Throne of the pharaohs. Why Russia needs Egypt
In October 1956, events began to occur that had a very significant impact on the further course stories XX century. No, we do not mean a reactionary revolt in Budapest, not without certain difficulties eliminated by units of the Soviet army. The action took place in the southeastern Mediterranean and in historiography it was called the “Suez crisis” or the “Second Arab-Israeli war”. Although, by and large, the conflict was of a completely different nature - if you use the old-regime terminology, the term “imperialistic character” is more appropriate.
Great Britain entered into conflict for one of the last diamonds in the crown of the dying empire - the Suez Canal, and although the role of this transport artery was no longer vital for London (as in the days of domination in India), Suez was an object of prestige, and it was worth keeping it at all costs . Moreover, the then Prime Minister Anthony Eden followed the strategy of British supremacy in the Middle East, which was supported by the so-called. The “Baghdad Pact” of 1955 of the Year, signed by Turkey, Iraq, the United Kingdom, Pakistan and the Shah of Iran, the pact announced “protecting the region from any Soviet threat”.
Nevertheless, the specter of such a threat obviously differed behind the back of a man named Gamal Abdel Nasser, one of the organizers of the July 1952 revolution of the year, who overthrew the monarchy in Egypt and aimed at the complete liberation of Egypt from the colonial heritage. Heritage, one of the symbols of which was the Suez Canal, which was actually under British control until 26 in July 1956, when President Nasser issued a decree on the nationalization of Suez and the passage of the channel under the sovereignty of Egypt ...
A military clash became inevitable, especially as a very strong figure — the Soviet Union — was increasingly active on the Middle East chessboard.
Let's try to figure out how in the middle of the 50 of the last century the USSR made a bet on Gamal Abdel Nasser and why sixty years later, in 2015, it was Egypt that was one of the leading directions of Russian foreign policy in the Mediterranean direction, and not any other country region.
* * *
First you need to understand what was post-war Egypt. Formally, the country was independent from 1922 of the year (until that time - the protectorate of the British Empire, and even earlier part of the Ottoman Empire) with a monarchical form of government: the first Sultan of Egypt, Hussein Camille, was seated on the throne by British troops, he was succeeded by the Sultan Fuad I, who received the title of king, and the last monarch was Farouk, who took the throne in 1935.
Royal Egypt under declared sovereignty remained the semi-colony of Great Britain with a significant number of British occupying forces. The matter was complicated by constant conflicts over Sudan, which the Egyptians considered their territory, and the British - a colony of the crown. Finally, the British directly appointed the Egyptian government, not looking back at the wishes of King Farouk - an example of this is the February incident of 1942, when the British Tanks surrounded the royal palace, and Faruk was given an ultimatum: either the appointment of Prime Minister of the loyal Metropolis Mustafa Nakhkhaz Pasha or abdication. The king reconciled with humiliation and complied with the requirements.
It remains to be added that monarchical Egypt was distinguished by an exorbitant level of corruption, theft with a truly oriental scale, blatant incompetence of both central and regional authorities and, as a natural consequence, the incredible poverty of the majority of the population. Finally, a catastrophic defeat in the 1948 war of Israel of the year played a significant psychological role in dissatisfaction with the regime.
It should be noted here that the Egyptian officer corps, which was formed in 30 – 40 years, was one of the most educated strata of society - many soldiers received a brilliant education in Europe and perfectly understood that the country is at an impasse, out of which can only be a decisive breakdown of the old semicolonial system, rapid reforms and deliverance from external dependence.
The consequence of the discontent of the young military becomes the July revolution of the year 1952. The revolution was said too loudly, in fact it was a classic military coup organized by the Free Officers Movement led by Colonel Nasser. The king was arrested, forced to sign a renunciation and agree with the eternal exile, after which Farouk left for Italy on a yacht, loaded to the top with gold, money and jewels. Egypt was proclaimed a republic, Major General Mohammed Nagib became the first president, who was removed from his post by Gamal Abdel Nasser, who took the presidency and pushed the treaty of the evacuation of Metropolitan troops from Egypt to 1954, unsuitable for the British, to be X. only to cover the Suez Canal.
