Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 09, 2016

Libya - How Moscow Can Influence A Unity Deal

by Richard Galustian

Russia’s growing influence in Libya is reflecting their ever evolving new Middle East and North African policy.

While Libya has been divided between two parliaments and governments since 2014, Russia’s influence has grown with East Libya.

A review of the United Nations resolution on Libya’s arms embargo is likely to be voted upon early next week. However this will only be achieved if Russian concerns can be overcome.

Despite the international efforts a paradox remains. A partial lifting of the UN's arms embargo to one side will greatly increase the danger of swelling the intensity of the civil war and of risking some of those arms reaching the Islamic State in Libya.

The Russians do not understand the West's approach to extremists. Russia's logic is sound as shown in Syria. If it looks like a duck and walks and quacks like a duck; it probably is a duck, to paraphrase Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavarov comment on terrorists.

In Libya the two divided factions, the democratically elected eastern government and parliament, the House of Representatives (HoR), and the 'Libya Dawn' coalition of Islamist militias who created Tripoli's National Salvation Government (NSG), are now challenged by a third 'virtual' faction, the Government of National Accord (GNA) which was selected by the UN as a nine men, now reduced to seven, Presidency Council (PC), which in effect constitutes a GNA quorum.

Let me be clear: The international community supports a non-existent GNA headed by a Western patsy designated prime minister and six other men. To boot, this fledgling Western selected so called government still faces huge unpopularity from the masses who resent Western interference in its internal affairs.

The GNA, having no military forces of their own, have agreed with Dawn Militias that they be re-badged 'the Presidential Guard' and that they be the recipients of new weapons permitted by the UN if the resolution is accepted by the Security Council.

Interestingly Russia's UN Ambassador Churkin said "the highest priority" in Libya should be to encourage the HoR Parliament in the East approval of the new GNA government. A new twist. If anyone can persuade the East and the HoR to 'bless' the GNA, it will be the Russians that will be the broker.

Let’s note that the cards are now in East Libya's favor. They receive weapons through Egypt; they control their oil; they made their own currency, courtesy of Russia.

The fact is IS is not a priority for Libyan adversaries and it is not as huge a threat as some would have us believe. Despite what is tantamount to propaganda by a compliant almost government manipulated Western media, there is a relatively small number of IS present in the country of hundreds not thousands.

If the West let arms like heavy artillery and most importantly ammunition to go to 'the Dawn' militias, a sizeable proportion will undoubtedly end up in IS hands and the probable result will be that both will end up fighting Khalifa Hafter's Libyan Army of East Libya.

The Russians won't allow anything that doesn't protect the East Libyans. This Kremlin perspective is a reality Western nations don't seem to grasp. Equally the Russians still don't understand the West's unrealistic expectation to tag who’s who in Libya’s (and Syria's) terrorist spectrum. Neither do I.

Moscow knows Khalifa Haftar well as the Libyan General has made frequent trips to Russia. The Kremlin see’s Western behavior towards Haftar as mistaken. There is a disregard by the West for the actual players on the ground like Hafter, like the tribes, yet utmost consideration is given to 'the Dawn' Islamists and Muslim Brotherhood militias which seems illogical and inconceivable.

Then there is UN Special Envoy to Libya, Martin Kobler. The other day he said "Libya is a country awash with weapons; 20 million pieces of weaponry in a land of six million inhabitants." Kobler then childishly added, that "these weapons do not fall from the sky" adding "These arms fuel the conflict and shipments must end". Yet he was in Vienna last month when it was agreed to do just that; to deliver more weapons.

Is he schizophrenic?

Kobler’s mixed messages are making the Russians even more assertive. Actually one cannot help noting an unexpected consequence has been that both (East & West) NOC's and both CBL's are talking to one another. The international community and it's mostly incompetent bureaucrats and diplomats would have you believe any such positive movements between Libyans is their doing; that's nonsense.

Britain's U.N. Ambassador Matthew Rycroft has presented this week to other Security Council members a British-drafted new Libya resolution and has stated he hopes for a vote as early as Monday.

Now we must wait for Russia's stance on the proposed resolution as it becomes a more strident player in the entire MENA region. Maybe the road to unity for Libya will end up going through Moscow.

 

Posted by b on June 9, 2016 at 03:08 AM | Permalink

Comments

See also at AL-Monitor:

Is the West about to repeat its mistakes in Libya?

