Heroes of Ukraine

«Market Leader» - news and previews making you rich.

Friday, 21 July 02:40 (GMT -05:00)

Business And Politics News

Information War Around Libya. Who Prevails: The West or Gaddafi?


On Monday, 21 March, a respectable British media outlet, The Independent, posted an editorial in its first column titled 'The West must be careful not to lose the propaganda war'. Its headline includes probably one of the most relevant problems facing now modern European and American policy-makers. Of course, it's all about members of an armed operation against Libya and their policies in North Africa.


What aspects do British journalists point out?


According to experts of the Land Association of Arab Countries within the Masterforex-V Academy, a number of aspects should be emphasized, including:
An asymmetric military campaign. The Independent quite fairly claims that the Libyan campaign, like any other war the west has recently been involved in, will be asymmetric. It means the English don't doubt that in in military respects the coalition is unquestionably stronger than Gaddafi's armed forces. Battlefield victory is guaranteed to the west given the knowing inequality of parties. The experience in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan provide reasons for such optimism. The Libyan Army is significantly inferior to the armed forced of Saddam's Iraq that Americans and Brits had practically no problems with in due time. The danger is of different nature, though: how can you win the information war? NATO staff has serious failures here.


For example, journalists remember that during the bombing of Yugoslavia back in 1999 Serbs told the entire world of numerous civilian casualties. This undermined the confidence of European citizens as to whether the decision made by NATO strategists was right because the west justified bombing by the idea of saving human lives. However, The Independent's reviewers believe that the main omission is that Belgrade was allowed to overstate peaceful casualties in its reports multifold. At that time the west only found clumsy excuses. This mistake cannot be repeated in Libya - that's one of the article's main conclusions.


Public controversies. Public controversies within different influential international organizations can become another important 'goof' in information warfare. For example, the discussion of bombing by UN Security Council member countries (Russia and China) as well as strongly-worded statements against them from representatives of the League of Arab States deprive the military campaign of a significant share of legitimacy.
Misunderstandings of the military coalition. The Independent's journalists regard possible misunderstandings within the coalition itself as another danger. No particular assumptions are made but anything can happen. It will suffice to remember how hastily many US allies were withdrawing from Iraq or how passively they act in Afghanistan. This does not apply to British soldiers, by the way.
Lack of any elementary military tactics. And, finally, there is a danger of an elementary lack of strategy in the west. In other words, starting the war, active coalition members hardly imagine how they will be finishing it. According to The Independent's reviewers, 'The West is making policy in an ad hoc manner'. This is an absolutely fair thing to say about the most important problem 'peacekeepers' face. This dilemma might eventually lead NATO to defeat.


How important is the information element of an armed conflict nowadays?

Whose side the global public opinion will be on means much more now than control over the territory or defeat of the enemy's armed forces. Resentment within or outside their own country might force the actual winner to leave the battlefield ignominiously. Now wars are waged from election to election time, a little group of terrorists can bring work and sacrifice of numerous armies to naught, while politicians put one signature to give away land that their ancestors shed a lot of blood for. And information offered under the right sauce can be more terrible than a bomb. Examples are at hand:
1. In 1950-1960s European countries (such as Great Britain, France, and Portugal) had to leave almost all their colonies because they were absolutely powerless in the face of public opinion.
2. For the same reason, the US lost the Vietnam War.
3. The USSR had to withdraw troops from Afghanistan because the policy of glasnost let people learn the whole truth about this war.
4. Israel was never defeated in the battlefield but during peaceful times was forced to give up almost all territories it had occupied because of tremendous pressure from the inside and the outside. The Second Lebanese War of 2006 became a classical example of how a winner could be easily turned into a victim once information is provided under the right sauce.
5. Russia lost the First Chechen War only because of separatists' victory in information warfare. An overhaul of information support of military operations allowed V. Putin to win the Second Chechen campaign.
6. Finally, the Georgian and Russian conflict of 2008 in Southern Ossetia. This is classics of propaganda. Information space battles were much bitterer than in the battlefield. Each party was quite successful in proving to the world that it fell victim to a treacherous attack.
7. If Gaddafi wants a chance to prevail over the awkward military machine of NATO, it should make hearts and minds of people around the world, rather than the Libyan Desert, the theater of operations.


How has information warfare been waged on Libya so far?


