Military operation in Libya. The last war of the west

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 converged. Western countries, using mainly special services, have been preparing in Libya for a long time what is considered to be a coup d'etat in the civilized world. Libya “had to” repeat the relatively anemic scenarios of the “Arab Spring” elsewhere 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, entailed 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. Sanctioned by the UN Security Council, this operation provided for 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 introduction of occupation forces, 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 for international initiatives to be successful.

Countries with fast emerging economies, first of all BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China), which are expected to be capable of throwing an economic challenge to the West in this century, do not now demonstrate the ability for political and diplomatic leadership. Thus, of the five states that abstained during the vote in the UN Security Council on Resolution 1976 regarding Libya, four are leaders in the group of states with a new economy: Brazil, Russia, India, China.

In planning the operation, the factor of strategic surprise, from the point of view of the time of the start of hostilities, in fact, 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 Joint Command of the US Armed Forces in the African zone, led by General Katri Ham. Officers of the Armed Forces of Great Britain, France and other countries of the coalition were sent to the headquarters of the operation leadership to coordinate joint actions. The main task, apparently, was not an air operation to block and isolate the airspace of Libya, not the destruction or defeat of the Libyan armed forces, as it was during the operation in Yugoslavia, Iran, but the destruction of the top leadership of Libya.

High effectiveness of air strikes with almost complete absence of opposition from the Libyan air defense forces. The accuracy of determining the coordinates of targets, the efficiency of striking, effective target designation could not be realized only by space and aviation reconnaissance means alone. Therefore, a significant amount of tasks to support missile and air strikes, especially in the course of direct air support, was carried out with the participation of aircraft controllers from the units of the Special Operations Forces (MTR), so Russia needs to create its own forces.

The NATO experience in training insurgents should be considered. If at the beginning of the conflict they were actually gatherings of untrained and poorly armed people who mainly shook the air with demonstrative shooting and continuously retreated, then after a couple of months they were able to turn the tide in the other direction. The available information allows us to assert that one of the main roles in such "transformations" was played by the special forces of Great Britain, France and Italy, and the United States.

The weapons system used by the US and British coalition forces in Libya included types and samples of weapons and military equipment tested in previous military conflicts. To ensure interaction between means of reconnaissance of targets and systems for their destruction, the latest means of communication, navigation and target designation were widely used. High efficiency was demonstrated by the new radio communications used in the networks for exchanging intelligence information at the tactical level, which made it possible for the first time in the course of real combat operations to demonstrate the effectiveness of the automated formation of an electronic map of the tactical situation, common for various control levels. In particular, unified tactical terminals JTT-B were used for the first time 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 to their own terminal , or on the screen of a laptop connected to it.

One of the features of the conduct of hostilities in Libya was the large-scale use of guided weapons systems, the use of which was based on data received via real-time communication channels from the NAVSTAR KRNS, electronic and optical reconnaissance means.

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, EP-3E electronic reconnaissance aircraft, 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 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 force bases of Souda Bay (Crete) and Siganela (Sicily). Attack aviation was also represented by the AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft, which operated from the deck of the Kirsarge universal amphibious assault ship (UDC) and the Souda Bay and Aviano bases (northern Italy). The high accuracy of target designation made it possible to increase the proportion of the use of guided munitions to 85%. To ensure interaction between means of reconnaissance of targets and systems for their destruction, the latest means of communication, navigation and target designation were widely used. High efficiency was shown by the new radio communications used in the networks for the exchange of intelligence information at the tactical level, which made it possible for the first time in the course of real combat operations to demonstrate the effectiveness of the automated formation of an electronic map of the tactical situation for the special forces of the US Navy, England and France.

It should be noted that in the course of hostilities, the concept of interfacing the information systems of NATO countries and the American command in the African zone found practical confirmation. Interaction between American, English, Italian information systems, in particular, the reception of reconnaissance data from the GR-4A Tornado aircraft (Great Britain), equipped with the RAPTOR container reconnaissance station, and American means of receiving and processing reconnaissance information, has been implemented.

