While meeting in Brussels to decide on a coronavirus disease (COVID-19) recovery package last weekend, European leaders issued a warning to foreign powers to cease their interference and respect the arms embargo established by the UN Security Council in Libya. This joint statement by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte was welcome, as it was the first time France and Italy appeared to support the same resolution on Libya. However, one may ask just how united the Europeans are in pursuing these warnings. Moreover, how seriously are they perceived by Turkey and the other foreign actors? Especially as the statement came simultaneously with a declaration by US Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs David Schenker that the EU naval mission to stop arms shipments to Libya was not serious, as it had failed to stop arms and support coming from Russia. This unexpected friction between the US and EU outlines the difficulties and cracks within NATO and the Western alliance that are being revealed by the Libyan conflict. In fact, the EU has had a marginal voice in Libya. Moreover, most actors will not take the Europeans’ warnings seriously as, on the ground, France and Italy still seem to be on opposing sides. Italy, with its strong historic links and good understanding of Libya, has been supporting the Government of National Accord from the start and coordinating with Turkey. France, on the other hand, realized much later the changes on the ground and the risks to Mediterranean maritime security, so it is now supporting the Libyan Parliament that is backed by the Libyan National Army. There has been a difference in the nature of the support. While most powers were giving logistical and material support, Turkey was the first to put boots on the ground to support Fayez Al-Sarraj in Tripoli when Khalifa Haftar was about to take over. It is now even planning for permanent military bases there. Ankara’s intervention was a tipping point in the conflict. France and the EU saw the security risks to their energy supplies emanating from Turkey too late. Today, Turkey and its local allies have their eyes on eastern Libya. It is clear that Turkey’s efficient intervention is largely due to the knowledge and support of Italy’s sovereign institutions and network of contacts. Despite the EU’s declarations, the Italy-Turkey alliance is the strongest in the Libyan file and the most aligned in terms of collaborations and interests. It also benefits from indirect support from the US administration, which has been reluctant to get involved directly. The US has seen an opportunity by giving a green light to Turkey to counter Russia’s plans in Syria and Libya. Washington has not so far given great importance to the fact that the local groups Turkey supports are intrinsically against the US and might even develop links with Al-Qaeda and Daesh. Moreover, Turkey has been able to use this US green light to its own advantage and balance its intervention into where to block and where to make deals with Russia. This flexibility is another strength for Turkey as it calculates how to create cracks in the opposing group. It is indeed an advantageous situation as it investigates how to deal with the Eastern part of Libya and Sirte, the main gateway to the country’s oil facilities. Sirte’s future and Turkey’s growing military presence and involvement have now alerted Egypt as well as the Europeans. It even seems that responsibility for the file has been transferred from the EU to Cairo. Indeed, Egypt’s national security is threatened by the presence of fighters on its western border, especially as the Sinai situation is still volatile and Syria is seeing a resurgence, with accusations that Turkey is moving extremists throughout these zones. Egypt, like Turkey, also has many ways of dealing with the situation. An opportunity exists, through its army’s strong relations with both France and Italy, to push for a proposed solution acceptable to all parties. It can also clarify many points to the US regarding the risks posed by the groups Turkey supports, beyond its main objective of opposing Russia. Cairo has always acted with maturity and will not engage in direct military action in Libya without an international coalition, and will avoid a direct confrontation with Turkey. The latter has been partially reliant on US and NATO support, but mainly on Italy’s strong understanding of the country. Both the US and Italy might not have considered the domestic political implications of the Turkish vision and its risks to international stability. Despite all this, most parties — foreign and local — seem to be open to making a deal. Therefore, without sending in troops, the US has the capacity to play a stronger role and bring all the Libyan parties to the table, hence avoiding the risks of escalation. In the absence of these discussions, the Turkish-Italian hands-on approach seems to be heading toward a clash with Egypt and France. The fate of the Eastern Mediterranean might be in play, with Turkey looking to assert a strong naval dominance and energy pre-eminence. It is, therefore, becoming difficult to ignore the game of alliances that could have a domino effect. Indeed, this conflict carries the risk of breaking lines within Europe, with Greece and France on one side and Italy on the other, with Germany standing in the middle for now due to its large Turkish community. It is also threatening Western institutions such as NATO. As a clear indication, France has suspended its role in the NATO Mediterranean mission after an incident with Turkey. These divisions could also easily spread to the Arab world. With the current economic recession that the world is facing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the risks of confrontation are even higher. Both the US and Italy might not have considered the domestic political implications of the Turkish vision. Khaled Abou Zahr This would bring Europe and the broader Middle East back to a new version of the old game of alliances. It could spread conflict in a much faster way than one can imagine. The list of countries interfering in Libya and its links to the Syrian file make even the civil war in Lebanon and all its armed groups look like a child’s simple bedtime story. One key point creating divisions between traditional allies the US, EU and leading Arab countries seems to be the question of what strategy to adopt toward Russia. This division has been exploited very well by Turkey until now and it might cause irreparable damage if a consensus is not found soon. Therefore, it is important to address these issues and launch dual track negotiations — allowing Libyans to decide their future while also looking into Mediterranean security and the cooperation between all the powers involved. Khaled Abou Zahr is the CEO of Eurabia, a media and tech company. He is also the editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi. Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view