|
Президент Николя Саркози признал марионеточность так называемого Национального переходного совета в Бенгази.
Франция, которая вместе с Англией и при одобрении США развязала войну альянса НАТО против Ливии, начинает трезво смотреть на ситуацию, в которой альянс оказался не на высоте.
«Слабая боевая активность мятежников даже при тотальной поддержке НАТО привела к тупиковой ситуации военную операцию ещё в мае, однако западные страны официально отказывались это признавать. Лидеры европейских государств - участниц антиливийской коалиции надеялись найти ключ к "проблеме Каддафи" и устранить ливийского лидера, но оказалось, что сделать это невероятно сложно», пишет Владимир Карнаухов из «Военного обозревателя». http://newsland.ru/news/detail/id/736307/cat/94/
10 июля было опубликовано интервью дивизионного генерала сухопутных войск Франции Венсена Депорта французскому журналу "Журналь дю диманш", в котором он заявил, что без наземной операции в Ливии делать нечего (изложение интервью опубликовано ниже). Но даже если игнорировать резолюцию Совбеза ООН 1973, которая не дает разрешения на войну на суше, проведение наземной операции невозможно, считает генерал, в силу отсутствия у Франции и Великобритании достаточного количества подготовленных для этого войск.
Генерал Депорт - личность скандальная, отмечает Владимир Карнаухов. В прошлом году его отстранили от должности руководителя одного из самых престижных военных учебных заведений Франции за критику военной операции США в Афганистане. Поэтому его мнение о том, что военного решения ливийского конфликта не существует, можно было бы воспринять как позицию отдельного французского военного специалиста. Но вскоре последовали симптоматичные заявления более высоких персон.
Министр обороны Франции Жерар Лонге заявил 10 июля, что командование военной операцией и политическое руководство страны склоняется к тому, чтобы начать поиск политического выхода из сложившейся в Ливии ситуации, сообщило агентство Рейтер (английский текст ниже) . Он пообещал прекратить бомбардировки этой страны при условии, что конфликтующие стороны сядут за стол переговоров. "Теперь они могут вести переговоры, так как мы показываем им, что силового решения конфликта нет" - сказа Лонге.
Оказывается, что Франция и другие страны НАТО бомбили нещадно Ливию и убивали ее мирных жителей только для того, чтобы мятежники поняли, что «силового решения конфликта нет»!
Браво, месье министр!
Ваши слова будут записаны на скрижали военной истории. И теперь каждый будет начинать войну, зная, что надо заявить, когда война проиграна: «Войной мы доказали, что переговоры лучше войны и что силового решения конфликтов не существует»
По сути через министра обороны французское руководство признало бесперспективность военной операции в Ливии, отмечает Владимир Карнаухов.
Одновременно сын Муаммара Каддафи Саиф аль-Ислам рассказал, что ливийская администрация уже ведёт переговоры с руководством Франции. На этих встречах президент Николя Саркози откровенно признал марионеточность так называемого Национального переходного совета в Бенгази. Учитывая почти полную зависимость этого «совета» мятежников от Франции, можно предположить и их зависимость от позиции политического руководства этой страны.
Теперь, когда французы признали необходимость переговоров между ливийским правительством и повстанцами, возможность таких переговоров стала очень вероятна подчеркивает Владимир Карнаухов.
Хотя от британских официальных лиц ещё не последовало подобных заявлений, но в прессе уже появились статьи, ясно говорящие о фактическом провале военной операции в Ливии, пишет Владимир Карнаухов. Так английский "Телеграф" опубликовал статью о военных действиях европейских стран в Ливии под названием "Кампания, построенная на песке"(английский текст публикуется ниже). В ней отмечается, что приближающийся священный для мусульман месяц Рамадан почти полностью может прекратить боевые действия, а затягивание военной операции не в интересах Европы. Журналисты «Телеграф» критикуют британских министров за "беспечность" в представлении о перспективах бомбардировок Ливии и пишут о том, что время работает теперь против них.
Ах какая беспечность! Британские министры придумали новую детскую игру «Бери бомбу побольше и кидай подальше!», забыв о перспективе, что бомба может взорваться у них прямо в руках.
И только британские журналисты, настоящие взрослые, понимают, что время работает против и натовцев, увязших в песках Сахары, и «крестового похода Запада против Востока, и рейтинга политиков, решившихся развязать первую натовскую войну 21 века.
А теперь перейдем к интервью французского генерала.
Одной авиацией в Ливии ничего не добиться, считает генерал.
http://warsonline.info/liviya/odnoy-aviatsiey-v-livii-nichego-ne-dobitsya-frantsuzskiy-general.html
Дивизионный генерал сухопутных войск Франции Венсен Депорт заявил в интервью изданию "Журналь дю диманш", что бомбардировками Ливии ничего достичь невозможно. Об этом сообщило российское агентство ИТАР-ТАСС.
