BesTToday. "The war in Libya: the real reasons for the invasion"
Why did NATO attack Libya? There are several reasons:
1. France and its ambitions
It was the one that most openly opposed the Gaddafi regime, was the first to recognize the legitimacy of the opposition government in Benghazi, spoke most about the possibility of military intervention, and was the first to bomb Libya.
The French Republic has shown surprising activity in the events in Libya, which makes us wonder what this is connected with.
A) Firstly, in France they are very acutely experiencing post-imperial syndrome. The French, who until recently determined the directions of world politics, economics and, of course, culture, after the Second World War are in second and even third roles in the world. Not only are they not world leaders, but they are not even leaders in Europe. France's influence on global issues is extremely small. At the same time, politicians in the country constantly declare that France is a great power.
Just as Russia considers the post-Soviet space to be a zone of its geopolitical responsibility (interests), France also considers North Africa and its former colonies to be a zone of its own responsibility.
The loss of relatively serious control over North Africa puts an end to France's foreign policy ambitions and means the country's final transformation into an ordinary and average European country like Austria.
B) “A small victorious war” is one of the favorite ways to increase the popularity of the head of state and consolidate society.
President N. Sarkozy is now in an extremely difficult situation. There is about a year left before the elections, and his rating has fallen below 30%! Moreover, only 20% of the population are ready to vote for him.
In the regional elections that took place just the other day, Sarkozy's party gained only 17%, while his main competitors - the Socialists - 25%.
In addition, Marie Le Pen and her National Front party, which holds clearly nationalist views, is beginning to receive widespread support, a record 15%. At the same time, the latter actively use the theme of return former greatness France, which is also the reason for their growing popularity. So Sarkozy’s headache will get stronger and stronger before the elections.
For Sarkozy, the war is perhaps the last attempt to win back the sympathy of the French, the last chance to win the elections in a year.
2. Possibility of a humanitarian catastrophe
It is unlikely that many are ready to believe that the West launched an attack on Libya, trying to save its population from violence by Gaddafi’s troops, but I think this factor is quite significant.
Let's remember what we had at the end of the first weeks of the confrontation in Libya. Every day we received messages about:
Airstrikes by Gaddafi's troops on their own cities;
Brutal dispersals of demonstrations using firearms and targeted sniper fire;
Hiring African mercenary thugs who began patrolling city streets;
Harsh and threatening statements by Gaddafi addressed to demonstrators, etc.
And most importantly, reports of dead and wounded came in every day, although, in fairness, it is important to note the lack of reliable and confirmed data on this matter.
The US and Europe remember well the events in Rwanda in 1994, when the outbreak of civil war led to the genocide of the Tutsi people. About 1 million people were killed during those horrific events. While Western governments were discussing whether to intervene or not, how to carry out the invasion and what to do, in just 100 days the authorities destroyed 1/10 of the population the whole country. Every day of delay cost 10 thousand lives...
Could such a scenario be repeated in Libya? It is very difficult to say definitely, but it was quite possible, given the way Gaddafi characterizes the protesters, namely: “dogs, terrorists, drug addicts, members of Al-Qaeda, enemies, traitors,” and to fight them he is ready to arm the entire people, ready to take up arms...
In addition, Gaddafi began to behave simply inappropriately. And so much so that many began to call him insane and sick. Threat of large scale civil war with numerous victims has become a reality, and the desire to stop it and the potential violent acts Gaddafi's army against his people is one of the reasons for the invasion.
3. Oil
This point probably surprised everyone who read yesterday’s article, but the oil issue played an important role in the beginning of the war. The truth is in a slightly different way than is commonly believed.
So, Italy receives 22% of its oil consumption from Libya, France - 16%, and Spain - 12%.
What are these countries interested in? It is to have a stable and relatively cheap source of oil, and also not to increase your dependence on Russia (for a number of reasons, I will not dwell on this here).
And the events in Libya directly threaten precisely these vital interests of European countries. The beginning of the bloody events in Libya caused oil prices to soar to $120 per barrel, and oil supplies decreased noticeably.
Moreover, Gaddafi repeatedly threatened to blow up oil pipelines, oil refineries and generally destroy the oil complex.
Simply put, the continuation of the civil war in Libya meant for Europeans rising oil prices and unstable supplies of oil, the shortage of which could essentially be covered only by increasing supplies from Russia.
In the context of the ongoing economic crisis (GDP growth in France in 2010 will be 1.4% against a decline of 2.2% in 2009), such a situation over a long period of time could put an end to the authorities’ promises regarding the reduction of unemployment, economic growth, etc. .
Many often accuse the West of cynicism - it doesn’t matter to them who to buy oil from - African dictators or Norwegian companies - they are only interested in stability and cheap supplies. Well, practice shows that this is a completely fair statement.
Conclusions. Thus, the invasion of NATO troops into Libya was caused by the following reasons:
The approaching election campaign in France and its ambitions as a great power;
The desire to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and further violence;
The desire to ensure the stability of oil supplies and low prices necessary for European economies to emerge from the crisis.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has officially completed its military operation in Libya. According to Alliance Secretary General Rasmussen, Operation Unified Defender was “one of the most successful in the alliance.” The Secretary General welcomed the fact that the organization acted quickly, “effectively, with flexibility and precision, with the participation of numerous partners from the region and beyond.”
But in reality The Libyan war once again confirmed the weakness of the bloc, especially its European component. European countries, without the United States, still do not represent a significant fighting force. At the initial stage of the war, the United States cleared the “field” - suppressing the enemy’s air defense, control and communications systems, and then actually withdrew from the operation. Letting your NATO partners end the war.
