AU proposes Ceasefire, NATO protects Misrata, Ajdabiya

NATO finally seemed to get its act together on Sunday, striking multiple Qaddafi tanks at Misrata and Ajdabiya and allowing the rebels to hang on in each place.

At Twitter we read, “@feb17voices: LPC #Misrata: No casualties from intense attack by Gaddafi forces but extensive damage to steel factory area, gas storage tanks. #Libya”. I think a lot of people did not know that there is a steel factory in Misrata, nor that a lot of the
‘rebels’ against Qaddafi in that city are workers. And now the regime is spitefully destroying their livelihood and bombarding their families. (@feb17voices is an innovative technology that lets Libyans with telephone access phone in their tweets, run by John Scott-Railton, who did the same thing for Egyptians when the regime cut off their internet.)

At the same time, three leaders from the African Union arrived for talks in Tripoli, and Qaddafi said at least that he accepted their proposals. The AU team will now go on to Benghazi for talks with the Transitional Governing Council, which has in the past rejected any plan that leaves Qaddafi or his sons in power.

Aljazeera English has video

The problem with having the AU mediate is that the leaders chosen are not viewed by the rebels as honest brokers.

While the world has not been paying attention, Qaddafi has been using his oil wealth (and I do mean ‘his’) to peddle influence in Africa, to gain the loyalty of it leaders, and to intervene militarily.

It is so ironic that critics of the UN intervention in Libya keep asking why there was no such humanitarian mission in Darfur in the Sudan, where separatists among the black African Fur people have been massacred by Arabic-speaking black Africans loyal to Khartoum. But it was Qaddafi’s disastrous interventions in Chad and the Sudan that initiated that bloodbath. The contemporary Darfur problem started in 1987 when some Arabic-speaking militiamen from Chad, who had been armed by Qaddafi, established a base over the border in Darfur. They were the precursors of the Janjawid. Qaddafi, ever the regional imperialist and spoiler, had used his oil billions to fill the continent with armed mercenaries and guerrillas, whom he used to widen his control. He spent fruitless years trying to take over his southern neighbor, Chad, the northern part of which his troops brutally occupied for years.

Far away from his own territory, Qaddafi spread terror through his terrorist training camp, the World Revolutionary Center. Out of it came a cadre of coup- and war-makers hungry for blood diamonds, including Charles Taylor of Liberia and Foday Sankoh of Sierra Leone. Qaddafi and Taylor intervened in the Sierra Leone war. Hundreds of thousands were killed in these conflicts provoked in part by Qaddafi’s ambitious attempt to foster a generation of authoritarian, reactionary revolutionaries in his own mold, who would be his clients. Having billions in oil money allowed him to undermine security and to play favorites in West African politics.

Qaddafi pays 15% of the expenses of the African Union and essentially has many African leaders on retainer.

Qaddafi came out strongly against the revolution against Zine El Abedine Ben Ali in Tunisia. It seems certain that if he could get back into power and regain his riches, Qaddafi would try to undermine the outbreak of unwelcome democracy and a rule of law in Tunisia, his neighbor, and he has fingers into Egypt, as well. The terminally naive supporters of this billionaire serial murderer and his billionaire playboy sons who are firing indiscriminately on civilians said that no, Qaddafi would never do anything like that. What do they think he has been up to in Africa for the past 30 years? If he can be gotten out of power and the Benghazi government can establish a parliamentary system, not only Libya but all Africa will have achieved a great step forward.

The headlines are that Qaddafi has accepted the AU offer of a ceasefire and peacekeeping forces. It would be all to the good if he recalled his tanks and artillery and stopped hitting out indiscriminately at civilians in his cities. It is easier to get to peace from a ceasefire than from active war. Qaddafi’s bloodstained past and many murders require that UN allies in NATO and Arab League exercise the utmost vigilance that he is not just using the diplomacy as a cover to expand his territory and kill more people.

PS Aljazeera English reports on the stormy reception of the AU leaders in Benghazi on Monday:

30 Responses

  1. “The problem with having the AU mediate is that the leaders chosen are not viewed by the rebels as honest brokers.”

    I’ve no idea which African leaders the rebels would accept as “honest brokers”, perhaps you can suggest who they might be.

