All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate This Article button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
First published on October 1, 2022
The war in Ukraine is basically about the US-NATO’s long-term plan to destroy Russia’s rise as a major player on the world stage. In 2019, The Rand Corporation published ‘Overextending and Unbalancing Russia: Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options’ which recommended several measures that would essentially disrupt Russia’s inevitable rise.
The Rand Corporation’s measures are extremely dangerous and irresponsible, in fact, one of the measures that has been already implemented since the war began between Russia and Ukraine has resulted in serious consequences that can lead the world into a nuclear war:
“Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages”
The other measure that would be a direct threat to Russia which would have allowed NATO to place all sorts of military weapons in Ukrainian territory and that is something Russia would not allow close to its borders,
“Reposturing bombers within easy striking range of key Russian strategic targets has a high likelihood of success and would certainly get Moscow’s attention and raise Russian anxieties.”
Lastly, deploying tactical nuclear weapons pointing at Russia as a measure would be an open invitation to a nuclear war between the West and Russia,
“deploying additional tactical nuclear weapons to locations in Europe and Asia could heighten Russia’s anxiety enough to significantly increase investments in its air defenses.”
To the West, it seems like a risk they are willing to take,
“In conjunction with the bomber option, it has a high likelihood of success, but deploying more such weapons might lead Moscow to react in ways contrary to U.S. and allied interests.”
The US-NATO alliance want Russian and Chinese leadership toppled so that they would become vassal states who will have to obey their Western adversaries.
The West fears a new multipolar world order as it would enable smaller nations (who have been under Washington’s thumb) to extend their diplomatic and economic relationships with whomever they want instead of dealing with Western powers who has kept most of the global south in debt and in continuous wars for decades. The world is ready for change. The Russian Federation understands the dangers they are facing as they witnessed what has happened to countries who defied the US-NATO alliance such as in the case of Libya, who was targeted for their natural resources and for their idea of establishing an independent Africa by creating the African Dinar bypassing Western-based currencies and that was something Washington and Paris was not ready to except.
The North American Treaty Organization (NATO) is a danger to every nation on earth including those in Africa and the rest of the global south including the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. NATO was created in 1949 by the US government to advance its military, economic and political power over Europe.
However, since the start of the 21st century, NATO has been involved in military operations in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and in North Africa including the Bosnian war in 1992, the war in Kosovo in 1999 and the war in Afghanistan, which lasted for more than 20 years, and in 2011, France and the United States under then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton bombed Libya and overthrew its president, Muammar Gaddafi.
The military operations were a prelude to a “Global NATO,” which is a plan mainly for future interventions in the global south. NATO who backs Ukraine is now inching closer to a full-blown war against Russia which will be a complete disaster for the European continent and Washington could not care less because they will use NATO and Ukrainian troops until Russia is destabilized and finally destroyed but of course, that is highly unlikely. China is also in NATO’s crosshairs as the Chatham House, a British think tank who published a commentary based on the Madrid summit last June by a former BBCjournalist and propagandist, Bill Hayton titled ‘NATO knows Asia is vital to protecting global security’ on how NATO is in the stages of creating a new strategy to contain Asia’s rising powers, including China and possibly others such as India, who might find themselves on NATO’s hit list one day if they continue to collaborate with the ‘BRICS’ nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO):
Neither of these changes means NATO aims to expand to include Asia but it shows the 30 NATO members are concerned about security threats from Asia expanding into Europe and North America. In a world of long-range missiles, cyber operations, and vulnerable supply chains, the concerns of ‘Euro-Atlantic’ countries have become global
Where does it end for NATO? Who is next on their agenda for regime change on behalf of Washington? Do they want to turn Russia, China, Iran into another Libya? You bet. Libya was destroyed in 2011 by NATO forces under Operation Unified Protector on behalf of French and American imperialists to control Libya, a resource rich African nation. The aftermath of the destruction of Libya led to a civil war between armed factions vying for power to creating a renewed slave trade in North Africa that involved between 700,000 to 1 million African migrants and refugees. One of the best speeches on NATO’s interventions in Libya was by the late president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe who criticized NATO’s actions at the 67th UN General Assembly on September 18th, 2012. Here is part of his speech:
A year ago, we saw a barbaric and brutal death of the head of state of Libya, a representative of his country, a member of the African Union, that death occurred in the context in which NATO was operating supposedly in order to protect civilians. As we in spirit join the United States in condemning that death, shall the United States also join us in condemning that barbaric death of the head of state of Libya Gaddafi, it was a loss, a great loss to Africa, a tragic loss to Africa occurring in circumstances in which NATO had sought the authority of the United Nations Security Council and the chapter 7 to operate in Libya in protection of civilians who were said to be at the mercy of the government of Libya led by colonel Gaddafi.
