The negative consequences of the NATO campaign in Libya, which could not be

28
Under the guise of humanitarian slogans, the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) overthrew the legitimate government of Libya with brutal air strikes and brutally massacred its leader, M. Gaddafi. The negative consequences of NATO's interference in the internal affairs of Libya have once again convincingly proved the need to introduce common international legal approaches to the security problem both in Europe and in the world.

The 2013 year in Africa began as a continuation of the 2011-2012 situation created by the NATO military operation in Libya. As a result of this operation, launched under the pretext of "protecting civilians and in support of the new Libyan revolutionaries," the legal government of the country was overthrown, and its leader, M. Gaddafi, was brutally murdered.

The consequences of the NATO campaign in Libya are disastrous. The result of NATO air strikes was the actual collapse of the country as a single state. The real power in the country belongs to a multitude of armed groups created according to the territorial-tribal principle and not subordinate to the government in Tripoli. At the same time, the armed groups that actually govern the country are controlled by Al-Qaeda and the Justice and Construction Party (Muslim Brotherhood Branch).

Great damage has been done to the country's economy. Libya’s budgetary losses alone amounted to about 14 billion US dollars. By August, 2011 had all the refineries. By the fall of 2011, GDP losses were 7,7 billion US dollars. Immediate destruction from the NATO bombings is estimated at 14 billion US dollars, which is 7 times the damage to the country from the German bombings during the Second World War in comparable prices.

Having received “free democracy” from NATO, the Libyans lost a number of social guarantees that they had under the authority of Gaddafi: free electricity, education, medical care, obtaining agricultural land if they wanted to farm, free education in foreign universities, interest-free loans, subsidies for buying a new car 50% of its cost, low cost of gasoline (0,14 dollars), preferential prices for a number of food products (for example, you could buy 0,14 dollars for 40 dollars ok bread) and others.

Today, political prisoners have 8,5 thousand people in prisons, while under Gaddafi the number of political prisoners did not exceed 6 thousand people. Under the new regime of power, a sharp increase in crime occurred. So, in 2012, compared to 2011 in the year, the increase in murders occurred by 503%, the number of thefts - by 448% and so on.

The number of refugees reached 180 thousands of people. As a result of the use of bombs with depleted uranium by NATO members in the north of the country, territories have arisen in which the radiation background is several times higher than the allowable values.

The flames that NATO has ignited in Libya today have spread to West Africa, in particular, to Mali. The Tuaregs who fought on the side of Gaddafi raised a rebellion in the northern part of the country and took it under control. When the situation became critical for the Mali government, France decided to defend its former colony, based on the need, above all, to defend its own interests in Africa. Thus, another “hot spot” has formed in Africa. And given the fact that Mali is an Islamic state (80% of its population is Muslim), then we can expect the opening of a new front of opposition between the West and the Islamists, whose ranks are replenished by militants from other African countries. One of the groups operating in Mali, the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa, is already threatening Paris with terrorist attacks in France itself.

After the end of the conflict in Libya, terrorist organizations became more active, with which a number of armed attacks on Western diplomats were connected. During one of them, the American embassy in Benghazi was attacked and several diplomats were killed, including the US ambassador to Libya. Consuls of Great Britain, Italy and some others were also subjected to armed attacks.

The fall of the Gaddafi regime under the NATO bombs contributed not only to the rapid arming of extremist groups of all stripes on the African continent, but also to the intensified Islamization of certain territories. The short-sighted policy of the West towards the Libyan regime led to the elimination of an important outpost, which had sufficient authority and, most importantly, resources and instruments of influence (in the form of numerous banks and funds) in order to keep the policies of the leaders of many African states under control.

The fall of the Libyan regime opened the way for the African continent to the Arabian monarchies and, above all, to the main Libyan opponent, Qatar.

NATO's intervention in the internal affairs of Libya had certain political implications for the alliance itself. Thus, the United States abandoned its traditional leadership role in conducting the operation, along with the refusal of Germany to participate in it. Under these conditions, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, France and Great Britain took over the leadership and the main role in the operation. The participation of Western countries in the war in Libya caused protest sentiments in Germany and Spain.

All these and other negative consequences of NATO interference in the internal affairs of Libya could not be if the West supported the initiative put forward by Russia in 2008 in the development and conclusion of a new treaty on European security, which would act on the basis of generally accepted principles and norms of international law and would be uniform and mandatory for all countries of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

What is characteristic is that the United States and Great Britain, which in Libya were one of the main pioneers of the events that led this country to the catastrophe, and its population to poverty, have shown particular rejection of Russia's proposal to sign a new treaty.