The main types of weapons and military equipment used by the armed forces of the parties

Grouping of the US Navy and Air Force and NATO:

USA and Norway - Operation Odyssey Dawn

United States Naval Forces:

Flagship (command) ship "Mount Whitney",

UDC LHD-3 "Kearsarge" of the "Wasp" type with the 26th USMC Expeditionary Group on board,

DVD LPD-15 "Ponce" type "Austin",

Destroyer URO DDG-52 "Barry" type "Orly Burke",

Destroyer URO DDG-55 "Stout" type "Orly Burke",

SSN-719 "Providence" submarine of the "Los Angeles" type,

PLA "Scranton" type "Los Angeles",

SSGN-728 "Florida" SSGN of the "Ohio" class

US Navy Aviation:

5 carrier-based aircraft electronic warfare EA-18G

United States Air Force:

3 strategic bombers B-2,

10 F-15E fighter-bombers,

8 F-16C fighters,

2 rescue helicopters HH-60 "Pave Hawk" on board the "Ponce"

1 aircraft of psychological operations EC-130J,

1 tactical command post EC-130H,

1 strategic reconnaissance UAV "Global Hawk",

1 gunship AC-130U,

1 Lockheed U-2 high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft,

United States Marine Corps:

26th Expeditionary Group,

4 VTOL aircraft AV-8B "Harrier II" on board the UDC "Kearsarge",

2 transport tiltrotor Bell V-22 "Osprey" on board "Kearsarge",

Norwegian Armed Forces:

2 military transport aircraft C-130J-30.

Coalition forces under the direct command of the United States:

Armed Forces of Belgium:

6 F-16AM 15MLU "Falcon" fighters,

Danish Armed Forces:

6 F-16AM 15MLU "Falcon" fighters,

Armed Forces of Italy:

4 electronic warfare aircraft "Tornado ECR",

4 F-16A 15ADF "Falcon" fighters,

2 fighter-bomber "Tornado IDS",

Armed Forces of Spain:

4 carrier-based fighter-bomber EF-18AM "Hornet",

1 Boeing 707-331B (KC) tanker aircraft,

1 military transport aircraft CN-235 MPA,

Armed Forces of Qatar:

6 fighters Dassault "Mirage 2000-5EDA",

1 military transport aircraft C-130J-30,

France - Operation Harmatan

French Air Force:

4 aircraft Dassault "Mirage 2000-5",

4 aircraft Dassault "Mirage 2000D",

6 Boeing KC-135 "Stratotanker" tanker aircraft,

1 aircraft AWACS Boeing E-3F "Sentry",

1 aircraft electronic warfare "Transall" C-160,

French Naval Forces:

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 AWACS aircraft Grumman E-2 "Hawkeye",

2 helicopters Aérospatiale AS.365 "Dauphin",

2 helicopters Sud-Aviation "Alouette III",

2 helicopters Eurocopter EC725,

1 helicopter Sud-Aviation SA.330 "Puma",

Frigate D641 "Dupleix",

Frigate F 713 "Aconit",

Tanker A607 "Meuse"

Great Britain - Operation Ellamy

Royal Air Force:

6 Panavia "Tornado" aircraft,

12 aircraft Eurofighter "Typhoon",

1 AWACS aircraft Boeing E-3 Sentry and 1 Raytheon "Sentinel",

2 tanker aircraft Vickers VC10 and Lockheed "TriStar",

2 Westland "Lynx" helicopters,

Royal Navy:

Frigate F237 "Westminster",

Frigate F85 "Cumberland",

Submarine S93 "Triumph".

Special Operations Forces:

22nd SAS Parachute Regiment

Canada - Operation Mobile

Canadian Air Force:

6 aircraft CF-18 Hornet

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 helicopter Sikorsky CH-124 "Sea King".

Types of NATO weapons and ammunition:

Tactical cruise missiles BGM-109 "Tomahawk", as well as the new CD "Tomahawk" Block IV (TLAM-E);

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 bombs GBU-24 "Enhanced Paveway III", 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 guns 2S1 "Gvozdika", 152-mm 2SZ "Akatsia", towed 122-mm howitzer D-30, D-74, 130-mm field gun М1954 ​​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 guns Palmaria;

Mortars: calibers 82 and 120 millimeters;

Multiple launch rocket systems: Ture 63 (Chinese production), BM-11, 9K51 "Grad" (Soviet production) and RM-70 (Czech production).

Anti-tank weapons: missile systems "Malyutka", "Fagot", RPG-7 (Soviet production), MILAN (Italian-German).

Some types of weapons of the armed forces of Western countries were first used in combat conditions in Libya. For example, the nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine Florida (converted from SSBNs) took part in hostilities for the first time. The Tomahawk Block IV (TLAM-E) tactical cruise missile has also been tested against a real target for the first time. For the first time in real conditions, advanced combat swimmers' delivery systems - "Advanced SEAL Delivery System" (ASDS) were used.

For the first time in hostilities in Libya, one of the most advanced aircraft of the Western Air Force - the Eurofighter "Typhoon" multipurpose fighter of the British Air Force, was tested.

