U.S. President Barack Obama announced yesterday in London that the U.S. and UK are not beginning preparations for a ground invasion into Libya. Whatever the situation in that country is in reality, the fact that NATO military helicopters have been sent there was discussed yesterday in Brussels at a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council.
At a joint press conference with Obama and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron, questions about the possibility of a ground operation by NATO in Libya took a central position. In response to this, Obama said that the military forces of both countries “will not set foot in Libya.”* Then why would military helicopters be sent to the region, if they are not for fighting or for supporting the opposition? Cameron, who had been asked that question, declined to answer.
Yesterday this topic was one of the most important at the NATO-Russia council meeting at the ambassadorial level. Among those who took part on the Russian side was the permanent representative of the Russian Federation to NATO, Dmitri Rogozin, who earlier told the Russian media that “we have information about preparations for a land operation, and we are planning to confirm this information.” Rogozin in particular referred to an announcement by the Libyan rebels about their wish for NATO ground forces to take part in military operations and the transfer of French and British military helicopters on NATO ships to Libyan waters. Rogozin also pointed to the “allocation of European Union peacekeeping troops for the support of the safety of humanitarian corridors.” (It is not a “military secret” that some special forces from NATO countries are operating in Libyan territory. According to the American model of the ‘60s in Southeast Asia, this is an easy way to organize an invasion by regular NATO forces, in order to “defend the lives and safety of its own citizens.”)
Rogozin also drew attention to the upcoming bombardment of Tripoli. On this occasion the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation distributed an announcement which stated: “Presently yet another gross deviation from the UN Security Council resolutions of 1970 and 1973. Air strikes will not delay a military confrontation with the Libyan side and only inflict additional suffering on peaceful Libyans.” Yet another question to the NATO ambassadors: Is the death of Moammar Gadhafi a goal of the alliance’s operation in Libya? Rogozin says that the Russian side wants a “the understanding of a degree of honesty” from the official representatives from the West.
Presidents and prime ministers from the alliance countries are still quiet about what the goal is exactly. However those who are a rank lower than the leaders were not so secretive. In particular, Rozogin referred to the UK minister of defense.
Obama and his European colleagues have admitted that they are “losing the tempo”* — not only in Libya. In order to encourage the “cousins,” as the Americans and English call each other, Obama spoke in his speech to the British parliament about a new world order which would be established after the war, in which luminaries like his country and the United Kingdom would lead the way.
Obama was the first American president to give a speech to both houses of parliament.
However, voters will need to see something real, not just pathetic statements. For example, like the death of an enemy such as bin Laden, who the president did not fail to mention. The death of Gadhafi and “victory of Libyan democracy” would also not be a bad trump card.
The “expanding geography” of NATO and the escalation of the military operation in Libya and Afghanistan are draining the resources of the countries in the alliance. Nevertheless, the subtext of Obama’s speech was a call for new military spending. However, the U.S. will undoubtedly commit most of that spending to Europe. Just like during the Cold War.
The speech turned to anti-ballistic missile defense. This topic was discussed at yesterday’s meeting of the NATO-Russia Council and will be a topic during the meeting between the minister of defense of Russia and NATO in two weeks.
The latest suggestion from the Russians “brought out stiff opposition from some of our allies.” “The situation is like this: We have come up against the architectural plan of the European ABM defense, watching how the Americans have already started without real plans and are in fact already laying down the foundations of the anti-ballistic missile system in Europe,” said Rogozin. He estimates that the prevailing position will be one of the points of the agenda for the Russian-American summit. “We are looking forward to challenging, and hopefully constructive, talks in Deauville,” added Rogozin.
In his opinion, because of NATO’s inert position in the discussions about ABM defense, it might be worth it to enter into discussions only with the U.S., without the European counties of the alliance who “will always link their political obligations to cross-Atlantic solidarity, leaning on the side of the Americans.”
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
Boilerplate, unlinked to any real sources.