It is also obvious that the resolutions of the UN Security Council on Libya and Mali, which sanctioned the "peacekeeping actions" of the United States, Great Britain, France and other NATO members here, with a new force raise the question of the UN’s role in the modern system of international relations, leave open the question of the limits of international interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, on the protection of human rights during armed conflicts, on the activities of the Security Council in resolving conflict situations, on the mechanisms for implementing resolutions.

Why does the Libyan rebels take the UN under its protection, and in Mali authorizes the cleansing of the north from the Tuareg? How are Syrian terrorists receiving support from France and weapon to fight the legitimate government, better Malian, which fights the same France? These are questions that are not answered in the UN.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

28 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    26 March 2013 16: 21
    "These are the questions that the UN has no answers to." the UN has no answers to many questions or is unable to answer or condemn the actions of the United States and the KO, sometimes I think why this organization is needed at all, when it expresses its opinion, it is still not authoritative for NATO countries
    1. saw486
      +5
      26 March 2013 18: 23
      The answer is simple. The strong one rules the world and imposes his own rules on everyone. It has always been this way, with a primitive communal system.
    2. +2
      26 March 2013 20: 57
      Quote: evgenii67
      at the UN, there are no answers to many questions or are not able to answer or condemn the actions of the USA and KO

      The UN has long served the interests of the United States and the United States.
      This is an instrument for the legitimacy of decisions, if they wanted a demon zone - please, the UN decision !! And the fact that they started bombing bridges, factories, factories is trifles !!!
      1. +3
        26 March 2013 21: 45
        Amer can ignore the UN decisions, there have already been precedents. Previously, the USSR was the counterweight to America, and we reduced the ardor of amers. Now the hands of the west are free, so they do what they want
      2. +2
        26 March 2013 21: 54
        more than once on this resource the topic "NATO and local conflicts" has been raised. I would not like to repeat myself, but still - military conflicts initiated by the armies of NATO member states (in particular the United States) take place in regions rich in hydrocarbons (for the most part). and this has long been no secret to anyone. only they know how to fight (and this is a controversial point) only with an obviously weak enemy and with complete superiority in strength. they are not capable of more. already fed up with the policy of double standards in the UN. maybe it is worth those who disagree with this state of affairs to unite and create their own alliance? how then will the distributors sing democracy?
        1. DimychDV
          0
          27 March 2013 08: 15
          Who has seen the movie "District Nine"? About beggar alien insectoids who settled on the edge of Johannesburg. There, the Nigerian mafia is shown with very ugly types - which controlled all the food issues on the reservation. The average moviegoer doesn't know that Nigeria is half a continent from Johannesburg. The sediment will remain! And in Nigeria - the sixth largest oil reserves in the world, it seems. Someday this "secret bookmark" will shoot at not the poorest Nigeria, in which someone is supporting (or in neighboring countries) opposition "people's revolutionary" troops. Paid for international petrodollars ...
        2. Oshin
          0
          27 March 2013 11: 28
          Such an alliance, as opposed to NATO was already. The Warsaw Pact Alliance, but only it, together with the collapse of the USSR, also collapsed .. Although Russia has a chance to revive it. The more countries will be aggressed by NATO, the more chances there are to create a counterweight and lead it with us ...
    3. wax
      +3
      26 March 2013 22: 01
      The UN Security Council has the veto right of Russia, and the country does not need responsibility for its decisions to camouflage under the responsibility of others. And without a veto, everything will be legal, American.
  2. +5
    26 March 2013 16: 24
    Which is to be expected. Roofing felts will still be under the "star-striped shadow" ...
    1. +4
      26 March 2013 16: 38
      Quote: svp67
      Which is to be expected. Roofing felts will still be under the "star-striped shadow" ...

      - not this way. Thomson will now jump out and start: "How? Thanks to the Amers for saving the Libyan women, endlessly raped by Amanita personally, from these torments! Glory to the Amers for bringing the much-desired democracy to the suffering Libya! Eternal gratitude to the Amers for saving the Libyans from the terrible headaches associated with the production and sale of Libyan oil - the amers freed them from these terrible headaches! Babies doomed to be eaten personally by Amani will never forget their miraculous deliverance from this fate, thanks to the amers! "
      Thomson, ah !!!! start your nonsense! laughing laughing laughing laughing Let neighing, where else will you see Kashchenko’s clients live, except if not live on this site laughing
  3. not good
    +1
    26 March 2013 16: 29
    Western democracy on the march ... While Gaddafi was in Libya, there was order for the Libyans, and the political independence of Libya was a bone in the throat for the west, now for the order for sshapov
    1. +5
      26 March 2013 16: 37
      Quote: Negoro
      for now order for sshapov

