred to the UN Security Council decision: “The UN resolution clearly excludes sending ground troops to Libya, we do not plan to do this and do not plan to ask the UN to extradite mandate for the use of ground forces."

Despite this, a number of experts and official representatives of some states doubt the sincerity of the speeches of NATO politicians. First of all, the premise for this skepticism is that the alliance has already violated UN regulations when it took the side of the rebels, that is, there is a precedent, which means we cannot exclude the possibility of its repetition, especially since such cases have already happened in history. The second significant factor in favor of a hypothetical ground operation is the allies' irreconcilable position regarding Gaddafi being in power, and if other options for removing him are exhausted and turn out to be as ineffective as the current ones, then the West may take this step to overthrow the regime. Thirdly, the media systematically convey information about the actual presence of foreign military personnel on Libyan territory, which, among other things, is confirmed by the US military itself; Recently there have been reports of French special forces and British contractors paid by Qatar. Fourthly, ongoing transfer of combat helicopters from France and Great Britain to Libya and their testing there may also serve as confirmation of ongoing preparations for ground operations, since they are usually used to support ground forces; in particular, Russia drew the attention of the alliance to this fact by sending an official request and, of course, receiving assurances to the contrary. However, the permanent representative of the Russian Federation to NATO noted the behind-the-scenes nature of the decisions being made and possible provocative maneuvers: “I think that there will be a certain game on the part of our partners, they will tell us that NATO as such is not going to do anything, but individual countries may well have military planning for this." The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry also believes that “there is either a conscious or unconscious slide towards a ground operation. This will be very regrettable,” summed up Sergei Lavrov.

In addition, today there are at least three versions of how a ground operation can be carried out, formally bypassing the UN resolution. The first one is connected with the EU initiative to provide security convoys for humanitarian supplies sent to Libya. The rebels supported the plan, saying that if delivering "humanitarian supplies to civilians requires the deployment of ground forces to guard safe corridors, then there is nothing wrong with that." True, in order to implement such a convenient option for Gaddafi’s opponents, the European Union needs to receive a request from the UN, which is not yet available, and, as Russia’s permanent representative to the EU Vladimir Chizhov noted, “if such a request does come from the UN, it should only be in form of a new resolution." Another version of the "legal" operation involves a similar oxymoron non-military presence of NATO troops on Libyan territory. In particular, the chairman of the external relations committee of the French National Assembly, Axel Poniatowski, came up with the following idea: “The alliance could send special forces soldiers to Libya who will not participate in hostilities: they will only identify targets for airstrikes and coordinate air actions. In this case, we will not talk about the occupation of a country, which is prohibited by a UN resolution.” The third option for circumventing UN Security Council decisions was voiced by the former commander of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), General Alain Pellegrini: “In my opinion, the wording can be played around. If we are talking about troops that will land in Libya, conduct a short-term operation (to remove Gaddafi) in Tripoli and quickly leave, these are no longer occupation troops.” The only difficulty the general sees is that in this case the troops risk getting bogged down in Libya, as was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan: “When you enter a country, you never know when you will leave. This is what the coalition countries are afraid of,” Pellegrini concluded. Russian experts also pointed out that the main risk for NATO in the event of a ground operation would be the unification of all Arabs against the West, regardless of whether they support Gaddafi.

INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENT

As is known, several actors were initially concerned with the international resolution of the Libyan issue. Of course, the key role in resolving the conflict was assigned to the UN. But the organization’s position turned out to be biased already from the moment of the coalition’s military intervention in Libya: thus, in response to a request from the Libyan authorities to convene an extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council, diplomats limited themselves to only holding a briefing, at which it was decided to discuss the effectiveness of measures to implement the previous resolution on the creation of unmanned zones to protect civilians. Further the version of the UN's involvement was finally confirmed: Ban Ki-moon, who was expected to assess the legality of the coalition’s actions against Gaddafi, initially left this point without comment in his reports and speeches, drawing attention only to the fact that Gaddafi did not comply with the requirements of resolutions 1970 and 1973, and then stated that “the coalition stopped the aggressive military campaign of the Libyan authorities and was able to protect civilians in Benghazi and some other cities of the country<…>I believe the superior military power of the (coalition) will prevail.” Thus, despite observing the necessary protocol clarifications that the operation is not aimed at overthrowing the Gaddafi regime, but only “can create a certain political atmosphere in which the Libyan people could discuss their own future, including the leader (Gaddafi),” the political the choice of the UN Secretary General was clear and, in essence, amounted to tacit approval of a forceful solution to the intra-Libyan conflict, i.e. The UN de facto sanctioned the intervention of external forces in the civil war. The UN did not condemn the actions of the coalition even during NATO’s targeted bombing of Gaddafi’s residence: Ban Ki-moon admitted that the alliance goes beyond the mandate of the UN Security Council, but, realizing that this statement would not get the required number of votes, did not put it to a vote, which means , and “it has no legal force.” Regarding reports of civilian casualties, the UN Secretary General duplicated NATO’s version of the explanation on this matter: the alliance is doing everything to protect the civilian population of Libya, and the alliance’s operation is carried out exclusively against military targets.

Another actor who announced “overall political coordination of international efforts to support Libya” was the contact group formed by the coalition. The decision to create it was made at a conference in London, which was attended by more than 40 countries, including UN Secretary General Man Ki-moon, Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, foreign ministers of the EU and NATO countries, the Middle East and North Africa. Neither Russia nor China, which abstained from voting in the UN Security Council, were present, but representatives of the NPC were invited to participate. The goals of the contact group were stated to be: discussion of the strategy of the operation against Gaddafi and the political future of Libya. According to the British Prime Minister, “Libyans can only bring a brighter future closer with the help of the international community.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reminded summit participants that the coalition should report to the UN Security Council, and not at a “one-time forum.” In total, the organization held two international conferences, in Qatar and Italy, the results of which boiled down to the demand for Gaddafi’s departure and the creation of a “temporary financial mechanism” to provide support to the rebels in Benghazi. Later, the head of the NPS, Mahmoud Jibril, during a meeting with Nicolas Sarkozy, outlined the amount of $3 billion needed by the opposition in the near future; the French President promised not only to provide “strong support in the financial and political sphere”, but also to expand the composition of the existing contact group. The contact group plans to hold its next conference in the OEA in the second week of June.

