again, a superficial opinion
even a superficial comparison beats your superficial opinion : Lybia is better off than Syria
so a superficial conclusion would be that even a bad NATO intervention with no-follow-up is better than putins' "contribution"
And you're superficial person. Libya was better without any intervention at all and staged rebellion paid on Saudis money. You, as Ukrainian patriot, should know better, be consistent. Now, go chase jundullahs in Maghrib. Nice work :D
Have to agree with this. Libya has huge problems right now. The main airport was attacked and many planes (some brand new) were damaged. These sorts of things weren't happening even with Gadafi in charge. Gadafi may have been a dictator, but at least conditions in his country were improving for the Libyan people.
Well, I could agree he's right that "Libya is better off than Syria", which is, d-uh, obvious in a certain way (half a year vs three years of full-blown war), but that's very short-sighted view and somewhat French philosophy so to speak (do not resist Nazies, we'd be better off not resisting). Aside of patriotic sentiments the difference between Libyan and Syrian scenarios is in choice of long-term vs short-term goals as well. Libya is in shambles and de-facto a North-African Somali for years, if not decades to come, and eventually a disaster. Syria is disaster now with hope of political stability eventually and recovery in a few years. Not a single day I believed Obama would have gone to war in Syria. But assuming he'd have and won, the reality would have be more devastating than now -- you could imagine.
So I'd say, help Syria and co and use them against ISIS, they have plenty of experience. But again, that's not realisitc -- that'd strengthen Iran positions in the region tremendously, Saudis would like to object such a plan.