    The AU seems incapable of doing anything much about anything, Côte d’Ivoire, Zimbabwe, Dafur, Somalia, the Lords Resistance Army etc etc.

    It’ll probably be up to the Italians & French to sort out, with the assistance of Turks and Saudis. The Egyptians seem to be inflicted with paralysis, anyway they wouldn’t do anything without approval of the US Joint Chiefs.

  2. A fair post. You say:
    The problem with having the AU mediate is that the leaders chosen are not viewed by the rebels as honest brokers.

    True enough, but neither the US, NATO or the UN are “honest brokers” either. They are backing their favored side in a civil war, claiming to “protect civilians,” while arming, supplying and providing air support for one set of civilians to take power from another set of civilians who support the regime. THe African leaders though seem to conveniently forget the history of mischief and turmoil Ghadaffi has wrought on the continent, in such places as Chad for example. Still that doesnt mean they must necessarily fall in line with the US/NATO civil war venture. There are many alternatives to resolving the conflict.

    You also say:
    The contemporary Darfur problem started in 1987 when some Arabic-speaking militiamen from Chad, who had been armed by Qaddafi, established a base over the border in Darfur. They were the precursors of the Janjawid.

    Actually this may be a bit misleading. The Chadian rebel leader who established his base in Darfur in the early 1980s, Habre, was actually an OPPONENT of the Libyans, and indeed used Darfur as a raiding base and sanctuary in his clashes with Qadaffi’s troops in the early 1980s. The current Darfur problem did not begin with Qaddafi armanents. The region has had long-standing conflicts, and political clashes. Darfur itself has had numerous seething political problems involving the tribal Foor (Fur), Zaghawa, Berti, Bedeiyat, versus the riverine Arabs, etc. Ghadaffi meddled in these and have added fuel to the fires, but it is misleading to say the problem began with him.

    Nevertheless, perhaps the US etc should forcefully point out the history of Ghadaffi’s sinister and deadly meddling in Chad and the turmoil of the Sudan, including his support of Arabism in Africa, instead of relying on the thin gruel of “civilian protection.”

    See detailed histories such as Darfur: the long road to disaster. By Millard Burr, Robert O. Collins.

    I carry no brief for the Libyan despot by the way. The air campaign in a sense is his “just desserts” as I note in my blog. Nevertheless euphoric claims of quick victory by some on the Internet overlook the fact that he can drag out his regime a much longer time than a few weeks if he is resolute enough.
    link to nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com

  3. Sorry, but I did not quite get your take on the ceasefire proposal: do you think that the Coalition and the TNC should accept it or reject it? For rejecting it means continuing the war in Libya and commitment to pushing Qaddafi out of power.

    We need not discuss the desirability of Qaddafi’s immediate and complete exit as it needs no defense. Alas, how is that supposed to happen, given the obvious inability of the rebels to defeat Qaddafi’s forces, even with the aerial firepower of the Coalition?

    You should tell us whether you want that fighting in Libya continues until Gaddafi finally loses his arms, money and fighters, at the expense of thousands of civilian deaths that will inevitably follow from continued fighting. Or do you want occupation army of the Coalition to overthrow Qaddafi? For, as things now stand, there are no other alternatives than these two.

      • Juan, thanks for clarifying as I was not sure whether your last paragraph meant that you support the ceasefire, as unambiguously stated in the UNSC Resolution 1973:

        “Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
        1. Demands the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end
        to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;”

        or whether you wanted to make the retreat of Gaddafi’s forces from cities such as Misrata, Az Zawiyah or Zintan, as a condition for the ceasefire. Now I know that you expect that Coalition (and ultimately UN) will make sure that Gaddafi really obeys the UNSCR 1973 and its reincarnation in OAU’s roadmap and that you support such a ceasefire.

        Alas, as I am writing this, I already know that the TNC has rejected OAU’s roadmap and also the ceasefire. For me, this is a complete disaster that will strengthen Gaddafi’s position immeasurably. Would you agree with me on this?

  4. “NATO…gets its act together”

    Sun Tzu wrote that to defeat an opponent, the opponent’s strategy must be defeated. From this point of view, much of the NATO air campaign has been incomplete and inept. Gadaffi’s strategy relies on superior mobile armaments and resupply of ammunition and fuel to the mobile armament, as well as for the troops and their movement. If NATO makes it impossible for him to fuel and supply his forces, they will implode.