Another international association that has expressed its readiness to carry out mediation functions to achieve peace in Libya is African Union (AU) . A distinctive feature of this negotiator is, first of all, that the AU invited both conflicting parties, including the official Libyan authorities, to participate in the development of a compromise, that is, in fact, it is the representatives of Africa, and not the West, who are guided by democratic principles in practice. It is also noteworthy that at the negotiations under the auspices of the AU, held in the Ethiopian capital on March 25, the Chairman of the Libyan Parliament, Mohammed Abu Qasim Zuai, and four government ministers arrived. It follows from this that it is not official Tripoli who is to blame for the failure to achieve a peaceful settlement of the Libyan conflict, as they are trying to imagine, but the opposition, which did not send its representatives. As you know, the result of the meeting in Addis Ababa was the agreement of the Libyan authorities with the AU plan, which envisages a ceasefire, the admission of AU observers into the Jamahiriya and “carrying out reforms in a peaceful, democratic way.” In exchange, the Libyan authorities demanded an end to the bombing, the lifting of the naval blockade and the economic embargo. And it’s not even that such conditions would not suit the NPC and allies; something else is important: in the priorities of the “fighters for life and human rights,” political considerations initially stood higher than the cessation of hostilities and the prevention of further casualties. It should be noted that representatives of the AU were present only at the first meeting of the contact group in Doha, and then refused to participate precisely in this regard: the chairman of the AU commission, Jean Ping, noted that the UN resolution was violated both “in letter and in spirit.” Recently, the AU has increasingly spoken out against the alliance’s bombings, and on May 25-26, an emergency summit on Libya was convened, the result of which was the demand for “an immediate cessation of fighting in Libya, as well as NATO air raids on this country.” Also, the road map proposed by the AU involves ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Jamahiriya, introducing a transition period and preparing democratic elections. The main obstacle to the start of negotiations is the mutually unacceptable demands of the parties: Gaddafi's government insists that the bombing be stopped first, and the colonel's opponents insist on his immediate resignation from power and subsequent departure from the country. However, a few days after the summit in Ethiopia, South African President Jacob Zuma, as the head of the AU GVU, paid a visit to Libya, where he held negotiations directly with Muammar Gaddafi, who once again confirmed his readiness to follow the plan proposed by the AU - NATO’s response was another raid on Tripoli .

Let us recall that the Gaddafi regime has repeatedly spoken out in favor of a peaceful solution to the conflict. Moreover, if back in April the main demands of the Libyan authorities were the preservation of Gaddafi’s leadership post during the transition period and the non-interference of external forces in internal issues, then in May in letters sent to Western leaders by the head of the Libyan government Al-Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmudi, about Gaddafi’s place the country's leadership is not mentioned at all. It is noteworthy that the United States and NATO denied receiving this letter, while, for example, the Spanish authorities confirmed it. Previously, the media also published Gaddafi’s appeal to Obama, in which he called for stopping the bombing of Libya; the State Department also did not consider it necessary to respond to this request. After a speech by one of the possible candidates for US President Donald Trump, who directly stated that the only thing that should interest the United States in Libya is oil, Gaddafi proposed exchanging it for peace. Gaddafi's son Seif al-Islam approached the United States, proposing to send a “mission to the Jamahiriya to find out what happened in Libya<…>We are not afraid of the International Criminal Court. We are confident that we have not committed any crimes against our people.” NATO fundamentally rejected possible negotiations, demanding that Gaddafi immediately stop “attacks on civilians.” On June 9, Gaddafi sent another letter to the United States with a proposal for peace negotiations, moreover, under the patronage of the United States, in fact inviting the “great democracy” to determine the future of the Libyan people. This time the White House did not deny the fact of receiving the message, but still ignored it.

RUSSIA'S POSITION IN THE LIBYAN CONFLICT

Russia's position on the Libyan issue seems inconsistent and ambiguous. As is known, even at the stage of adoption of the resolution, the Russian Federation could have exercised its right of veto and blocked it, but did not do so. As possible reasons for making such a decision, experts cited Russia’s reluctance to go against the world (Western) community, as well as the initiation of voting by members of the Arab League, whose position Russia listened to. The objective difficulty was that, on the one hand, Russia recognized and condemned Gaddafi’s crime against the rebels, and, on the other, opposed interference in the internal civil conflict and violation of sovereignty. The information field was structured in a similar way - in the spirit of displaying a dual approach: thus, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin condemned the actions of the coalition, comparing them to a “crusade,” and President Dmitry Medvedev pointed out the inadmissibility of such statements, accused the Tripoli authorities of violence against civilians, signed decrees imposing sanctions against Libya and declared Gaddafi and his entourage persona non grata. Some media saw in such assessments a tandem conflict, but experts stated only an attempt by the authorities to satisfy the diverse, including foreign policy, demands of the Russian electorate on the eve of the 2012 elections. Thus, German political scientist Alexander Rahr explained the Russian Prime Minister’s speech as follows: “Putin’s position clear. He is the leader of a party that is already in the election campaign in Russia, where 90% of Russians are outraged by what is happening in Libya.” However, an important detail flashed through the verbal battles of the Russian authorities: responding to Putin’s comment about the “inferior and flawed” UN resolution, Medvedev said that he did not consider the vote in the Security Council to be incorrect: “We deliberately did this, and this was my instructions Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They were fulfilled."

As for the official reaction of the Russian Foreign Ministry, back in March it stated that NATO’s actions went beyond the framework of UN resolutions; condemned interference in the internal conflict, pointing to the open support of the rebels by the coalition; announced the prevention of a ground operation, and also demanded an international investigation into information about civilian casualties due to the bombing of Libya. Other representatives of the Russian government duplicated and replicated these signals at different times. Thus, the Russian permanent representative to NATO Dmitry Rogozin blamed NATO for “free interpretations” of the resolution and stated that Moscow would regard a possible ground operation in Libya as an occupation of the country, condemned the actions of “European powers acting on the side of the Libyan rebels” and violation of the arms embargo, and also pointed out that “the humanitarian catastrophe began as a result of the bombing of (Libyan) infrastructure.” Chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs Konstantin Kosachev once again drew attention to the fact that “the indiscriminate use of force by the anti-Libyan coalition is just as unacceptable as the attacks by Gaddafi and the forces loyal to him on the peaceful population,” pointing out that “more and more facts indicate that the goal of the anti-Libyan coalition is the physical destruction of Gaddafi.” Dmitry Medvedev admitted: “The situation in Libya is already out of control, no one controls it”; the NATO operation “reduced to the use of force” and went beyond the mandate provided by the UN. The President even reproached the UN, comparing the Libyan situation with what happened in Cote d'Ivoire, where the United Nations forces openly supported one of the warring parties: “We have complaints against the UN secretariat. UN resolutions must be implemented, taking into account both the letter and spirit of the law; these documents cannot be interpreted arbitrarily. This is a very dangerous trend in international relations.” A similar position was voiced by the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN Vitaly Churkin at a meeting of the UN Security Council: “Statements by coalition representatives about adhering to Security Council Resolution 1973 increasingly come into conflict with reality.” Russia considers it necessary to “reaffirm clearly the inadmissibility of UN peacekeepers in carrying out their mandate found themselves drawn into an armed conflict and actually took the side of one of its participants.”

However, despite the efforts made by diplomats to ensure the appearance of monolithicity in the Russian position on the Libyan issue, contradictions and inconsistencies have emerged, which is clearly illustrated by the following positions.

