An important reason why Europe is bombing Libya. Chronicle of the Libyan war

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

Causes

The West's involvement in the Libyan conflict was due to several reasons. Firstly, Muammar Gaddafi, who was not particularly good-natured, outdid himself when he initially sent troops to disperse the demonstrations in Benghazi. He didn’t even try to enter into dialogue with the opposition and find out what they actually want. Against the backdrop of the relatively peaceful revolutions that had just ended in Tunisia and Egypt, such cruelty greatly impressed the West. The dictator's first long speech after the start of the uprising only strengthened the impression: Gaddafi, clearly out of his mind, spent a long time listing how and why he would hang and shoot fellow citizens who doubted his greatness and genius. The reputation of the leader of the Jamahiriya was dubious even before that, but after such speeches it completely collapsed. Gaddafi himself did everything possible to turn against himself public opinion. In the eyes of the West, he became the embodiment of evil, and the rebels - heroic freedom fighters.

When these fighters began to lose city after city in mid-March and were on the verge of defeat, Gaddafi kindly provided supporters of NATO intervention with another argument, promising that his troops would go from house to house and kill opponents - “like rats and cockroaches.” Perhaps the dictator simply wanted to express himself more clearly, but in the United States and Europe his words were taken unequivocally: Gaddafi is going to massacre all of Benghazi, committing genocide on an unprecedented scale (for the 21st century). The French and Italians shuddered to imagine hundreds of thousands of Libyans, who were sailing to the north in search of salvation from the delights of the Jamahiriya.

Secondly, the United States and Europe in mid-March urgently needed to save their image in the eyes of the Arab street. The fact is that until the last moment the West supported its friends - the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators, and accepted the suppression of the uprising in Bahrain with poorly concealed relief. Ordinary Arabs were very angry at such open hypocrisy of the “defenders of democracy”: suffice it to say that after the Egyptian revolution, the attitude towards Barack Obama among residents of Arab countries was worse than this American President like George Bush. At least he didn’t pretend to be a friend of Muslims.

Gaddafi was ideally suited to the role of a “bad guy”, on whom you can take revenge and show yourself as guardians of interests common people. The Libyan dictator managed to win universal hatred - both within the country and abroad, in the West and in the East, and among country leaders and ordinary citizens. It was difficult to imagine a more suitable candidate for an exemplary flogging.

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

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

In the American leadership, however, there were also voices against it: the then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates resisted for a long time, declaring that his country had no need for a new military adventure. However, the opinion of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton turned out to be more significant, and as a result, the United States supported the invasion.

Operation

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

Russia and China initially opposed it and gave in only when the draft resolution included words about a complete ban on the participation of foreign ground forces in a possible operation. However, at the same time, the Russians and Chinese did not pay due attention to the line, which later became the justification for all subsequent NATO actions in Libya. We are talking about the part of the resolution where countries that establish a “no-fly zone” over Libya receive the right to use “all necessary measures to protect civilians.”

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

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

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

Nevertheless, the operation began. More precisely, three separate operations began - British, French and American. Later, aircraft from Canada, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Holland, Norway, as well as non-NATO members Sweden, Qatar, Jordan and the UAE joined the allies.

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

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

Immediately after the bombing began, many thought that Gaddafi’s troops would instantly crumble under such pressure. However, in reality everything turned out to be much more complicated. Loyalists began to disguise their positions, hide military equipment in buildings, move only when the sounds of operating jet engines are not heard from the sky. This tactic yielded certain results - the rebels were driven almost from Sirte to the city of Ajdabiya, where a front line was established for many months. The bombing continued, but it was of little use: Gaddafi's troops stood firmly in their positions, and the motley units of his opponents could do nothing about it. Moreover, some oppositionists refused to fight at all, demanding that aviation do all the work for them.

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

"All necessary measures"

From the very beginning of the Libyan operation, the actions of NATO countries and their allies had little to do with ensuring a “no-fly zone” and “protecting civilians.” Gaddafi's planes did not even try to take off from the airfields, and it was difficult even for NATO falcons to discern from a ten-kilometer altitude who was peaceful down there and who was not so peaceful.

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

As the task changed, the methods of work had to change. First, it was necessary to do something with the rebels, whose formations looked like anything but an army. NATO members tried to somehow organize and train their charges. For this purpose, military advisers were sent to Benghazi. What they had to do with establishing a “no-fly zone” or protecting civilians remains a mystery. Nevertheless, opposition commanders began to be taught. For example, they had to explain that waving flags, shooting in the air, shouting and jumping for joy in modern combat can be fraught with undesirable consequences. Before this, many rebels were killed at the hands of snipers who caught them doing exactly this.

Having put together some semblance of more or less permanent units, the coalition participants presented them with camouflage, body armor and helmets. However, this was of little use: in the hot Libyan sands, many fighters still preferred T-shirts - one brighter than the other - and loose pants. On appearance As a result, the “soldier” had to give up. Another serious problem of the rebels was the lack of any coordination between the warring units. The Qataris and British shipped portable radios to Benghazi. This probably affected the quality of communication, but it caused new difficulties: the rebels, tuning into the wave of loyalists, began to kill time by swearing on the radio with their opponents. They, however, were not against it: the two-way radio exchange was filled with “goats”, “dogs”, “rats” (where would we be without them?), “cockroaches” and other unpleasant creatures.

In addition, the reluctance of their students to follow any kind of discipline added to the headaches for foreign instructors. The detachments are volunteer, so there was a feeling in them that no one owed anyone anything. Even the leaders of the National Transitional Council bitterly admitted that, in general, no one really listened to them.

One of the most common complaints from Gaddafi’s opponents was this: look, he has tanks, artillery and Grad installations, while we only have machine guns, we have nothing to fight with, help us out. Despite the UN resolution banning the supply of weapons to Libya, they had to bail out: Qatar sent Milan anti-tank systems to Libya. Using such a weapon, knock out the old one soviet tank quite possible. But to do this, you need to at least come within shooting distance of him, and this is scary. “Milan” didn’t make any difference.

The result was a situation where Benghazi - a city filled with foreign aid, advisers, radio stations and anti-tank units - did less than others for the overall victory of the rebels. Realizing that the situation had reached a dead end, NATO had to act by other methods: first, American drones were sent to Libya, and when there were few of them, attack helicopters were sent. Such aircraft are much more convenient to use for “picking out” equipment from hangars and shelters than high-altitude jet aircraft. In addition, at least Misrata now has Western ground gunners.

But that's not all. At the final stage of the war - before the capture of Tripoli - special forces from Qatar and the UAE quietly joined the rebel forces. We know of at least one operation in which they took an active part - the seizure of Gaddafi's residence Bab al-Azizia. After its capture, the rebels rushed to take away warehouses, take photographs for memory and, as usual, fire in the air. Foreign soldiers, meanwhile, collected documents and computer disks. Reasonable: information about the shady affairs of the Libyan dictator could later turn out to be as valuable as Libyan oil.

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

Results

Yes, the Libyans bore the brunt of the war, but without NATO support it would have been disproportionately more difficult, if not impossible, for them to achieve victory over the dictator’s troops. Suffice it to say that alliance aircraft carried out over 26 thousand combat sorties, hitting more than six thousand targets.

Overall, Operation Unified Defender was a success, with objectives (both official and unofficial) achieved and losses including one F-15 that crashed in the desert due to mechanical failure. In Libya, a regime came to power that was very loyal to the West and the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf. The cost of the operation in the USA amounted to about a billion dollars, in the UK - about 500 million. Other countries spent even less: for Canadians, for example, the war cost 50 million. Compared to the tens of billions that can be extracted from Libya in the form of oil, this is mere nonsense. At least, certainly not the trillion that went to the Iraq War.

However, the war in Libya has exposed some of NATO's weaknesses. For example, it has become quite obvious that without the United States the alliance will turn into zero without a stick. A few examples: First, in the middle of the operation, the French and British ran out of smart bombs. I had to urgently ask the Americans to sell more. Secondly, only the United States has the Tomahawk cruise missiles, which were used to destroy Libya’s air defense system. Thirdly, the drones that destroyed camouflaged Libyan equipment are also an American exclusive.

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

In addition, many NATO countries either did not participate in the operation at all, or their participation (like the Romanians) was purely symbolic. The “United Defender” came out rather disunited. Qatar's participation, for example, was much more active than all the Baltic states combined.

At the same time, after understanding the mistakes, the Libyan operation may become one of the few successful examples of Western intervention in the processes taking place in the Islamic world. The majority of Libyans assess the work of NATO positively; there were no complications with other Arab countries due to the West’s participation in the war.

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

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

But in reality The Libyan war once again confirmed the weakness of the bloc, especially its European component. European countries, without the United States, still do not represent a significant fighting force. USA on initial stage the wars cleared the “field” - suppressing the enemy’s air defense, control and communications systems, and then actually removed themselves from the operation. Letting your NATO partners end the war.

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

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

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

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

NATO is trying to play the role of arbiter, helping the “offended and oppressed.” As a result, the country degrades, sliding down to a lower level, into neo-feudalism. We see that NATO is turning into the “overseer” of the New World Order, while losing its combat functions; the Alliance can “punish” the guilty, but fight with serious enemy he can't, at least not yet.

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

In fact, the Alliance completed its task:

The regime of Muammar Gaddafi has been liquidated, as has the Libyan Jamahiriya project. Destabilization North Africa and the Middle East continues.

NATO losses in military equipment are insignificant, one F-15. Losses personnel unknown. Officially, there are none, although information has appeared about 35 killed British special forces soldiers. According to information from the vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, doctor of military sciences, captain of the first rank Konstantin Sivkov, the British lost 1.5-2 thousand people in Libya, the French 200-500 people, the USA about 200 fighters, Qatar more than 700 people. The main losses occurred during the assault on the Libyan capital, Tripoli.

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

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

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

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

So-called targeted airstrikes are becoming the main instrument of world humanism - the example of Libya clearly demonstrated all the humanitarian aspirations of the laureate Nobel Prize peacemaker Barack Obama and the famous peacemaker Nicolas Sarkozy. Experts say the toll from the bombings will far exceed the number of casualties civil war in Libya.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOREIGN MILITARY REVIEW No. 4/2011, pp. 102-103

Details

NATO OPERATION COLLECTIVE PROTECTOR IN LIBYA

The Alliance commenced full range of land and sea operations in Libya on 31 March 2011 under Operation Shared Protector, which "transferred fully to NATO command from national commanders on 31 March at 0600 GMT."

At the initial stage, 205 aircraft and 21 ships from 14 countries took part in the international operation in Libya, including the USA, France, Great Britain, Canada, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Greece, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Bulgaria, Romania. The NATO press service noted that the formation of forces continues and this list will be updated as new countries join the mission.

Combat planning is carried out at the headquarters of NATO's joint forces in Europe in Mons (Belgium), tactical command is carried out from the regional headquarters of the alliance in Naples, where the commander of the operation, Canadian General Charles Bouchard, is located. It is designed for a period of up to 90 days, but can be extended.

The purpose of the operation is determined by UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 and is formulated as “the protection of the civilian population and territories inhabited by civilians.” Within its framework, three main tasks are carried out: enforcing an arms embargo on Libya, establishing a no-fly zone over its territory and protecting civilians from attacks by the forces of Muammar Gaddafi. The theater of operations is defined as the entire territory of the Jamahiriya and the waters north of its coast.

General S. Boucher, speaking at a briefing at NATO headquarters in Brussels, said that they are “patrolling the coast to stop the supply of weapons to Libya, observing a no-fly zone closed to all military and civilian vehicles, except for aircraft carrying out humanitarian aid.” tasks". In addition, the alliance forces provide “protection of civilians.” He emphasized that during the operation “a very strict selection of ground targets is carried out in order to prevent civilian casualties.” “The rules for opening fire are very strict, but all NATO forces have the right to self-defense,” he continued. The general acknowledged that the alliance "takes seriously media reports of civilian casualties in air strikes in Libya."

In turn, the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola, noted that the main objective of Operation Shared Protector is “to protect civilians and territory inhabited by civilians.” “The objectives of the operation are extremely clear,” he noted. “This is supporting the arms embargo, enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians.”

“Our mandate is to protect the entire population, we will not check their ID cards. However, the reality today is that attacks against the civilian population of Libya come only from Gaddafi’s forces,” he said, answering a question from reporters whether the alliance forces would protect “the civilian population that supports Gaddafi.” “NATO has no intention of interfering in determining the future of Libya - this is a matter for its people,” continued Admiral Di Paola.

He avoided answering the question whether the NATO mandate excludes the use of ground forces. “The UN Security Council resolution only excludes the entry of occupation forces (into Libya),” he emphasized. Deciphering the term “occupation forces,” the admiral explained that these are ground forces that occupy territory and take control over it. “The theater of NATO operation is the entire territory of Libya, its waters and airspace. It cannot be said that it is being carried out in the east or west of the country,” he emphasized.

The following is data from European sources and media about the forces that countries that are part of the coalition or planning to join it have sent to this region:

USA - 12 ships and a submarine, including UDC "Kirsage", DVKD "Pons", SSGN "Florida", SSN "Newport News", more than 80 combat aircraft, in particular F-15, F-16, A- 10, AV-8B, EA-18G, U-2S, RC-135W, E-ZV, EC-130J, as well as about 20 tanker aircraft.

France - five ships and a submarine, including AVMA Charles de Gaulle, EM URO Forbin, submarine Amethyst, more than 50 combat aircraft, including Rafale, Mirage 2000, Super Etandar M , E-2C, and seven tanker aircraft.

Great Britain - three ships and a submarine, about 50 combat aircraft, including Tornado, Typhoon, Nimrod, Sentinel, and more than 10 tanker aircraft.

Turkey - five ships and a submarine (the country has completely refused to participate in air operations in Libya, but maintains a naval blockade of the coast).

Italy - 15 ships, including the AVL "Giuseppe Garibaldi", EM URO "Andrea Doria" DVKD "San Marco" and "San Giorgio", about 30 combat aircraft, in particular "Typhoon", "Tornado", "Harrier".

Belgium - ship, six F-16 combat aircraft.

Greece - two ships.

Denmark - six F-16 combat aircraft.

Spain - the ship and submarine Tramontana, five F-18 combat aircraft and a tanker aircraft.

Canada - ship and nine combat aircraft, including CF-18, CP-140A.

Norway - six F-16 combat aircraft.

Poland - ship (ShK "Rear Admiral K. Chernicki").

In addition, the UAE was ready to provide 12 fighters of various types to the alliance grouping for the operation “Joint Defender”, Qatar - six combat aircraft, Sweden, if the parliament approves the government’s decision - eight combat aircraft, a tanker aircraft and a reconnaissance aircraft, and Romania planned to transfer one frigate to the force.

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

Why is Europe bombing Libya? Why did European smart bombs suddenly rain down from the sky, helping a bunch of representatives of different tribes seen in supporting al-Qaeda? Is this really a humanitarian mission that Europeans are carrying out at the call of their hearts and out of high motives?

There are more plausible reasons. Here they are.

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

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

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

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

The Europeans are already beginning to act, but the United States has not yet been able to come to terms with the fact that “peak oil” has arrived. This theory states that world oil production has peaked and is now beginning to decline. But the facts speak for themselves.

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

In 1970, America produced almost 10 million barrels of oil per day. Today it produces about half that amount, despite increasing the number of wells.

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

These are the facts based on the science of geology.

There are some other facts based on reality. In a 2009 report that was met with little fanfare, the US Department of Energy said the world could experience a decline in liquid fuel production between 2011 and 2015 “if there is no investment.”

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

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

By tabulating all known fields, the Department of Energy found that beginning in 2012 there would be a slow but steady decline in production from existing and new oil fields.

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

According to the ministry, “unidentified” new liquid fuel deposits will need to close the gap between supply and demand of 10 million barrels per day within five years. 10 million barrels per day is almost as much as the world's main oil-producing country, Saudi Arabia, produces daily.

Either the Department of Energy is living in dreamland - or it is afraid of the consequences of an oil famine.

Production at the world's largest 500 fields is steadily declining. About 60% is mined there natural oil. Many of the top twenty deposits are more than 50 years old, and in last years Very few new giant oil-bearing areas were discovered. These are also real facts.

At the beginning of the month, the International Monetary Fund published its World Economic Outlook. Analyst Rick Munroe says this is the first time the IMF has acknowledged that peak oil production is coming and will have serious consequences.

The report's authors are generally optimistic about our world's ability to cope with "a gradual and moderate increase in oil shortages, but the very fact of recognizing this shortage is extremely important. According to this report, "oil and other energy markets have entered a period of increasing scarcity" and "a return to abundance is unlikely in the near future."

“The risks cannot be underestimated,” the report notes. “Research shows how catastrophic events [such as oil shortages] can affect people's behavior in dramatic ways.”

If oil shortages are a reality, then where will America and Europe get the oil they desperately need?

Some Americans believe that there are huge lakes of oil hidden somewhere underground in Alaska and other places. It is quite possible to start pumping them out - as long as the government allows drilling. Even if this is true, this issue is highly controversial.

Even if drillers were immediately given permission to drill unrestrictedly off the East Coast and in Alaska, it would be years before significant amounts of oil hit the market (and that's only if significant amounts of oil were found at all). And if you carry out the necessary environmental studies and examinations, if you obtain all the required permits, licenses, and so on, then the time from the appearance of workers at the drilling sites to the appearance of gasoline in your tank will be about ten years.

Likewise, it will take a truly Herculean effort to begin production at the recently discovered fields off the coast of Brazil. Canada's oil sands? They will help, but just a little, because their development and development will be too difficult and expensive. But even “oil-loving” Alberta has revoked 20% of licenses for the development of deposits in tar sands, taking care of its natural reserves.

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

There is simply very little oil in Europe. Deposits in the North Sea are rapidly depleting. Soon almost all of Europe's oil will be imported. And if the Old World does not want to become increasingly dependent on extortion deals with Russia, Europe's eyes will inevitably turn towards Africa and the Middle East.

Only Russia and OPEC countries have additional oil to supply to the world market. And since Russia has nuclear weapons, that leaves only OPEC.

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

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

If Europe gets its way, Gaddafi will never be able to blackmail it again. Probably, other countries will get the hint: Europe takes the problem of energy resources quite seriously!

The reality of an oil-scarce world ensures that European states will intervene much more actively and aggressively in Middle Eastern affairs. And these realities are becoming more pressing as America withdraws from Iraq and Iran fills the vacuum there.

Yesterday, oil prices reached $121.75 per barrel. Get used to it. Soon, sky-high oil prices may become an unpleasant and permanent reality that America, Europe and the rest of the world will have to live with. As the oil shortage worsens, Europe will increasingly penetrate the Middle East.