The international course of Egypt is changing dramatically, causing serious concern in the UK, France and the United States. Nasser begins a rapprochement with the USSR and the Eastern Bloc - the first sign is the agreement on the purchase of cheap and reliable weapons in the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia in exchange for cotton supplies.
All previous fears of Great Britain before the “onset of the Russian bear”, so also burdened by communism, returned and began to pursue the subjects of Her Majesty. Historian Pierce Brandon quotes one of the senior officials of the London Foreign Ministry: “The first thing we must do is try to frighten Nasser, then give him a bribe. And if neither works, it’s necessary to get rid of him. ”
The British make the biggest political and economic mistake: As a “bribe”, Nasser was offered the Aswan Dam project, originally developed (1952) by Alexander Jib - Britain and the United States agreed to give a construction loan of 200 million dollars. The Americans called Nasser "the red pharaoh", since the president himself called the Aswan Dam "his pyramid."
However, 19 July 1956, the International Bank withdraws the decision on the loan - in punishment for the continued ties of the Egyptians with the Communists: in May of this year, Egypt recognizes red China, and before that trade agreements are signed with the USSR. President Nasser was enraged by the offensive manner in which the refusal was presented, and considered that this humiliation was a deliberate slap in the face and an equally deliberate blow to the Egyptian economy. Perhaps, show the power of Britain and the United States a little less arrogance and the desire to illustrate flog the obstinate colonel, Egypt would have taken a completely different path of development.
The final proved to be logical: 26 July 1956, Abdel Nasser announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal, the annual revenues from the operation of which in the amount of 100 million dollars will be spent on the construction of the Aswan high-rise dam. Britain was unable to swallow a response humiliation and decided to respond in its usual manner - by military invasion. Prime Minister Anthony Eden bluntly stated: “Nasser’s appetite will increase during the meal, he will start to commit other acts of aggression, perhaps even stop the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf.” Finally, Eden compares Nasser with Hitler, and the expropriation of Suez with Hitler's invasion of the Rhineland.
It became clear that with such rhetoric of war can not be avoided. But until October 1956, ships went to Egypt under the red flag of the Soviet Union with weapons aboard - Nasser had something to answer. At the same time, Egyptian sales representatives were already working on the question of the upcoming construction of the Aswan Hydroelectric Power Plant in Moscow, in peak with the overwhelming Anglo-Saxons, who had deprived themselves of perhaps the most profitable contract of the century for the sake of the disappearing ghosts of the colonial era.
* * *
The Russian democratic intelligentsia is very fond of the place and out-of-place commemoration of the “Secret Protocols” in the so-called. “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”. I would like to remind you that it was not only the above-mentioned ministers who sinned like this. A very similar “secret protocol” was drawn up on 22 – 23 on October 1956 of the year in the French city of Sevres, at a meeting of representatives of Israel, Great Britain and France. Nasser should have been punished, and in those days they thought about giving aggression an appearance of decency. Agreed on this:
- Israel, which had long-standing contradictions with Egypt, invades Egypt, explaining the start of the war "by the need to stop the Fedains' attacks from Gaza."
“Anglo-French troops immediately occupy the Suez Canal zone, with governments in London and Paris loudly announcing“ the protection of shipping in Suez and the need to separate the warring parties. ”
- Israel's Gesheft for provoking a war for the return of the former owners of the Suez Canal - the annexation of either the entire Sinai Peninsula, or, if something does not grow together, its eastern third to Sharm el-Sheikh. Participating in the meeting, Ben-Gurion and in general offered the largest redistribution of borders in the Middle East with the withdrawal of the western coast of Jordan and southern Lebanon up to Litani with Israel, but the Allies felt that this would be too much, and advised Ben-Gurion to focus on the complete defeat of Nasserovsky. Of Egypt.