Firstly, The Russian Federation has joined the international vision of the future of Libya without Gaddafi. For quite a long time, at the official level, Russia adhered to neutrality, emphasizing over and over again that the question of who will lead Libya does not allow outside interference, since it is the privilege and competence exclusively of the Libyan people themselves, and any international intervention will be regarded as a violation of the sovereignty of Libya , and therefore a violation of the UN Charter. In May, Russia's adherence to principles diminished - official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry Alexei Sazonov announced Moscow's decision about its readiness to support the idea of ​​“providing humanitarian and financial assistance to the Libyan people using funds from the frozen assets of Jamahiriya leader Muammar Gaddafi” subject to strict control by the UN Security Council and its Committee on sanctions to prevent the “politically motivated” use of these funds, including those excluding the purchase of weapons. And although attention was paid to the fact that the political leadership of the Russian Federation had made a choice back in March (then this was stated by the Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs, Mikhail Margelov: Moscow’s policy “unequivocally suggests that Russia is on the side of the part of the world community that in the civil war that has unfolded in Libya, he is on the side of the opposition”), this became obvious only at the end of May, at the summit in Deauville. Following the G8 meeting, Dmitry Medvedev said: “The Gaddafi regime has lost legitimacy, it must go. This was passed unanimously<…>This would be beneficial for the country and the Libyan people." The insightful Mikhail Margelov, sent to Benghazi as the president’s special representative for the Middle East and Africa, confirmed that “it will be necessary to negotiate not with Gaddafi,” but with representatives of his regime, who “think strategically about the future world.” In this situation, the Russian Foreign Ministry had only to obey and once again “follow the instructions” of the president. Sergei Lavrov only clarified that the forceful solution will not lead to results, and therefore he does not see any benefit in NATO’s decision to extend the mission in Libya; that Russia will not take part in possible negotiations on the terms of Gaddafi’s departure from power and providing him with “immunity or guarantees” in contrast to “leaders of states who can influence the situation.” Earlier, Mikhail Margelov shared information with the press that G8 participants were considering various options for Gaddafi’s future - “from a quiet life as a simple Bedouin in the Libyan desert to the fate of Milosevic in The Hague.”

Thus, having decided to cooperate with NATO at the Deauville summit, Russia de facto joined the political choice of the coalition, losing its previous neutrality in the Libyan issue. It is noteworthy that this decision was made by the country's leadership in conditions when diplomats again and again declared violations of the UN resolution by the coalition and the disproportionate use of force: attacks on targets that do not have a military purpose, entailing mass casualties among civilians ; that NATO intervention is exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in the region; on the supply of weapons under veto conditions. Russia categorically opposed a possible ground operation and the expansion of target categories in Libya, “which now includes civilian infrastructure facilities,” as well as the political goal of the alliance voiced by the US State Department—regime change in Libya. The Russian Foreign Ministry plainly declared the illegitimacy of the decisions taken by the contact group and insisted on its accountability to the UN: “This structure, having formed itself, is now increasingly trying to assume the main role in determining the policy of the world community towards Libya. And not only in relation to Libya, there are already voices there in favor of this same structure deciding what to do in relation to other states in the region,” emphasized Sergei Lavrov. The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry also refused the previously voiced proposal of French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe about Russia’s cooperation with the contact group: “We do not need to join this structure, we are members of the Security Council.” On behalf of BRIC and South Africa, Russia demanded an end to violations of UN regulations by the coalition and pointed out the prevention of “the multiplication of Libya’s experience in other countries, be it Yemen, Syria, Bahrain.” Experts stated that Russia does not recognize the NPS as legal: “This would mean that our country is ready to subscribe to the mistakes of others.” However, after the G8 summit, Dmitry Medvedev's foreign policy priorities were ranked in exactly the opposite way.

Another point indicating the transformation of our country’s position was Russia’s agreement with the role of mediator in resolving the Libyan conflict proposed by Western countries at the Deauville summit. As is known, Russia initially declared its support for the UN mediation efforts and then for the peacekeeping initiatives of the African Union, but refused to act as a mediator between the Tripoli government and the opposition. At the end of April, the Libyan leadership's request to initiate an extraordinary UN Security Council meeting on Libya remained unanswered: Russian Presidential Assistant Sergei Prikhodko then stated that Dmitry Medvedev had not given such instructions. In May, a meeting with representatives of official Tripoli did take place: during negotiations with the Secretary General of the Islamic Call Association, Moscow demanded that the Gaddafi regime strictly adhere to the provisions of the UN resolution, which required an immediate ceasefire. The Libyan authorities agreed, putting forward a counter condition: the same cessation of hostilities by the rebels and NATO bombing. A few days later, a similar discussion took place with a representative of the NPS, as a result of which Abdel Rahman Shalkam announced a fundamental refusal to conduct any negotiations with Gaddafi: “Why? To make him leave? I'm talking to him now." Sergei Lavrov drew attention to the one-sidedness and inertia of the position of the NTC even before the AU summit in Addis Ababa, then he expressed hope that “as a result of the meeting, from the proposals on the negotiating table, in addition to the initiative of the Transitional National Council, some kind of line will be developed that will allow us to put an end to the bloodshed as soon as possible.” Also, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly pointed out the need to agree on “a composition of participants in future but inevitable negotiations that would be representative from the point of view of the interests of all political forces, all tribes in Libya.” But the situation with the refusal to seek a peaceful settlement repeated itself again: the Libyan authorities expressed their readiness to conduct a dialogue, the opposition, having received guaranteed support from the West, considered its political ambitions more important than the cessation of hostilities in Libya. Thus, having actually made an attempt to facilitate a compromise between the parties and having become convinced of its futility, Russian diplomats were in no hurry to take on the legal obligations of a mediator, but everything was decided by politicians - not at the summit in Ethiopia, where at that time the AU “road map” was substantively discussed , and in France in G8 format. As you know, on May 27, Russia agreed to the role of a mediator in the Libyan settlement, but already taking the side of the coalition warring with Gaddafi. After which, for some reason, the President of France hastened to emphasize that the sale of Mistrals to Russia had nothing to do with it and indirectly recognized the “de-occupation” of Georgia, and US Vice President Joseph Biden met with Saakashvili and stated that the United States supports Russia’s accession to the WTO ( As is known, Tbilisi is blocking this decision). True, later the Georgian Foreign Ministry denied the version about the alleged decision to let Russia into the WTO, and political scientists regarded Sarkozy’s speech as an element of their own election PR, which once again “reminded the electorate and the international community of its role in 2008, when it was France that prevented the conflict Russia and the West have passed the “point of no return.” The version that Russia, having taken a pro-Western position on the Libyan issue, has achieved the loyalty of the West on the issue of European missile defense is also shaky: on the one hand, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen hinted that the parties could come to an understanding by 2012, but, on the other hand, Russia has never received any legal guarantees that the system being created is not directed against the Russian Federation.

It is characteristic that the Russian Foreign Ministry, already acting as an official negotiator, essentially uses the same rhetoric as before, only more often expressing regret about the uncontrolled use of force in relation to Libya and declaring that in the future the Russian Federation will not allow such resolutions to be sanctioned .

SCALE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE LIBYAN CRISIS

Currently, when discussing the Libyan conflict, the central place is given to the question of how long Gaddafi can stay in power, while, regardless of this period, some trends are clear now and are practically irreversible.

Systemic crisis of international law. The example of Libya clearly illustrated that, in fact, the policy of the world-famous “double standards” of the United States was not only put into practice, but also legalized by the UN, and the declared principles and goals of the organization come into direct conflict with reality. Despite the fact that a number of states (BRICS and Latin America) pointed out the inadmissibility of an arbitrary interpretation of the resolution and the alliance’s forces exceeding the mandate, the UN refrained from resolving the issue of external intervention and intervention in the civil war and even, as stated above, supported the actions of the coalition. By and large, the “objective investigation” of the Libyan events was reduced only to the “identification” of violations as a result of the actions of the warring rebels and government troops. It is obvious that in such conditions of self-discrediting of the UN, international dissatisfaction with the existing institution will grow, which, in turn, may lead to an increase in the influence of alternative structures (most likely regional) or their reconfiguration, and, possibly, to the emergence of new ones. The main danger of the current situation, i.e. The actual absence of a universal, legitimate mechanism for regulating international relations is the almost inevitable voluntarism of a number of actors and the ever-increasing chaos in the world order, which is almost guaranteed to lead to an increase in military conflicts.