Without any rigorous checking or proper mechanisms in place, those who met in Vienna declared their support for the Presidential Guard, stressing their readiness to “respond to the Libyan government’s requests for training and equipping the Presidential Guard and vetted forces from throughout Libya.”

Such a step will only complicate the military and political situation in Libya and push the various parties into further conflict, since neither side accepts the other as a legitimate legal army under government control. Gen. Khalifa Hifter does not recognize the newly created Presidential Guard as a legal Libyan army worth arming and training, and vice versa.
...
The West, and particularly European Union countries, want the GNA to at least curb, if not stop, the flow of immigrants from Libya to the southern EU shores. To do that, they have promised at the ministerial meeting in Vienna to train Libya’s coast guard. But, again, training the so-called Libyan coast guard is no more than old militias being recycled through the GNA to convince major powers that they are indeed under state command.

In 2011, the West rushed to help destroy the former regime in the tribally divided country without any workable plan to restabilize the country afterward, the result of which has been chaos and conflicts across Libya ever since. The West invested heavily — at least politically — in the so-called Libyan revolution, naively believing that once Gadhafi was toppled, the Libyans would be able to sit together and reconcile their differences and move forward. This time, the West is about to repeat its errors by recognizing old militias as a new army, giving it legitimacy and recognition.

Posted by: b | Jun 9, 2016 3:21:43 AM | 1

The Russians do not understand the West's approach to extremists.

Of course the Russians understand. It's perfectly obvious that The Hegemon uses extremists to overthrow uncooperative governments in the MENA, and then as an excuse to intervene there. It's a strategy known as ... the War Of Terror!

Posted by: Seamus Padraig | Jun 9, 2016 4:50:07 AM | 2

@1 b, ' The West invested heavily — at least politically — in the so-called Libyan revolution, naively believing that once Gadhafi was toppled, the Libyans would be able to sit together and reconcile their differences and move forward. '

I cannot take this as a serious assessment of the West's intentions. They wanted to destroy Libya and they did so. Now they want to take over the pieces. They think they can simply buy and arm a force that will do so for them ... and if that doesn't work, if all they manage to do is to kill more Libyans, well then they'll try something else ... until they end up in control of Libya.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 9, 2016 5:08:04 AM | 3

Seamus Padraig | Jun 9, 2016 4:50:07 AM | 2

Yes; nice racket...for the hegemon. Pure hell for everyone else.

