A few hours before Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in Cairo to meet with his Egyptian counterpart Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on Dec. 11, he ordered the Hmeimim air base in Syria’s Latakia province to begin withdrawing the bulk of Russian troops stationed in Syria, while maintaining a presence at Hmeimim and the Russian naval facility in Tartus.

Putin went to Cairo to hold a joint summit with Sisi, which resulted in the signing of the final contracts for the construction of the Dabaa nuclear plant in northern Egypt. Putin also revealed Moscow's readiness to resume Russian flights over Egypt, as all flights had been suspended after a Russian aircraft was downed in the Sinai on Oct. 31, 2015. In addition, both presidents discussed ways of countering terrorism.

This visit followed the signing of a draft agreement between Egypt and Russia on Nov. 30, allowing the military aircraft of the two countries to share airspace and air bases.

The text of the Nov. 30 agreement was included in a decree issued by the Russian government, which ordered Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu to conduct direct negotiations with Egyptian officials and sign the document once the two parties reached an agreement.

According to the draft agreement, Russian and Egyptian warplanes would be able to use each other’s airspace and air bases after five days' notice. This renewable agreement is expected to be valid for five years.

Egypt and Russia signed the draft agreement on the sidelines of Shoigu’s visit to Cairo on Nov. 29, during which he participated in Russian-Egyptian joint military-technical cooperation sessions.

The agreement is expected to include more joint training between the two sides and would make it easier for Egyptian pilots to fly Russian planes. Russia and Egypt also would be able to carry out bilateral anti-terrorism measures in the Sinai Peninsula, where terrorist operations are on the rise, according to the Russian news website RBC.

The Egyptian-Russian military cooperation to combat terrorism was demonstrated during the joint exercise known as Protectors of Friendship 2 on Sept. 14, carried out by Egyptian paratroopers and Russian air-landing forces in the Russian city of Novorossiysk. The training aims to regain control of vital locations by leading an eradication of terrorists in Sinai.

During the joint press conference between Sisi and Putin in Cairo on Dec. 11, Putin hinted at the role of the Russian air force in the fight against terrorism, saying, “I revealed to President Sisi the results of my visit to Syria today. Thanks to the Russian air force, all of the Syrian territories have been liberated from terrorists, and I believe that the objectives for which the Russian army intervened have been achieved.”

Egypt has been suffering from an increase in terrorist attacks since July 2013, the latest of which was the attack on Al-Rawda Mosque in North Sinai on Nov. 24, which killed about 310 worshippers.

In a meeting with foreign journalists in Sharm el-Sheikh on Nov. 9, Sisi expressed his concerns about Islamic State (IS) terrorists relocating to Sinai and western Egypt after being defeated in both Iraq and Syria.

Nurhan al-Sheikh, a Russian affairs expert and a professor of political science at Cairo University, told Al-Monitor over the phone, “It is in Egypt's best interest to cooperate with Russia when it comes to countering terrorism, especially after Russia’s unprecedented success in liberating all Syrian territories from IS.”

Sheikh said, “Cooperation with Russia in the fight against terrorism is not a matter of choice but a necessity imposed by the need to protect Egypt’s national security, especially since large numbers of armed militants are expected to arrive in Egypt and defeating them requires Moscow’s expertise.”

For his part, Russian political analyst Taimour Dwidar, who works with several Arabic channels, told Al-Monitor, “Russia needs bases in Africa to fight terrorism in the region and play a role in the Libyan crisis,” noting that Russia expressed a desire to use the Sidi Barrani base in March on the northern coast near the Libyan border, a request that Egypt denied.

Russia supports the Libyan army forces led by Khalifa Hifter. Russian Ambassador to Libya Evan Molotkov had announced in May Russia's readiness lift the ban on arming the Libyan armed forces. Hifter met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Shoigu in August. In May 2017, the Russian naval forces conducted maneuvers near the Libyan coast.

The agreement between Egypt and Russia to use each other’s air bases seems to be of more convenience to Egypt, which opposes foreign parties building their own bases on its territory or renting Egyptian military bases.

On Oct.16, 2016, Sisi told the Egyptian press that the building of air bases by foreign parties in Egypt was out of the question, saying, “Egypt is not like that. It never was and it never will be.”

Hussein Haridi, former Egyptian ambassador to Washington and former assistant Egyptian foreign minister, told Al-Monitor over the phone, “This agreement will be a very strong addition to the Egyptian army in terms of modernizing the troops and providing equipment and advanced weapons.”

Haridi, saying Egypt's relationship with Russia is no less than Turkey’s, said he expects Russia to provide Egypt with the S-400 surface-to-air missile system; Russia is in the final stages of talks with Turkey on supplying the system. 