Archaization of the region of pan-Arab revolutions. No matter how the US and NATO try to simulate control over what is happening, in fact, today they are only adapting to the situation. Realizing that such a powerful inertia of revolutions would inevitably lead to the collapse of existing regimes, the reactionary forces of the West decided to intervene in time and support the “struggle of peoples for democracy.” Currently, steps are being taken to provide financial, informational, and often organizational support to the rebels of those countries that are marked by unrest. For example, the West is currently concerned about the “actions of the authorities” in Syria and Yemen. There is no doubt that, as unrest spreads to other states, the North Atlantic Alliance or its individual members will also declare a threat to “regional security” and will find a way to justify interference in the sovereign affairs of these countries. Of course, in this list there is room for such exceptions as Bahrain, where the US military base is based, and, therefore, changing a loyal US regime is in no way beneficial. Little was written about this in the press, devoting the front pages to Libya, but Bahrain was gripped by similar unrest of the opposition, demanding the replacement of the monarchy with a republic. And on March 14, Saudi Arabian and UAE troops arrived in Manama and the surrounding area and successfully dispersed the protests. And only after mass arrests and imprisonments, when there was simply no one left to speak, the King of Bahrain, Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, wisely announced his readiness for dialogue with the opposition, which is seeking democratization of the country’s political life, and even set a date - July 1. However, just in case, the Ministry of Justice of Bahrain clarified that any protests against “unity and tranquility” in the future will be suppressed extremely harshly.

The danger of radicalization in the region. Currently, this threat is considered in a kind of background mode, i.e. its presence is recognized by everyone, but attempts are immediately made to level out the scale of the risks, pointing out the small number and depoliticization of radicals. Meanwhile, the example of Egypt has shown that such organizations have sufficient potential to not only mobilize supporters in the shortest possible time, but also unite them under party auspices for further integration into the country’s political system.

Moreover, it is worth taking into account the fact that after a wave of past and ongoing revolutions, a kind of ideological vacuum is formed, and the objectively more meaningful filling of it, which will be perceived by society, can be traditional values, rather than introduced Western democratic principles. A striking example of the unviability of the policy of imposing Western principles is Afghanistan, where the population, faced with a choice between following the Americans or supporting the Taliban, overwhelmingly chooses the latter.

It is also necessary to keep in mind that societies below the poverty line are more susceptible to radical messages, and among the countries of Africa and the Middle East there are quite a lot of them.

Another indicator of the increasing level of danger is information about the theft of weapons and their sale by Libyan rebels to such structures as AKSIM. Moreover, this signal is broadcast not only by the media, but also by official structures and persons, in particular, this was stated by the President of Chad Idriss Deby and the Algerian security service. The consequences of such events can be very disastrous, because even if well-armed armies consisting of those people who are now equated to terrorists do not appear in the near future, then, in any case, the anti-aircraft missile systems captured by them will be enough to carry out individual actions, after all, such installations are capable of shooting down both military aircraft and passenger airliners. There is no doubt that terrorist attacks from Al-Qaeda will follow: after the killing of Bin Laden, the organization promised revenge.

It is obvious that the growing influence of radical Islamic organizations and extremism can affect, among other things, Russia and Europe. If we talk about territories, then the regions of the North Caucasus are primarily in the risk zone of the Russian Federation.

Intensification of attempts to develop nuclear weapons by third countries due to the increased need for physical protection of national security in conditions of unguaranteed protection from the UN in the event of external military intervention. By and large, until now representatives of the international community have not provided an answer to the question: how should Gaddafi behave if he found himself in a situation of attempts to armedly overthrow the state system, which usually involves legislative protection? The UN, as described above, essentially incriminates the leader of the Jamahiriya not so much for suppressing resistance, but for the method used for this - air strikes. On the other hand, the death of the same civilians during “precise and accurate” NATO bombings (and the alliance’s secretary general defined them that way) is regarded as “collateral damage.” As for the clause on protecting the country from armed external intervention, the legislation of absolutely any state contains this provision, and in conditions of international insecurity, as happened in Libya, the hypothetical victim is preparing precisely for the conditions of a hot war. But, as we know, only the armies of Russia and China can resist the power of such aggressors as the USA and NATO, so it turns out that it is quite logical for other countries to start developing their own nuclear weapons in order to obtain at least some guarantees of non-aggression. Currently, in addition to the traditionally obstinate Iran and the DPRK, such states include Pakistan and Israel.

State crisis in Libya. As you know, before the events of 2011, Libya was the most developed country in North Africa. Gaddafi spent huge proceeds from oil sales on infrastructure development, road construction, and solved the fresh water problem. In the current situation, the country is marked not only by civil war, numerous civilian casualties, economic stagnation, humanitarian crisis, destroyed infrastructure, political destabilization, militarization of the region, but also almost guaranteed to risk falling under external control. And even if we assume the most optimistic option in the format of an early end to the bloodshed, Gaddafi’s voluntary renunciation of power under guarantees from, say, Turkey, his replacement following the results of “democratic elections” with Abdel Jalil, preserving the integrity of the country and preventing a permanent, protracted civil war, then in In this case, Libya turns out to be set back in its development by several years, or even decades. This is the country’s payment for the revolution, which, by the way, as the West admits, no one knows when it will end. Thus, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini announced a period of two to three weeks back in early May, but a month later his English colleague William Hague clarified that the operation could last until 2012, and then continue, if necessary. In the meantime, as you know, NATO has extended its participation in the Libyan campaign for three months, i.e. until the end of September 2011

Russia's growing responsibility in the system of international relations. Considering that the main backbone of the permanent members of the UN Security Council is the currently warring Western coalition (USA, France, UK), it can be assumed that the question of further preventing the multiplication of the Libyan experience to other countries lies solely with Russia, since China prefers a policy of non-intervention. On the one hand, Moscow understands this - this is precisely the position taken by the Russian Foreign Ministry and insists on its observance, but, on the other hand, the President of the Russian Federation has made a political choice, and from day to day Russia can join the contact group, open a representative office in Benghazi, and then, perhaps, legalize NPS altogether. Thus, instead of occupying an advantageous position as an arbiter and earning bonuses as an impartial and fair participant in world politics (simply put, an independent state), the Russian Federation demonstrates not only incompetence in the field of public administration by getting involved in someone else’s war, but also admits to the opportunism of its foreign policy positions. As for attempts to present the situation in such a way that the Russian Federation supposedly had no alternative and it was necessary to take one of the sides in the Libyan conflict, they do not stand up to any criticism. An example of rational behavior in this critical situation is China, which met with representatives of the NTC to obtain guarantees about the inviolability of its own investments, only waiting until the world community became clear about the Gaddafi regime and without accepting any obligations to support or recognize the rebels. It seems appropriate that Russia should also separate economics from politics, especially since the parties are at least equally interested in the agenda being discussed with the West - from the WTO to the European missile defense system. Having legitimized the policy of political realism, when force decides everything, the Russian Federation acts extremely recklessly, losing geopolitical positions in the eyes of the states not only of the Middle East and North Africa, but also of the former CIS space, on whose territory there are enough unresolved territorial conflicts and even more possible contenders in the queue to "color revolutions".