Posted by: V. Arnold | Jun 9, 2016 5:09:09 AM | 4

http://nsnbc.me/2016/06/07/the-libyan-entanglement/
~~~
The current administration’s policy regarding Libya serves as proof of Obama’s deceit. Of course, the USA are not directly bombing Libya. Using proxies, they are trying to complete the task that Washington failed to finish in 2011. Namely, to install a pro-Western government in Libya that would provide US corporations access to the oil resources and innumerable riches in Gaddafi’s treasury (about 2 trillion USD ) that are in deposits in different states whose governments are only willing to transfer to a legitimate government.

Now, the intention is not to achieve this goal with the use of weapons, but by skillfully using their system of allied relations with both Western European countries and those surrounding Libya: in particular, Morocco and Saudi Arabia, under the guise of a UN mandate.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jun 9, 2016 7:01:22 AM | 5

No unity offer by Russia will ever be accepted by the West, hence no UN approval either.

Plus its a mistake to consider clusterf** in Libya as a West's mistake. Reducing disobedient peaceful country to a failed state is working as intended, rinse and repeat over and over again all over the World. And people still think its an accident? A mistake? US and co leadership (real one) might be greedy ruthless psychos, but they arent stupid.

Posted by: Harry | Jun 9, 2016 9:00:15 AM | 6

"Eastern Libya" is the Benghazi regime, is it not? Hafter, as a long standing CIA asset, is almost certainly in the long run going to follow US dictates...and continue funding jihadis indirectly, so long as they spend more time attacking selected enemies of the US than they do attacking civilians in, mostly, Europe. The Misrata group is getting more lavish promises right now for the same reason the squeaking wheel gets the grease.

Every indication to me is that the Russians either don't understand US policy, or they have deluded themselves into thinking that if they cooperate with the US they can have a share in the loot. This is apparently what they mean by a "multipolar" world. The only sane policy for Russia as a whole, rather than the oligarchs Putin services, is to maximize as much diplomatic, financial and tactically defensive military resistance worldwide in the name of collective security against the only rogue state: The US.

Posted by: steven johnson | Jun 9, 2016 9:16:57 AM | 7

6;Isn't it stupid to get what one wants through violence(oil)when one could have purchased it more cheaply than military madness?Isn't thuggish behavior stupid?
Yes,they have no souls,and care not one whit for their victims,but I can't call that intelligence,just evil.

Posted by: dahoit | Jun 9, 2016 9:20:04 AM | 8

@dahoit | 8

Isn't it stupid to get what one wants through violence(oil)when one could have purchased it more cheaply than military madness?Isn't thuggish behavior stupid?

Its not either/or, its a multistep project. It goes like this:

1. US tries to buy-off the leaders, if they arent for sale, then US goes to the next step.
2. Blackmail or removal by any soft-means available (elections, impeachment, soft coup). Mass and social media frenzy.
3. If (2) doesnt work, then "Colour revolution" starts and UN is involved. Country is under massive pressure due to sanctions, sabotage, constant military threat, etc. Hard coup and assassination works too.
4. The last resort - military invasion or proxy terrorists war against the country.

US and co will do everything and anything possible to get their way, and they are getting exceedingly efficient at it. No one is as good overthrowing disobedient governments or destroying the countries as US is.

Another mistake some people make, is they assume US actions must benefit common US people for it to make sense. Its about making elites richer and more powerful, not common folk.

Posted by: Harry | Jun 9, 2016 10:02:38 AM | 9

The best thing about this Libya redux is that it reinforces the fact that the UN has been corrupted and should be seen for what it is....
A neutered flunkie of The United States of AmeriKKKa and its nasty pseudo-Christian Eurotrash friends.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 9, 2016 10:21:51 AM | 10

The second-best thing about this Libya redux is that China has a keen interest in Libya too. So if the Great Satan was looking for a fight, Libya is the perfect place to get the ball rolling.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 9, 2016 10:29:07 AM | 11

There was a paranoia about Gaddafi and the water pipes so the Peacekeeping UN killed Gaddafi and bombed the pipes. Gadafi was not cooperating with US hegemony.

Profits are maximized with zero cost basis. Pay zero and sell for maximum profit. Manipulate markets to destroy competition and achieve maximum profits in the longer term with zero cost basis for oil. The US military or proxy armies like IS are used to provide the zero cost basis. The media provides the cover story.

Didn't Gaddafi once have a lot of gold bricks? Is there any gold remaining in Libya?

Posted by: fastfreddy | Jun 9, 2016 10:29:21 AM | 12

Harry @ 9: "Its about making elites richer and more powerful, not common folk."

That, in a "nutshell", states the whole of the Neo-Liberal/ Neo-Con plan for the globe, implemented through "Austerity" plans. All the wet dreams of the U$A/NATO criminals.

Posted by: ben | Jun 9, 2016 10:50:34 AM | 13

What will be the fate of Saif Al Islam? Is he even still alive?

Posted by: Fernando Arauxo | Jun 9, 2016 12:01:29 PM | 14