What does the west have to strike Gaddafi with?
• So far, all information support of the west's actions was spontaneous, not to say chaotic. Actions themselves were often unpredictable. Quite often they were not given an appropriate and, more importantly, timely explanation.
• At first, the west openly kept at a distance from the so-called Libyan revolution. All democratic media ranked it among similar events in Egypt and Libya. The only thing they made up was a hoax about Gaddafi's flight to Venezuela.
• When demonstrators were suddenly armed and started shaking submachine guns and standing on armored fighting vehicles to pose to western photo reporters it was announced that the army and the police were on the 'people's' side. In general, events followed a hackneyed scheme.
• When combat started in the country news agencies reported that Tripoli has almost been captured by the opposition and Gaddafi was about to be overthrown.
• However, after it took the 'written-off' Libyan dictator only a week to practically smash all rebels, the west had to respond urgently and what had happened had to be given an urgent explanation.
• This is what gave rise to few and quite awkward myths. For example, about:
- Gaddafi's air force that bombs peaceful cities (no shell holes were shown);
- Gaddafi's artillery which fires at peaceful demonstrations point-blank (nobody saw this but someone heard something that sounded like cannon shots);
- 50,000 African mercenaries who organized terror against Libyans (in fact, half the country's population is Negroidal);
- Israel which allegedly sent these mercenaries (this is clear - the desire to antagonize the Arab world against Gaddafi);
- blasts of oil reservoirs by the Colonel's people (Libyan oil industry operated almost without an interruption during the entire revolution);
- Gaddafi's son Saif who allegedly switched sides and joined the opposition (which the son himself denied right away);
- finally, the good old story about chemical weapons (but they were too shy to speak long about it).


The coalition is going to ensure its victory in information warfare by 'appropriately' working with the media, censorship introduced for reports from the theater of military operations, using electronic resources, primarily the internet.


The west's main mistake so far is that it failed to make Gaddafi look like 'a monster'. They didn't have enough time to develop the idea of thousands of freedom-loving citizens tortured to death, hostages taken, journalists kidnapped, terrorism supported, medieval customs and a lot of other stuff from Afghan or Iraqi practices. They weren't obviously prepared for this turn of events.


What does Gaddafi have to retort?


Unlike his opponents, the Libyan Colonel started accusing the west of organizing unrest in his country ever since it started. Subsequent events proved the old dictator right.
The Colonel's main success is that his forecasts came true. He said America was preparing an invasion, and this was the case later.
The Libyan leader quite reasonably expects sympathy from the larger part of humankind which doesn't like the US and their allies for some reason.
He is very good at choosing words and speaks of 'a crusade' to Muslims, 'injustice' and 'human rights' to Europeans, 'trampled sovereignty' to Russians and Chinese, 'al Qaeda' to Americans who support it in Libya, 'the holy war' on occupants to his compatriots.
Gaddafi is absolutely right in alternating belligerent speeches with tokens of goodwill, the prime example a truce after UN resolution or release of the Italian ship.
Some compromising materials, for example, about financial support of Nicolas Sarkozy's election campaign, will not be unnecessary for propaganda purposes.
Libyan reports on casualties among peaceful population also demoralize Europeans and Americans, making Arabs, on the other hand, resentful and mobilized.


Gaddafi's information victory depends now only on how staunch his followers are. The longer they keep it up, the more respect the world will have for their leader, while the coalition will forfeit even a hint at moral rights. If Gaddafi's advocates disperse like Hussein's soldiers this will mean that France, the US and others were right and the Colonel has no support among his people.


A survey at the traders’ forum: In your opinion, who is now prevailing in information warfare?
• The west.
• The Libyan leader.
• The Libyan opposition.


You are free to discuss this article here:   forum for traders and investors


Add to blog
Got a question? – Ask it here »

British Start Getting Disappointed with Brexit, Soros Says

Last year’s Brexit referendum has become a major challenge for the British government, George Soros says. He says that more and more British citizens start getting disappointed with the Brexit.


The world-famous financier and CEO of Soros Fund Management assumes that now the economic reality starts revealing the real state of affairs and debunk their delusions related to the happy living outside of the European Union. More than 12 months ago, the advocates of the Brexit scenario were trying to persuade people that this choice won’t affect people’s standards of living. Well, since then, the government has been trying to implement this promise at the expense of increasing the internal debt.
Publication date: 14 July 02:40 AM

Two Reasons Why Russia Keeps Losing Influence Over Post-Soviet States

After the USSR ceased to exist, the Kremlin was counting on retaining their influence in the region. However, the truth is that Russia as the major successor to the USSR has been losing its influence over the remaining post-soviet states. There are 2 reasons for that.