Reformatting zones of influence in the Arab world will be an inevitable consequence not only of the collapse of traditional institutions of power in the region, but also of the active efforts of external forces contributing to such a development of events. The time for a new wave of colonization and redistribution of Africa, as well as the Maghreb countries and their resources, has not yet come, however, a number of political decisions today indicate that the region has been taken under close attention and included in the list of strategic priorities of the West.

One of the most striking evidence of this is The Deauville Declaration, in which the G8 welcomes the Arab Spring. This document, which, among others, was signed by Russia, essentially contains a call and promise of assistance to states seeking to “establish democratic values.” This event is supposed to be financed with the help of the IMF and multilateral development banks, and the special role of the UN in “ensuring the return of stolen assets” is emphasized. The countries also “commit to strengthening and intensifying bilateral assistance and encouraging other multilateral organizations to take action to raise the level of their assistance to support partner countries.” The intention is declared to promote the integration of young democracies into the regional and global economy, to work with political parties and new political opposition formations, and to “strongly support freedom of expression” through the media and the Internet. As a motivation for further cooperation, the rebellious countries were shown exemplary behavior by the new authorities of Egypt and Tunisia, who were promised assistance in the amount of $20 billion.

At the same time, the US President, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, gave a keynote speech on the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, directly promising to sponsor revolutions: “Our message is simple: if you take on the risks and obligations to carry out reforms, you receive the full support of the United States. We must also begin to make efforts to expand our influence beyond society's elites to reach directly the people who will shape the future: young people." Also, the US State Department is currently conducting targeted activities to create a global network to combat authoritarian regimes.

Another indicator of the West’s recognition of the growing role of the Arab world and an attempt to integrate into this system was a truly tectonic shift in US policy - Barack Obama suggested that Israel return to the 1967 borders, which, in addition to the logical support for Palestine, was also welcomed by the EU countries.

In summary, we note that the United States, of course, is aware of the possible fiasco of such a policy, which is due to the mentality of the inhabitants of the region, who traditionally do not like interventionists. It is likely that this is why the United States is making active attempts to involve both Europe and Russia in the pan-Arab, in particular, in the Libyan campaign, to which, in the event of a possible escalation of confrontation between the Arab and Western worlds, responsibility can be shifted. Despite the fact that Huntington’s concept of a clash of civilizations is considered to be an anachronism, the realistic persistence of the trends he described not only remains, but is also becoming more and more acute. Europe, having agreed to command the Libyan operation and is currently actively lobbying for draft sanctions resolutions on Syria and Yemen, has already fallen for this bait. Russia, despite the Deauville agreements and ongoing contacts with the NPS, still has the opportunity to stop repeating the unforgivable Libyan mistake and refrain from violating the sovereignty of other countries in order to retain at least the moral right to challenge such interference when it touches the zone of our interests.

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 against 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 armed forces of the coalition of France, Great Britain and the United States, as well as their allies, are conducting an operation in Libya, trying to stop the military actions of Muammar Gaddafi's troops against the opposition. During March 19-20, 2011 Coalition troops carried out several air and missile strikes on Libyan territory.

According to preliminary data, there were civilian casualties, buildings and roads were destroyed. In response to the actions of the coalition, M. Gaddafi called on the citizens of his country to take action against the “new aggression of the crusaders.” In turn, the Western coalition forces declare that they will cease fire if M. Gaddafi stops military actions against civilians.

The Power of Bluffing

The development of events in Libya according to the global military scenario was preceded by a practically achieved truce. March 18, 2011 The Libyan Jamahiriya announced that it recognizes UN Security Council Resolution N1973 on the situation in Libya and adopted a declaration on the cessation of all military actions against the opposition. According to Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, Tripoli has a deep interest in protecting civilians.

The resolution establishing no-fly zones over Libya gives the right to conduct an international military air operation against this country. Many experts called the message from the government of M. Gaddafi about the adoption of the resolution nothing more than a bluff. The validity of such assessments was confirmed already on the morning of March 19, 2011, when the Al-Jazeera television channel reported that M. Gaddafi’s forces had entered the opposition-held city of Benghazi, the center of which was being subjected to massive artillery shelling.

In response to the unfolding events in Paris, an emergency summit was convened with the participation of the US Secretary of State, the President of France and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, as well as the leaders of the Arab League and a number of Arab countries. Following the summit, French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced the start of a “severe” military operation in Libya. Great Britain, Canada and the United States, as well as members of the League of Arab States, announced their joining the operation. “Today we are starting an operation in Libya within the framework of the UN mandate,” N. Sarkozy said following the summit. At the same time, he noted that M. Gaddafi showed complete disregard for the demands of the international community. “By breaking its promise to stop the violence, the Libyan government has left the international community no choice but to take direct and decisive action,” the French leader said.

N. Sarkozy also confirmed unofficial information that French reconnaissance planes entered Libyan airspace and flew over the concentration areas of M. Gaddafi's troops in the Benghazi area, defended by the rebels. Around this time, Italian warplanes began reconnaissance flights over Libya, joining French fighters. Airstrikes on Libya were to follow later. At the same time, N. Sarkozy reported that the military operation against the forces of the Jamahiriya could be stopped at any time if the Libyan government troops stop the violence. However, the words of the French president could not stop the troops of Colonel M. Gaddafi. Throughout March 19, there were reports from Benghazi and other cities in eastern Libya that his forces were waging a fierce offensive against the opposition, using artillery and armored vehicles.

Beginning of military operation

The first airstrike on Libyan military equipment was carried out by French aircraft at 19:45 Moscow time on March 19, 2011. This marked the start of a military operation called Odyssey Dawn (“Beginning of the Odyssey” or “Odyssey. Dawn”). As an official representative of the French Armed Forces reported at the time, about 20 aircraft took part in the operation to contain the troops of the leader of the Jamahiriya. Their actions were limited to a 150-kilometer zone around Benghazi, where the opposition is based. It was planned that March 20, 2011. The French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle will depart for the shores of Libya. Soon the United States joined military operations in the Arab country. Washington's readiness to participate in the operation was confirmed by US President Barack Obama. At around 22:00 Moscow time on March 19, the US military fired more than 110 Tomahawk missiles towards Libya. British submarines also fired at targets. According to representatives of the US military command, since the morning of March 20, 25 coalition warships, including three submarines, have been in the Mediterranean Sea. At the same time, there were no US military aircraft over Libyan territory.

In addition to the United States, France, Great Britain and Canada, which joined the coalition, Qatar, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway expressed their readiness to join the operation to ensure the safety of the civilian population of Libya. Italy has proposed creating a center for coordinating military operations in Libya at the NATO base in Naples.

The scale of the Odyssey

According to the US military command, Tomahawk missiles hit 20 military targets, such as surface-to-air missile storage facilities. The cities of Tripoli, Zuwara, Misurata, Sirte and Benghazi were shelled. In particular, the Bab al-Aziza airbase near Tripoli, which is considered the main headquarters of M. Gaddafi, was shelled. According to a number of Western media reports, Libyan air defense systems suffered “significant damage.”