    To date, NATO hasn’t pursued such a strategy.

    The most recent NATO communique mentions attacks on “logistics” and the destruction of arms depots. An expansion of this strategy will yield better and much more rapid results that the strategically uniformed MSM can presently conceive. Let’s see if it happens.

  5. “NATO…gets its act together”

    Sun Tzu wrote that to defeat an opponent, the opponent’s strategy must be defeated. From this point of view, much of the NATO air campaign has been incomplete and inept. Gadaffi’s strategy relies on superior mobile armaments and resupply of ammunition and fuel to the mobile armament, as well as for the troops and their movement. If NATO makes it impossible for him to fuel and supply his forces, they will implode.

    To date, NATO hasn’t pursued such a strategy.

    The most recent NATO communique mentions attacks on “logistics” and the destruction of arms depots. An expansion of this strategy will yield better and much more rapid results that the strategically uninformed MSM can presently conceive. Let’s see if it happens.

    • From NATO, 4/12, the strategic and tactical changes that are likely to undermine and topple Gaddafi continue:

      “One of the strikes last night focused on
      an ammunition bunker,” said Lieutenant
      General Charles Bouchard, Commander of
      Operation Unified Protector. “We will
      continue to strike at the Regime’s supplies
      and supply lines and reduce their ability to
      fight.”

  6. “The problem with having the AU mediate is that the leaders chosen are not viewed by the rebels as honest brokers.”

    As opposed to how Qaddafi views the US/UK/Fr as honest brokers? If Zuma along with the AU are unacceptable, do you think the African states have any role to play in what happens in Africa? Or is it only the US/UK/Fr that should determine what is going to occur?

    The reality is that the US/UK/Fr have taken a side in a civil war. A civil war where are no ‘good guys'(link to independent.co.uk). UNSCR 1973 does not mandate regime change, only a ceasefire and negotiated settlement. If Qaddafi actually follows the ceasefire and the rebels do not, it will be the rebels who are in defiance of UNSCR 1973. Is there any chance the US/UK/Fr will bomb the rebels? The US/UK/Fr will only accept regime change and are therefore acting working against what UNSCR 1973 allows.

  7. Before the conflict, I never saw anything in the Western / Israeli media that would challenge Gaddafi’s role in the obscure African conflicts. His involvement in Chad and Sudan was taken philosophically, as yet another bizarre political experiment that ended without any results.

    In 2009, after Obama came to power, the tone of US coverage of Gaddafi changed. Now, looking backwards, we see that his deal with Bush II has been reconsidered by the new administration.

    It was especially noticeable during his visit to NYC in 2009. Back then, it was mostly about his brand tent, but certainly not about his role in Sudan and Chad.

    So, it would be really interesting to find any period references in the Western media that would prove that not only Lockerbie was taken as Gaddafi’s aid to terrorism.

    What was little known before the current Libyan conflict is the actual meaning of Gaddafi’s joining the fight against Alqueda. Now it is clear that Bush II greatly valued his role in the E.Libya, his suppression the Islamist insurgents there.

    So, what happened is that Obama shifted on this, as he did on quite a lot of things, while Gaddafi is simply using the old language.

    Further, current rants on Gaddafi’s support of terrorism in Africa can mean the long awaited redefinition of terrorism and retiring the old concept of fighting Alqueda. This makes lots of sense because there are indications that Alqueda whatever it is has influence among the “pro-democratic” rebels.

    [Far away from his own territory, Qaddafi spread terror through his terrorist training camp, the World Revolutionary Center.]

    This language is unmistakably Safirean. Late William Safire used quite a lot of rhetorics like this when “Global War on Terror” has been initially defined. Apparently, the Obama admin is currently working on War on Terror 2.0!

    • “[Far away from his own territory, Qaddafi spread terror through his terrorist training camp, the World Revolutionary Center.]

      This language is unmistakably Safirean.”

      Is it false? I’d be far more interested in the answer to that question. True statements and false statements both use language, yes, but that’s not really the point.

  8. I want to thank you Juan for this information about Al-Qadhafi. I was not aware of the extent of his malicious interference. The world is sure a screwed up place, and I hope some day we can make progress toward a free enterprise (non-corporation), democracy in every country. So people can get on with optimizing their lives.

