Exactly 8 years ago the convoy of Libyan dictator Gaddafi Moammar was attacked by two American combat drones and two French planes. Then supported NATO’s jihadists rebels dragged Gadhafi out of the wreckage of the broken procession, beaten and executed. In Washington politicians in both parties were jubilant, celebrating the change of regime, aimed at protecting human rights and promoting democracy. How wrong they were!Today everywhere recognized that the “new” Syria quickly plunged into anarchy a new civil war and the refugee crisis that continues today. But few people understand what damage the intervention has caused more significant to the national interests of the United States: countering Islamic extremism, and establishing complex relations with Russia, and to promote non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea.Officially from 12 to 30 thousand Libyans were killed during the NATO intervention in the conflict. Many thousands more died in the civil war and drowned trying to reach European shores. Significant responsibility for this lies with the American and other Western politicians.It also led to a flood of weapons Gaddafi other regions. After the NATO intervention and the ensuing chaos of the Libyan weapons ended up in North and West Africa and the middle East, in the hands of jihadist groups from these regions. Mali, once the former a pioneer of democratic countries in Africa, half were under the control of jihadists, which are still fighting the French, African and American troops.Perhaps the most harmful effect of the Libyan intervention was the destruction of the fragile network of U.S.-Russian cooperation created by the policies of the Obama administration “reset”. Washington and Moscow worked together to combat international terrorism in Afghanistan, reducing the risk of war with the help of the new start Treaty on mutual reduction of strategic nuclear arms (which expires in 2021) and promoting non-proliferation of nuclear weapons through UN sanctions against Iran and North Korea (all this time, the United States continued to strongly criticize the increasing authoritarianism in Russia).But the United States violated the data personally by President Obama promises the then President of Russia Medvedev that the authorized UN intervention in Syria aims at protecting civilians and not regime change, which, as rightly feared Russia would lead to chaos and Islamic extremism. Medvedev abstained from a veto on the resolution the US was upset by this “betrayal”. In response, Russia vetoed a US resolution that threatens the Syrian government with economic sanctions and diplomatic (but not military force) for the repression against demonstrators of the civilian.The chaotic divergence of international consensus on Libya laid the groundwork for a proxy war in Syria, placing the US and its Arab allies against Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Russian President Vladimir Putin said in April 2014: “you Know, it’s not that the reboot has now ended due to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. I think it ended early, just after the events in Libya.”Policy in the United States not only failed to foresee Russia’s reaction to the NATO campaign, but also underestimated its influence on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Gaddafi abandoned his program to create nuclear weapons for the resumption of diplomatic and economic relations with the West. Suddenly NATO overthrow his regime. The authorities in Iran and North Korea has clearly learned the lesson that even a complete rejection of the task of acquiring nuclear weapons would lead to the overthrow of their governments.This cautionary tale contains a number of caveats for policy makers considering military actions or tougher economic blockades to overthrow regimes. The moral and political rightness is not enough. Know the history of the target country better than the one team Obama knew Libya. First and foremost, make your calculations so that they take into account a broad range of American interests that you can jeopardize.