At the same time, Libyan government media reported that coalition troops shelled a number of civilian targets, in particular a hospital in Tripoli and fuel storage facilities around Tripoli and Misurata. According to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, during air raids on Libya, strikes were carried out, including on non-military targets in the cities of Tripoli, Tarhuna, Maamura, and Jmail. As a result, as reported on March 20, 48 civilians were killed and over 150 were injured. Eyewitnesses, as reported by Western agencies, reported that supporters of M. Gaddafi were carrying the bodies of those killed in clashes between government forces and the opposition to places where coalition forces carried out bombings.

Despite reports of civilian deaths, the military operation in Libya continued. On the afternoon of March 20, US strategic bombers carried out airstrikes on the main Libyan airfield. Three US Air Force B-2 (Stealth) warplanes dropped 40 bombs on this strategic site. At the same time, British Defense Minister Liam Fox said that he hopes for a speedy completion of the operation in Libya. In turn, French Foreign Minister Allan Juppé said that attacks on Libya will continue until Gaddafi “stops attacking civilians and his troops leave the territories they invaded.”

Gaddafi's retaliatory strike

In response to the actions of the coalition, M. Gaddafi called on the Libyans for nationwide armed resistance to the forces of Western countries. In a telephone audio message broadcast on Libyan central television, he asked to “take up arms and respond to the aggressors.” According to M. Gaddafi, his country is preparing for a long war. He called the strikes of the coalition forces on Libya “terrorism,” as well as “new aggression of the crusaders” and “new Hitlerism.” “Oil will not go to the USA, Great Britain and France,” said M. Gaddafi. He noted that he intends to open access to ordinary citizens to warehouses with all types of weapons so that they can protect themselves. It was decided to distribute weapons to more than 1 million citizens (including women). It was also decided to use all military and civilian aircraft to protect the country. The Libyan government demanded an urgent convening of the UN Security Council. In addition, official Tripoli stated that the UN Security Council resolution on Libya is no longer valid.

However, M. Gaddafi's statements could not influence the balance of power in the country. Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Admiral Michael Mullen said that Washington and its allies “have effectively established a regime over Libya that does not allow government aircraft to fly,” which is in accordance with the UN Security Council resolution. In turn, France reported that its aircraft did not encounter opposition from Libyan air defense systems during combat sorties on March 20. According to the US military, as a result of strikes on Libyan territory, 20 of the 22 intended targets were hit. The strike was carried out on the Al Watiyah airbase, which is located 170 km southeast of Tripoli. It became known that the air defense system of this facility was damaged. According to new data from the Libyan Ministry of Health, 64 people were killed as a result of Western coalition airstrikes across the country. By the evening of March 20, it became known that the leadership of the Libyan army had ordered an immediate ceasefire.

Reaction from the outside

The world community has ambivalent assessments of the coalition's actions in Libya. In particular, the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Alexander Lukashevich, said on March 20 that Russia “strongly calls” on the states carrying out military operations in Libya to stop the “indiscriminate use of force.” The Russian Foreign Ministry noted that they consider the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution N1973 a very ambiguous step to achieve goals that clearly go beyond the scope of its provisions, which provide for measures only to protect the civilian population. The day before, the Russian Federation announced that it would evacuate part of the embassy staff from Libya. So far, none of the diplomats have been hurt. Also, the Russian Embassy in Libya confirmed the information that the Russian Ambassador to this country, Vladimir Chamov, was removed from his post on March 17, 2011.

The representative of India also expressed a negative attitude towards the actions of the coalition. “The measures taken should defuse and not worsen the already difficult situation for the people of Libya,” the Indian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. The Chinese Foreign Ministry stated that China regrets the international coalition's intervention in the Libyan conflict. Let us note that China, along with Russia, Germany, India and Brazil, abstained from voting on UN Security Council Resolution N1973.

The leadership of the League of Arab States (LAS) also expressed dissatisfaction with the course of the military operation. “We want the protection of the civilian population of this country, not airstrikes against more civilians of the state,” said Arab League Secretary General Amr Musa. Let us recall that earlier the Arab League voted to close Libyan skies to M. Gadadfi’s aviation flights. Representatives of the extremist Taliban movement, who are fighting against NATO in Afghanistan, also condemned the military operation of international forces in Libya. Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates announced that it would take part in the military operation. UAE Air Force aircraft arrived at a military base on the island of Sardinia in the Mediterranean Sea. According to unofficial data, the UAE provided 24 military aircraft for the operation in Libya, and Qatar contributed another 4-6 military aircraft.

The son of the leader of the Libyan Jamahiriya, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, Khamis, died in hospital from his injuries. A few days ago, a pilot of the Libyan armed forces deliberately crashed his plane into a fortification where M. Gaddafi’s son and his family were, German media reported, citing their Arab colleagues.

The fortification was located on the territory of the Bab al-Azizia military base. It was on this base that dictator M. Gaddafi himself took refuge after the start of the rebel uprising in mid-February 2011. It is worth noting that the German media do not name the exact date of the death of the colonel’s son, as well as other circumstances of the death of H. Gaddafi. Official Libyan media do not confirm such reports.

H. Gaddafi is the sixth son of the Libyan dictator, commander of the special forces of the 32nd separate reinforced brigade of the Libyan army - the “Khamis Brigade”. It was he who ensured the security of M. Gaddafi at the Bab al-Aziziya base at the end of February. H. Gaddafi was personally acquainted with many Russian generals: in 2009. he was present as an observer at the Zapad-2009 exercises, which took place in Belarus, where Russian troops were also present. According to some reports, H. Gaddafi received his education in Russia.

As a result of an airstrike in Tripoli on military installations of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's troops, the command center of the Libyan dictator's forces was destroyed, representatives of the Western coalition report. Their words are reported by the BBC.

Media representatives were shown the destroyed building, but were not told anything about the existence of victims on the ground. The airstrike was carried out as part of Operation Odyssey. Dawn”, which involves the US, British and French air forces.

According to British experts, the real reason why France actually led the international military operation in Libya is the desire of President Nicolas Sarkozy to save his rating, which reached its lowest point shortly before the elections.

“The French really like it when their president behaves like a political figure influencing the fate of the world,” one diplomat, who asked not to be named, told the Guardian. According to him, N. Sarkozy in his current position really needs a “good crisis.”

The French president's combative mood, according to observers, was strongly influenced by a public opinion poll conducted last week. It turned out that N. Sarkozy would have lost in the presidential elections not only to his opponent from the Socialist Party, but also to the nationalist leader Jean Marie Le Pen.

It is worth recognizing that N. Sarkozy really surprised many experts with his desire to protect the Libyan rebels. If from the beginning of the crisis the position of France could be assessed as quite moderate, then after a conversation with representatives of the interim government, N. Sarkozy became eager to help the opposition. France recognized the leadership in Benghazi as the only legitimate one in Libya and sent its ambassador to the capital of the rebels. In addition, it was N. Sarkozy who persuaded the European allies to strike government troops. It is not surprising that French planes in the first hours of Operation Odyssey. Dawn" bombed not airfields or air defense systems, but tanks besieging Benghazi.