Венсен Депорт, с 2008 года возглавлявший Межармейский колледж обороны, был отстранён от этой должности в 2010 году приказом министра обороны Франции за критические высказывания в адрес тактики США в Афганистане. Теперь он откровенно высказал своё мнение по поводу военной операции в Ливии.
Депорт считает, что ставка на быстрое завершение военной операции была большой ошибкой, а увеличение интенсивности бомбардировок ни к чему не приведёт. По мнению французского генерала, для победы над Каддафи необходимо "наземное наступление силами нескольких десятков тысяч человек, что... невозможно".
Начало военной операции с расчётом на стремительную победу было чисто политическим решением без учёта мнений военных специалистов. Это было очень рискованно.
История показывает, что добиться чего-либо одними авиаударами невероятно сложно, почти невозможно.
Французский генерал не скрывает, что он еще надеется на физические уничтожение Каддафи, но в нынешней ситуации такая вероятность крайне мала. Он считает, что время не работает на НАТО и "стратегия выжидания Каддафи может оказаться выигрышной". Усилий коалиции в настоящем их виде просто недостаточно для устранения ливийского лидера. НАТО испытывает недостаток практически всего. Обращение к Германии за боеприпасами и бомбами тоже вряд ли спасёт ситуацию.
Генерал считает, что пришло время для поиска политического, а не военного выхода из ливийского тупика. Необходимо начать налаживать контакты с властями Ливийской Джамахирии в поисках компромисса.
И тем не менее генерал полагает, что прекращать бомбардировки вовсе не обязательно.
Итак, французский генерал предлагает свое военно-политическое решение выхода из войны НАТО против Ливии: бомбить Ливию до последней натовской бомбы и… вести политические переговоры с Ливией … об устранении лидера Ливии.
Браво, месье генерал! Вы предложили довести антиливийскую резолюцию 1973 Совбеза ООН до полного абсурда: надо поставить стол для переговоров где-нибудь в бескрайней пустыней Сахара и над этим столом создать зонтик «бесполетной зоны». Но все остальное ливийское пространство - утюжить и утюжить. Пока не останется ни одного «каддафиста»!
Только еще одна информация просочилась из французских источников, которые выступают за немедленное прекращение бомбежек: французскому спецназу, который действует в Триполи, отдан приказ закончить секретную операцию по физическому устранению лидера Ливии к 14 июля. Другими словами, или вы возьмете ливийскую Бастилию, или вас ждет гильотина!
11,12, 13 июля – пережить три дня!
Держись, Ливия!
Люди доброй воли с тобой!
Либья мия мия!
Евгений Ларин, Триполи-Тунис, 11 июля.
Далее сообщение агентства Рейтер ( на языке оригинала и без купюр, понимаете…)
(Reuters) - France's defense minister said it was time for Libya's rebels to negotiate with Muammar Gaddafi's government, signaling growing impatience with progress in the conflict.
Gaddafi's son, in an interview with an Algerian newspaper on Monday, said his father's government was in talks with the French government. There was no immediate comment from Paris.
French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet said on Sunday the rebels should not wait for Gaddafi's defeat, while signaling that Paris' objective was that the Libyan leader must leave power eventually.
Washington said it stood firm in its belief Gaddafi must go.
The messages from two leading members of the Western coalition opposing Gaddafi hinted at the strain the alliance is under after more than three months of air strikes that have cost billions of dollars and failed to produce the swift outcome its backers had expected.
The rebels have refused to hold talks as long as Gaddafi remains in power, a stance which before now none of NATO's major powers has publicly challenged.
"We have ... asked them to speak to each other," Longuet, whose government has until now been among the most hawkish on Libya, said on French television station BFM TV.
"The position of the TNC (rebel Transitional National Council) is very far from other positions. Now, there will be a need to sit around a table," he said.
Asked if it was possible to hold talks if Gaddafi had not stepped down, Longuet said: "He will be in another room in his palace with another title."
Soon after, the State Department in Washington issued a message that gave no hint of compromise.
"The Libyan people will be the ones to decide how this transition takes place, but we stand firm in our belief that Gaddafi cannot remain in power," it said in a written reply to a query.
It also said the United States would continue efforts, as part of the NATO coalition, to protect civilians from attack and said it believed the alliance was helping to up the pressure on Gaddafi.
In an interview published on Monday by the Algerian El Khabar newspaper, Saif al-Islam, a son of the Libyan leader, said his father's administration was in talks with the French government.
Speaking from Tripoli, the newspaper quoted him as saying: "The truth is that we are negotiating with France and not with the rebels.
"Our envoy to (Nicolas) Sarkozy said that the French president was very clear and told him 'We created the (rebel)council, and without our support, and money, and our weapons, the council would have never existed.