Listening to the French public radios it sounds like the US 20 years ago when it comes to justify anything coming from Israel. No mention of Lieberman being extreme-right whatsoever.

Posted by: Mina | Jun 9, 2016 12:20:22 PM | 15

Posted by: jfl
I cannot take this as a serious assessment of the West's intentions. They wanted to destroy Libya and they did so. Now they want to take over the pieces. They think they can simply buy and arm a force that will do so for them ... and if that doesn't work, if all they manage to do is to kill more Libyans, well then they'll try something else ... until they end up in control of Libya.

I agree that they wanted to destroy Libya and they used their resources --covert ops, special forces, etc. and whatever else they do to achieve the current chaotic situation. I don't think they want to be in control of Libya -- whatever that means. I think they just want to keep it a failed state so there will always be an ISIS threat and a pretext and continuing excuse for permanent war.

Posted by: Ronald | Jun 9, 2016 2:10:05 PM | 16

Thank you Harry @ #6 ... it is somewhat reassuring that someone else (like Jack S) begins to articulate the fundamental reality of the US ... of the 'us' ... to dominate via destruction.

Regarding the use of destruction to dominate, there are some interesting comments at COUNTERPUNCH today about the California primary that says it all. The voting process is not only rigged, but lost ballots are guaranteed when the oligarchs choice might lose.

Part and parcel of a system that can only be reformed on the tines of a pitchfork. Until then, abiding by the rules and the law is nothing more than being complicit!

So go ahead and vent, but until we (that is you and I) get off our complacent and complicitly dead asses, it is the same old same old ... since 1492!

Posted by: rg the lg | Jun 9, 2016 2:22:28 PM | 17

Thank you Harry @ #6 ... it is somewhat reassuring that someone else (like Jack S) begins to articulate the fundamental reality of the US ... of the 'us' ... to dominate via destruction.

Regarding the use of destruction to dominate, there are some interesting comments at COUNTERPUNCH today about the California primary that says it all. The voting process is not only rigged, but lost ballots are guaranteed when the oligarchs choice might lose.

Part and parcel of a system that can only be reformed on the tines of a pitchfork. Until then, abiding by the rules and the law is nothing more than being complicit!

So go ahead and vent, but until we (that is you and I) get off our complacent and complicitly dead asses, it is the same old same old ... since 1492!

Posted by: rg the lg | Jun 9, 2016 2:22:28 PM | 18

Inept. What other logical sense can be brought to bear on this and all the rest of "the war on terror?" The west-U.S.-don't understand the mindset of any of the nations they are involved in destroying, nor even try to understand, while at the same time, is setting itself up to either fail or blow the world up in the process. How long before that happens?

Posted by: originalone | Jun 9, 2016 3:55:52 PM | 19

@originalone

I think the problem a lot of people have when attempting to reconcile the results of the War on Terror from the rhetoric of the War on Terror is that they make the mistake of assuming the intentions of those who are waging this war to be just and honest. They're not.

The War on Terror is nothing more than a cynical ploy to squander resources, to roll-back civil liberties and social spending domestically, and to destroy and plunder any nation state which opposes not only US hegemony, but also Israel's surreptitious and unopposed ability to dominate the Middle East. 1984 arrived in 2001.

From that perspective the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the destruction of Libya and Syria through the use of terrorist proxy forces, have been resounding successes, not abysmal failures. That's why there's never been any punishment for 9/11, because it was part of the plan; the event to kick it all off.

Once you realize what their true goals are, it's easier to interpret their actions.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Jun 9, 2016 4:30:08 PM | 20

thanks for these ongoing libyan articles richard/b!

i agree with @ 2 Seamus Padraig and @9 harry... watch as the insanity continues..

Posted by: james | Jun 9, 2016 4:55:28 PM | 21

Bruno 20

It's all spelled out clearly in the Oded Yinon Plan for Greater Israel and its recent counterpart the PNAC Plan for Full Spectrum Dominance, ie: Manifest Destiny redux.

These documents explain the necessity of the balkanization of Israel's neighbors. And the necessity of the destruction of any uncooperative partners among the new world order.

All must bow before the mighty king. Shock and Awe, baby.


Posted by: fast freddy | Jun 9, 2016 5:01:20 PM | 22

The curious thing is that East Libya aka Cyrenaica is receiving Russian-made currency with its own symbols and emblems, and weapons from Egypt who bought the French-made Mistral warships originally intended for Russia until France was pressured not to sell them to the original purchaser.

Yet East Libya / Cyrenaica was the region where opposition to Colonel Gaddafi was strongest. The Senussi monarchy that ruled Libya (ineptly) before Gaddafi was based in this region. In 2011, anti-Gaddafi demonstrators in Benghazi carried portraits of King Idris and the tricolour flag associated with the monarchy. The flag is now the official flag of Libya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idris_of_Libya