To this it is worth adding the bad personal relations between N. Sarkozy and the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. The latter accused the French president of treason, since Tripoli allegedly sponsored the election campaign of N. Sarkozy, who won the elections with great difficulty. In Paris they preferred to refute everything, after which they began to insist with even greater zeal on the start of a military operation.

Georgia welcomes the UN Security Council (SC) resolution and the military operation of coalition forces in Libya. This statement was made today by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia Nino Kalandadze at a weekly briefing.

“Georgia welcomes the resolution adopted by the UN Security Council, which formed the basis of the ongoing operation,” said N. Kalandadze, adding that “Georgia supports all decisions of the international community, the goal of which is peace and stabilization of the situation.”

“At the same time, we cannot fail to mention our regret about the casualties among the civilian population,” the deputy minister noted. She expressed hope that “the situation in Libya will defuse soon and the international mission will be completed successfully.”

The Deputy Minister noted that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had not received any appeals from Libya from Georgian citizens. Presumably, there are currently no Georgian citizens there.

Four journalists from the American newspaper New York Times detained in Libya have been released. The Associated Press reports this with reference to the Turkish Embassy in the United States.

According to the diplomatic mission, the released Americans were handed over to the Turkish ambassador in Tripoli, after which they were sent to Tunisia.

Four New York Times journalists were detained during an armed clash in western Libya last week. They include reporter Anthony Shadid, photographers Tyler Hicks and Lynsey Addario, and reporter and videographer Stephen Farrell.

It is worth noting that in 2009 S. Farrell was captured by the radical Taliban group in Afghanistan and later freed by a detachment of British special forces.

Russia and China should work with the United States to put pressure on countries that seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This was stated in St. Petersburg by the head of the Pentagon, Robert Gates, who arrived on an official visit to Russia, RBC-Petersburg reports.

According to him, we are talking, in particular, about Iran, which is not only trying to obtain nuclear weapons, but also threatening other states. Obviously, in this case, R. Gates is referring to the harsh statements of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against Israel.

Among other modern threats, R. Gates named terrorism, since the main threat, according to him, comes not from individual states, but from extremist organizations.

R. Gates's visit was planned even before the start of the military operation in Libya. It is expected that on Tuesday the head of the Pentagon will hold meetings with Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, as well as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. In addition to the situation in North Africa, it is planned to discuss the situation in Afghanistan, as well as issues related to the American missile defense system.

Russia’s position, which refused to veto the UN Security Council resolution and at the same time distanced itself from the “indiscriminate use of force” by NATO troops in Libya, may bring significant dividends to Moscow in the future, the Kommersant newspaper reports.

Without preventing the overthrow of the dictator, Russia has the right to count on gratitude from the government that will come to power in Libya after the likely fall of M. Gaddafi. Moscow does not want to lose the multibillion-dollar contracts that state-owned companies Rosoboronexport, Gazprom and Russian Railways signed with Tripoli. Moscow can fully count on a favorable option, because even in post-war Iraq, Russian companies received several oil fields.

In addition, the Libyan crisis allowed Moscow not only not to spoil, but also to strengthen relations with the West. This means that the operation to overthrow M. Gaddafi will not affect the “reset” of relations with the United States and will not disrupt the partnership with the European Union and NATO that began to be established under President D. Medvedev.

Significant in this regard was the resignation of Russian Ambassador to Libya Vladimir Chamov, who, according to the publication, sided with M. Gaddafi until the last. It seems that the ambassador suffered because he forgot about the foreign policy instructions that Dmitry Medvedev gave to Russian diplomats at a meeting with the diplomatic corps in July last year. Explaining the importance of developing democracy in Russia, the president noted that Moscow “must contribute to the humanization of social systems everywhere in the world, first of all, at home.” “It is in the interests of Russian democracy that as many states as possible follow democratic standards in their domestic policies,” the president said then, making the reservation, however, that such standards “cannot be imposed unilaterally.” The behavior of Moscow, which, on the one hand, condemned the Libyan leadership, and on the other, did not support military intervention, fits into this difficult scheme to implement.

Information also appeared that D. Medvedev himself was inclined to support the UN Security Council resolution, while the Foreign Ministry discussed the advisability of using the veto power and blocking it. As a result, a compromise was reached and a decision was made to abstain.

State Duma deputies from the LDPR and A Just Russia told RBC about their attitude to the operation of the coalition of Western countries in Libya.

The military intervention of individual Western countries in Libya could result in a wave of terrorist attacks for them. This opinion was expressed in an interview by the head of the LDPR faction in the State Duma, Igor Lebedev. “Gaddafi’s methods of struggle are known to everyone; his most terrible retaliatory blow will not be expressed in combat aircraft and ground operations, but in a wave of terrorist attacks that could sweep through those countries that are now fighting against Libya,” the deputy suggested.

I. Lebedev is confident that the coalition’s interference in the internal affairs of another country occurs under pretexts that have nothing to do with reality. “Under the pretext of protecting civilians, they are being bombed from the air, and under the pretext of protecting civil society, Western countries are approaching Libyan oil reserves and trying to establish a regime there controlled by the Americans and kindle the fire of war in the Arab world in order to get as close as possible to their long-standing the enemy - Iran,” the deputy said.

According to him, “no one is saying that Gaddafi is right.” “But a military invasion from outside is also not the right solution to the problem,” concluded I. Lebedev.

Deputies from A Just Russia also don’t like the coalition’s methods. A military invasion of Libya by Western coalition forces risks turning into a protracted conflict in this country, said State Duma deputy from A Just Russia Gennady Gudkov, commenting on what is happening in Libya.

“Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is a dictator who committed a crime against his own people by starting to bomb the rebels,” the parliamentarian noted. At the same time, he called the way of solving the Libyan problem by the military forces of the Western coalition, which is acting in pursuance of the UN Security Council resolution on ensuring safe skies over Libya, erroneous. “No people will tolerate outside interference in their internal affairs,” noted G. Gudkov. According to him, in this case, the anti-Libyan coalition risks having the opposite effect, which consists in rallying the population around its leader, despite the dictatorial nature of the regime he established.

At the same time, commenting on the information about the intention of the Libyan authorities to arm a million civilians to protect themselves from Western intervention, G. Gudkov expressed doubts about the credibility of such reports: “I don’t believe in a million militias, I don’t rule out that this is just an information hoax "

Russia, China and India should take the initiative to hold an additional meeting of the UN Security Council on the issue of concretizing the resolution it previously adopted on the creation of a no-fly zone in the skies over Libya, suggests Semyon Bagdasarov (A Just Russia), a member of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs.

“These countries should request such a meeting to specify the implementation of the resolution on the timing and clear objectives of the military operation in Libya,” the deputy said in a commentary. According to him, the current resolution is “vague in nature,” which frees the hands of the Western coalition forces, taking into account incoming information about civilian casualties as a result of the bombings. “Many civilians are dying, thus, the original goal proclaimed by the supporters of the resolution - to stop casualties among the population - is not being achieved,” noted S. Bagdasarov. In this regard, he spoke in favor of an immediate suspension of hostilities by the “anti-Libyan coalition.”

The deputy believes that Libya was the fourth country after Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan, which became “a victim due to a regime that was not as it should be.” “And tomorrow such a victim could be any other country with a ‘not that’ regime,” he said, adding that continuing the attack on Libya would lead to a sharp radicalization of sentiment in the Arab world. “It turns out that they give rise to terrorism,” the deputy concluded.

