The Washington Post: America on the sidelines in Libya and Russia is continuing to expand its influence

The Washington Post said the absence of the US leadership in Libya deepened a serious international confrontation and allowed the "proxy war" taking place there to threaten Washington's economic and security interests, in exchange for giving Russia a new platform to expand its influence in the Mediterranean basin.

The newspaper emphasized that the US position "on the sidelines" and the uncertainty about which parties are actually backed by Washington have brought the Libyan conflict into a new phase, with all the intervention parties - led by Russia, Egypt and Turkey - keen on feeding the war with more weapons and fighters.

And she saw that Libya has turned over the past few months into an open battleground between regional and European powers, many of whom are allies of Washington, who have intervened to fill the political and security void by supporting one of the parties to the conflict: the internationally recognized national reconciliation government in Tripoli, or the retired Major General Khalifa Haftar’s camp in the east. Libyan.

Deepening the crack

The conflict that has persisted since April 2019 has deepened the rift between members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), while the flow of mercenaries from Russia, Syria and Sub-Saharan Africa continues because everyone senses the economic opportunities that the country offers.

The newspaper stresses that the current situation in Libya is the product of "indiscriminate engagement" of President Donald Trump's administration in foreign policy files, especially after Trump announced last year his support for retired Major General Khalifa Hifter.

But after US military officials sounded the alarm about Russia's deployment of weapons and troops to the region, the Trump administration has called in recent weeks for a halt to combat operations during talks with leaders of Egypt, Turkey and France.

And the newspaper believes that the "chaotic situation" in the Libyan arena indicates that Washington has limited - through its commitment to the arms embargo - from its ability to shape the future of this country.

She also stressed that the Libyan file does not seem to be among the priorities of the White House at present, as President Trump focuses on major issues, including China and Iran, and his administration is also concerned with internal issues, most notably the emerging crisis of the Corona epidemic and the looming presidential elections.

The newspaper believes that this data is not a new thing, since since Washington helped NATO to remove the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, it limited its participation in Libya, and looked at this oil-producing African country mainly from the perspective of fighting terrorism, opening the way for European actors To take command.

On the other hand, the Washington Post saw that the Libyan conflict witnessed a dangerous turn since last May when Russia sent advanced combat aircraft and brought in large firepower and deployed mercenaries from the Wagner Company linked to the Kremlin to support Haftar who failed to shoot down Tripoli militarily.

And considered that what motivated the Russians - besides Turkey - to interfere in the Libyan conflict are the economic opportunities that this country offers as one of the major oil producing countries in the world, and given its strategic location close to Europe.

Conflict and peace

The newspaper quotes Admiral Heidi Berg, the chief intelligence officer of the US military in Africa (AFRICOM), as saying that Moscow "is always trying to show itself as a peace broker in Libya while fueling the conflict behind the scenes, as it did - according to US officials - In Ukraine, Sudan and the Central African Republic. "

And he adds, "This matter shows what Moscow has always sought, which is to have a consideration in the international arena and the ability to impose costs on the international community ... that is, it wants to be the most controlling party at the negotiating table."

The paper concludes that the Trump administration is unlikely to significantly increase its involvement in the Libyan conflict - despite the threats posed by Washington's current position - as it will remain, as previously announced, adhering to the policy of reducing interference in external conflicts even in places where Washington's interests are clearly evident.

Even if Washington adopts a more active role in Libya, she asks, what can it do at a stage when other countries have demonstrated their clear willingness to use military force?