The EF-2000 "Typhoon" is a multipurpose fighter with a forward horizontal tail. Combat radius of action: 1.389 km in fighter mode, 601 km in strike aircraft mode. Armament includes a 27-mm Mauser cannon installed in the root of the right wing, air-to-air missiles (AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-132 ASRAAM, AIM-120 AMRAAM, IRIS-T), missiles of the air to 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.

Tornado fighters from the Royal Air Force launched Storm Shadow cruise missiles. The planes covered a distance of 3000 miles back and forth, operating from bases in the UK. Thus, the raid by British aircraft in its length was the longest since the war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982.

Since March 29, for the first time, the heavily armed AC-130U ground support aircraft - "ganship" has been used in combat conditions.

The US and NATO armed forces used depleted uranium weapons. Depleted uranium ammunition was used mainly in 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 high temperature conditions, when a target is hit, the uranium material turns into vapor. This vapor is poisonous and can cause cancer. It is still impossible to determine the real scale of damage to the environment of Libya. After NATO used concrete-piercing uranium bombs, territories with an increased (several times) radioactive background appeared on 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 settlements is limited by international conventions. This ammunition is not designed to destroy deep bunkers and well-defended targets; they effectively destroy only civilians and openly deployed troops. But the paradox is that vacuum bombs were almost never used against regular army soldiers.

Aspects of information warfare

Analysis of information warfare measures makes it possible to single out a number of its characteristic features and characteristics. 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 design and strategy in the context of the assault on Tripoli.

During the first At this stage, even before the phase of open armed clashes, the images of "we" and "they" were formed and strengthened, attention was focused on ideological symbols that justify direct impact. At this stage, the possibility of a peaceful solution to the problem was promoted, which in reality was unacceptable for both sides, in order to attract public opinion to their side. Psychological operations were carried out with high intensity, both in the interests of forming the desired public opinion among the population of Libya, 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 Defender in Libya, said that an analytical unit had been created at NATO headquarters in Naples. Its mission was to study and decipher everything that happens on earth, that is, to track both the movement of the Libyan army and the "rebels".

To strengthen this unit, several information networks were created. "Intelligence came from many sources, including the media, which were on the ground and gave us a lot of information about the intentions and locations of the 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 were NATO agents. In particular, he pointed to groups working for AP (Associated Press), BBC, CNN and Fox News.

The incident that allegedly provoked the Libyan "riot" was the arrest of an activist lawyer on February 15, 2011. This sparked a wave of protests that spilled over into the Internet space and the media. But unusual a large number of videos on YouTube and messages on Twitter turned out to be unusually similar and looked like another open Pentagon development project software which allows public information sites to be secretly controlled in order to influence Internet conversations and spread propaganda.

Despite their questionable origins, professional media groups such as CNN, BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox News, and Al Jazeera have accepted these anonymous and unconfirmed videos as legitimate news sources.

On the second At the stage of the beginning of missile and bomb strikes, the main focus of information warfare was shifted to the operational-tactical level. The main components of information warfare at this stage were information and propaganda actions, electronic warfare, and the disabling of elements of civil and military infrastructures. From the EC-130J "Commando Solo" aircraft, intended for "psychological warfare", they began to broadcast messages in English and Arabic for the Libyan military: “Libyan sailors, leave the ship immediately. Drop your weapons, return home to your families. Troops loyal to the Gaddafi regime violate the UN resolution demanding an end to hostilities in your country "... There are many such examples. And each of them is evidence that the parties "leaked" information with the opposite meaning to the media, seeking to discredit their opponent as much as possible. However, Gaddafi's army never once shared its successes with the audience, did not seek sympathy for the losses and did not give a single reason to lift the veil of secrecy regarding its condition.

When the conflict turned into 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 catch the enemy in morally unacceptable forms of conducting the conflict, as well as to attract new allies to its side.

To an insignificant extent, the NATO side has perfected the technology of combating computer networks. Often, the opposing sides (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 overestimated 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 broadcast its propaganda materials. As part of the outreach actions, radio and television broadcasting to Libya was carried out from the territory of 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 misinformation in an effort to spread panic.

The strategy of information warfare allowed even the use of provocations or falsification of facts at the second and third stages. It is not surprising that television has become the main attacking force of information wars both at the level of international relations and during the “highway war” itself. So, before the outbreak of hostilities, the presidents of France and England appealed to journalists not to publish in the press the details of the preparation of the NATO armed forces for hostilities and in general to try to treat the coverage of NATO plans as actions of the European Union "To support a humanitarian mission to help the people of this country"... Television has once again proved that it is much better than other media in coping with the interpretation of reality, the formation of a picture of the world, and the stronger the brand of the television channel, the larger its audience, the higher the trust in it, and the more channels provide a similar interpretation of events, the more the image of reality they have modeled gains great strength.

