The transition of command for the military operation in Libya from loosely-modeled “coalition of will” made of ambitious quarreling partners to tightly-structured North Atlantic Treaty Organization, though described by US Democrat Dennis Kucinich as “sleight-of-hand-over to NATO”, in reality marks another dramatic turnaround in the Libya saga.

With the rebel ragtag army’s counter-offensive retaking territory lost to Gaddafi at the initial stage of the war, there is more evidence that after weeks of fierce fighting the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. And this time there seems to be no way back, no more chances for Colonel Gaddafi’s miraculous return, no matter how long the “hot stage” of the conflict continues.

The question of who will finally win in combat – rebels, poorly-equipped, inexperienced and disorganized, but encouraged by the intervention of the world’s most powerful military machine, or now retreating pro-government forces – now sounds obsolete, at least to me. However, what is at stake today is not only Libyan leadership, the lives of civilians and control of Libyan oil, as many think. The stake is much higher and is not directly related to Libya. By taking control of the mission, the 28-member alliance entered a minefield, or a game of Russian roulette, if you wish.

For the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which found itself in the grip of severe “identity crisis” after the end of the Cold War, aggravated by the current mess in Afghanistan, Libya could turn out to be either the last nail in the coffin or a wonder drug, bringing the ageing and unhelpful alliance back to life. And the outcome of this do-or-die test would largely depend on the timing and manner of Gaddafi’s departure and on who wins the other war which is already in full swing – the global information war over Libya.

Nowadays, information warfare is as important as the classical one – sometimes it is even more powerful. Don’t let us forget it.

Symbolically, the military operation in Libya, now formally placed under the responsibility of the alliance, comes less than five months after NATO’s “historical” Lisbon summit which spelled out its new security doctrine aimed at overcoming an “identity crisis”, revamping NATO’s priorities and formulating the cornerstone idea of its post-Cold War existence. As Dmitry Polikanov, Vice President of PIR-Center, a Russian think-tank, rightly put in “Kommersant” daily, the “Libyan operation comes as the first serious test for NATO after its new military doctrine was rubber-stamped in Lisbon”.

It is an open secret that anything related to NATO’s activities becomes a politically highly-charged issue. Few analysts refrain from taking sides and present an objective and unbiased view of NATO – neither sliding into anti-NATO paranoia, nor hailing it as “a liberation force carrying high the torch of democracy”. Those who expect me to “spit in the face of aggressor” would be disappointed – these days there is no dearth of spitters, so why should I join the crowd? Nor do I buy the idea that NATO’s sole goal in Libya is to protect civilians from Colonel Gaddafi’s cut-throats. As I see it, in Libya, NATO will definitely follow its own hidden agenda, which has very little in common with officially proclaimed goals.

Let me elaborate on that. First, Libya in its present shape is not a “terra incognita” for NATO, but a very real challenge to NATO member-states’ security which can be jeopardized in many ways if the conflict takes a long time. Just imagine: hundreds of thousands of potential refugees from the region, seeking shelter in Europe, threat of humanitarian catastrophe, disruption of oil and gas supplies, etc. Therefore, I presume that one of the key points in NATO’s Libya agenda is the speediest possible settling of the conflict and ensuring a smooth transition of power.

Second, for NATO Libya is providing a chance to test its transatlantic solidarity, to boost “team spirit”, which has largely eroded, if not totally evaporated due to a number of reasons, including rift between “old guard” and newcomers from the former Eastern bloc and collision of “different groups of interests” inside NATO. Moreover, it is a test of NATO’s ability to take collective decisions, share responsibility and finally show that it can act as a global fire brigade. I remember a joke about NATO, privately traded by a British defense analyst at a security conference in the UK a few years ago. “Do you know how we identify NATO?”, he asked me with a cunning smile. “It is not what you think. NATO means “No Action Talk Only”. Or “North Atlantic Travel Office”, whatever you like more.

So, in this respect, the Libyan operation is a chance to show that NATO is neither a talk show, nor a travel club for its top bureaucracy.

Third, the Libyan operation is also an attempt to show that the NATO alliance is not a “one-man show”, dominated and controlled by the American giant while Europeans are dependent passive onlookers.

And finally, the very fact that in Libya NATO acts with the mandate of the UN Security Council resolution, which sanctioned use of force to enforce a no-fly zone, is seen as an instrument to show the “new face” of NATO, which after the Balkan war is commonly labeled as the “world policeman”.

However, the scenario of NATO’s rejuvenation in Libya looks too good to be true. There are too many “big buts” which make it extremely difficult for the alliance to implement its goals, while not spoiling its image even more. NATO would definitely score points in Libya only if its mission is brief, if it is restricted to air strikes without land operation and if it brings the quick fall of the Gaddafi regime.

The other problem is how to avoid the loss of civilian lives which would become a major factor in the information war.

And finally, the most difficult thing for NATO would be to prove that the alliance really is not taking sides in the conflict.

This problem has already been underlined by Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov who noted that while the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 had sanctioned use of force to enforce a no-fly zone it had not authorized the alliance to interfere in the internal strife of the country. "Here we see obvious contradictions. We believe that the interference of the coalition in the internal civil war is not sanctioned by the UNSC resolution," Lavrov said, warning NATO partners that fair play is fair play and NATO by no means should side with the anti-Gaddafi rebels. Lavrov also underscored that protection of the civilian population in Libya, which prompted the adoption of the UNSC Resolution 1973 "remains the priority" and that the "resolution contains no other goals".

But there are strong doubts about NATO being geared for a big clear win in Libya, not marred by uneasy questions which would obviously mushroom with every passing day. All in all, it seems that in Libya NATO is playing Russian roulette while not fully understanding the gravity of the situation for itself.

As a result, the almost inevitable demise of the Gaddafi regime would likely mean fresh humiliation for NATO – if not its demise.

www.rt.com