He also noted that Libya could repeat the fate of Iraq, which, “as it later turned out, did not create any nuclear weapons and became a victim of the US information war.” “What kind of rebels are these in Libya? I don’t rule out that this is just a rabble, but, judging by some external signs, these are people who fought in the area of ​​the Afghan-Pakistan border,” notes S. Bagdasarov.

The head of the Russian State Duma Committee on Defense, Viktor Zavarzin, expressed the opinion that NATO strategists are “trying to solve the most complex military-political problem in Libya in one fell swoop,” which only aggravates the situation in this region.

According to him, this is reminiscent of NATO's actions against the former Yugoslavia in March 1999. “As then, the coalition forces are trying to implement their notorious concept of “humanitarian intervention” in Libya,” the deputy noted. At the same time, the escalation of military actions only aggravates the situation in the region.

“I am firmly convinced that no political necessity or military expediency should prevail over international law,” V. Zavarzin emphasized in this regard. He also recalled that Russia opposes military actions in Libya, which “directly harm the civilian population.” “Unfortunately, we currently see that as a result of the use of foreign military force, civilians are dying and civilian targets are being attacked,” said the head of the committee.

V. Zavarzin noted that “there is no doubt that the actions of Muammar Gaddafi conflict with international norms of law, and this, of course, must be fought.” “But at the same time, the death of the civilian population cannot be allowed,” the parliamentarian is convinced.

Today it also became known that the Secretary General of the League of Arab States (LAS) Amr Musa supported the UN Security Council resolution, which allows military operations against Libya. He made this statement during a press conference with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

“We are not against the resolution, since it is not about invasion, but about protecting citizens from what they were subjected to in Benghazi,” said A. Musa, referring to repeated airstrikes by the Libyan government air force against opposition forces in that city.

“The position of the Arab League towards Libya is clearly defined. We immediately suspended Libya’s membership in our organization and proposed to the UN to impose a no-fly zone over it,” he added. Earlier, A. Musa said that the Arab League does not want any states to “go too far” in this matter.

Let us note that the bombing of Libya by NATO forces is currently ongoing. The coalition that struck the North African state included the United States, France, Great Britain, Canada and Italy.

An international military operation has begun in Libya. Over the past night, military aircraft from France, Great Britain, the United States, Denmark, with the participation of military forces from Italy, Spain, Germany and Canada, carried out air raids on military targets in Libya. Qatari aviation is also joining the operation. In response to the bombing and shelling, the Libyan leader promises to strike NATO bases in the Mediterranean Sea. He promised the coalition participants a protracted war in Libya. Gaddafi is sure that the goal of Western countries is Libyan oil. However, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein made the same statements 8 years ago. It is noteworthy that the international military operation “Fear and Trembling” in Iraq began to the same day eight years ago - on March 20, 2003.

France. Saint-Dezier airbase. On Saturday at 19-00 Moscow time, twenty fighters took off from here. This became the starting point for an international military operation in Libyan airspace.

Just an hour earlier, in Paris, the decision to carry out the operation was supported by all the leaders of the EU, the League of Arab States and the African Union. This Emergency Summit was convened by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. For Paris, this is a chance to renew its influence on the countries of Africa and the East.

(Total 23 photos)

Post Sponsor: the site recommends: March hosting sale! Tariff plans from 2.9 euro per month! Do you want your blog to have the same reliable hosting as ours? Then find out the details!

1. Exploding cars of supporters of Muammar Gaddafi during an air raid by coalition forces. The photo was taken on the road from Benghazi to Ajdabiyah on Sunday, March 20. Overnight from Saturday to Sunday, military aircraft from France, Great Britain, the USA, Denmark, with the participation of the military forces of Italy, Spain, Germany and Canada, carried out air raids on military targets in Libya. Qatari aviation is also joining the operation. (Goran Tomasevic / Reuters)

2. Libyan rebels with a flag on a destroyed government tank on the outskirts of the city of Benghazi on March 20. (Patrick Baz/AFP - Getty Images)

3. An RAF VC10 passenger jet and a Tristar aerial tanker, along with RAF Typhoon and Tornado fighters, departed for Libya. British Prime Minister Cameron said: "Military action in Libya is necessary, legal and correct." (SAC Neil Chapman / MOD via AP)

4. The explosion of a tank belonging to Libyan government forces during an airstrike by coalition forces on the road between the Libyan cities of Benghazi and Ajdabiyah on March 20. (Goran Tomasevic / Reuters)

5. A Libyan rebel empties the pockets of a black teenage soldier from Gaddafi's forces, who was killed during an airstrike by French fighters in the village of al-Wayfiyah, located 35 kilometers from Benghazi. (Patrick Baz/AFP - Getty Images)

6. An F-18 fighter jet flies over a NATO air base in Aviano, Italy, on Sunday, March 20. (Luca Bruno/AP)

7. A representative of anti-government forces stands next to a burning Gaddafi truck after a coalition airstrike on the road between the Libyan cities of Benghazi and Ajdabiyah on March 20. (Goran Tomasevic / Reuters)

8. A representative of the rebel forces shoots into the air on the outskirts of Benghazi, standing against the backdrop of burning military equipment after a strike by French fighters. More than 90 people became victims of clashes near the city of the largest rebel stronghold, the city of Benghazi, in less than two days. (Finbarr O'Reilly / Reuters)

9. Shelling of Libyan territory with cruise missiles from American warships in the Mediterranean Sea on March 19. In total, according to the military of the Western coalition, more than 110 Tomahawk missiles were fired at Libya. (US Navy via Reuters)

10. A woman supporting Muammar Gaddafi during a protest rally by his supporters, which took place in Tripoli on March 19. Thousands of supporters of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi gathered on Saturday at Tripoli International Airport, as well as in the Bab al-Aziziya area of ​​Gaddafi's capital residence, to prevent the bombing of these objects by foreign coalition forces. (Zohra Bensemra/Reuters)

11. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton greets French President Nicolas Sarkozy before the start of the crisis summit on Libya, which was held in Paris at the Elysee Palace on March 19. The summit of the heads of Europe, the United States and Arab states took place last Saturday in the French capital. At the meeting, a decision may be made to launch a military operation against the forces of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. (Franck Prevel/Getty Images)

12. In this photo provided by the French Ministry of Defense, a French Rafale fighter jet can be seen taking off from the French military base in Saint-Dizier on March 19. On Saturday, French Air Force Mirage and Rafale fighters in the skies over Libya were ready to launch the first strikes against the armored vehicles of the forces of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. (Sebastien Dupont / French Minist / EPA)

13. Hundreds of packed cars left the Libyan city of Benghazi on March 19 after airstrikes carried out on the city by Muammar Gaddafi's troops. People are traveling to the east of the country, to the border with Egypt. On Saturday, March 19, tanks were brought into the city of Benghazi, a stronghold of the Libyan opposition, and the outskirts were subjected to rocket and artillery fire. (Reuters TV/Reuters)

14. Libyan rebels stand in front of burning cars after Gaddafi's forces were repulsed in an attempt to take Benghazi on March 19. (Anja Niedringhaus/AP)

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 it 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.