Fourth stage (August-September) - the assault on Tripoli. The main event in the information war during the assault on Tripoli is considered to be the demonstration of al-Jazeera and CNN footage of the "victory" of the rebels, filmed in Qatar. These shots were the signal for the attack for the rebels and saboteurs. Immediately after these broadcasts, throughout the city, "sleeping cells" of the rebels began to set up roadblocks, break 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 messages and video footage received from the military, armed with laptops and mobile phones with built-in photo and video cameras. Another technique is based on the use of pictorial means of film and television: among the operational footage selected by the military or images from reconnaissance aircraft and satellites, shown at press briefings at the press center during the war in Libya, where, of course, there were no “bad” shots.

The footage of the "opposition army" in Benghazi was kindly provided to Russian TV viewers by the special correspondent of the 1st channel in Benghazi, Irada Zeynalova. Several dozen motley-dressed youths tried to march on the parade ground (despite all the operator's efforts to arrange the frame so that the number of “marching” seemed significant, more than 2-3 dozen people were placed in the frame so that the flanks were not visible, he did not succeed). Another 20 older people ran around the anti-aircraft gun (a constant character in all photographs and television footage of the "opposition forces"), showed the machine-gun belt and said that they had not only shown old (and rusty) weapons, but also the latest technology.

Another nondescript colonel, named the commander-in-chief of the rebels (the number of which, judging by the reportage, cannot exceed a hundred) and the main opponent of "Colonel Gaddafi", was also demonstrated. The RTR special group performed in the same style. Yevgeny Popov in the morning episode (03/05/11, 11:00) showed the "rebel army" going to storm Ras Lanuf. At a common prayer before the battle, there were about two dozen people in its ranks.

In the early days of the war, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church said at least 40 civilians were killed in Tripoli as a result of coalition forces in Libya. But Vice Admiral William Gortney, a spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, hypocritically stated that the coalition had no information about civilian casualties.

A new area of ​​information warfare was the following: NATO frigates dropped depth charges on a fiber optic cable laid 15 nautical miles off the coast of Libya in order to disrupt telecommunications between Sirte, Gaddafi's hometown, and Ras Lanuf, where one of the largest oil refineries is located. factories of the country. The Jamahiriya experienced significant interruptions in communications and telecommunications.

The provocative role of modern media

Since the 1990s, with the concentration of the media in the hands of several media groups, they have quickly turned from channels of information and reflection of public opinion into channels of zombification and manipulation. And it is not so important what they are guided by - whether they fulfill the social order, simply earning bread and butter, do it out of thoughtlessness or because of their idealism - objectively, they shake the situation and weaken society.

Journalists have lost even the semblance of objectivity in the Libyan events. In this regard, Benjamin Barber of the Huffington Post asked the question: "Western media in Libya - journalists or a propaganda instrument of the uprising?"

The image of a hodgepodge of monarchists, Islamic fundamentalists, London and Washington exiles and defectors from the Gaddafi camp as a "people in revolt" is pure 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 held out for a month.

NATO has launched an intense 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" intellectuals, to represent the mercenaries as "revolutionaries." The propaganda spread lurid images of government troops (often portraying them as "black mercenaries"), portraying them as rapists taking massive doses of Viagra. Meanwhile, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch testify that before the start of the NATO bombing in eastern Libya, there were no mass rapes, helicopter attacks or bombing of peaceful demonstrators by Gaddafi's forces. What exactly happened was 110 people killed on both sides during the riots in Benghazi. As you can see, all these stories were fabricated, but they became the reason for the establishment of a no-fly zone and NATO attack on Libya.

Key lessons of the war in Libya for Russia

The Libyan war has shown again that international law will be violated at any time if the leading Western states deem it appropriate to take such a step. In international politics, double standards and the principle of strength have become the rule. Military aggression against Russia is possible in the event of a maximum weakening of its economic, military and moral potential, the lack of readiness of the citizens of the Russian Federation to defend their homeland. The United States and NATO have a "narrow specialization" in permitting bombing, "solving" complex international issues by complicating them. All, according to the convictions of the US and NATO, should be restored by others.

The conclusions from the Libyan events are as follows.

The rate of development of an unfavorable military-political situation can significantly outstrip the rate of creation of a new Russian army and modern means defeat.

Events in the Middle East have shown that the principle of force is becoming the main principle of international law. Therefore, any country should think about its security.

France returned to NATO's military organization, re-establishing a Franco-British privileged partnership, while Germany placed itself outside the Atlantic context.