We have seen that NATO prefers to use the “big bully” strategy. The Alliance behaves like a group of punks who skillfully choose a obviously weaker enemy who will not fight back. The main role in the operation is played by the psychological suppression of the enemy (information warfare), the enemy’s will to resist is broken even before the operation begins, and as a result, the war simply turns into a beating. The Libyan leadership never realized the fact (or lacked the will) that the West can only be frightened by a total war, with attacks not only on military but also on civilian infrastructure. This mistake of Milosevic and Saddam was repeated by Gaddafi.
Libya's armed forces were weaker than the armies of Yugoslavia or Iraq, but the air operation dragged on for 7 months. Gaddafi's units were even able to successfully resist the rebel forces for quite some time. The hopes that the forces loyal to the Colonel would disperse after the start of the war were not justified. Gaddafi was able to hide some of the equipment, they began to use civilian cars in order to be indistinguishable from the rebels, move only when there were no enemy aircraft in the air, and camouflage was successfully used. As a result, even during the defense of Sirte, the Colonel’s supporters had heavy weapons. It turned out that it was impossible to win without more serious intervention. The rebels could not win, even with the complete dominance of NATO forces in Libyan airspace. Therefore, the scope of the operation was expanded: the rebels were supplied, including heavy equipment, ammunition, and communications equipment; their units were trained by military advisers; military experts helped in organizing the actions; thrown into battle attack helicopters and drones, foreign gunners began to help guide them to the target; It was possible to take the capital only using the special forces of Qatar, the UAE, and PMC fighters; in addition, according to a number of experts, special forces from France, Great Britain, and the USA were also used.
This confirms the opinion that NATO (without the US and Turkish armies) cannot fight a high-intensity war, including ground operations. The European armed forces lack experience and capabilities; even France and Great Britain quickly ran out of precision-guided ammunition for the Air Force and had to buy more from the Americans. European countries lag behind the United States in such advanced areas as combat drones. Some countries cannot support their allies at all (due to reluctance to fight, or lack of physical ability), or their participation was purely symbolic.
In addition, another feature of new NATO campaigns (including future ones) is emerging; the main emphasis in the war will be on the “fifth column”, supporting any opposition forces, from liberals and nationalists to radical Islamists. Liberal ideas, nationalism, and radical Islamism have become a kind of “battering ram” for the West, tools for dismantling states. In Libya, liberal democrats, Cyrenaica separatists, Islamists (including Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb - AQIM), and a number of tribes who wanted to increase their status in the informal hierarchy of the country opposed their own state.
NATO is trying to play the role of arbiter, helping the “offended and oppressed.” As a result, the country degrades, sliding down to a lower level, into neo-feudalism. We see that NATO is turning into the “overseer” of the New World Order, while losing its combat functions. The Alliance can “punish” the guilty, but will not be able to fight a serious enemy, at least for now.
How can one not recall Brzezinski, with his desire to drag Russia and Turkey into the “Atlantic Alliance”; Russians and Turks would become excellent “cannon fodder” in future wars.
In fact, the Alliance completed its task:
The regime of Muammar Gaddafi has been liquidated, as has the Libyan Jamahiriya project. The destabilization of North Africa and the Middle East continues.
NATO losses in military equipment are insignificant, one F-15. Personnel losses are unknown. Officially, there are none, although information has appeared about 35 killed British special forces soldiers. According to information from the vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, doctor of military sciences, captain of the first rank Konstantin Sivkov, the British lost 1.5-2 thousand people in Libya, the French 200-500 people, the USA about 200 fighters, Qatar more than 700 people. The main losses occurred during the assault on the Libyan capital, Tripoli.
The financial costs are relatively small and will apparently be repaid by the exploitation of Libyan hydrocarbons. The cost of the operation in the United States amounted to about 1 billion dollars, in England - approximately 500 million. Other countries spent even less, for example Canada spent $50 million. At least it's definitely not the $1 trillion that was spent on the Iraq War.
The West was able to mobilize a number of Arab countries (mostly monarchies) against Libya. In fact, this is a split in the Islamic world into allies of the Western world and opponents. Qatar and the UAE actively fought on the side of the West in the Libyan war. Apparently, the monarchies of the Persian Gulf will become an instrument of NATO in the confrontation with Syria and Iran.
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 admit harsh realities of our oil-dependent world, because the consequences of these realities affect literally everything - from stock markets and food production to the status of the dollar 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 on oil exploration and production than the United States. 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 Gulf of Mexico, in the Rocky Mountains, at sea, in 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 with subsequent explosion rocks and the supply of powerful chemicals to extract oil, offer hope only for a temporary increase in production. But these attempts cannot change the general trend of decline.
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 a day is almost as much as the world's main oil-producing country produces daily Saudi Arabia.
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. Approximately 60% of natural oil is produced there. 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 International currency board published its report on the prospects for the global economy, World Economic Outlook. According to analyst Rick Munroe, this is the first time the IMF has acknowledged that peak oil production is coming, which 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.
Prerequisites
In the early 1980s, relations between the United States and Libya deteriorated sharply. The administration of US President Reagan accused Libya and its leader Muammar Gaddafi of supporting international terrorism. The aggravation of relations led to a number of incidents in the Gulf of Sidra, which Libya declared as its territorial waters. Since August, the US Navy has conducted 18 exercises in the area over five years. In 1981 American planes During the exercise, F-14s entered into an air battle with two Libyan Su-22 fighter-bombers, trying to expel them from the exercise area, and shot them down.