From what I have been able to discover from Googling around generally, most Libyans seem to support the Green Resistance which is pro-Gaddafi (Ayesha Gaddafi is the movement's current leader) and which holds the loyalties of groups in southern Libya (Fezzan region) and black Libyans, and parts of western Libya.
https://americanfront.info/category/libya/
https://libyaagainstsuperpowermedia.org/category/libya/libyan-resistance/the-libyan-liberation-front/libyan-green-resistance/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/gaddafis-daughter-ayesha-new-leader-of-resistance-against-nato-and-libyan-terrorists/5505157

I have no idea if Green Resistance has any support in East Libya / Cyrenaica.

The situation becomes more and more curious with each passing day.

Posted by: Jen | Jun 9, 2016 7:27:59 PM | 23

@Bruno Marz 20
"1984 arrived in 2001"

Yep, the new normal.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Jun 9, 2016 7:33:57 PM | 24

Russia has no more business sticking their noses in Libya than amerika or any of the european thieves do.
It is blind stupidity to imagine that Russia's involvement is anything other than self interest. At least with Syria there was a longstanding relationship - this is not the case with Libya because the Ghadaffi administration was smart enough to play the Nasser Sukarno game of setting the two hegemons against each other. Of course it is no coincidence that once Gorbachev capitulated to Washington that game became impossible and Libya was one of many developing nations that picked up the tab for Gorby's stupidity.

If Libya becomes occuppied by Russia in the east and fukusi in the west, nothing will be fixed. The determination of Libyans to strive for freedom may be held in abeyance for a while but ultimately there will be a resurgence much angrier and more strident than before.
As for Russia well if they go along with this it will put Putin in the same gathering of dispsticks as Gorbachev. Occuypying eastern Libya may give russia slightly more leverage in the struggle to push hydrocarbon prices back up short term, but the vast untapped Libyan hydrocarbon prospects which fukasi desire, are all in the west and south west. Ultimately europe will be flooded with sufficient high grade oil and gas to last a couple of decades, and that will leave russia royally screwed.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Jun 9, 2016 7:50:17 PM | 25

If MoA functions as it usually does, this post will be supplanted by another thread. Still, I suspect each of us should consider the implications of this article: http://www.unz.com/proberts/where-do-matters-stand/

And before anyone goes ballistic because they disagree with Unz, like MoA Unz does reflect a wide range of thinking ... and broad thinking is necessary if the world is going to be populated by more than insects. [ Hey! Wait a minute! What's so wrong with that? ]

Posted by: rg the lg | Jun 9, 2016 11:26:48 PM | 26

rg the lg

Thanks for the link. What PCR does not link his arguments to is the global plutocrats that own private global finance and are setting up to throw the US under the bus as they walk away with ongoing control of global finance after the US dollar is no longer the Reserve Currency. The global plutocrats only need protection from the dying US empire until they have safely stashed their family fortunes elsewhere around the globe.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 10, 2016 2:17:44 AM | 27

@16 Ronald 'I don't think they want to be in control of Libya -- whatever that means.'

I meant ... the West wants to be in control of Libya's financial resources abroad and of her natural resources - oil, gas, water - at home, and that the West does not want Libyans to be in control of themselves or their country or to act as leaders for northern Africa.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 10, 2016 4:58:55 AM | 28

@20 Bruno Marz and @27 psychohistorian

"We don't do body counts" - General Tommy Franks

I agree with both comments, however referring to the war criminals responsible for this as "global plutocrats" or "US hegemony" or "they"...is too abstract in my opinion...it doesn't go far enough

We need to start naming actual names, and if possible, try to estimate the number of deaths that each of them is responsible for.

Which US publication was most responsible for promoting the war in Iraq?

Hard to say but the neocons at The National Review is a good place to start.

National Review has a website, mostly for rich upper middle class Republican snobs, but anyone with an email acct on Disqus can comment there.

So I went to the website and starting listing the names of prominent Neocons who got the US into the war in Iraq, along with some brief comments about their role in cheerleading for the war. Then I used the Iraq Body Count website along with Wikileaks Iraq war logs to estimate the total number of documented deaths from violence.

That's all I did. Listed the names of prominent Neocons who promoted the war in Iraq. And estimated the number of war deaths...

This resulted in some pretty angry responses from National Review commenters and I ended up getting banned, with all my comments deleted.

Banned simply for making a list of Neocon names.

If you don't believe me, go to National Review's website and try it yourself.

And yet, these upper class country club Republicans, the ones who read National Review, who supported the war in Iraq...these same people pretend to be morally outraged and offended by Donald Trump...

Posted by: anonymous | Jun 10, 2016 7:00:58 AM | 29