In the aerospace operation, the United States and NATO are not able to solve the problems of ground operations of the rebels, the war was fought by the "aborigines", and the alliance was limited to air operations.

NATO's use of large-scale information and psychological operations and other information warfare measures 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.

The military actions showed that the army of M. Gaddafi was able for nine months to fight against the United States and NATO, against the rebels from "Al-Qaeda", despite the 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.

Key Lessons from the Libyan Campaign for Building Russia's Armed Forces

First. The theory of the use of modern air force, navy and special forces, information-psychological, 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 an air operation 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 (CSO). The command of special operations will include special forces, information and psychological troops, units and subunits of cyber troops.

There are such opportunities. At the OSK "Yug", "West", "Center", "Vostok" it is necessary to create conditions for the conduct of hostilities in certain directions. Unfortunately, some of the special forces brigades, submarine sabotage forces have either been abolished, or are planning to be abolished. The decisions of the Ministry of Defense that were previously adopted in this regard require revision. It is necessary to re-form brigades, detachments, special-purpose companies similar to the GRU, subdivisions of submarine saboteurs in the fleets.

It is necessary to revive the training of personnel for conducting information and psychological operations at the strategic level in the General Staff, at the operational level in the operational-strategic commands, at the tactical level in divisions and brigades.

Third. The experience of military operations in Libya has once again shown that the final results achieved on the battlefield were completely distorted in information wars.

Obviously, by the 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 purpose of the Information Forces is to form the information picture of reality that Russia needs. Information troops work for both external and internal audiences. The Information Forces personnel are selected from among diplomats, experts, journalists, cameramen, writers, publicists, programmers (hackers), translators, communications workers, web designers, etc. In the language popular in the world, they clearly explain to the world community the essence of Russian actions and form a loyal public opinion.

Information troops have three main tasks:

The first is strategic analysis;

The second is informational impact;

The third is information countermeasures.

They could include the main components that are now in various Ministries, Councils, Committees. Actions in the foreign policy media space must be coordinated.

To solve the first problem, you need to create a center strategic analysis control networks (entry into networks and the possibility of their suppression), counterintelligence, to develop measures for operational camouflage, ensuring the security of its own forces and means, 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 TV channels and news agencies to solve the main task - to supply information to TV channels and news agencies that Russia needs.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 problem, it is necessary to create a center for determining the enemy's critical information structures and methods of dealing with them, including physical destruction, electronic warfare, psychological operations, and network operations with the participation of "hackers".

Fourth. Russia should no longer conduct military exercises solely to combat terrorism. It seems that it is necessary to organize maneuvers with the armed forces of the bordering countries. To teach the troops to act in a situation that can actually develop in these states.

Fifth. Considering that NATO used new weapons on new physical principles in the war against Libya, which led to the radioactive contamination of the territory with uranium, Russia, as a nuclear power, should initiate a UN decision to permanently impose a ban on the use of weapons using uranium, as well as other new types of weapons , which were not at one time prohibited by international treaties for the reason that they did not exist at that time.

Sixth. One of the important findings from the analysis of the NATO air-ground operation is the unmanned aircrafts must conduct constant surveillance of the battlefield, provide reconnaissance of targets and guidance of aviation.

The war in Libya has once again shown that the absolutization of military force does not cancel the need to resolve political problems, but, on the contrary, pushes them back in time and exacerbates them in 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 for last years a manifestation of the military-political course of the United States and NATO, expressed in the use of force, in violation of all norms of international law, the subordination of the "rebellious" Libya. There is no doubt that in the near future the leaderships of these countries will not fail to reuse the worked-out "technologies of influence" against the states unwanted by the West.

Five years ago, the UN Security Council passed a resolution that marked the beginning of Western intervention in Libya and a bloody civil war that continues to this day.

Sentence to international law

On the night of March 18, 2011, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, which many called a verdict on international law. On March 19, a full-scale military operation began in Libya.

The text of the resolution, firstly, extended the old and introduced new sanctions against Libya. Secondly, a demand was put forward for an immediate ceasefire, but without specifying the addressees of this demand. In this case, this could only mean a call to the official authorities to stop defending themselves in the face of an armed rebellion and a threat to national security. Thirdly, the resolution gave the participating countries the right to take part in the protection of the country's civilian population by all necessary means, except for the direct military occupation of the country. Outright ban on use armed forces and there was no aerial bombardment. Fourthly, the sky over Libya was declared closed, with the proviso that any measures could be taken by the UN member states to ensure this requirement. That is, according to by and large, US planes can rise into the Libyan sky in order to shoot down a Libyan plane that violates the flight ban. Thus, Resolution 1973 actually untied the hands of the American troops and became fatal for the regime. Muammar Gaddafi.