  9. Paul Krugman makes everything clear about Obama’s economic policy. It is even more true regarding his foreign course:

    I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, he’s using it to reinforce his enemies’ narrative: link to nytimes.com

  10. Is it being suggested that the AU wasn’t in Darfur (Sudan)?

    It was part of the United Nations mission there. Its representatives did in fact participate in the negotiations which actually led to the (at least formal so far) *independence* of Southern Sudan.

    It was a conflict which pretty much everyone working on the ground to help aid those under attack agreed would be massively worsened — a horrible situation, yes, can be made worse — by military intervention from abroad.

    The UN / AU peacekeeping mission was UNAMID.

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    Before that, the AU reached up to 7,000 peacekeepers (AMIS). Their forces were the only ones there, and were backed by the UN, until the UN-AU mission (UNAMID).

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    The 2006 Sudan peace agreements were guided by the African Union, and it was the AU setting the deadlines.

    link to articles.cnn.com

    As a matter of fact, one of the main barriers to more effective action by the AU was the *lack of logistical support by the Western powers which had been promised*.

    AU involvement wasn’t particularly effective, but then, neither was anything else in any short term. I’m not exactly sure, then, what the suggestions I’ve heard by many about the AU in Darfur mean.

    None of this is to suggest a self-interested approach by the member nations with regard to Qaddafi at present. Though of course given the history of civil wars in the area — yes, massively boosted by Qaddafi’s backing of various disgusting rebel forces — many in the region are nervous about the likelihood of a disintegrative civil war. AKA Chad’s near result.

    Also it’s odd to hear people describing the turn of Qaddafi’s forces as well as the rebels resorting to pickups with mounted weapons, as this was famously the most significant larger weapon in the Chadian war.

    • “Is it being suggested that the AU wasn’t in Darfur (Sudan)?”

      I don’t see any such suggestion from Cole. I’m not sure what your term “suggestions I’ve heard by many about the AU in Darfur” refers to. Is this something you’ve seen come up in discussions about Libya somewhere?

      And ditto on the western media’s recent discovery of technicals.

      • I didn’t say that Cole said it. Here’s the quote:

        “It is so ironic that critics of the UN intervention in Libya keep asking why there was no such humanitarian mission in Darfur in the Sudan, where separatists among the black African Fur people have been massacred by Arabic-speaking black Africans loyal to Khartoum.”

        Clearly there is the suggestion that there are critics of the UN intervention who wonder why there was no such humanitarian mission in ‘Darfur’.

        Now, in the minimalist interpretation, this refers to the sarcastic use of the phrase “humanitarian mission,” meaning the military attack* on Qaddafi’s forces based upon threats to civilian lives given the already demonstrated and systematic state-based slaughter of hundreds to thousands.

        But the asking of the question that way suggests that said critics are unaware of an AU involvement, above and beyond its lack of aerial attack. Which, again, thankfully didn’t happen, because it was a terrible and impulsive idea.

        I’m pretty sure that most non-critics would be unaware of the AU’s activities in Darfur themselves. I know for certain that at the time the AU was begging for logistical support to help the one actual force there, they were the recipients of tokens from the West and completely ignored by the loud pundit population and various activist groups who were too busy thinking that serious action in this case had to consist of Western military actions.

        * This phrase is not a term of evaluation of the UN / US-UK-FR actions in Libya.

  11. Oops. Above when I wrote:

    “None of this is to suggest a self-interested approach by the member nations with regard to Qaddafi at present.”

    I mean the opposite. I.e., ‘none of this *isn’t* to suggest’ etc. Meaning the AU member states — just like the UN member states, since there really isn’t an “AU” or “UN” outside its leading member states — will approach any Libya deal with their own government’s interests re Qaddafi.

  12. I want the Libyan people to be free of tyranny. Really I want the current Libyan government to be turned from every office, and I deeply appreciate how much you are teaching about this tragedy. I am however so conflicted about war in general and this war no matter the humanitarian naming.

  13. Despite NATO somewhat organizing itself better, are they willing to go “all in”? As a comment mentioned above, there is no honest broker in this situation. NATO has taken a side in a civil war, and unless they are willing to increase arms and troops to topple Qaddafi, there is no way that the rebels can prevail.