In December 1985, terrorist attacks were carried out near the offices of Israeli airlines in Vienna and Rome. The United States accused Libya of organizing these actions and froze Libyan assets in American banks. In March 1986, the US-Libyan standoff reached its peak when US Navy ships made a show of entering the Gulf of Sidra, violating Gaddafi's so-called "line of death" (30 degrees 32 minutes north latitude) but remaining in international waters. Libyan air defense systems fired at American planes, however, without causing any harm to the latter. In response to this, they missile strikes according to anti-aircraft missile bases and radars, several Libyan military boats and a corvette were sunk as they tried to approach the exercise area.
Preparation
On April 2, 1986, an explosion occurred on board an American airliner over Greece. Four US citizens were killed. On April 5, a bomb exploded at a discotheque in La Belle (West Berlin), frequented by American military personnel. Two American soldiers and a Turkish waitress were killed, and about 200 people were injured. The US said both actions were organized by Libyan intelligence. Presumably this was Gaddafi's revenge for the US military action in March.
After the terrorist attack, President Reagan ordered the preparation of an air raid on Libya. Five sites were selected in the vicinity of the cities of Tripoli and Benghazi, which, as US intelligence reported, were used for training terrorists and transporting weapons to terrorist organizations. Planning for the military action, called “Eldorado Canyon,” was seriously hampered by the fact that European countries (Italy, Germany) refused to give permission to use their air bases. It was decided to use F-111 attack aircraft based in Great Britain. Since France and Spain did not provide their airspace for the F-111 overflight, the only option was to circle the Iberian Peninsula, fly over the Strait of Gibraltar and reach Tripoli along the African coast. This maneuver made the upcoming mission the longest tactical aircraft sortie in aviation history.
Hit
Libya Map
Operation Eldorado Canyon was carried out on the night of April 15, 1986. The F-111 aircraft successfully completed the planned flight with several mid-air refueling stops. Before midnight, A-7 attack aircraft attacked Libyan radars with anti-radar missiles. The strikes themselves were carried out after midnight on April 15, while the actions of the Air Force and Navy were very clearly coordinated: US Air Force F-111 fighter-bombers attacked targets in the Tripoli area, and US Navy A-6 carrier-based attack aircraft from two aircraft carriers carried out raid on targets in the Benghazi area. Although the international media in the first half of April actively discussed the possibility of an American punitive action against Libya, the Libyan air defense system was unprepared to repel the attack. Anti-aircraft fire was opened late, and the interceptor fighters did not take off at all. Achieving surprise in the Tripoli area was also facilitated by the fact that the F-111s made a detour, approaching targets not from the sea, as might have been expected, but from the desert. The raid lasted about 11 minutes.
According to official American data, losses during the raid amounted to one aircraft (F-111, the crew of two people died). Libyan media cited larger figures, but did not provide any documentary evidence of their version. The Soviet press reported that in the following days several more raids were carried out on Libya, but in reality, US aircraft only carried out reconnaissance missions, recording the results of the operation.
Consequences
Military results
From a military point of view, Operation Eldorado Canyon was a unique example of the use of tactical aircraft to carry out combat missions over long distances. It was characterized by excellent coordination between the US Air Force and Navy, which made it possible to achieve all their goals with minimal losses. At the same time, technical problems were noted in the on-board equipment of several F-111 and A-6 aircraft, which forced them to refuse to drop bombs. The raid killed about 40 Libyan civilians, including Gaddafi's adopted daughter, 15-month-old Hannah. Some of the bombs did not explode after being dropped from an ultra-low altitude. However, all targeted targets were hit. Several Il-76 and Fokker F-27 military transport aircraft, which were allegedly used to transport weapons to terrorist organizations, were destroyed on the ground.
The United States officially stated that the physical liquidation of Gaddafi was not the purpose of the raid. Many authors questioned this claim, since Gaddafi's residence in Tripoli (where he was absent at the time) was also hit.
Libya's reaction
Libya's reaction to the raid was extremely restrained, apart from blaming the United States. On April 16, several Scud missiles were fired at an American base on the Italian island of Lampedusa (all missiles fell into the sea). The Abu Nidal terrorist organization in Lebanon executed one American and two British hostages it was holding in response to the raid. American sources note that after the events of March-April 1986, Libya sharply reduced its support for international terrorism. It is generally accepted that the explosion of a Boeing 747 airliner over Lockerbie (UK) in December 1988 was organized by Libyan intelligence services on the orders of Gaddafi as revenge for the bombing. Libya admitted responsibility for this event, and two Libyan agents were convicted of organizing the bombing, but there are alternative versions of what happened, attributing the bombing to Palestinian terrorists or Iran. Libya's admission of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing was a necessary condition for the lifting of American sanctions on that country.
International response
The raid on Libya had virtually no impact on American-Soviet relations, although the Soviet media formally accused the United States of aggression. The only practical step taken by the USSR was to cancel the planned visit of Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze to the United States. There have been demonstrations in several countries around the world against the bombing of Libya. The US use of British bases for the operation met with mixed reactions in the UK. During the raid, the French Embassy building in Tripoli was damaged. It was suggested that this was done deliberately as “punishment” for France for refusing to provide airspace, but the embassies of several other countries were also damaged.