The mission was strictly to protect civilians, but it turned out that there was a hunt, a brutal hunt of Gaddafi and his family, and Gaddafi and his family were sought. NATO caught up with them, they suffered the brutal deaths that we know about, Gaddafi and some of his children. And as the United States spoke, I’m sure they were aware also that they were a NATO power, that they [the U.S.] alongside other NATO powers had the authority under Chapter VII to operate in protection–to operate in Libya in protection of civilians. But did it turn out to be that?
In a very dishonest manner, we saw the authority given under Chapter VII being used now as a weapon to rout a whole family, to commit the murders that occurred in the country. Bombs were thrown about in a callous manner, and quite a good many civilians died. Was that the “protection” that they had sought under Chapter VII of the Charter?
The US-NATO criminal cabal was led by Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, and French president Nicolas Sarkozy who basically targeted Libya’s vast wealth including its oil, gold, and silver. Hillary Clinton’s email proved what was on the agenda and it was not to protect the people of Libya. Here is the main section of one of the emails that Wikileaks published from April 2nd, 2011, with the Subject heading ‘FRANCE’S CLIENT & QADDAFI’S GOLD’ that explains the premise behind the US-NATO destruction of Libya:
Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver. During late March, 2011 these stocks were moved to SABHA (south west in the direction of the Libyan border with Niger and Chad); taken from the vaults of the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli. This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French. franc (CFA)
According to Clinton’s emails, Sarkozy’s regime had a plan after the destruction of Libya was complete, and that was to take a larger share of Libya’s oil production as well as to “Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world” and most importantly, to recolonize Africa where France once had total control because Qaddafi had “long-term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.”
On March 19, 2011, Clinton spoke about the situation in Libya in Paris, France and said that “The international community came together to speak with one voice and to deliver a clear and consistent message: Colonel Qadhafi’s campaign of violence against his own people must stop.” The international community according to Clinton was mainly, the US and its subservient region of Europe.
The US gave the Gaddafi government terms that they had to comply with and “that means all attacks against civilians must stop; troops must stop advancing on Benghazi and pull back from Adjabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; water, electricity, and gas supplies must be turned on to all areas; humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.” Clinton’s threat against Libya was clear “Yesterday, President Obama said very clearly that if Qadhafi failed to comply with these terms, there would be consequences.”
Libya was in danger of being targeted for regime change after the September 11th attacks when Washington singled out several countries in the Middle East and Africa. General Wesley Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO’s forces who oversaw Operation Allied Force during the Kosovo War said on a liberal news media outlet ‘Democracy Now with Amy Goodman’ that Washington was planning to “take out 7 countries in 5 Years” including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, and Libya.
Once NATO invaded Libya, internal factions called the “Libyan Rebels” supported by the West were in fact, well-known members from terrorist organizations including Al-Qaeda to create chaos within Libyan society. There were a handful of what they called “independent revolutionary groups” who were employed in the business of regime change for Western empires.
That regime change operation was to remove the entire Gaddafi family from power. One of the terrorist groups that was involved in the destruction of Libya was the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a jihadist group from the 1990s that still existed in Libya had re-emerged out of the shadows and was one of the actors who led a regime change insurgency for their Western masters against Muammar Gaddafi. The aftermath of Libya was the creation of Western-backed terrorist enclave and a number of slave traders who sell African people to the highest bidder. Then there was the oil factor, in 2016, WikiLeaks published yet another email from Blumenthal that was sent to Hillary Clinton on September 16th, 2011, with the subject line ‘FRANCE, UK, ET AL, JOCKEYING IN LIBYA/OIL’ that clearly states their goal for future oil contracts with the new Libyan government:
According to knowledgeable individuals, as part of this effort, the two leaders, in private conversations, also intend to press the leaders of the NTC to reward their early support for the rebellion against Muammar al Qaddafi. Sarkozy and Cameron expect this recognition to be tangible, in the form of favorable contracts for French and British energy companies looking to play a major role in the Libyan oil industry. According to this source, Sarkozy feels, quite strongly, that without French support there would have been no revolution and that the NTC government must demonstrate that it realizes this fact. For his part, Cameron appears most concerned that despite British support for the rebels during the fighting, certain members of the NTC remain focused on the fact that the British government and oil industry had good relations with the Qaddafi regime, particularly the firm British Petroleum (BP).