  14. I was not aware of Qhuaddafy’s History in formenting trouble in Sudan.
    I still do not support intervention by the US or NATO in this conflict.
    Are they suppossed to be any less dispicable than Quahddafi?
    So if Quadhaffi has bought himself influence in the African Union the world is stuck with a situation in which has no clear good guys, there are clear bad guys, the US and NATO and Quaddafi, and there are foggy guys, the Lybian rebels.
    This most definately would not be a case for US intervention if the US had rulers that were intent on ruling for the benifit of the general welfare. That is clear not only from a left wing perspective but also from a libertarian perpective and also a paleoconservative perspective.

  15. If he can be gotten out of power and the Benghazi government can establish a parliamentary system, not only Libya but all Africa will have achieved a great step forward.

    Oh, everybody knew that six weeks ago. Everyone was cheering on the latest group of brave protesters aiming to topple their dictator, just like in Egypt and Tunisia.

    But then, they had the terribly poor taste to find themselves being slaughtered by their dictator, and have the temerity to fight back and ask for help from the democratic nations of the world so they wouldn’t die by the five- or six-figures. That’s when the “anti-imperialists” decided that, no, actually, those protesters are skeery al Qaeda Mooslims, and we certainly don’t like that sort of ruffian.

  16. “The kids who are graduating into the 2011 job market are never going to have the lives they should have had,” says economist Paul Krugman in this video. A grim outlook for the next generation of America’s workforce. link to f4a.tv

  17. Juan,

    You refer to ‘critics of the UN intervention in Libya keep asking why there was no such humanitarian mission in Darfur in the Sudan’. Leaving aside my own opinion (the west should stay out of both Libyan and Sudanese affairs), who are these critics? I admit to not paying much attention to the so-called ‘liberal blogosphere’, but this is an argument I hadn’t previously heard.

    John

    • You refer to ‘critics of the UN intervention in Libya keep asking why there was no such humanitarian mission in Darfur in the Sudan’. Leaving aside my own opinion (the west should stay out of both Libyan and Sudanese affairs), who are these critics? I admit to not paying much attention to the so-called ‘liberal blogosphere’, but this is an argument I hadn’t previously heard.

      It is actually a quite common argument. The latest iteration
      by a media prominent personality is by Nation of Islam Loius Farakhan. But it shows up on numerous black-oriented websites.
      See for example:
      http://www.egyptsearch.com

      SHERM asked:
      <b.Is the term “loyalist” still an accurate characterization of the forces fighting the rebels?

      The fact that these forces are fighting and persevering against the rebels in the face of total NATO air superiority, and immense firepower, must indicate a certain degree of patriotism, other than pure fealty to Qaddafi.

      Indeed. While I would shed no tears at a Ghadaffi exit, the media “spin” on the story, echoes US/NATO “spin” – on this side the forces of righteous democratization, and on that side, evil dicatorism… etc etc

      Another element of the “spin” are alleged “debates” on “whether to arm the rebels.” This is laughable. The rebels are ALREADY well armed. Just a week ago they were employing tanks. And the US/NATO intervention has allowed said rebels unfettered access to captured/abandoned regime weaponry beyond the usual rifles and grenades, unfettered access to ships that bring in arms to said rebels, and unfettered access to oil exports to buy even more weapons, PLUS free intelligence data, free logistical support, free Special Forces/CIA advisers on the ground to train rebels in use of the weapons and direct air-strike targeting, and free flying artillery overhead. Al Qaeda operatives have also reaped a weaponry bonanza. Proclamations by NATO talking heads about “ruling out” arming the rebels, as if they were semi-pious, disinterested “honest brokers,” are not even good fiction.

      would think that when soldiers in the anti-rebel forces see there comrades blown to bits by NATO, and keep on fighting, coupled with tribal and regional antagonism toward the rebels of the east, there many be enough animosity generated to keep the civil war going even if Qaddafi steps down.

      Sure. Even if Ghadaffi exits, the conflict may drag on in the form of some sort of civil war with Al Qaeda operatives gaining fresh weaponry, fresh bases and fresh recruits to continue attacks on Americans elsewhere.