Notes
Links
- A. Sergievsky. "Fire on the Prairie" (Aerospace Defense, 2004)
- W. Boyne. Eldorado Canyon (US Air Force Magazine, 1999) (English)
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
Over the past year and a half, the world's attention has been focused on the Middle East and North Africa. These regions have become key points where the global political and economic interests of the world's leading powers converge. Western countries, using mainly the special services, for quite a long time they were preparing in Libya what is generally considered a coup in the civilized world. Libya “should” have repeated the relatively anemic scenarios of the “Arab Spring” in other countries in the region. And the failure of the so-called “rebels” at the initial stage of the Libyan conflict was somewhat unexpected for the organizers of the events (which, in fact, led to the military operation by NATO forces).
Operation Odyssey. Dawn" was carried out by the United States and its NATO allies from March 19 to October 31, 2011. Authorized by the UN Security Council, this operation included measures necessary to protect the civilian population of Libya during the confrontation between the rebels and the central government of M. Gaddafi, including fighting, with the exception of the entry of occupation troops, preventing a humanitarian catastrophe in Libya and neutralizing the threat to international security.
Military-political and military-technical aspects of the NATO war in Libya
It should be noted that the West may no longer rely solely on US leadership. While the United States continues to be much of the "indispensable power" it has been for the past 60 years, it is no longer enough to make international initiatives successful.
Countries with rapidly developing economies, primarily BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China), which are expected to be able to pose an economic challenge to the West in this century, do not currently demonstrate the ability to political and diplomatic leadership. Thus, of the five states that abstained during the vote in the UN Security Council on resolution number 1976 regarding Libya, four are leaders in the group of states with new economy: Brazil, Russia, India, China.
In planning the operation, the factor of strategic surprise, in terms of the time of the start of hostilities, essentially did not play a special role due to the overwhelming superiority of the coalition forces. The planning of the operation was carried out by the headquarters of the Unified Command of the US Armed Forces in the African Zone, led by General Katrie Ham. Officers from the Armed Forces of Great Britain, France and other coalition countries were sent to the headquarters of the operation to coordinate joint actions. The main task, apparently, was not to conduct an air operation to block and isolate airspace Libya, not the destruction or defeat of the Libyan armed forces, as was the case during the operation in Yugoslavia and Iran, but the destruction of the top leadership of Libya.
High effectiveness of air strikes with almost complete absence of opposition from Libyan air defense forces. The accuracy of determining the coordinates of targets, the efficiency of striking, and effective target designation could not be realized solely by space and aviation reconnaissance means alone. Therefore, a significant amount of tasks to support missile and air strikes, especially during close air support, were carried out with the participation of air controllers from units of the Special Operations Forces (SSO), so Russia needs to create its own forces.
NATO's experience in training rebels should be taken into account. If at the beginning of the conflict they were actually gatherings of untrained and poorly armed people who mostly shook the air with demonstrative shooting and continuously retreated, then after a couple of months they were able to turn the situation in the other direction. Available information allows us to assert that one of the main roles in such “transformations” was played by special forces from Great Britain, France, Italy, and the USA.
The weapons system used by the US and British coalition forces in Libya included types and samples of weapons and military equipment tested during previous military conflicts. To ensure the interaction of target reconnaissance systems and systems for their destruction, the latest means of communication, navigation and target designation were widely used. New radio communication means used in networks for exchanging intelligence information at the tactical level have shown high efficiency, making it possible for the first time in real combat operations to demonstrate the effectiveness of the automated generation of an electronic map of the tactical situation, uniform for various command levels. In particular, for the first time, unified tactical terminals JTT-B were used in the platoon-company link and reconnaissance and search groups, which allow real-time display of data received via satellite and ground communication channels on an electronic map, displayed either directly on its own terminal , or on the screen of a laptop computer connected to it.
One of the features of combat operations in Libya was the large-scale use of guided weapon systems, the use of which was based on data received via real-time communication channels from the NAVSTAR CRNS, electronic and optical reconnaissance equipment.
A powerful American reconnaissance and electronic warfare aviation group was created, including Lockheed U-2 aircraft; RC-135 Rivet Joint, EC-130Y, EC-130J, EA-18G, electronic reconnaissance aircraft EP-3E, Boeing E-3F Centry, Grumman E-2 Hawkeye; EC-130J Commando Solo, Tornado ECR; Transall C-130 JSTARS and Global Hawk UAVs, P-3C Orion base patrol aircraft and KS-135R and KS-10A tanker aircraft. The latter were based at the following bases: Rota (Spain), Souda Bay and Middenhall (Great Britain).
As of March 19, the air group was represented by 42 tactical fighters F-15C Block 50, F-15E and F-16E, which were based at the air bases of Souda Bay (Crete) and Siganela (Sicily). Strike aircraft was also represented by AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft, which operated from the deck of the Kearsarge universal landing ship (UDC) and the Suda Bay and Aviano bases (northern Italy). High accuracy of target designation made it possible to increase the share of guided ammunition use to 85%. To ensure the interaction of target reconnaissance systems and systems for their destruction, the latest means of communication, navigation and target designation were widely used. New radio communication tools used in tactical intelligence exchange networks have shown high efficiency, making it possible for the first time in real combat to demonstrate the effectiveness of the automated generation of an electronic map of the tactical situation for the special forces of the US, British and French navies.
It should be noted that during the fighting, the concept of interfacing the information systems of NATO countries and the American command in the African zone found practical confirmation. Interaction between American, British, and Italian information systems was implemented, in particular, the reception of intelligence data from GR-4A Tornado aircraft (Great Britain) equipped with a RAPTOR container reconnaissance station and American means of receiving and processing intelligence information was realized.