But in order for the world community to calmly swallow such a dubious document, it was necessary to create the ground and prepare. This is done, as a rule, by means of information impact tools. Long before the aforementioned resolution was adopted, the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was called in the media nothing more than a "bloody tyrant" who tortured thousands of people in prisons, who executed his own people in batches. That is why, in the text of the resolution itself, the emphasis was placed on the need to comply with the legitimate demands of the people - that part of it that rebelled against the ruling regime. The interests of those who were loyal to Gaddafi (and there were a majority of them) is out of the question in the resolution.

The resolution was adopted without a single negative vote, with Brazil, India, China, Germany and Russia abstaining. Two of them are permanent members of the UN Security Council, which means that they had the opportunity to single-handedly block this document. Speaking to reporters, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev came out with full and unconditional support for the document. Perhaps now, 5 years later, when the whole world saw the results of the so-called "Arab Spring" provoked by the West, the decision could have been different.

The beginning of the intervention

The events that followed the adoption of the resolution simply cannot be called anything other than an attack on the country. The Pentagon developed plans for military aggression against Libya, where the step-by-step actions of the American military were prescribed: the destruction of aircraft, the destruction of air defense systems, the destruction of coastal missile systems and the blockade of actions of naval aviation. So it certainly didn't look like a humanitarian intervention, as it was called in the West.

NATO determined for itself several stages of the operation in Libya. The first stage, which was completed by the time the UN Security Council resolution was adopted, provided for disinformation and intelligence. The second stage is the air-sea operation, which began on March 19. And the third is the complete elimination of the military potential of the Libyan army with the participation of the marines and aviation.

By the time the resolution was adopted, the US Navy, which arrived on the shores of Libya back in February, was already ready for the outbreak of hostilities, it was only necessary to get the go-ahead from the international community.

The first targets of the bombing of American aircraft were not only military infrastructure, but also government buildings, as well as the residence of Gaddafi. Dozens of civilian targets were also attacked, according to Middle Eastern media reports. Footage of the destroyed Libyan cities, the atrocities of the NATO military and hundreds of dead children have spread all over the world.

Non-humanitarian mission

It is worth recalling that Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa, and the best oil in terms of quality. The main industrial sectors in the country were, respectively, oil production and oil refining. Due to the huge influx of oil money, Gaddafi made the country rich, prosperous and socially oriented. Under the "bloody tyrant" Gaddafi built 20 thousand km of roads, factories, infrastructure.

Concerning foreign policy, then Libya was quite independent, but there were many applicants for its resources. Among Russian companies, Russian Railways, Lukoil, Gazprom, Tatneft and others were actively working in Libya. The West in Libya worked no less actively. The US hoped to persuade Gaddafi to begin privatizing the Libyan National Oil Corporation in order to safely buy up its assets and gain unlimited access to the country's resources. But Gaddafi did not go for it.

There were also side goals of the West's intervention in the territory of the Middle Eastern country: limiting the interests of Russia and China, which worked here with great success. In addition, Gaddafi suggested leaving the dollar in oil settlements. Both Russia and China would most likely support this idea. The West definitely could not allow this.

After that, Gaddafi becomes a "bloody tyrant" and "executioner" of his own people, and a revolution, generously funded by the West, begins in the country.

Results of the protracted civil war today everyone knows: thousands of dead, hundreds of thousands of refugees, a country completely destroyed by hostilities, mired in poverty. But why President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to a disastrous decision for the only Russian ally in North Africa and allowed to destroy everything that his predecessor Vladimir Putin achieved in this country remains a mystery to many.

Shortly after the events described, US President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for his contribution to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the settlement of the situation in the Middle East. In 2016, on the fifth anniversary of NATO's intervention, the alliance began preparations for a new invasion of Libya.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has officially completed the military operation in Libya. According to Alliance Secretary General Rasmussen, Operation United Defender was "one of the most successful in the alliance." The Secretary General was delighted with the fact that the organization acted quickly, "efficiently, with flexibility and precision, with the participation of numerous partners from the region and from outside it."

But in reality The Libyan war once again confirmed the fact of the bloc's weakness, especially its European component. European countries, without the United States, still does not represent a significant combat force. USA on initial stage The wars cleared the "field" by 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 saw that NATO prefers to use the “big bully” strategy. The Alliance behaves like a group of punks, which skillfully selects an obviously weaker enemy who will not give back. The main role in the operation is played by the psychological suppression of the enemy (information war), the enemy's will to resist is broken even before the start of the operation, and as a result, the war turns into simply a beating. The Libyan leadership never realized the fact (or lacked the will) that the West can only frighten total war, with strikes not only on military, but also on civilian infrastructure. This mistake of Milosevic and Saddam was repeated by Gaddafi.