At the same time, this source indicates that the government of France is carrying out a concerted program of private and public diplomacy to press the new/transitional government of Libya to reserve as much as 35% of Libya’s oil related industry for French firms,particularly the major French energy company TOTAL. Sources with access to the highest levels of Libya’s ruling NTC, as well as senior advisors to Sarkozy, stated in strict confidence that while much of this pressure is being exerted at very senior diplomatic and political levels, the French external intelligence service (Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure/General Directorate for External Security –DGSE) is using sources with influence over the NTC to press the French position. At present, as NTC leaders are consolidating their positions in Tripoli, they are attempting to balance the interests of the new government and the Libyan people against the need to recognize the support provided to them by France and other major powers in their struggle with Muammar al Qaddafi
Obviously, that “Support provided to them by France and other major powers” came in the form of providing arms and training to future terrorists in north Africa.
NATO’s Footprint in Africa
The invasion of Libya by NATO’s forces led to other conflicts and new agreements throughout Africa including France’s military invasion of Mali in 2013. Then the G5 Sahel was created in the same year with a new political platform that unified 5 African states militarily in the Sahel including Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger. The G5 was approved by the African Union. On May 2014, NATO conveniently established a Liaison office at the headquarters of the African Union in the capital of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa. According to NATO’s website:
NATO and the African Union (AU) took a further step in advancing their cooperation, by signing on 8 May 2014 an agreement which formalizes the status of the NATO liaison office to the African Union Headquarters in Addis Ababa. The completion of this technical agreement will facilitate greater cooperation between the two organizations in areas of mutual interest such as: strategic air and sea lift, interoperability of multinational forces, individual training, exercise planning, and lessons learned from operations. How to share experiences in implementing United Nations initiatives such as Women, Peace and Security, and Children and Armed Conflict, will also be examined
The war on Libya allowed NATO to expand its presence and recolonize Africa under the guise of installing peace and of course, fighting terrorists in Africa so they don’t have to fight them in the Western hemisphere.
How is Libya today? What was the consequences of removing Muammar Gaddafi? Before he was removed, Gaddafi had made Libya one of the best places in all of Africa. The highest living standards in Africa was evident in Libya which was considered ‘very good’ according to the 2010 UN Human Development report. Libya was ranked 53rd in the world before NATO’s invasion according to the United Nation’s own studies. In fact, in comparison to Brazil, Turkey and China at the time, Libya had a better quality of life including in the areas that measure annual income, education and health. Although Libya was not perfect, it had its share of societal problems like in every country on earth, but under Gaddafi’s leadership, living standards had increased for the Libyan people. Libya is a complex society, so Gaddafi’s governance was a difficult task, but his ideals for a better Libya was stopped in its tracks when US and it’s NATO allies decided to move forward with regime change and turn Libya into a living hell for its people. The destruction of Libya created a pool of new terrorists that ended up in other warzones where the US government was heavily involved in including in places like Syria that turned into another cesspool of death and destruction.
Today Libya is living through a nightmare of an endless civil war between political rivals. In late August, 32 people were killed with more than 159 people injured. Al Jazeera reported that “the standoff for power in Libya has pitted the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GNU) under Abdul Hamid Dbeibah against a rival administration under Fathi Bashagha that is backed by the eastern-based parliament.” The report admitted that “Libya has had little peace since the 2011 NATO-backed uprising that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi and it split in 2014 between rival eastern and western factions, dragging in regional powers.”
Libya has been divided between east and west by rival factions, so for the globalists who caused this problem, it brings them the element of chaos they needed because they gained control over Libya’s natural resources, they enriched the arms industry by supplying both sides of Libya’s internal conflict. They also created a new supply of terrorists to create more wars and overthrow governments on behalf of the West in other parts of Africa and the Middle East. The goal was to destroy Libya and expand US-NATO operations throughout Africa. But one of the main reasons for NATO’s invasion of Libya which I mentioned earlier was to stop the creation of the African Dinar which would have given the West a black eye during a time when most of the world is trying to stop their use of the world’s reserve currency and the US government’s economic weapon, the US dollar in favor of other currencies including the Chinese yuan and the Russian ruble.
The US-NATO Alliance is using the same formula for other countries who disobey their unipolar world order. Russia and China understand this Western concept of divide and conquer as a threat to them and to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, Libya was used as an example of what can happen to a country if they don’t follow the Western prescription for peace and stability.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All images in this article are from SCN
“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”
by Michel Chossudovsky
Available to order from Global Research!
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