Main types of weapons and military equipment used by the armed forces of the parties
US Navy, Air Force and NATO grouping:
USA and Norway - Operation Odyssey Dawn
US Navy:
Flagship (headquarters) ship "Mount Whitney",
UDC LHD-3 "Kearsarge" type "Wasp" with the 26th USMC Expeditionary Group on board,
DVKD LPD-15 “Ponce” type “Austin”,
URO destroyer DDG-52 “Barry” of the Orly Burke type,
Orly Burke-class guided missile destroyer DDG-55 “Stout”,
SSN-719 "Providence" Los Angeles-type submarine,
Scranton Los Angeles class submarine
SSBN SSGN-728 "Florida" type "Ohio"
US Navy Aviation:
5 carrier-based electronic warfare aircraft EA-18G
US Air Force:
3 B-2 strategic bombers,
10 F-15E fighter-bombers,
8 F-16C fighters,
2 HH-60 “Pave Hawk” rescue helicopters on board the Ponce DVKD,
1 EC-130J psychological operations aircraft,
1 EC-130H tactical command post,
1 strategic reconnaissance UAV "Global Hawk",
1 "gunship" AC-130U,
1 Lockheed U-2 high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft,
Frame Marine Corps USA:
26th Expeditionary Group,
4 VTOL AV-8B “Harrier II” on board the UDC “Kearsarge”,
2 Bell V-22 Osprey transport tiltrotors on board Kearsarge,
Norwegian Armed Forces:
2 military transport aircraft C-130J-30.
Coalition forces under direct US command:
Belgian Armed Forces:
6 F-16AM 15MLU “Falcon” fighters,
Danish Armed Forces:
6 F-16AM 15MLU “Falcon” fighters,
Italian Armed Forces:
4 electronic warfare aircraft “Tornado ECR”,
4 F-16A 15ADF “Falcon” fighters,
2 Tornado IDS fighter-bombers,
Spanish Armed Forces:
4 carrier-based fighter-bombers EF-18AM “Hornet”,
1 Boeing 707-331B(KC) refueling aircraft,
1 military transport aircraft CN-235 MPA,
Qatar Air Force:
6 Dassault “Mirage 2000-5EDA” fighters,
1 military transport aircraft C-130J-30,
France - Operation Harmattan
French Air Force:
4 Dassault Mirage 2000-5 aircraft,
4 Dassault Mirage 2000D aircraft,
6 Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker refueling aircraft,
1 AWACS aircraft Boeing E-3F “Sentry”,
1 electronic warfare aircraft "Transall" C-160,
French Navy:
Frigate D620 "Forbin",
Frigate D615 "Jean Bart"
Aircraft carrier group on the aircraft carrier R91 Charles de Gaulle:
8 Dassault “Rafale” aircraft,
6 Dassault-Breguet “Super Étendard” aircraft,
2 Grumman E-2 Hawkeye AWACS aircraft,
2 Aérospatiale AS.365 “Dauphin” helicopters,
2 Sud-Aviation “Alouette III” helicopters,
2 Eurocopter EC725 helicopters,
1 Sud-Aviation SA.330 “Puma” helicopter,
Frigate D641 "Dupleix",
Frigate F 713 "Aconit",
Tanker A607 "Meuse"
UK - Operation Ellamy
Royal Air Force:
6 Panavia Tornado aircraft,
12 Eurofighter "Typhoon" aircraft,
1 Boeing E-3 Sentry and 1 Raytheon “Sentinel” AWACS aircraft,
2 Vickers VC10 and Lockheed “TriStar” refueling aircraft,
2 Westland Lynx helicopters,
Royal Navy:
Frigate F237 "Westminster",
Frigate F85 "Cumberland",
Submarine S93 "Triumph".
Special Operations Forces:
22nd Parachute Regiment SAS
Canada - Operation Mobile
Canadian Air Force:
6 CF-18 Hornets
2 transport aircraft McDonnell Douglas C-17 "Globemaster III", 2 Lockheed Martin C-130J "Super Hercules" and 1 Airbus CC-150 "Polaris"
Canadian Navy:
Frigate FFH 339 "Charlottetown",
1 Sikorsky CH-124 “Sea King” helicopter.
Types of NATO weapons and ammunition:
BGM-109 Tomahawk tactical cruise missiles, as well as the new Tomahawk Block IV (TLAM-E) missile;
Airborne KP "Storm Shadow";
Air-to-air missiles (AIM-9 “Sidewinder”, AIM-132 ASRAAM, AIM-120 AMRAAM, IRIS-T);
Air-to-surface missiles A2SM, AGM-84 Harpoon, AGM-88 HARM, ALARM, Brimstone, Taurus, Penguin, AGM-65F Maverick, Hellfire AMG-114N;
500-pound laser-guided bombs “Paveway II”, “Paveway III”, HOPE/HOSBO, UAB AASM, laser-guided bombs AGM-123; 2000-pound GBU-24 "Enhanced Paveway III" bombs, GBU-31B/JDAM.
Gaddafi's army:
Tanks: T-55, T-62, T-72, T-90;
Armored combat vehicles: Soviet BTR-50, BTR-60, BMP-1, BRDM-2, American M113, South African EE-9, EE-11, Czech OT-64SKOT;
Artillery: 120-mm self-propelled gun 2S1 "Gvozdika", 152-mm 2SZ "Akatsiya", towed 122-mm howitzer D-30, D-74, 130-mm field gun M1954 and 152-mm howitzer ML-20, Czech 152- mm self-propelled howitzer vz.77 Dana, American 155 mm M109 and 105 mm M101, Italian 155 mm self-propelled gun Palmaria;
Mortars: 82 and 120 mm calibers;
Jet systems volley fire: Toure 63 (Chinese production), BM-11, 9K51 Grad (Soviet production) and RM-70 (Czech production).
Anti-tank weapons: missile systems“Baby”, “Bassoon”, RPG-7 (Soviet production), MILAN (Italian-German).
Some types of weapons of the armed forces of Western countries were used for the first time in combat conditions in Libya. For example, a nuclear submarine with cruise missiles"Florida" (converted from SSBN) took part in combat operations for the first time. The Tomahawk Block IV tactical cruise missile (TLAM-E) was also tested against a real target for the first time. For the first time, advanced means of delivering combat swimmers - the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) - were used in real conditions.
For the first time in combat in Libya, one of the most advanced aircraft of the Western air forces was tested - multi-role fighter Eurofighter "Typhoon" of the Royal Air Force.
EF-2000 "Typhoon" is a multi-role fighter with a front horizontal tail. Combat radius: in fighter mode 1,389 km, in attack aircraft mode 601 km. Armament includes a 27 mm Mauser cannon mounted in the root of the right wing, air-to-air missiles (AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-132 ASRAAM, AIM-120 AMRAAM, IRIS-T), air-surface" (AGM-84 Harpoon, AGM-88 HARM, ALARM, Storm Shadow, Brimstone, Taurus, Penguin), bombs (Paveway 2, Paveway 3, Enhanced Paveway, JDAM, HOPE/HOSBO). A laser target designation system is also installed on the aircraft.
RAF Tornado fighters carried out attacks with Storm Shadow cruise missiles. The planes traveled 3,000 miles round trip, operating from bases in the UK. This makes the raid by British aircraft the longest since the war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982.
On March 29, the heavily armed AC-130U ground unit support aircraft, the “ganship,” was used for the first time in combat conditions.
The US and NATO militaries have used depleted uranium munitions. Depleted uranium ammunition was used mainly during the first day of the operation in Libya. Then the Americans dropped 45 bombs and fired more than 110 missiles at key Libyan cities. In conditions high temperature When a target is hit, the uranium material turns to steam. This vapor is poisonous and can cause cancer. It is still impossible to determine the real scale of damage to Libya’s environment. After NATO used concrete-piercing uranium bombs, territories with an increased (by several times) radioactive background arose in the territory of northern Libya. This will have the most serious consequences for the local population.
On May 1, at least 8 volumetric detonating bombs were dropped on Tripoli. Here we are talking about the use of thermobaric, or “vacuum”, weapons in Libya, the use of which in populated areas is limited by international conventions. These munitions are not designed to destroy deep bunkers and heavily defended sites; they effectively destroy only civilians and openly stationed troops. But the paradox is that vacuum bombs were almost never used against regular army soldiers.
Aspects of information warfare
Analysis of information war activities allows us to highlight a number of its characteristic features and features. The information war of the allied forces against Libya can be divided into five stages. The main event is the influence of information warfare on the plan and strategy in the conditions of the assault on Tripoli.
During first stage, even before the phase of open armed clashes, the images of “us” and “them” were formed and strengthened, and attention was focused on ideological symbols that justify direct impact. At this stage, the possibility of a peaceful solution to the problem, which in reality was unacceptable for both sides, was promoted in order to attract public opinion to their side. Psychological operations were carried out with high intensity both in the interests of forming the necessary public opinion among the Libyan population and processing the personnel of the Libyan Armed Forces.
On October 31, 2011, in an interview on Radio Canada, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, who led Operation Unified Protector in Libya, said that an analytical unit had been created at NATO headquarters in Naples. His mission was to study and decipher everything that was happening on the ground, that is, monitoring the movements of both the Libyan army and the “rebels.”
To strengthen this unit, several information networks were created. “Intelligence came from many sources, including the media, which was on the ground and gave us a lot of information about intentions and dispositions ground forces» . For the first time, NATO admitted that official foreign journalists in Libya were agents of the Atlantic Alliance. Shortly before the fall of Tripoli, Thierry Meyssan openly stated that most of the Western journalists staying at the Rixos Hotel were NATO agents. In particular, he pointed to groups working for the AP (Associated Press), the BBC, CNN and Fox News.
The incident that supposedly triggered the Libyan "rebellion" was the arrest of a lawyer-activist on February 15, 2011. This sparked a wave of protests that spilled over into the Internet and the media. But the unusually large number of YouTube videos and Twitter posts were uncannily similar and looked like yet another blatant Pentagon project to develop software that could secretly control public news sites to influence online conversations and spread propaganda.
Despite their dubious origins, professional media groups such as CNN, BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox News Channel, and Al Jazeera have accepted these anonymous and unverified videos as legitimate news sources.
On second stage with the beginning of missile and bomb strikes, the main emphasis of the information war was transferred to the operational-tactical level. The main components of the information war at this stage were information and propaganda campaigns, electronic warfare, and the disabling of elements of civil and military infrastructure. An EC-130J Commando Solo aircraft, designed for “psychological warfare,” began broadcasting messages in English and Arabic to the Libyan military: “Libyan sailors, leave the ship immediately. Throw down your weapons, go home to your families. Troops loyal to the Gaddafi regime are violating the UN resolution demanding an end to hostilities in your country.". Many such examples can be given. And each of them is evidence that the parties “poured” funds mass information information with the opposite meaning, seeking to maximally discredit one’s opponent. However, Gaddafi's army never shared its successes with the audience, did not seek sympathy for its losses, and did not give a single reason to lift the veil of secrecy regarding its condition.