According to the related report recently published by private American analytic company Stratfor, there is a range of new tendencies making it difficult for Russia to stay influential in the post-soviet region, especially when it comes to Ukraine. The two major reasons for that are believed to be the declining role of the Russian language in the region as well as the existing threats of mass protest inside Russia itself.
Publication date: 06 July 01:42 PM

Business with China: New Reality after Blocking Yandex and VK in Ukraine

Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko has expanded the list of sanctions against individuals and legal entities from Russia. To be more specific, Ukraine imposed sanctions on several Russian online companies, including Yandex, which is Russia’s biggest IT company, as well as some other popular web services like VK, Odnoklassniki, and Mail.ru Group. According to the presidential decree, Ukrainian Internet providers are forbidden to grant access to those blacklisted websites.

Publication date: 06 July 01:13 AM

China Doesn’t Need Russian Gas and Pipelines

Don’t you remember how a couple of years ago Gazprom cut natural gas supplies to Ukraine a number of times. By the way, Ukraine alone used to buy 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas back then. Now Ukraine buys no natural gas form Russia at all. Apparently, Moscow keeps on looking for other outlets. There has been a lot of buzz about China as a new big outlet for Russian natural gas and crude oil. It turns out that two new pipelines should have transferred to China some 38 billion cubic meters of natural gas every year. Yet, this was the maximum amount, and it couldn’t clearly make up for the export of natural gas to Ukraine.

Publication date: 05 July 11:15 AM

Mass Media on Forthcoming Trump-Putin Meeting

For those of you who don’t know, the first official meeting between Donald trump and Vladimir Putin has been confirmed. It’s planned for July 7, during the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany.


Some observers say that the White House did the Kremlin a favor by being the first one confirming the official meeting during the G20 summit. This announcement helped the sided to get of the rumors around the situation and helped Moscow to save face in the Russian media space.
Publication date: 05 July 06:24 AM

Putin and Trump Part Ways

According to The Daily Telegraph observer Con Coughlin, even if Donald Trump used to seek ways to improve the relations with Russia, today he is probably going to really abandon this idea. The thing is that not so long ago, the U.S. hit a Syrian fight jet, the one belonging to Bashar Asad’s troop. Since Putin and Asad are allies, this fact is definitely going to affect the process of improving the U.S.-Russia relations, and probably suspend this process for the near future.
Publication date: 29 June 11:50 PM

What’s New in New Anti-Russia Sanctions?

Today, the Russian political establishment and media are glad that the Senate of the U.S. Congress has recently postponed their voting on new sanctions against Russia. However, this is just the so-called “calm before the storm”, Western experts say.


The new sanction mechanism developed by the Senate is fundamentally different from the sanctions imposed on Russia previously, under Obama’s administration. The experts say that unlike Obama’s isolated decrees, the Senate has come up with a whole new mechanism taking into consideration the whole seriousness of Russia’s crimes in the global geopolitical arena. This mechanism will prevent the U.S. authorities from being able to cancel those sanctions gradually. So, the only way out will boil down to Russia leaving Donbass, the Crimea and Syria. So, this will be the only opportunity for Russia to see the Western world cancel those sanctions.
Publication date: 26 June 01:26 AM

Fed Raises Key Interest Rate. How Will This Affect Russian Economy?

The federal Reserve has raised the key interest rate by 0,25%. According to international experts, this may well make foreign assets (including Russian ones) less attractive in terms of investing.


The decision was made as the result of the recent 2-day FOMC meeting. The interest rate was raised up to 1-1,25%. At the same time, it’s interesting to note that the actual decision matched expectations, both from the international expert community and financial markets.
Publication date: 20 June 05:12 AM

Why Did British People Punish Theresa May During Parliamentary Election?

During the recent parliamentary election in the UK, the British Conservatives failed to gain public support required to get the absolute majority in the British parliament. Now, the international expert community is discussing the reasons why Theresa May failed on her expectations.


Publication date: 20 June 03:09 AM

Why Does Trump Fail to Be a Good President?

As you probably know, the scandal around Donald Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director Comey is just one of the unpleasant incidents in his presidential career started in early 2017.


The truth of the matter is, after the investigation against Michael Flynn started, Donald Trump asked FBI Director Comey to let the investigation slide. While Director Comey didn’t dare object to President Trump openly, he didn’t do that. On the contrary, the investigation got even more intensive.
Publication date: 16 June 01:46 AM