(Separately, I would like to quote a quote from General Moshe Dayan, who participated in the Sevres conspiracy, regarding the British foreign minister Selvin Lloyd: "... He created the impression of a person bargaining with us as merchants and extortionists, and showed his dislike for the place, company and subject." M. Dayan. "Story Of My Life", 1976. 231.)
Such a beautiful plan is that England and France need to return lost property at any cost, Israel provokes war, and Europeans carry out a “peacekeeping operation” and “protect the right of free navigation”. Cynicism and treachery, you say? Not. Politics.
* * *
The implications of the Suez crisis are well known. While the Israelis (admittedly, very gallantly and successfully) stormed the Sinai, a shaped mess reigned in the camp of the Anglo-French - otherwise you will not say. First, Abdel Nasser instantly blocked Suez, flooding several canals in the canal. Secondly, the ultimatum presented to the Egyptians was restrained by the British forces in Cyprus - until the end of the ultimatum it was impossible to strike at the Egyptian troops from the air and the Israelis were left without the support of the allies - Ben-Gurion’s phrase regarding Great Britain (“The old whore!”) Went down in history. Third, a great scandal broke out in the UN Security Council - Britain uses the right of veto against the cease-fire resolution, which clearly shows: the purpose of this adventure is to seize the Suez Canal.
And finally, fourth. The USSR makes its turn - Nikita Khrushchev shocking the West with several statements - from the threat of a nuclear attack on Israel, Britain and France, to a proposal to the United States together with the Soviet Union with all military power to oppose the "triple alliance" that attacked Egypt. President Eisenhower, who lost the gift of speech in such arrogance, responded with a flaccid refusal in only a few days.
The British were “squeezed out” by the joint position of the rejection of the war of the former colonies (Canada, India, Australia, Pakistan), the United States and the harsh statements of the USSR - Albion’s military forces didn’t suffer more embarrassment, perhaps, since the days of Dunkirk: a cease-fire was announced exactly that day when the invasion from the sea began. Allied forces managed to occupy only the northern end of the canal when a stop order came, - the advanced British units were delaying back just at the moment when the rearguard units landed. General Stockwell, not without evil sarcasm, telegraphed to the War Department: “We have achieved the impossible. We go both ways at the same time. ”
The bottom line: the Suez Canal was handed over to UN peacekeepers, the Anglo-French suffered a shameful defeat not on the battlefield, but in the political plane, Israel conquered Sinai, but a year later was forced to leave the peninsula. Suez adventure was ineptly failed.
Egypt finally entered the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union and remembered forever the “Suez Crisis” as an example of the fantastic treachery of the West - especially when the details of the “Sevres Collusion” became known.
* * *
The contribution of the USSR to the economy and infrastructure of Egypt in the period from 1956 to 70-s of the twentieth century is difficult to underestimate. Colossal Aswan waterworks. Agrarian sector. The medicine. Military cooperation. Industry. Education. Under President Anwar Sadat, a sharp cooling of relations took place, but relations with Egypt were never interrupted - it should be remembered that the USSR had invested tens of billions and enormous intellectual potential in this country.
The recent headlines in both the domestic and the Western press, boiling down to the phrase “Vladimir Putin was met in Egypt as a pharaoh”, are not accidental - something like that was really observed, except for white elephants, diamonds the size of a fist and other attributes of the Thousand and One Nights. The subtitle you can add the following: "Russia is returning to Egypt seriously and for a long time."
But why Russia? Why not Europe or the USA? After all, there are a lot of other strong regional players in the Middle East arena - Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, even tiny Qatar, who is intrigued by intrigues, bribes and attempts to manipulate the governments of its neighbors?
In the Arab world, the traditional distrust of the United States, actively supporting Israel, did not disappear (even Abdel Nasser feared that Uncle Sam would replace the exhausted John Boole in the Middle East, and therefore very skillfully played on the contradictions between the US and the Soviet Union). Secondly: in Egypt, they remember well who was behind the “Arab Spring” and financed the “Muslim Brotherhood”, who were overthrown by the military led by the current president Abdul-Fattah Al-Sisi. And they no less well remember who was one of the first to support the transitional government and the election of Al-Sisi to the presidency — no wonder the Egyptian general made his first foreign visit to Moscow.