When the conflict entered a long phase (more than a month from April 1 to July), third a stage that changes the forms of information warfare. The task of this stage is to convict the enemy of morally unacceptable forms of conflict, as well as to attract new allies to one’s side.
To a small extent, NATO has been developing technology to combat computer networks. Often, the warring parties (NATO and Libya) used the same techniques: they downplayed their losses and exaggerated the extent of the enemy’s damage. In turn, the Libyan side inflated the numbers of losses among the local population.
At the same time, the destruction of Libya did not prevent NATO from using radio and television for a month and a half to transmit its propaganda materials. As part of information and propaganda campaigns, radio and television broadcasts were carried out to Libya from the territory neighboring countries. To increase the clarity of these radio broadcasts, VHF radios with a fixed reception frequency were scattered over the territory of Libya. In addition, propaganda leaflets were constantly scattered from the air, due to the general illiteracy of the Libyan population, the leaflets were mainly of a graphic nature (comics, posters, drawings, playing cards with portraits of Libyan leaders). Both sides resorted to disinformation in an attempt to sow panic.
The information war strategy even allowed for the use of provocations or manipulation of facts in the second and third stages. It is not surprising that television has become the main attacking force in information wars, both at the level international relations, and actually during the “highway war”. Thus, before the outbreak of hostilities, the presidents of France and England appealed to journalists not to publish in the press details of the preparation of NATO armed forces for combat operations and, in general, to try to treat coverage of NATO plans as the actions of the European Union “to support a humanitarian mission to help the population of this country”. Television has once again proven that it is much better than other media at interpreting reality, forming a picture of the world, and the stronger the brand of a television channel, the larger its audience, the higher the trust in it, and the more channels present a similar interpretation of events, the The image of reality they modeled acquires greater power.
Fourth stage (August-September) - assault on Tripoli. The main event in the information war during the assault on Tripoli is considered to be the showing by Al-Jazeera and CNN of footage of the “victory” of the rebels, filmed in Qatar. These shots were the signal to attack for the rebels and saboteurs. Immediately after these broadcasts throughout the city, rebel “sleeper cells” began setting up roadblocks and breaking into command posts and the apartments of officers who did not betray Gaddafi.
The easiest way to manipulate information is to keep journalists away from the events themselves, feeding the press with official reports and video footage received from military personnel armed with laptops and mobile phones with built-in photo and video cameras. Another technique is based on the use of visual media of film and television: among selected military footage or photographs from reconnaissance aircraft and satellites shown at press briefings in the press center during the war in Libya, where, of course, there were no “bad” shots.
Footage of the “opposition army” in Benghazi was kindly provided to Russian television viewers by Channel 1 special correspondent in Benghazi Irada Zeynalova. Several dozen differently dressed young men tried to march on the parade ground (despite all the efforts of the cameraman to compose the frame so that the number of “marching” seemed significant, he was unable to place more than 2-3 dozen people in the frame so that the flanks were not visible). Another 20 older people were running around anti-aircraft installation(a constant character in all photographs and television shootings of the “opposition forces”), they showed a machine-gun belt and said that they had not only the old (and rusty) weapons shown, but also the latest equipment.
One nondescript colonel was also shown, called the commander-in-chief of the rebels (the number of whom, judging by the report, cannot exceed hundreds) and main opponent"Colonel Gaddafi". The RTR special group performed in the same style. Evgeny Popov in the morning episode (03/05/11, 11:00) showed an “army of rebels” setting off to storm Ras Lanuf. At the general prayer before the battle, there were about two dozen people in its ranks.
In the early days of the war, a Roman Catholic Church spokesman said at least 40 civilians were killed in Tripoli by airstrikes by coalition forces in Libya. But the representative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the American Armed Forces, Vice Admiral William Gortney, hypocritically stated that the coalition had no information about civilian casualties.
In a new development in the information war, NATO frigates dropped depth charges on a fiber optic cable laid 15 nautical miles off the coast of Libya in order to disrupt telecommunications links between Sirte, Gaddafi's hometown, and Ras Lanuf, where one of the largest oil refineries is located. factories of the country. There were significant disruptions in communications and telecommunications in the Jamahiriya.
The provocative role of modern media
Since the 1990s of the last century, with the concentration of the media in the hands of a few media groups, they quickly turned from channels of information and reflection of public opinion into channels of zombification and manipulation. And it doesn’t really matter what they are guided by - whether they fulfill a social order, simply earning their bread and butter, or do it out of thoughtlessness or because of their idealism - objectively they are shaking up the situation and weakening society.
Journalists have lost even the semblance of objectivity in the Libyan events. In this regard, Benjamin Barber of the Huffington Post asked: “Are Western media in Libya journalists or a propaganda tool for the uprising?”
The image of a hodgepodge of monarchists, Islamic fundamentalists, London and Washington exiles and defectors from Gaddafi’s camp as a “rebellious people” is clean water 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.
The NATO bloc organized an intensive propaganda campaign. 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 the mercenaries as “revolutionaries.” Propaganda spread lurid images of government troops (often depicting them as “black mercenaries”), painting them as rapists taking massive doses of Viagra. Meanwhile, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch testify that before the start of NATO bombing in eastern Libya, there were no mass rapes, no helicopter attacks or bombing of peaceful demonstrators by Gaddafi's forces. What was certain was that 110 people died on both sides during the unrest in Benghazi. As we can see, all these stories were fabricated, but they were the reason for establishing a no-fly zone and NATO’s attack on Libya.
The main lessons of the war in Libya for Russia
The Libyan war has once again shown that international law will be violated at any time if the leading Western states consider it advisable to take such a step. Double standards and the principle of force have become the rule in international politics. Military aggression against Russia is possible in the event of a maximum weakening of its economic, military and moral potential, and a lack of readiness among citizens of the Russian Federation to defend their Motherland. The USA and NATO have a “narrow specialization” in authorizing bombing, “solving” complex international issues method of complicating them. According to the convictions of the United States and NATO, everything must be restored by others.
The conclusions from the Libyan events are as follows.
The speed of development of an unfavorable military-political situation can significantly exceed the speed of creation of a new one Russian army and modern weapons.
Events in the Middle East have shown that the principle of force is becoming the main principle of international law. Therefore, any country must think about its security.
France returned to the NATO military organization, once again creating a system of Franco-British privileged partnership, and Germany placed itself outside the Atlantic context.
In the aerospace operation, the US and NATO are unable to solve the problems of ground operations of the rebels, the war was waged by the “natives”, and the alliance limited itself to air operations.
NATO's use of large-scale information-psychological operations and other information warfare activities against Libya, not only at the strategic, but also at the operational and tactical levels. The role of information and psychological operations is no less important than the conduct of air and special operations.
Military operations showed that M. Gaddafi’s army was able to fight for nine months against the United States and NATO, against the rebels from Al-Qaeda, despite total information suppression and the presence of a “fifth column.” And all this is practically only Russian (and Soviet) weapons. This is an incentive for the sale of Russian weapons.
The main lessons of the Libyan campaign for the construction of Russian armed forces
First. The theory of using modern air forces, navies and special forces, information-psychological, and cyber operations in future armed conflicts requires a radical revision.
Second. The opinion of Western experts should be taken into account that the combined use of air operations and a limited number of special forces will become the basis of military operations for the next ten years. Apparently, by the decision of the president, it is necessary to create, as a branch of the military, a separate Special Operations Command (SOC). The Special Operations Command will include troops special purpose, information-psychological troops, units and units of cyber troops.
There are such possibilities. In the USC "South", "West", "Center", "East" it is necessary to create conditions for conducting combat operations in certain directions. Unfortunately, some of the special forces brigades and underwater sabotage forces have either been abolished or are planning to be abolished. The decisions of the Ministry of Defense previously adopted in this regard require reconsideration. It is necessary to re-form brigades, detachments, special-purpose companies similar to the GRU, and units of underwater saboteurs in the fleets.
It is necessary to revive training for conducting information and psychological operations at the strategic level in the General Staff, at the operational level in operational-strategic commands, at the tactical level in divisions and brigades.
Third. The experience of combat operations in Libya has once again shown that the final results achieved on the battlefield were completely distorted in information wars.
Obviously, by decision of the President of the Russian Federation, special organizational, managerial and analytical structures should be formed to counter information aggression. It is necessary to have information troops, which will include state and military media. The goal of the Information Troops is to form the information picture of reality that Russia needs. Information troops work for both external and internal audiences. Information Troops personnel are selected from among diplomats, experts, journalists, cameramen, writers, publicists, programmers (hackers), translators, communications officers, web designers, etc. They clearly explain to the world community the essence of Russian actions in a language popular in the world and form a loyal public opinion.
Information troops must solve three main tasks:
The first is strategic analysis;
The second is information impact;
The third is information counteraction.
They could include the main components currently located in various Ministries, Councils, and Committees. Actions in the foreign policy media space must be coordinated.
To solve the first task, it is necessary to create a center for strategic analysis of control networks (entry into networks and the possibility of suppressing them), counterintelligence, develop measures for operational camouflage, ensuring the security of one’s own forces and assets, and ensuring the security of information.
To solve the second task, it is necessary to create an anti-crisis center, a state media holding for relations with television channels and news agencies to solve the main task - supplying the information Russia needs to television channels and news agencies. They involve state media, public relations structures, and training journalists for applied journalism, military press, international journalists, radio and television journalists.
To solve the third task, it is necessary to create a center for identifying the enemy’s critical information structures and methods of combating them, including physical destruction, electronic warfare, psychological operations, network operations involving “hackers”.
Fourth. Russia should no longer conduct military exercises solely to combat terrorism. I think it is necessary to organize maneuvers with the armed forces of border countries. Train troops to operate in situations that could actually develop in these states.
Fifth. Considering that NATO used new weapons based on new physical principles in the war against Libya, which led to radioactive contamination of the territory with uranium, Russia as nuclear power should initiate a UN decision to permanently ban the use of weapons using uranium, as well as other new types of weapons that were not banned at one time international treaties for the reason that at that time they did not yet exist.
Sixth. One of the important conclusions from the analysis of NATO air-ground operations is unmanned aircrafts must conduct constant surveillance of the battlefield, provide target reconnaissance and aircraft guidance.
The war in Libya has once again shown that the absolutization of military force does not eliminate the need to solve political problems, but, on the contrary, pushes them back in time and aggravates them into new contradictions. Almost everywhere where the US and NATO use military force, problems are not solved, but created. Thus, the military action of the United States and NATO against Libya should be considered as the clearest manifestation in recent years of the military-political course of the United States and NATO, expressed in the forceful subordination of “rebellious” Libya, in violation of all norms of international law. There is no doubt that in the near future the leadership of these countries will not fail to again use proven “technologies of influence” against states disliked by the West.