      Well, they have a big State Department - there will be enough ambassadors for everyone bully
      1. not good
        0
        26 March 2013 21: 16
        Then it would be better for them not to bother with Syria, there are more people and no ambassadors.
    2. Oshin
      0
      27 March 2013 11: 36
      Gaddafi made a mistake, decide to abandon the green papers when paying for oil, and they kicked him when they realized that they could finally lose control of Libyan oil.
      we, too, with China, decided not to pay in international transactions with bucks (as I heard on the news), but we and China are still afraid of kicking. Although the opposition also raised its head, puffed, tryndela, called people to rallies, trying to cause a boil, but failed. Although I do not approve of much in the current domestic policy of our state (to take at least an education), I will never take up arms and will not support any revolution! For you are boiling in the country into the hands of only the USA and the like!
  4. +4
    26 March 2013 16: 36
    Well, then, advocates of Libyan democracy can now fully appreciate all its charms.
    For, no matter how mean the West was in its machinations, the Libyans themselves mocked the corpse of the defeated lion. Wanted freedom and democracy? Eat, take it as much as you take.
  5. +7
    26 March 2013 16: 45
    And that's it.

    During the "tyranny" of M. Gaddafi in Libya, it was like this:
    GDP per capita - 14 192 $.
    For each member of the family, the state pays 1 000 $ a year in subsidies.
    Unemployment benefit - 730 $.
    Nurse salary - 1 000 $.
    For each newborn, 7 000 $ is paid.
    The newlyweds are given 64 000 $ for the purchase of an apartment.
    At the opening of a personal business one-time financial assistance - 20 000 $.
    Large taxes and fees are prohibited.
    Education and medicine are free.
    Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
    A network of shops for large families with symbolic prices for staple foods.
    For the sale of products with an expired date - heavy fines and detention by special police units.
    Part of the pharmacies - with the free release of drugs.
    For counterfeit drugs - the death penalty.
    The rent is absent.
    There is no payment for electricity for the population.
    Sale and use of alcohol is prohibited - "dry law".
    Credits to buy a car and an apartment are interest free.
    Realtor services are prohibited.
    Buying a car up to 50% is paid for by the state, for the militia fighters - 65%.
    Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter of gasoline - 0,14 $.
    1. Guun
      +2
      26 March 2013 16: 50
      Eh, when it will be so with us ... Let those dumbheads who overthrow Gaddafi be satisfied with what they sowed. By the way, Jimahiriya dosihpor is fighting against those who have overthrown their rightful ruler, Gaddafi, the war is blazing but nothing is being transmitted on the news about it.
    2. DERWISH
      +1
      26 March 2013 17: 36
      here is an ungrateful dirty trick !!! they had to stand behind Gaddafi with a human shield !!!
      1. +1
        26 March 2013 20: 55
        Quote: DERWISH
        here is an ungrateful dirty trick !!! they had to stand behind Gaddafi with a human shield !!!

