Military Review

Events in Libya - the view of the inhabitant

Events in Libya never go away news pages of leading news agencies for more than a month. The situation in the country, which was actually engulfed in civil war, briefly receded into the shadows only after the devastating earthquake in Japan and returned to the front lines with the beginning of NATO's air aggression. After the adoption of the relevant UN resolution, which allowed the use of any forces and means to protect the civilian population of Libya, except for a direct land invasion, Western countries rushed to save the opposition regime in Benghazi.

It is worth noting that Muammar Gaddafi himself provoked the aggression, intensifying in recent days a large-scale attack on the positions of the opposition. Under the blows tank columns advancing under cover aviation, the rebellious cities one by one passed under the control of troops controlled by Gaddafi. Benghazi, the second largest city of Libya and the capital of the rebels, was under immediate threat. Realizing that the coalition of Western countries would go all the way to save young Libyan democracy, the colonel and leader of the revolution was in a hurry, using tricks already tested by one notorious Georgian politician. In fact, announcing a ceasefire, Gaddafi’s troops launched a decisive offensive on Benghazi, to stop which to a large extent helped only NATO bombers.

The international coalition that inflicts airstrikes on military targets in Libya has already been joined by 9 countries - the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Belgium and Qatar. The command of a military operation, code-named "Odyssey. Dawn, ”the US command is still implementing, but creating a coalition command structure is only a matter of time. Washington has already noted that Muammar Gaddafi will be judged by his actions, not by words. It seems that the creator of the Jamahiriya decided to take seriously, and he may well repeat the fate of Saddam Hussein.

How did it happen that in a fairly prosperous country, which Libya was, the events came to civil war. Those who claim that in Libya everything is actually quite calm, and the reports of the uprising are invented by the media live in some kind of parallel world. It is impossible in principle to initiate and carry out such an operation on disinformation, although the role of the media in forcing this conflict was enormous. Military operations in the country do not actually cease a month, it is silly to argue with that. Again, if there were no opposition government in Benghazi, then on whose side then members of the Libyan government, in particular the Minister of Internal Affairs of the country, went over. Why practically all Libyan diplomats disowned the “white and fluffy” Gaddafi, and who were the two colonels who landed fighters in Malta and asked for political asylum? The uprising in Libya took place, and the consequences and manifestations of schism among the citizens of the country are obvious.

Events in Libya - the view of the inhabitant

In my opinion, everything that happened in Libya has three main components. The first is the development of information technology and Internet communications. If the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia happened even in the 80s or even in the early 90s of the last century, they could not provoke such a chain reaction that became possible now and embraced, in fact, all countries of the region. When the revolution is shown on the air virtually online, when on the Internet, anyone willing to post videos about what is happening, to bring the person to the "boiling point" becomes much easier. The development of the Internet has helped coordinate and bring people to the streets. Now you don’t need to print any leaflets, meet in safe houses - instead people have twitter, facebook, and e-mails. None of the special services is able to control the flow of this information on the Internet.

The second component of the Libyan revolution (and not only the Libyan one) is the method of coming to power of the current ruler. A person who came to power as a result of the revolution risks losing it in exactly the same way, and it is possible that he will have to leave his post with his feet forward. This is confirmed by many examples from modern stories of humanity. The countries whose leadership came to power in a revolutionary way and kept power in their hands, in fact, are extremely few.

The third component of the revolution is the self-consciousness of society, which has reached such a level that it placed freedom of will, freedom from censorship, above the existing material wealth. It cannot be said that the people in Libya lived poorly, on the contrary, they lived quite well. A country with a relatively small population, about 6 million, has 3% of world oil reserves. The average wages in the country were 1050 dollars, and that is without taking into account the monthly financial assistance personally from Gaddafi, from whom every working Libyan received 500 dollars. And this, think about it, almost 2,5 times higher than the average salary in Russia. However, people are morally and unconsciously tired of the "kings" in power, and Gaddafi was precisely the self-proclaimed "king." Yes, the monarch was generous to his people, but it was the monarch who concentrated all power in his hands. The Libyan people have every reason to believe that even without Muammar Gaddafi the country will not live without misery, because the oil in it will not disappear along with the dictator, and civil liberties will only increase. This means that the game is worth the candle.
Originator:"rel =" nofollow ">

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Eugene
    Eugene 22 March 2011 09: 29
    "It is worth noting that Muammar Gaddafi himself provoked aggression ..." - Yes, he did not provoke it! That, suppressing the "Amur partisans" by the army, Medvedev also provoked the West to bombardment?
    "In principle, it is impossible to initiate and carry out such a disinformation operation ..." - The experience of the war 080808 shows what else and how is possible. In addition, there is more than enough evidence for this. It is enough just to be able to analyze information minimally.
    "The first component" - why did this "boiling point" coincide with the supply of NATO weapons to the country?
    "The second component" - And that our rulers do not violate the law on elections, the constitution?
    "The third component of the revolution" - Self-consciousness? ... Look at these faces! In a multi-clan, tribal society, the word "dictator" sounds out of place.