With the support of the “Arab Spring” and the elimination of secular regimes in North Africa, the United States mostly hurt themselves - recall the phrase Al-Sisi, addressed to the US administration after the overthrow of Mohammed Mursi: “You simply abandoned Egypt. You have turned away from the Egyptian people, and they will not forget this. ”
A holy place, as we know, is never empty, and Russia consciously seeks to occupy a vacant niche - in particular, in the field of arms supplies. For Egypt, the rapprochement with Moscow is forced, because the United States, after the failed fraud with the Muslim Brotherhood, refers to the military in Cairo without much favor.
In addition, the legacy of Nasser partially plays its part - Egypt once again decided to fight for leadership in the region, which is impossible without the support of a major power. But leadership cannot be achieved without modernizing the economy: hence the plans for a joint reconstruction of the Suez Canal with Russia with a sharp increase in its capacity, the construction of a large nuclear power plant for four reactors (the country is experiencing an acute shortage of electricity) and the food issue is another legacy of British rule. Recall that the British at one time turned Egypt’s agriculture into a monocultural, cotton-growing, whereas in antiquity the Nile Delta provided the entire Mediterranean, including the Roman Empire, with bread ...
So, four central directions are defined: energy, construction and transport, supply of wheat, weapons. Russia has all this - cheap and high quality. Of course, present times are meaningless to compare with the era of Nasser, when Egypt tried to find a balance between the two superpowers. The economy has replaced ideology, and due to the partial weakening of US interest in the Middle East and with the emergence of regional multipolarity, Russia has a chance to partially regain lost ground in the region.
Most importantly, we have a good reputation in Egypt - at least neither the USSR nor the Russian Federation stood behind the marginal or ultra-religious groups that tried to seize power. There is no “colonial trail” behind us in the form of an unkind memory of events like the disgraceful “Sevr secret protocols”.
With our help, does Egypt want to regain its leading position in the southern Mediterranean and in the Middle East? Perfectly. So why should Russia not use cooperation with the heirs of the Pharaohs for the beginning of a gradual reconstruction of the unipolar world into a multipolar world - especially since the United States behaved like an elephant in a china shop and got what they deserve: mistrust and dislike of local elites? ..
Great Britain entered into conflict for one of the last diamonds in the crown of the dying empire - the Suez Canal, and although the role of this transport artery was no longer vital for London (as in the days of domination in India), Suez was an object of prestige, and it was worth keeping it at all costs . Moreover, the then Prime Minister Anthony Eden followed the strategy of British supremacy in the Middle East, which was supported by the so-called. The “Baghdad Pact” of 1955 of the Year, signed by Turkey, Iraq, the United Kingdom, Pakistan and the Shah of Iran, the pact announced “protecting the region from any Soviet threat”.
Nevertheless, the specter of such a threat obviously differed behind the back of a man named Gamal Abdel Nasser, one of the organizers of the July 1952 revolution of the year, who overthrew the monarchy in Egypt and aimed at the complete liberation of Egypt from the colonial heritage. Heritage, one of the symbols of which was the Suez Canal, which was actually under British control until 26 in July 1956, when President Nasser issued a decree on the nationalization of Suez and the passage of the channel under the sovereignty of Egypt ...
A military clash became inevitable, especially as a very strong figure — the Soviet Union — was increasingly active on the Middle East chessboard.
Let's try to figure out how in the middle of the 50 of the last century the USSR made a bet on Gamal Abdel Nasser and why sixty years later, in 2015, it was Egypt that was one of the leading directions of Russian foreign policy in the Mediterranean direction, and not any other country region.
* * *
First you need to understand what was post-war Egypt. Formally, the country was independent from 1922 of the year (until that time - the protectorate of the British Empire, and even earlier part of the Ottoman Empire) with a monarchical form of government: the first Sultan of Egypt, Hussein Camille, was seated on the throne by British troops, he was succeeded by the Sultan Fuad I, who received the title of king, and the last monarch was Farouk, who took the throne in 1935.