        - reason in an old-fashioned way -)))). This is for the elderly or relatively young, but burdened by a large family, like such distribution state systems - albeit a small, but guaranteed gain ... Let it be in the form of free training for siblings at the university, albeit in the form of free or for a small fee service in the clinic, etc. More details in the post of Petergut.
        And the young prefer the UN-GUARANTEED, but in no way limited winnings. They, not burdened with families, take risks and venture into the very topic, if only it was allowed by the state. Well, such is the psychology of youth, there's nothing you can do about it -))))). And now, dear Dervish, google "the demographic situation in Libya before the overthrow of M. Gaddafi," and you will understand why the Libyans, not only did not stand up for Mukhomora as a shield, but also themselves participated in the destruction of the regime he had built.
        The fact that young Libyans now have neither what it used to be (a system of small but guaranteed winnings for all citizens), nor a new system of non-guaranteed, but unlimited winnings, nothing at all - this is already a separate song and a separate conversation, the shortest the meaning of which is expressed in the phrase "young Libyans were bred as the last suckers." Who and why divorced - you probably already guessed. It's up to our youth - will this cheap razvodilov be led or not? There is no answer yet -)))). But there is hope, for our youth is still more educated than the Libyan
        1. nakaz
          +1
          26 March 2013 22: 00
          That's how the USSR would have collapsed if we hadn’t had nuclear weapons.
  6. Owl
    +3
    26 March 2013 17: 01
    The introduction of common international legal approaches to the problem of security both in Europe and in the world is possible only with stability in the WORLD, such stability was achieved thirty years ago by the presence of two centers of mass, approximately the same in strength and capabilities, these were the United States with the NATO bloc and USSR with the Warsaw Pact Organization. Now Russia, despite the efforts of the GDP, even in cooperation with Belarus, with the support of China and with Ukraine's neutrality with Kazakhstan, is unable to resist the rest of the capitalist-aggressive bloc of European, American and Far Eastern countries. After the collapse of the USSR, the UN became the mouthpiece and advocate of the United States and other countries, which are carrying out aggression and military actions to obtain economic profit from the change of legitimate ruling regimes. All these countries in different years were aggressors towards Russia (USSR) and now We (Russia) are their main enemy, which must be "dismembered", "economically strangled" and "won (finally) ideologically."
  7. +4
    26 March 2013 17: 02
    The fate of Libya is a direct result of the betrayal of the Russian government, abstained in the voting at the UN Security Council. If Russia vetoed a resolution pushed by the United States, small Britain and the Froggy headed by the fraudster Sracozy, then Gaddafi would have dealt with this pack. If ours does not support Assad, not only in words but also in arms, Libya will be the same.
    1. +1
      26 March 2013 18: 05
      Russia did everything right.
      Libya was not her allies.
      Gaddafi flirted with Europe and the United States.
      If they had not let us bomb Libya, then all the media would have shouted that the Libyans would now live in paradise, and that they would have to endure the dictator and Russia is to blame for everything.
      A good example shows that they do not live in paradise.
      This provides a moral justification for supporting Syria.
      It is impossible to save two - "Butsifal cannot bear two" - either Syria or Libya - only one could be saved.
      "Butsifal" is Russia, it cannot be a plug in all barrels.
      In the end, each nation makes its own destiny and no one will do it for them - the Libyans betrayed themselves (like some Syrians) - their country was bombed, the state was destroyed, and they threw bonnets into the air.
      The Libyans themselves allowed to bomb Libya, and not the UN or anyone else.
      So did Syria - no one allowed, but they destroy it.
    2. 0
      27 March 2013 00: 13
      Quote: valokordin
      The fate of Libya is a direct result of the betrayal of the Russian government

      Why smear it? Treason has a specific name - Dmitry Anatolyevich Iedvedev. Schaub hiccuped to him before old age!
  8. avt
    +1
    26 March 2013 17: 06
    “The negative consequences of NATO's interference in the internal affairs of Libya have once again convincingly proved the need for the introduction of uniform international legal approaches to the problem of security both in Europe and in the world.” ------------ request Is this generally the author whom is he actually addressing? Like, people of the world, stand up for a minute? Who, in his opinion, should develop and implement these rules? But with the creators of the Yalta Security System, everything is clear. Well, who now?
  9. Alikovo
    0
    26 March 2013 17: 24
    Libyans hurt themselves
  10. +1
    26 March 2013 17: 26
    The UN and NATO are twin brothers, one of whom is looking for a speck in the eyes of a stranger, and the other gouges out that eye
  11. +1
    26 March 2013 17: 51
    While the author was listing the facts, everything was more or less normal, but as soon as good wishes came, "The negative consequences of NATO's interference in the internal affairs of Libya once again convincingly proved the need to introduce uniform international legal approaches to the problem of security both in Europe and in the world." So it immediately suffered liberalism ........ Yes, these gentlemen - NATO in general, the USA, England (I do not specifically write the self-name of this island, Great Britain) Germany, etc., etc. understand only force and reckon only with force It has always been this way and it will always be like this, and all these UN and OSCE bring dividends to countries with real economic and financial military power.
  12. +1
    26 March 2013 18: 17
    According to Polivanov, North Africa as a result of climate change will become a much more comfortable living area than many territories of Western Europe and America. Anglo-Saxons stupidly clean the land for themselves. Today, February 56, this is more obvious than a few years earlier.
  13. +1
    26 March 2013 19: 01
    Why, why, why, yes, they have their own scales of justice, as they want, and weighed. lol
  14. +1
    26 March 2013 19: 19
    Nobody pays attention to the Korean girl from the UN, as well as to the whole organization. NATO is in charge of everyone and everything, but the consequences for these "peacekeepers" will be a boomerang.
  15. Grishka100watt
    0
    26 March 2013 21: 23
    Well, have dominated, corrupt swamps of local bottling ???

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"