Also, I do not subscribe to the idea that Russia is dangerous to NATO/EU and I want to look at things more pragmatically. I do not believe that because they are meddling in some territories next to their border in the former soviet countries, the big bad bear will invade into Europe. These are local conflicts that do not interest me in the slightest. (Besides, USA/NATO can obliterate Russia militarily in a widespread conflict and everyone knows that. No need to fake fear.)
We all made our thoughts on the matter clear. Now let's sit back and watch what happens. A whole lot of nothing probably. Widespread russophobia and sensationalistic ideas of Ukraine's sovereignty can be used as shallow arguments but will change nothing in reality.
Of course Russia is no danger to NATO and/or the EU, after all, it is not like Russia can take any action against either group and/or their constituent member-states. Oh wait, Russia already has, and is.
One of the very large problems dealing with Russia, is that while NATO can likely defeat Russia in a conventional military sense, Russia knows this and has alternatives. A key one being a nuclear response, in which there are no victors, just losers and perhaps those who manage to survive (they might in fact actually be the worst off of the lot). Then there is this form of hybrid warfare which they seem to have utilized in part of the conflict with Georgia, and certainly against the Ukraine. Then of course there is the cyber and information conflicts which has appeared.
Speaking of the cyber and information conflict, it appears that it impacted the US 2016 Presidential election at several levels. Early on, there were Russian-led efforts which impacted which candidate ended up being nominated for the Republican party at the national level. There were then more efforts directed at building up the candidate Russia had preferred from the Republican party, while also denigrating the Democratic party candidate, additional effort was also directed into influencing the confidence US citizens had in the electoral process. While the world does not know the entire scope of the effort, or the impact, it does appear quite clear that Russia managed to achieve at least some of their desired goals.
There has also been evidence that Russia is carrying out similar actions again EU and NATO members. The manufactured story about German troops raping an underaged Lithuanian girl while deployed for the NATO Exercise Hunter deployment comes to mind. As do the campaigns currently underway to influence German and French elections by building up the respective far-right national candidates and parties, while attempting to tear down, weaken, or otherwise damage their respective opponents. An EU or NATO that is filled with discord has a much more difficult time conducting a unified response to current or future Russian actions, be they overt, covert, or a hybrid.
This is the USA thread. USA has the biggest voice in the UN by far and the UN voted to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya in order to stop the army's operations against rebels. That's a de facto declaration of war. Maybe it was the right call to make, I won't say it's an error. But USA carries a big part of the responsibility.
Obama has admitted that the way the Gaddafi regime was toppled without any planning for the future was the
worst mistake of his presidency.
President Obama: Libya aftermath 'worst mistake' of presidency - BBC News
So I insist that USA has a burden with regards to Libya. Other countries, too. But we were focusing on USA.
The UNSC has five (5) permanent members, all with veto power. Any one of which could have exercised their veto and blocked the UN resolution authorized the no fly zone. Clearly, none did. Going further, three of those permanent UNSC members actually conducted combat operations against Libyan ground forces, being France, the UK, and the US. Again, France took action before the US did, since the US was reluctant to involve itself without there also being involvement by Mideast Arab states, with France also carrying out the largest number of overall strikes and sorties IIRC. Now I do believe that the US shares some responsibility, a shared responsibility is not at all what you posted about previously.
TSo USA needs to fix the mess it created. Libya is also USA's responsibility. You break it, you own it.
No mention, not even an allusion, to the involvement of other nations in the events which led up to the situation in Libya being what it currently is.
All of this still leads me to believe that you have an ignorant, shallow view. Being either unable, or unwilling, or perhaps both, so see the linkage between disparate causes and their near and long-term effects. More specifically, how the actions of an outside power, left unchecked, can impact how one lives.