Royal Egypt under declared sovereignty remained the semi-colony of Great Britain with a significant number of British occupying forces. The matter was complicated by constant conflicts over Sudan, which the Egyptians considered their territory, and the British - a colony of the crown. Finally, the British directly appointed the Egyptian government, not looking back at the wishes of King Farouk - an example of this is the February incident of 1942, when the British Tanks surrounded the royal palace, and Faruk was given an ultimatum: either the appointment of Prime Minister of the loyal Metropolis Mustafa Nakhkhaz Pasha or abdication. The king reconciled with humiliation and complied with the requirements.
It remains to be added that monarchical Egypt was distinguished by an exorbitant level of corruption, theft with a truly oriental scale, blatant incompetence of both central and regional authorities and, as a natural consequence, the incredible poverty of the majority of the population. Finally, a catastrophic defeat in the 1948 war of Israel of the year played a significant psychological role in dissatisfaction with the regime.
It should be noted here that the Egyptian officer corps, which was formed in 30 – 40 years, was one of the most educated strata of society - many soldiers received a brilliant education in Europe and perfectly understood that the country is at an impasse, out of which can only be a decisive breakdown of the old semicolonial system, rapid reforms and deliverance from external dependence.
The consequence of the discontent of the young military becomes the July revolution of the year 1952. The revolution was said too loudly, in fact it was a classic military coup organized by the Free Officers Movement led by Colonel Nasser. The king was arrested, forced to sign a renunciation and agree with the eternal exile, after which Farouk left for Italy on a yacht, loaded to the top with gold, money and jewels. Egypt was proclaimed a republic, Major General Mohammed Nagib became the first president, who was removed from his post by Gamal Abdel Nasser, who took the presidency and pushed the treaty of the evacuation of Metropolitan troops from Egypt to 1954, unsuitable for the British, to be X. only to cover the Suez Canal.
The international course of Egypt is changing dramatically, causing serious concern in the UK, France and the United States. Nasser begins a rapprochement with the USSR and the Eastern Bloc - the first sign is the agreement on the purchase of cheap and reliable weapons in the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia in exchange for cotton supplies.
All previous fears of Great Britain before the “onset of the Russian bear”, so also burdened by communism, returned and began to pursue the subjects of Her Majesty. Historian Pierce Brandon quotes one of the senior officials of the London Foreign Ministry: “The first thing we must do is try to frighten Nasser, then give him a bribe. And if neither works, it’s necessary to get rid of him. ”
The British make the biggest political and economic mistake: As a “bribe”, Nasser was offered the Aswan Dam project, originally developed (1952) by Alexander Jib - Britain and the United States agreed to give a construction loan of 200 million dollars. The Americans called Nasser "the red pharaoh", since the president himself called the Aswan Dam "his pyramid."
However, 19 July 1956, the International Bank withdraws the decision on the loan - in punishment for the continued ties of the Egyptians with the Communists: in May of this year, Egypt recognizes red China, and before that trade agreements are signed with the USSR. President Nasser was enraged by the offensive manner in which the refusal was presented, and considered that this humiliation was a deliberate slap in the face and an equally deliberate blow to the Egyptian economy. Perhaps, show the power of Britain and the United States a little less arrogance and the desire to illustrate flog the obstinate colonel, Egypt would have taken a completely different path of development.
The final proved to be logical: 26 July 1956, Abdel Nasser announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal, the annual revenues from the operation of which in the amount of 100 million dollars will be spent on the construction of the Aswan high-rise dam. Britain was unable to swallow a response humiliation and decided to respond in its usual manner - by military invasion. Prime Minister Anthony Eden bluntly stated: “Nasser’s appetite will increase during the meal, he will start to commit other acts of aggression, perhaps even stop the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf.” Finally, Eden compares Nasser with Hitler, and the expropriation of Suez with Hitler's invasion of the Rhineland.
It became clear that with such rhetoric of war can not be avoided. But until October 1956, ships went to Egypt under the red flag of the Soviet Union with weapons aboard - Nasser had something to answer. At the same time, Egyptian sales representatives were already working on the question of the upcoming construction of the Aswan Hydroelectric Power Plant in Moscow, in peak with the overwhelming Anglo-Saxons, who had deprived themselves of perhaps the most profitable contract of the century for the sake of the disappearing ghosts of the colonial era.
* * *
The Russian democratic intelligentsia is very fond of the place and out-of-place commemoration of the “Secret Protocols” in the so-called. “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”. I would like to remind you that it was not only the above-mentioned ministers who sinned like this. A very similar “secret protocol” was drawn up on 22 – 23 on October 1956 of the year in the French city of Sevres, at a meeting of representatives of Israel, Great Britain and France. Nasser should have been punished, and in those days they thought about giving aggression an appearance of decency. Agreed on this:
- Israel, which had long-standing contradictions with Egypt, invades Egypt, explaining the start of the war "by the need to stop the Fedains' attacks from Gaza."
“Anglo-French troops immediately occupy the Suez Canal zone, with governments in London and Paris loudly announcing“ the protection of shipping in Suez and the need to separate the warring parties. ”
- Israel's Gesheft for provoking a war for the return of the former owners of the Suez Canal - the annexation of either the entire Sinai Peninsula, or, if something does not grow together, its eastern third to Sharm el-Sheikh. Participating in the meeting, Ben-Gurion and in general offered the largest redistribution of borders in the Middle East with the withdrawal of the western coast of Jordan and southern Lebanon up to Litani with Israel, but the Allies felt that this would be too much, and advised Ben-Gurion to focus on the complete defeat of Nasserovsky. Of Egypt.
(Separately, I would like to quote a quote from General Moshe Dayan, who participated in the Sevres conspiracy, regarding the British foreign minister Selvin Lloyd: "... He created the impression of a person bargaining with us as merchants and extortionists, and showed his dislike for the place, company and subject." M. Dayan. "Story Of My Life", 1976. 231.)
Such a beautiful plan is that England and France need to return lost property at any cost, Israel provokes war, and Europeans carry out a “peacekeeping operation” and “protect the right of free navigation”. Cynicism and treachery, you say? Not. Politics.
* * *
The implications of the Suez crisis are well known. While the Israelis (admittedly, very gallantly and successfully) stormed the Sinai, a shaped mess reigned in the camp of the Anglo-French - otherwise you will not say. First, Abdel Nasser instantly blocked Suez, flooding several canals in the canal. Secondly, the ultimatum presented to the Egyptians was restrained by the British forces in Cyprus - until the end of the ultimatum it was impossible to strike at the Egyptian troops from the air and the Israelis were left without the support of the allies - Ben-Gurion’s phrase regarding Great Britain (“The old whore!”) Went down in history. Third, a great scandal broke out in the UN Security Council - Britain uses the right of veto against the cease-fire resolution, which clearly shows: the purpose of this adventure is to seize the Suez Canal.
And finally, fourth. The USSR makes its turn - Nikita Khrushchev shocking the West with several statements - from the threat of a nuclear attack on Israel, Britain and France, to a proposal to the United States together with the Soviet Union with all military power to oppose the "triple alliance" that attacked Egypt. President Eisenhower, who lost the gift of speech in such arrogance, responded with a flaccid refusal in only a few days.
The British were “squeezed out” by the joint position of the rejection of the war of the former colonies (Canada, India, Australia, Pakistan), the United States and the harsh statements of the USSR - Albion’s military forces didn’t suffer more embarrassment, perhaps, since the days of Dunkirk: a cease-fire was announced exactly that day when the invasion from the sea began. Allied forces managed to occupy only the northern end of the canal when a stop order came, - the advanced British units were delaying back just at the moment when the rearguard units landed. General Stockwell, not without evil sarcasm, telegraphed to the War Department: “We have achieved the impossible. We go both ways at the same time. ”
The bottom line: the Suez Canal was handed over to UN peacekeepers, the Anglo-French suffered a shameful defeat not on the battlefield, but in the political plane, Israel conquered Sinai, but a year later was forced to leave the peninsula. Suez adventure was ineptly failed.