The armed forces of Libya were weaker than the army 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 a long time. The hopes that the forces loyal to the Colonel would scatter after the outbreak of the war did not come true. Gaddafi was able to hide some of the equipment, they began to use civilian cars so as not to differ from the rebels, to move only when there was no enemy aircraft in the air, 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, with ammunition and communications; their units were trained by military advisers; military experts helped in organizing actions; attack helicopters and drones were thrown into battle, foreign gunners began to help them aim at the target; the capital was captured only using the special forces of Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, PMC fighters, in addition, according to a number of experts, the special forces of France, Great Britain, and the United States were also used.

This confirms the view that NATO (without the US and Turkish armies) cannot wage high-intensity warfare, including ground operations. The European armed forces do not have enough experience, capabilities, even France and Great Britain quickly ran out of high-precision ammunition for the Air Force, they had to buy more from the Americans. European countries are lagging behind the United States in such an advanced direction as combat drones. Some countries cannot support their allies at all (due to their unwillingness to fight, or lack of physical ability), or their participation was purely symbolic.

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

NATO tries to play the role of an arbiter, helping the "offended and oppressed". As a result, the country is degrading, sliding down a 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 not yet.

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

In fact, the Alliance has fulfilled its task:

Muammar Gaddafi's regime has been eliminated, 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. The personnel losses are unknown. Officially, they are not there, although there was information about 35 dead soldiers of British special forces. According to the vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Doctor of Military Sciences, Captain First Rank Konstantin Sivkov, the British lost 1.5-2 thousand people in Libya, the French 200-500 people, the United States 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, apparently, will be repaid by the exploitation of Libyan hydrocarbons. The cost of the United States operation was about $ 1 billion, in England - about $ 500 million. The rest of the countries spent even less, for example, Canada spent $ 50 million. At least that's not exactly the $ 1 trillion that was spent on the war in Iraq.

The West was able to mobilize a number of Arab countries (mainly monarchies) against Libya. In fact, this is a split of the Islamic world, into allies of the Western world and opponents. On the side of the West in the Libyan war, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates actively fought. 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. During the night, the first airstrikes were launched on the infrastructure of this North African country, and the bombing continues. As it happened more than once in recent history, NATO countries are acting under the guise of a UN Security Council resolution and humanistic slogans about the inadmissibility of suppressing armed insurgencies with the help of military force inside Libya.

The situation around Libya was heating up all week - the government troops of the convicted Muammar Gaddafi had already practically regained control over the country, and then the European leaders sounded the alarm: we already announced that the bloody Libyan leader was illegal, and he was returning to power. And in order to prevent such injustice, it was decided to bomb Libya.

The so-called pinpoint airstrikes are becoming the main instrument of world humanism - the example of Libya clearly demonstrates all the philanthropic aspirations of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama and the famous peacemaker Nicolas Sarkozy. Experts say that the casualties from the bombing will far exceed the number of victims of the civil war in Libya.

In order to get an idea of ​​what is happening in Libya in the face of total misinformation, it is enough just to call things by their proper names. 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 abstaining. 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 the still independent state.

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

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

From the moment the first French bomb fell on Libyan territory, no one will question what the Security Council meant by introducing the phrase in resolution 19-73 to authorize "all measures to protect the civilian population." From now on, there is only one measure - to bomb. It doesn't matter that for some reason only the Libyan authorities demanded a ceasefire as an ultimatum, thereby leaving the armed rebels the opportunity, under the cover of Western bombs, to settle scores with Gaddafi. Hardly anyone in the near future will remember that the resolution did not take into account the interests of the majority of Libyans, who are loyal to the authorities, at all. Moreover, the text of the Resolution testifies to the fact that in the Security Council this part of the population is generally not considered the people of Libya in need of protection.

The fact that the Resolution does not stipulate a mechanism for monitoring the implementation of Gaddafi's demands against him indicates that no one was seriously interested in the readiness of the Libyan authorities 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 at 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 its provisions, which provide for measures only to protect the civilian population," said a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Alexander Lukashevich. India and China have already joined Russia's position

The obvious successes of the Libyan army in suppressing the armed insurrection made it necessary to hurry up 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 an aggression, acting as a savior. More difficult - like the Avenger. The resolution, obviously for the sake of the Arab world, does not allow for a ground operation by the Western allies. However, this is cunning and sooner or later the coalition forces, under one or another, most likely 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 an intensification of the information war. So that no one has doubts about the legitimacy of the aggression, in order to hide the real scale of what is happening, now all media resources will be involved. Local information battles waged with the Gaddafi regime for the entire last month will now turn into a continuous propaganda front line. Plots about hundreds of thousands of refugees from the bloodthirstiness of a dying regime, materials about death camps and mass graves of peaceful Libyans, messages about a courageous and desperate struggle, doomed defenders of free Benghazi - this is what the average man in the street will know about this war. Real civilian casualties inevitable during bombing will be hushed up in order to eventually be included in abstract lists of so-called "collateral losses".