"France said: 'When we reach an agreement with you (Tripoli), we will force the council to cease fire'," he was quoted as saying.
Gaddafi has been holding on to power in the face of rebel attacks trying to break his 41-year rule, NATO air strikes, economic sanctions and the defections of prominent members of his government.
With no imminent end to the conflict in sight, cracks are emerging inside the NATO alliance. Some member states are balking at the burden on their recession-hit finances, and many are frustrated that there has been no decisive breakthrough.
But even countries which support a political solution have not answered the question of how a deal can be hammered out when the rebels and their Western backers say Gaddafi must go while the Libyan leader himself says that is not up for negotiation.
Strains over how to proceed in Libya are likely to surface on Friday when the contact group, which brings together the countries allied against Gaddafi, gathers in Istanbul for its next scheduled meeting.
There was no immediate reaction to the French minister's comments from the rebel leadership at its headquarters in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.
LONG MARCH
On the ground, rebel forces trying to march on Tripoli have made modest gains in the past week, but the fighting on Sunday underlined it would be a long slog.
Gaddafi's forces launched a heavy artillery bombardment to try to push back rebel fighters who last week seized the village of Al-Qawalish, 100 km (60 miles) south of Tripoli.
Al-Qawalish is a strategic battleground because if the rebels manage to advance beyond it they will reach the main highway leading north into the capital Tripoli.
A rebel fighter in the village, Amignas Shagruni, told Reuters shells had been landing repeatedly over the past 24 hours from pro-Gaddafi forces positioned a few kilometers to the east. But he said: "No one was hurt, thank God."
During a 20-minute period while Reuters visited the frontline east of Al-Qawalish, at least five shells landed. However, they did not appear to be well targeted.
Libyan state television reported on Sunday that NATO forces had struck an "educational institution" in Tripoli. Jamahiriyah Television quoted a military spokesman as saying there were "human and material" casualties in the air strike in the district of Tajoura, but gave no specific details.
Libya has been convulsed by a civil war since February when thousands of people, inspired by revolutions in neighboring Egypt and Tunisia, rose up against Gaddafi's rule.
Hundreds of kilometers to the northeast of Al-Qawalish, another force of rebels is trying to push toward Tripoli, though they too are facing tough resistance.
Fighters from the rebel-held city of Misrata, about 200 km(130 miles) east of Tripoli, have fought their way west to the outskirts of Zlitan, the first in a chain of coastal towns blocking their progress toward the capital.
NATO launched its bombing campaign in March after the U.N. Security Council authorized the use of all necessary means to protect civilians who rose up against Gaddafi.
Gaddafi says the rebels are armed criminals and al Qaeda militants. He has called the NATO operation an act of colonial aggression aimed at stealing Libyan oil.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/11/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110711
Далее статья газеты Телеграф ( на языке оригинала и без купюр, понимаете…)
Libya: A campaign built on sand
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8629138/Libya-A-campaign-built-on-sand.html
With Gaddafi as determined as ever to cling to power in Libya, tensions between Nato's member states are becoming increasingly exposed.
By Con Coughlin
8:51PM BST 10 Jul 2011
Four months ago, when David Cameron led the international call for military intervention in Libya, the general assumption within government circles was that Col Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator, would realise the game was up the moment Nato warplanes began bombing his forces.
It did not seem to matter to Mr Cameron and his principal allies in the anti-Gaddafi campaign that the main purpose of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which provided the legal justification for military action, was to protect anti-Gaddafi rebels from the possibility of being massacred by forces loyal to their leader.
Together with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama, Mr Cameron demanded that the military offensive would end only when Gaddafi was removed from power, so confident was he in the operation's likely outcome. At a stroke an operation conceived on the basis of liberal interventionism had been transformed into one determined to achieve regime change.
And it is to this end that Nato has undertaken a sophisticated bombing campaign designed as much to intensify the pressure on Gaddafi's regime to give up its vice-like grip on power as to protect Libya's civilian population. Apart from taking out Gaddafi's air defences and launching thousands of raids against pro-Gaddafi forces, the campaign has increasingly targeted the regime itself, bombing the Libyan dictator's Bab al-Azizia barracks and vital fuel supply lines.
Yet, more than three months into the Nato offensive, Gaddafi remains as resolutely in power in Tripoli today as he was when the first bombs were dropped in March. In recent days, we have seen the extent of the support he continues to enjoy when thousands of his own supporters turned out in Tripoli to hear an address by the Libyan leader.
Meanwhile, Saif al-Islam, his son and heir apparent, appeared on French television to taunt those responsible for prosecuting the Nato offensive. "We will never surrender," he said in an interview. "We will fight. It's our country. To tell my father to leave the country, it's a joke."