      Isn’t it a bit arrogant for the rebels to make non-negotiable demands that can only be backed up by having the NATO forces decisively defeating the Qaddafi regime? Accepting that Qaddafi is a tyrant deserving of being tossed in a cauldron of molten lead, and the rebels are the essence of free market, egalitarian, democracy, I doubt that NATO(-US) will decide to accept that mission.

      You are not eating up media spin I see. But US/NATO has already committed their prestige to a Ghadaffi ouster. Every day the dictator remains in power is a profound embarrassment. You can bet that behind the scenes furious plans are being laid for more military pressure. One indication is the revelation recently that US planes have
      still been flying and bombing targets in Libya despite “spin” by the Obama Admin re a fictional American “pull back.” Allegedly the airstrikes were against Libyan radar- thin gruel indeed, but also interesting is bombing of “regime command and control centers” – which can be a euphemism for anything from a bunker, to a government building full of clerks processing the Libyan version of social security checks – it’ can be all “regime command and control.” Maybe their social security system is more solvent than ours. Still if resolute enough, Ghadaffi and/or his family successors can fight on for quite a while. On my blog I detail six potential counter-tactics they can use. Hopefully it will not come to this, but there are already signs that the loyalist forces are moving in the direction of a long stalemate. Still it is quite possible that Ghadaffi may fold before long.

      6 possible counter-tactics
      link to nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com

  18. “While the world has not been paying attention, Qaddafi has been using his oil wealth (and I do mean ‘his’) to peddle influence in Africa, to gain the loyalty of it leaders, and to intervene militarily.”

    It isn’t clear who you mean by “the world.” Robert Fisk, a very well known reporter for The Guardian, among others has been consistently criticizing Qaddafi and other tyrants for years. You seem to be burning a straw man, rather than acknowledging that there are many with highly informed and nuanced understandings of the ME and North Africa who do not trust the US/NATO/Gulf Medieval Monarchy approach to bombing Libya.

    “It is so ironic that critics of the UN intervention in Libya keep asking why there was no such humanitarian mission in Darfur in the Sudan, where separatists among the black African Fur people have been massacred by Arabic-speaking black Africans loyal to Khartoum.”

    The irony (or lack of it) still doesn’t answer the question, Dr. Cole.

    “Far away from his own territory, Qaddafi spread terror through his terrorist training camp, the World Revolutionary Center. Out of it came a cadre of coup- and war-makers hungry for blood diamonds, including Charles Taylor of Liberia and Foday Sankoh of Sierra Leone.”

    What has the US/NATO done in regard to these regimes? Are their hands clean and shiny?

    What is US/NATO doing to promote democracy in the Gulf Medieval Monarchies?

    Who really are the “honest brokers,” Dr. Cole?

  19. Seems to me there are no obvious answers as to how to intervene. I think NATO’s attempts to nudge the rebels to victory are likely appropriate, but that the Western involvement should remain confined to such goals. I think right now it’s also clear that NATO intervention is not enough to ensure rebel victory and that the real plan is to give Gaddafi’s generals more opportunity to defect. I’m unclear at this point as to how a ceasefire would help Libya, unless the end-goal is dividing it into East and West. And if divided into East and West, my feeling is that will only delay future violent conflict, not prevent it. I do think at this point Gaddafi is not seeking any transfer of power to anyone and that he meant what he said when he claimed he would fight until the end.

  20. Is the term “loyalist” still an accurate characterization of the forces fighting the rebels?

    The fact that these forces are fighting and persevering against the rebels in the face of total NATO air superiority, and immense firepower, must indicate a certain degree of patriotism, other than pure fealty to Qaddafi.

    I would think that when soldiers in the anti-rebel forces see there comrades blown to bits by NATO, and keep on fighting, coupled with tribal and regional antagonism toward the rebels of the east, there many be enough animosity generated to keep the civil war going even if Qaddafi steps down.

    Isn’t it a bit arrogant for the rebels to make non-negotiable demands that can only be backed up by having the NATO forces decisively defeating the Qaddafi regime? Accepting that Qaddafi is a tyrant deserving of being tossed in a cauldron of molten lead, and the rebels are the essence of free market, egalitarian, democracy, I doubt that NATO(-US) will decide to accept that mission.

Comments are closed.