Next week will mark the 12th anniversary of the start of a similar NATO peacekeeping operation in Yugoslavia. While events are developing like a blueprint. Then an ultimatum demanding the withdrawal of troops was presented to Milosevic at the very moment when only a few days remained until the complete destruction of the units of Albanian militants in Kosovo by the Yugoslav army. Under the threat of immediate bombing, the troops were withdrawn. However, the airstrikes were not long in coming. Then they lasted 78 days.

For now, NATO is formally distancing itself from the war in Libya, leaving its members to decide how far they are willing to go. It is quite obvious that the sky closed by the allies and the support of the rebels from the air will sooner or later turn Gaddafi's military operation to restore order in the country into a banal massacre. All this will be watched from a bird's eye view by French or British pilots, occasionally delivering strikes on clusters of armed people and equipment on the ground. This also happened in the same Yugoslavia, but during the civil massacre in 1995.

The war has already begun. How long it will last is difficult to predict now. One thing is clear: Gaddafi is doomed sooner or later to join Milosevic and Hussein. 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 paths. 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 in the territories of states that import democracy. The campaign payment story of Nicolas Sarkozy is a testament to how Arab money can work in Europe. If they can do so, then, probably, they can do it differently.

Washington and its allies could launch a military campaign in Libya against ISIS * terrorists in Libya within weeks, The New York Times reported.

The article notes that the Pentagon has already begun to collect more intelligence information about this country. A military campaign may involve "air strikes and sorties by elite American units."

The New York Times says the UK, France and Italy will support Washington. According to the newspaper, the administration of US President Barack Obama plans to "open a third front in the war against ISIS" without consulting Congress on the risks involved.

On January 22, General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in Paris that military action should be taken to stem the rise of ISIS in Libya.

“I think the military leaders should present to the Minister of Defense and the President a way to end the expansion of ISIS in this country,” the general said.

He also expressed confidence that the group intends to coordinate its actions in Africa from Libya.

“Bold military action should be taken to limit the expansion of ISIS, while at the same time it should be done in a way that facilitates the political settlement process,” Dunford added.

Experts commented on the news especially for Russkaya Vesna and the bbratstvo.com portal.

Myakishev Yuri Faddeevich - military expert of "BATTLE BROTHERHOOD", Chairman of the Presidium of Veterans of the War in Egypt

Americans want to be leaders in the fight against ISIS. They have repeatedly stressed that they will do this in Iraq, in Syria, now in Libya.

There is oil in Libya. After the Americans got in there and killed Muammar Gaddafi, there is no country as such. There are somewhere on the order of 30-50 tribes that are at war with each other.

Oil sales in Libya are at low prices. The Americans want to "take control" of the situation. They can come to an agreement and start controlling oil fields.

I think they still control them, but they do not shout loudly about it.

If Syria turned to Russia for help, then Libya has no one to turn to. It is simply a territory in which people live who do not have a state as such.

Bulonsky Boris Vasilievich - military expert "BATTLE BROTHERHOOD", Colonel

This is false information. It aims to "bring down" the authority that Russia is gaining in Syria in the course of the fight against ISIS. Obama and his administration do not like the fact that Russia is strengthening its position and attracting the attention of all countries in the region.

The Americans are simply not able to mobilize in such a short time, bring their units to combat readiness and transfer them to Libya. To do this, they will need several months, which do not exist.

Presidential elections will soon be held in America, and by that time all actions should be completed. They missed the moment, now it's too late to start.

Shurygin Vladislav Vladislavovich - military publicist, columnist for the newspaper "Zavtra"

The US is now preparing to step up its attacks on ISIS. I think it is premature to say that they will send ground troops to Libya.

They simply do not have the resources and capabilities for this.

Certainly, some kind of impact on ISIS in Libya can be tolerated, due to the fact that Libya is a super-oil-rich country, and, naturally, it is in the zone of interests of the Americans.

The beginning of a large-scale military campaign, I think, is from the science fiction section. America is now "torn apart" by its military operations and cannot afford another large-scale one.

Most likely, there will be some kind of presence in this region in the form of bombing, local strikes, but nothing more.

* A terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation.