What harm did France, Britain and the United States do to the international community by carrying out military strikes against Libya, a North African country?

Since the United States and Europe began to carry out military strikes against Libya, this Mediterranean coastal country immediately surpassed Japan's earthquake, tsunami and nuclear leakage crisis and became the focus of international public opinion. At present, the prospect of the Libyan war is still confusing, but this does not prevent us from analyzing some of its international influences. In particular, the following points should attract our attention.

1. To some extent, it has restrained the US strategic center of gravity from moving eastward, but this effect should not be exaggerated.

From the Gulf War in the early 1990s to the Iraq War in the early 20th century, and now to the Libyan conflict, the United States will go to war in the Middle East almost every ten years or so. Especially after "9. 1 1", American military action in the Islamic world made it invest huge strategic energy, and it still can't get rid of it completely.

It is agreed that "9. 1 1" is the obstacle to the eastward shift of the strategic focus of the United States. After Obama took office, facing the reality of the relative decline of American strength, he began to gradually shrink the front line and increase his strategic concern for East Asia.

This military attack on Libya can be said to be a hasty war between the United States and Europe in response to "accidents", rather than a pre-designed strategic step to shape the Middle East. The conflict has indeed disrupted the strategic adjustment plan of the United States to a certain extent, making North Africa and the Middle East once again the focus of American policy makers.

At present, the complexity of the situation in Libya far exceeds the expectations of the United States and Europe. The war is deadlocked and a political solution seems to be in the foreseeable future. Although the United States intends to turn behind the scenes, since the war has begun, it must put some energy into cleaning up this mess for quite some time. Therefore, the pace of the US strategic center of gravity moving eastward may slow down.

However, the Libyan conflict will not cause long-term and significant constraints on the strategic adjustment of the United States like the "9. 1 1" incident. The reasons are as follows: First, the United States has fully learned the lessons of the Iraq war and the Arab war. From the beginning of the military operation, the consciousness of avoiding military intervention was established, and France rushed to the front desk and handed over the command to NATO. At present, the United States only performs support tasks.

Second, Obama is well aware that the United States has no ability to shape the Middle East, and the tendency to reduce military intervention in the region is very obvious. In the future, the United States will mainly use diplomatic resources to deal with the chaos in Libya and the Middle East, and will not increase its military deployment in the region, so it will not have a major impact on the US military deployment in the western Pacific.

Third, the conflict in Libya is essentially different from the "9. 1 1" incident. Libya is not the Middle East country that the United States focuses on. The riots in Libya have little impact on the interests of the United States, especially on security interests. The American people will not be willing to pay too much for the interests of this democratic value, nor will they support the government's large-scale use of military force to implement Iraqi-style regime change in Libya.

At present, it seems that the decision-making level in the United States is still relatively sober and cannot overestimate the containment effect of this conflict on the United States.

2. Push Middle East countries and emerging countries closer together.

Although countries in the Middle East generally don't like Gaddafi, they are even more alarmed at the excessive use of military power by the US-European Coalition forces to support their opposition. Especially after the turmoil in many countries in the Middle East, the United States resolutely abandoned Mubarak, an "old friend of the American people", and let the Middle East countries see that at a critical moment, the usual strategic allies obviously could not resist the impulse of the United States and Europe to promote Western-style democratic values.

Tomahawk missiles not only destroyed Gaddafi's tanks, but also destroyed the trust of other centralized countries in the Middle East in the United States. The United States is obviously aware of this problem, and senior officials such as Secretary of Defense Gates have repeatedly visited Saudi Arabia and other countries to do appeasement work.

However, suppressing the opposition and stabilizing the political power are the top priority in the minds of the rulers of these countries. The arbitrary use of force by the United States and Europe beyond the authorization of the United Nations is tantamount to attacking the rulers of these Middle Eastern countries. They know that if the opposition in their own country creates riots under the banner of democracy, Americans will definitely turn their faces faster than turning pages and will not stand on their side at all. This kind of crack can't be eliminated by the visit of several senior officials.

In this case, the Middle East countries are likely to pursue a more independent and balanced all-round foreign policy, and pay special attention to developing relations with emerging countries that have always opposed military intervention. In addition, the new governments of Egypt, Tunisia and other countries are hardly as pro-American as Mubarak, if not anti-American. In this Islamic world, which has deep historical grievances with Christian countries and has a certain market for anti-American sentiment, democracy may not be conducive to safeguarding the interests of the United States.

Russia will benefit directly, but it is not conducive to the healthy development of the Russian economy.

Almost every turmoil in the Middle East will be a boon for Russia, a big energy producer. Oil and gas exports account for 70% of Russia's total exports, and the income from selling energy accounts for more than half of Russia's fiscal revenue. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Kudrin said at the beginning of last year that if the international oil price remained above $65 per barrel, Russia's annual economic growth could reach 3%, and if the oil price approached $80, Russia's economic growth could reach 5%.

At present, affected by the situation in the Middle East, international oil prices are soaring. Russia's oil production has now surpassed that of Saudi Arabia, and it is enjoying the huge economic benefits brought by high oil prices. The price of Ural crude oil, Russia's main export commodity, has increased by 24% compared with the beginning of the year.

However, how long high oil prices can last is still unknown. Moreover, high oil prices are also a double-edged sword for Russia. Short-term considerable benefits will seriously weaken its motivation to change its economic development model and make it addicted to this convenient way of making money, which is not conducive to the healthy development of Russian economy in the long run.

4. Iran and North Korea's hope of abandoning nuclear weapons is even more bleak, and the trend of nuclear proliferation is even more difficult to contain.

In 2003, the United States relied on the threat of the Iraq war, compensated for economic and political interests, and forced Libya to voluntarily give up weapons of mass destruction through coercion and inducement, which became a successful case in American non-proliferation efforts and was once called the "Libya model".

This peaceful way of abandoning nuclear weapons has made many people full of confidence in the prospect of non-proliferation and believes that it can be used as a model to persuade other countries to give up developing nuclear weapons. However, the United States has now smashed this model that it has cultivated with bombs. It is because everyone knows that Gaddafi is now a toothless tiger that he dares to rush in.

This incident once again "educated" Iran, North Korea and other countries, and made them see the terrible consequences of listening to the West's "abandonment of arms". In the future negotiations on the nuclear issue, any assurances and words of the United States will become even paler. In addition, Iran has temporarily gained a breathing space for the United States and Europe to rectify Libya, which is probably a rare strategic opportunity for Iran on the road to nuclear support.

PS: I hope it helps you.