While the Gaddafi clan appears to have lost none of its resolve, the same cannot be said for the Nato member states and Arab nations that originally backed the intervention, but are now desperately seeking an exit route. From the start of the military offensive, Nato's operations have been severely hampered by the fact that only half a dozen countries have been prepared to conduct combat operations.
This has meant that the lion's share of the more than 9,000 sorties have been flown by British and French warplanes, with Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Jordan and Qatar also making valuable contributions to the war effort.
But many other Nato nations, particularly Germany, have been unhappy from the outset at the demands made by the likes of Mr Cameron that Gaddafi's removal, rather than the protection of Libyan civilians, is the ultimate goal. They have done their best to frustrate the military operation by refusing to contribute vital equipment, such as tankers used for mid-air refuelling, and regularly objecting to attacks on targets that are not deemed to pose a direct threat to Libya's civilian population.
Now the simmering tensions that have severely hampered the effectiveness of the Nato mission have broken into the open with Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, claiming he was against the operation from the start. "I am against this intervention, which will end in a way that no one knows," he said.
Mr Berlusconi's comments are highly significant, as Nato is relying heavily on Italy's cooperation to maintain its air operations against Libya. Nato's operational headquarters is in Naples, while most of the combat missions are flown from air bases in southern Italy. Italian officials have already indicated that they do not want a further 90-day extension of Nato's deadline for military operations, which is due to expire in late September.
But by far the greatest threat to Nato's hopes of achieving a decisive breakthrough in the Libyan campaign is the onset of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which begins in three weeks' time. During Ramadan, Muslims are obliged to observe a rigorous fast during the hours of daylight and to spend much of their spare time in prayer. When the feast falls at the height of an Arabian summer, it not uncommon for most countries to come to a complete standstill.
Political concerns over repeating the mistakes of the Iraq war have meant that none of the politicians leading the Libyan campaign is prepared to commit ground troops. As a result, this has meant Nato relying increasingly on Libya's anti-Gaddafi rebels to complete the task of removing the dictator from power. But Nato officials are now concerned that the rebel offensive will effectively grind to a halt at the end of the month as fasting rebel fighters will be in no position to launch a major offensive.
Senior Nato officers are also concerned about the negative impact that continued military action by non-Muslim countries against a Muslim nation will have on Arab support. Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League who was an enthusiastic supporter of military intervention, has since voiced his objections to attempts to remove Gaddafi. The continuation of hostilities during Ramadan will only serve to harden Arab opposition to the war.
The approach of Ramadan has certainly brought an unwelcome dose of reality to many in the British Government who, so far as I can tell, have assumed that so long as Nato maintains the pressure on Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator will simply lose heart and renounce power. In the past few weeks,
I have asked several senior Cabinet ministers how, precisely, they intend to achieve their objective of overthrowing Gaddafi's regime. And on each occasion I have been blithely assured that the pressure on him will become so intense that he will have no alternative other than to stand down.
But, with time now of the essence, there is suddenly a realisation that, unless there is a dramatic breakthrough in the coming weeks, it is a distinct possibility that the conflict will end with the country divided and Gaddafi still clinging to power, albeit to a fraction of the vast country he governed at the start of the year.
To prevent such a disastrous outcome, an air of desperation is entering the contribution made by those countries, such as Britain and France, that have committed themselves to regime change in Tripoli.
Last week, the French government confirmed that it had started dropping arms supplies to Libyan rebel groups. Assault rifles, machine guns and rocket launchers were dropped earlier this month, and the French newspaper Le Figaro has suggested that Milan anti-tank missiles have also been supplied to the rebels. Britain, meanwhile, continues to send a steady stream of military "advisers" (many of them SAS veterans) to help the rebels become a more effective fighting outfit.
The only problem with this dramatic escalation in European support for the rebels is that it is contrary to UN resolutions on Libya, which include an arms embargo that is supposed to apply to all sides. If Europe is prepared to arm the anti-Gaddafi rebels, then what is to stop Gaddafi's regime receiving arms from its allies in Africa and elsewhere?
Nor is it by any means certain that the rebels have the same objectives as their Western backers. Recent Western intelligence assessments of the rebels have concluded that groups operating in Misurata have a very different agenda from factions operating in Benghazi.
Local tribes are also more concerned with defending their own territory than occupying the territory of other tribes. Thus there is no shortage of rebel fighters willing to defend Benghazi, but they become more reluctant to fight when asked to move out of their own territory and advance on Tripoli.
These tensions broke to the surface when the National Transitional Council suggested it was prepared to open negotiations with Gaddafi to end the fighting. Their comments were quickly rejected by William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, who insisted there could be no settlement that allows Gaddafi to remain in power.
But, with the clock ticking, and with no prospect of a decisive breakthrough in sight, Gaddafi's survival remains a distinct possibility, which was not the outcome Mr Cameron hoped for when he first embarked on his risky gamble in the Libyan desert.
| 