Egypt finally entered the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union and remembered forever the “Suez Crisis” as an example of the fantastic treachery of the West - especially when the details of the “Sevres Collusion” became known.
* * *
The contribution of the USSR to the economy and infrastructure of Egypt in the period from 1956 to 70-s of the twentieth century is difficult to underestimate. Colossal Aswan waterworks. Agrarian sector. The medicine. Military cooperation. Industry. Education. Under President Anwar Sadat, a sharp cooling of relations took place, but relations with Egypt were never interrupted - it should be remembered that the USSR had invested tens of billions and enormous intellectual potential in this country.
The recent headlines in both the domestic and the Western press, boiling down to the phrase “Vladimir Putin was met in Egypt as a pharaoh”, are not accidental - something like that was really observed, except for white elephants, diamonds the size of a fist and other attributes of the Thousand and One Nights. The subtitle you can add the following: "Russia is returning to Egypt seriously and for a long time."
But why Russia? Why not Europe or the USA? After all, there are a lot of other strong regional players in the Middle East arena - Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, even tiny Qatar, who is intrigued by intrigues, bribes and attempts to manipulate the governments of its neighbors?
In the Arab world, the traditional distrust of the United States, actively supporting Israel, did not disappear (even Abdel Nasser feared that Uncle Sam would replace the exhausted John Boole in the Middle East, and therefore very skillfully played on the contradictions between the US and the Soviet Union). Secondly: in Egypt, they remember well who was behind the “Arab Spring” and financed the “Muslim Brotherhood”, who were overthrown by the military led by the current president Abdul-Fattah Al-Sisi. And they no less well remember who was one of the first to support the transitional government and the election of Al-Sisi to the presidency — no wonder the Egyptian general made his first foreign visit to Moscow.
With the support of the “Arab Spring” and the elimination of secular regimes in North Africa, the United States mostly hurt themselves - recall the phrase Al-Sisi, addressed to the US administration after the overthrow of Mohammed Mursi: “You simply abandoned Egypt. You have turned away from the Egyptian people, and they will not forget this. ”
A holy place, as we know, is never empty, and Russia consciously seeks to occupy a vacant niche - in particular, in the field of arms supplies. For Egypt, the rapprochement with Moscow is forced, because the United States, after the failed fraud with the Muslim Brotherhood, refers to the military in Cairo without much favor.
In addition, the legacy of Nasser partially plays its part - Egypt once again decided to fight for leadership in the region, which is impossible without the support of a major power. But leadership cannot be achieved without modernizing the economy: hence the plans for a joint reconstruction of the Suez Canal with Russia with a sharp increase in its capacity, the construction of a large nuclear power plant for four reactors (the country is experiencing an acute shortage of electricity) and the food issue is another legacy of British rule. Recall that the British at one time turned Egypt’s agriculture into a monocultural, cotton-growing, whereas in antiquity the Nile Delta provided the entire Mediterranean, including the Roman Empire, with bread ...
So, four central directions are defined: energy, construction and transport, supply of wheat, weapons. Russia has all this - cheap and high quality. Of course, present times are meaningless to compare with the era of Nasser, when Egypt tried to find a balance between the two superpowers. The economy has replaced ideology, and due to the partial weakening of US interest in the Middle East and with the emergence of regional multipolarity, Russia has a chance to partially regain lost ground in the region.
Most importantly, we have a good reputation in Egypt - at least neither the USSR nor the Russian Federation stood behind the marginal or ultra-religious groups that tried to seize power. There is no “colonial trail” behind us in the form of an unkind memory of events like the disgraceful “Sevr secret protocols”.
With our help, does Egypt want to regain its leading position in the southern Mediterranean and in the Middle East? Perfectly. So why should Russia not use cooperation with the heirs of the Pharaohs for the beginning of a gradual reconstruction of the unipolar world into a multipolar world - especially since the United States behaved like an elephant in a china shop and got what they deserve: mistrust and dislike of local elites? ..
Information