National Review is all about Hebrew nationalism,not American.And one can comment at Counterpunch?I never saw that.Commies anyway,sometimes interesting but usually ideological idiocy,like today where St.Clair completely disses Sanders.

Posted by: dahoit | Jun 10, 2016 8:34:38 AM | 30

Apologies for going off topic but this is important!

George Soros is betting to make HUGE money off the migrant crisis in Europe that he helped to bring about

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-bearish-george-soros-is-trading-again-1465429163

Posted by: anonymous | Jun 10, 2016 9:57:06 AM | 31

Its about making elites richer and more powerful, not common folk.

Not common folk for sure. But the rest is not going well.

(2015) Quote: .. The Deputy Prime Minister of Libya’s internationally recognized government in Tobruk, Abdussalam Elbadri, told a conference last week in Malta that his government will punish international oil companies (IOCs) that continue to work with the rival administration in Tripoli.

In parallel, the Chairman of the National Oil Corporation (NOC) based in the East of Libya, Nagi Elmagrabi, told Bloomberg: “We will send letters to all the international companies that operate in Libya asking them to deal with the internationally recognized and legal government. We will take measures based on their respective replies to the letter. If they continue to decline to cooperate with the legal government, we will stop their loadings once their contracts expire.” Mahdi Khalifa, an NOC board member, said that any oil companies that refuse to cooperate with the government face the risk of legal action.

http://www.libya-businessnews.com/2015/09/22/tobruk-threatens-iocs-dealing-with-tripoli/

A search for lybia oil contracts on google news, first 3 pages, shows only one relevant item for 2016: Technip (France, surprise) has signed one ‘preliminary!’ contract for a peanutty 500m. to build some weird thingamagig.

million short (site that lets you knock off the top 100 to a million of goog links) https://millionshort.com does not help.

Oil cos. (I’m not defending them..) hardly represent the elites, only a certain set of extractive Cos. (> rare metals, uranium, coal, gas, etc.) and in fact struggle greatly in any unstable landscape as projects are hugely complex and very long-term and require ‘cooperation’, contract enforcement, international agreements, etc.

http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/chart3.png

is an attempt to show what the disruptions (i.e. dire problems) are due to.

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 10, 2016 11:11:27 AM | 32

I looked for the link posted here for the article rg the lg mentions at Counterpunch, finally found the listing of all articles and saw this one by Rich Stirling. Is this the one?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/09/where-are-the-missing-california-primary-votes/

What happened to the link (which I figure was here as psychohistorian thanks rg the lg for it)?

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 10, 2016 1:16:15 PM | 33

anonymous @ 31 --

The "regular order" Repubs of course hate Trump since The Donald has criticized BushBoy and the NeoCons (supported by the NeoLibs) for taking the US into war against Iraq.

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 10, 2016 1:19:34 PM | 34

I can think of two other 'rationales' for destroying Libya, both of which have been used by the plutocrats before. Number one, if you have toxic waste, and arms are that, which you cannot dispose of in an economical way, the world being a peaceful place, (and by the way what else does the US profitably produce these days) war is the answer.

Number two, as in Iraq, what was going to happen in Libya was a forceful move away from the dollar. What's the other big 'money maker'?

Finance.

I put weapons production first because that's the rationale I see for Syria as well. I know there's mention of the pipeline, so one could say the multipolarity issue is important there as well. I just keep remembering how Bayer stayed in business after WWII, recycling poisons into fertilizer. We sure got sold a bill of goods on that one, and now we have Monsanto. Plus nuclear. Poisons every place you look. Clean up? Corporations don't clean up; they recycle. And wars are the mother of the recycling business.

Our plutocrats are making a killing out of recycling. Who needs plowshares?

Posted by: juliania | Jun 10, 2016 1:23:03 PM | 35

Jawbone,

Go back and click on the link......it is not at Counterpoint

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 10, 2016 2:50:06 PM | 36


I have said it once and I will say it again, the U.S and her allies, especially Saudia and Qatar will not allow Libya to organize and get on her feet; unless it happens through them and a Libyan Government that follows their dictates to a 'T'. Libya, with its highly sought for 'Light Sulphur Sweet Crude' and largest natural gas fields in Africa and by some estimates 3-4th in the World could up-end Persian Gulf market share and supply all of Europe. As a result, Russia is watching Libya real closely; so are the Chinese who had Libyan hydrocarbon deals that were amazingly large only to see NATO steal them from under her. A big part of the Libyan intervention in Libya by NATO had to do with China's blitz for Libya's hydrocarbons & gas through said deals. So, you see, we have two camps playing tug-of-war for Libyan energy. If anyone wants a close perspective on what's to happen regarding Libya, just follow what the Italians and their Government have to say in regards to most aspects about Libyan war, energy etc. They are very much neutral and objective and when Italians talk to Libyans, they listen; even though Italy and her policies are under the NATO boot.