  2. Oakul
    Oakul 22 March 2011 10: 19
    The article is a deuce. The author even approximately understands what he writes.
    1. We are talking about Africa and the tribes. They constantly have friction with each other. There is no such thing that someone does not shoot. Alas - but such a specificity.
    2. Gaddafi leader of the revolution against colonization. And the current opposition is sitting in the pocket of those colonialists against whom Gaddafi spoke.
    3. There are simply herds of world correspondents ... But so far there is not a single convincing evidence of Gaddafi's atrocities. Even shot on a mobile phone ...
    4. "Discussions about democracy, freedom of speech, personal freedoms that are higher than prosperity" - some kind of childish babble. These are African tribes.
    5. Impossible to falsify in the media? Yes, this is just the easiest. Billions of dollars are needed for a military operation. And the media will sing one song for a dozen pathetic millions, using staged data and not providing any evidence.
  3. Zloystrelok
    22 March 2011 10: 29
    African tribes live mainly in cities, and are employed in industry and services, only 17% of the population work in the agricultural sector, have a GDP per capita comparable to Russia and salaries more than in Russia. And so, of course, it is enough to look at the faces to understand the situation in the country) Even for money it is difficult to pull “satisfied” people out into the street, especially if there is a chance to give up.
  4. Egor
    Egor 22 March 2011 10: 56
    Mudatsky article, the author is about the same.
    Liberals give voice.
  5. Michael
    Michael 22 March 2011 13: 35
    The return of Russia to Libya scared the west. Not only will Libyan oil and gas reserves (proven volumes exceed 3,8 billion tons - the largest in Africa) fall under Russian control, so these reserves would also be protected by a Russian military base. And this is already very serious.

    Of course, it seems too trivial to explain the conflict as a struggle for oil. But as one of the reasons for the overthrow of the "regime" Gaddafi is quite suitable. Oil has been and remains a very profitable business. The cost of oil production in this region is only about $ 1 per barrel, while the market price is a hundred times higher. Only the drug business can match this profitability. So the conflict in Libya can also be viewed as a clash of "oil mafia", which is "covered" by various state structures. The truth for our Russian mafia, Gaddafi is being puffed alone. They did not even have time to deliver modern weapons to Libya, as Putin agreed on. And we agreed on a lot - 12 multipurpose Su-35 fighters, 48 ​​T-90S tanks, a number of anti-aircraft missile systems / SAM / S-125 "Pechora", "Tor-M2E" and S-300PMU-2 "Favorite". However, Medvedev already in January of this year vetoed supplies - he joined the international embargo. This is instead of talking about the double standards of the "world community", which makes a terrorist out of everyone who opposes the interests of the international "oil mafia". And after he abstained in the Security Council on the resolution unleashing the hands of NATO in carrying out the bombings, he removed Ambassador Vladimir Chamov from Libya, who in a telegram addressed to the President directly called him a traitor. Judging by the blogs, the ambassador's reason for this was another act of the President. The Russians did create a well-disguised air defense network in Libya. The President demanded to give the scheme to NATO ... Of course, this information did not pass through the central media. But it should be. To know who to elect the President in a year.
  6. Farvil
    Farvil 22 March 2011 14: 10
    The author is a miracle on the stove.
  7. Tefaltron
    Tefaltron 22 March 2011 17: 14
    Moderators do not look at the content of articles? How can I publish such nonsense? huge minus to the author
  8. Denis
    Denis 22 March 2011 19: 10
    Dear author Sergei Yuferev, I am very sorry to understand that you, as it turns out, yourself live in a world of some kind of illusions, or are trying to settle us "readers" there. What kind of democracy can we talk about? When these "NATO jackals" are interested in the resources of Libya and who are they to tell everyone else how they should live on.
    The uprising itself is the intrigues of these freaks from NATO, since they have NATO weapons and ammunition, and all the media insist that all the weapons were seized from Kadaffi, but I remember that Libya with IMBARGO, this disables the fact that this weapon and ammunition is present in Libya itself, hence it was supplied from outside, along with nato instructors. It is necessary to teach these aboltusovs about "rebels" how to smack from MANPADS with heat guidance and NATO rifles. So grab the bullshit and fool their own citizens. And yes the moderators !!!!! how did this shit get here ????
  9. vist
    vist 22 March 2011 20: 08
    I read it, neighing, I especially liked it: "The third component of the revolution is the self-awareness of society, which has reached such a level that it has put freedom of expression, freedom from censorship above the available material goods." I understood that the author is either an alien, or from the year 1999 to the present stayed in a coma, or shell-shocked (most likely in a civilian, in Libya).
  10. yuvit
    yuvit 22 March 2011 20: 29
    The heading for simpletons, the author, clearly wrote an article by order of whom?
  11. East
    East 22 March 2011 22: 58
    I absolutely agree with the author.
    Gaddafi’s trouble is that his allies are only African countries. He was never our allies, otherwise he would have repaid a debt from the time of the Union, $ 4,5 billion, and insisted on writing off. And he did not give this money back when there was a default in my country, and our pensioners did not receive pension for months. Then tell me that I should consider him an ally of my country. Well, there would be no money ....
    We don’t lose our contracts for sure, since the amount of contracts is about the same that we wrote off, and not the fact that he would not have thrown us again.
    As for the tribes. Yes, new leaders have appeared, certainly not worse than the previous ones, because as our president Gaddafi correctly noted, he is already a political corpse.
    And about NATO. These jackals, led by the United States, are ready to overwhelm anyone who is weaker than them. Wailing about interference in internal affairs is not accepted. Therefore, we need a president who would give enough money to feed his army so as not to feed someone else's.
  12. Maddog
    Maddog 25 March 2011 15: 00
    The author is a blockhead, or a custom article.
    The pre-war standard of living in Libya was an order of magnitude higher than the current Russian what the hell is the revolution ???
    A bunch of renegades with instructors from Fort Bragg, brand new weapons, plus massive misinformation in the world media - this is how it will continue to be with all those who are objectionable, including Russia.
  13. His
    His 25 March 2011 22: 25
    The world is changing. Everything used to be simpler. Got a roof and live in peace. Libya was under the Soviet roof for the time being. And now there is no choice, or American values ​​or no values.