The foreign secretary, William Hague, has acknowledged for the first time that UK troops could be involved in the conflict in Libya beyond Christmas, saying that the government had "no deadline" for military operations there.
Rebels in the west have dented Khaddafi's hopes of nailing down the west and could cripple access to oil resources for a long war:
Yafran had been besieged by pro-Gaddafi forces for more than a month with food, drinking water and medicines running short.
"The rebels say that they have taken the town," said Reuters photographer Youssef Boudlal, after entering the town from the north. "There is no sign of any Gaddafi forces."
These rebels don't appear capable of advancing on Tripoli, absent a complete collapse of loyalist forces. But if the rebels can hold the stretch of territory south of Tripoli to the Tunisia border, that would cut off Khaddafi's oil export options.
Still, loss of oil exports is a long term problem. Although Russia has formally switched sides, are they really on NATO's side?
Margelov, President Dmitry Medvedev's Africa envoy, told Russia's RIA Novosti news agency he would meet rebel leaders including Mustafa Abdul Jalil, head of the National Transitional Council that controls eastern Libya around Benghazi.
His spokesman in Moscow said he would arrive in Benghazi on Tuesday morning and that the trip would exclude a visit to the Libyan capital.
Medvedev announced at the G8 summit last month that he would be sending the envoy to Libya, as Moscow seeks to present itself as a potential mediator and expresses growing alarm over the continued conflict.
"A drawing out of the armed conflict will worsen the humanitarian situation not only in Libya but also in neighbouring states that are taking on Libyan refugees," Margelov told RIA.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians tell the rebels to take half of Libya while they can because Russia will help them if they accept a ceasefire. And if the rebels refuse a ceasefire they'll have to rely on NATO protection if they believe NATO will be around longer than Russia would be.
If Russia can engineer a ceasefire, once NATO has recoiled from operations Khaddafi could turn on the southern rebels to secure the west and then prepare for a long competition with the eastern-based rebels.
The loyalist position is eroding. How fast, I have no idea. But the erosion is purely based on NATO air power. Without that air power, the rebels would not be a threat to Tripoli and would probably be pressed to hold their ground in the face of a loyalist offensive.
Can NATO maintain the pressure long enough for the erosion to have a decisive effect? Or will Russia or even internal divisions within NATO which does not want to be fighting at Christmas save Khaddafi from eventual defeat?
UPDATE: With British and French resources already strained, I doubt this war coalition can last to Christmas. So unless Khaddafi cooperates by leaving or the loyalists crack soon, NATO needs others to step up and relieve the pressure on France and Britain:
Fogh Rasmussen said that the three-month extension of the Libya mission decided last week has raised the question of using additional assets from NATO nations which have yet to participate to their full potential.
He did not mention specific nations but said he would make it a "focus" of the two-day NATO defense ministerial opening Wednesday at alliance headquarters in Brussels. Britain and France have been heavily involved since the mission started two months ago.
Good luck with that. The French don't think they can continue more than a few months:
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe has warned other allies late last month that despite it being at the forefront of the military operation against Gadhafi's troops, the patience of Paris is limited, saying its will to fight there would not "last longer than a few months."
Who wants to step up when they have reason to believe it will just provide France the opportunity to step out?