BTW, someone asked if Saif Al-Gaddafi is still alive? He is being held in the Mountain town of Zintan south of Tripoli; a court in Tripoli has sentenced him to death but the Zintan militias refuse to hand him over to the Tripoli Gov(sic).

Both sides of Libya, East and West are in bad shape as far as services and infrastructure go, with cycling power-outages lasting 12 hrs a day sometimes.

Another thing. Libya is a tribal society to a large degree; with 10-12 major tribes that then make up sub-tribes. Having said that, the tribes in the east are larger and more organized(through sheer survival under Gaddafi that persecuted the East much more than he did the West). Russia/China or U.S/E.U/GCC ; whomever can placate the tribes and accommodate their needs at the table through profit sharing wins Libya.

Someone asked about Libya's gold. It's mostly gone. Some 140 tonnes was Libya's gold reserve; that Gaddafi was intending to launch his Pan-African Dinal currency scheme(backed by gold of course). That's also what got the French and British and U.S international bankers in a state of panic, and they at this point came to a conclusion that Gaddafi had to go.

Posted by: bored muslim | Jun 10, 2016 3:06:36 PM | 37

@32bored muslim... good and informative comments.. thanks..

Posted by: james | Jun 10, 2016 4:18:36 PM | 38

My thanks to Richard Galustian for his recent articles on Libya at this blog. I hope he'll be doing some more.

I have one criticism of what he's been saying. Namely, his focus is too much on the outside powers and he's got too little to say about the Libyans. The West's aim in the Libya situation is to install a pro-Western government in Libya, or at least to move Libyan political society in that direction. The aim would be achievable if the generality of the people of Libya wanted the same outcome. But the people of Libya don't think along the same lines that the West does. It was said in comment #19 above: "The West don't understand the mindset of any of the nations they are involved in destroying." Likewise Richard himself said above that the bureaucrats and diplomats of the West are "mostly incompetent" in grasping the frame of mind of the Libyans. I remember in early summer 2011 the huge pro-Gaddafi demonstrations in Tripoli, with their green-colored banners. Gaddafi had strong popular support in western Libya, as widely reported correctly at the time. It was said in comment #23 above that, today, some substantial numbers of Libyans support the Green Resistance which is pro-Gaddafi. For me or anyone else to understand the Libya situation, the first and most fundamental thing is to understand the political society of Libya. The actions of the outside powers are less fundamental, even though potent. To understand Libyan politics is difficult work, because it requires looking into the minds of the Libyan masses, whose minds are hard to see. Community souls and minds are very much harder to see than the statements of Martin Kobler, Vitaly Churkin, and Khalifa Hafter. I believe I could read Richard Galustian once a month for years and still be "mostly incompetent" on Libya, because of his focus on the foreign powers. I can say the same about 'B' concerning the long-running commentary that 'B' has been doing on Syria. I'm not incompetent on Syria because I've got other sources, but I'm incompetent on Libya.

Posted by: Ghubar Shabih | Jun 10, 2016 7:42:20 PM | 39

Seems the Libyan airforce and navy are back in action....

"Libyan forces say they have re-taken control of the port in the city of Sirte, after fierce fighting against militants from so-called Islamic State.
Sirte is the most significant IS stronghold outside Iraq and Syria.
Earlier this week warplanes bombed IS positions in Sirte while naval forces fired missiles into the port, officials said. The offensive continues."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36505935

Posted by: dh | Jun 10, 2016 11:12:39 PM | 40

@40, dh

The BBC wants us to believe they are ... 'Warplanes bombed IS positions in Sirte while naval forces fired missiles into key areas including the port that are held by the militants, officials say. '

The warplanes' owners are not identified.

'Coastguard commander for central Libya Col Reda Issa ... said they had fired missiles from the sea targeting at least four key positions held by militants there, including the port. '

Four missiles.


A spokesman for ground forces battling IS militants described Thursday's fighting as "guerrilla warfare".

He said troops were on the fringes of residential areas in the city centre, but sniper fire and explosive devices planted by IS were slowing down the advance.

Sirte is IS's most significant stronghold outside Iraq and Syria. It is also IS's most valuable asset inside oil-rich Libya.


I've read recently that there are several hundred rather than 5-8000 ISIS in 'oil-rich Libya'.

This sounds like the "rebel vs. ISIS" fighting in Syria, on a much smaller scale, with "somebody's" guest appearance in the skies and 4 missiles dispatched by the coast guard.

The rebels are on the UN/US/NATO payroll in Libya, apparently, just as they are in Syria.

Maybe they'll have the "rebels" lose to lend urgency to US backs arming of government for IS fight?

Posted by: jfl | Jun 11, 2016 1:47:57 AM | 41

The comments to this entry are closed.

 

Site Meter