The main purpose of the paper is to evaluate the arguments in favor and against the international involvement in the Libyan uprising against Muammar Kaddafi and define whether Western involvements in Arab uprisings are inevitable, recommendable or condemnable. The civil war started in February 2011 and the crackdown of the representatives of the security forces against the peaceful demonstrators together with the civilian life loss during the incident strengthened the existing tension. All this caused the escalation of the conflict and the tension led to the Day of Rage on the 17th of February. The conflicts and incidents in Libya became the real full-fledged rebellion that resulted in the international intervention, as the dictator continued to use force against the civil population of the state. The involvement of the international community had a serious effect on the events that took place in Libya and, therefore, the analysis of this involvement represents the high value and interest in the research.
The specific character of the Arab Spring and Libyan uprising, in particular, has had an effect on the series of states that have been involved in the situation. All the states had their own reasons to participate in the conflict and to define their position concerning the uprising. It is interesting to evaluate the role of each state and to define whether the involvement has a positive or negative effect. The first country to be mentioned in the United States, as the involvement in the Libyan conflict has fractured the state. The airstrikes have been met with the strong wave of criticism against the policy of President Barack Obama from the Republicans. Their position has been quite unusual concerning their traditional attitude to such kind of military operations. Republicans have claimed that no concrete target of the mission has been defined and that this decision had the potential risk of the United States troop’s involvement in the new protracted conflict in the Arab state. This position has also been supported by some of the Democrats, mainly from the left-wing of the party. They have been worried by the involvement of the United States army to another conflict in the region, especially in the period of the stuttering economy. The decision to participate in the situation, made by Barack Obama without consulting with the Congress reminded them of the policy of George W. Bush. There were also certain concerns over the arming of the Libyan rebels and the fears over the question who males up to the opposition within the state. The high level of uncertainty about the future development of the situation in Libya was the main fear of the opponents of intervention. The majority of the American population has supported the use of military force that aimed to protect the civilians. This involvement was reasoned by the inhumane policy of Kaddafi and the life losses of the civil demonstrators that had to be protected. Therefore, the United States involvement has been recommended to stop the aggression and to stabilize the situation within the state.
Special interest within the situation represents the role of Russia, as this state has also been involved in the Libyan conflict. Russian ruling elite has faced a split with the series of different positions of its members. The official Kremlin has abstained the vote in the United Nations Security Council, considering the Libyan uprising and the necessity to stop the fire, while Vladimir Putin said that resolution was “flawed and defective” (Shaw). He has also compared it to the medieval Crusades call. This position has not found support from the President of the country, Dmitry Medvedev, who was officially responsible for the state foreign policy. He said it was inadmissible to use such expressions as Crusades that can provoke a clash of the civilizations. The conflicts have be