Haridi added that Russia would soon supply Egypt with MiG-29 fighter jets and has won a tender to sell Egypt Ka-52 helicopters for French-built Mistral ships.

As for the US response to the Egyptian-Russian military rapprochement, Haridi said Egypt has a special vision regarding the changes taking place in the region, stressing that Washington has no right to dictate to Egypt the sources of its weapons.

For her part, Sheikh said that the United States is one of Egypt’s key partners, that both countries cooperate within the partnership program with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and that Russia has not interfered in the Egyptian-US relationship. Sheikh also said that Turkey is a member of NATO but still enjoys good military relations with Moscow, ruling out the possibility that the military rapprochement between Egypt and Russia will affect Egypt's relationship with the United States.

al-monitor.com

The symbolism behind IS’s actions is clear – to show that that organization is still alive and can launch unexpected offensives across a vast geographical expanse. The events in Palmyra and Cairo are also linked by a strategic military plan. The situation mirrors the events of 9/11. On that day in 2001, the precursors to IS from al-Qaeda worked with the Taliban to plan a general offensive in Afghanistan and used the explosion of the Twin Towers in New York to issue a warning to the Americans not to interfere. And the recent terror attack in Cairo is the same signal to the Egyptian leader Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, cautioning him not to meddle in Syria.

General el-Sisi increasingly favors Bashar al-Assad and is even ready to send Egyptian military divisions to assist him. Some sympathy exists between the two statesmen. At the time that el-Sisi assumed power in Egypt, Assad not only fully supported him, but even hinted at Damascus’s involvement in that event. On his end, el-Sisi has argued for Bashar al-Assad to retain his grip on power in Syria and has expressed support for the Syrian army’s battle against terrorism.

Reports have emerged that the Egyptian military has already made its way to the theater of military operations and is stationed inside zones controlled by the Syrian government, while pilots from Egypt have been deployed there as well. It has been suggested that two Mistral-class amphibious helicopter carriers, which Cairo obtained from France, will receive their baptism by fire when large-scale Egyptian divisions are moved into Syria. And the joint exercises between Egyptian and Russian paratroopers that were conducted in the Egyptian desert are seen as a possible precursor to their close cooperation in the sands of Syria. Although Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry and other leaders within that country who have been forced to take into account the position of creditors from Saudi Arabia have denied the existence of such plans, el-Sisi himself allowed some uncertainty to remain by claiming that «it would be better if the Syrian national army achieved its goals on its own.» Meaning that the possibility of Syria receiving aid from Egypt has not been ruled out.

It can be assumed that if Egypt does intervene, that will not affect the areas occupied by the so-called moderate opposition that is supported by the West, the Gulf nations, and Turkey, but will instead be directed against IS. Therefore, critics of the rapprochement between Cairo and Damascus (at one time even a unified Egyptian-Syrian state existed – the United Arab Republic) will find it difficult to obstruct Cairo. For Egypt itself, its role in the final phase of the rout of IS is a matter of prestige: this will allow the leader of Egypt to carve out a niche for himself as both a regional leader as well as an international mediator. Not to mention the fact that routing IS in Syria will facilitate Egypt’s struggle against terrorism on its home turf.

After the liberation of Aleppo, the battleground for fighting IS might take a strategic shift from Palmyra toward the besieged city of Deir ez-Zor 150 kilometers away and toward a section of the Syrian-Iraqi border near the Iraqi city of Mosul. Success there would make it possible to cut off communication between IS units in Syria and Iraq, and the Islamists’ capital in Raqqa would be completely isolated.

It was expected that by late January or early February 2017, before the onset of the March sandstorm season (known as khamasīn), there would be an end to the transfer into Palmyra of the most combat-ready government divisions out of the regions of Aleppo and Damascus, in preparation for a decisive offensive against IS. It was supposed that by that time a wide cordon of safety would be in place around the capital. It was quite likely that at that stage troops from Egypt and possibly other Arab countries (such as Algeria) would join the operations of Assad’s army, which would radically alter the big picture in the Middle East.

IS commanders decided not to wait for such a development and launched a preemptive strike in order to drive back the front lines of the imminent battles as far as possible from its main centers of activities. And to give them their due, the ISIS bosses showed real finesse in their preparations for the operation. There were reports that their main forces were approaching Palmyra from Iraq or from the direction of Raqqa, but this was not entirely true. The main corpus of the assailants consisted of approximately 4,000 militants who had already taken Palmyra earlier, but then been forced out into the suburbs last March. To that was added roughly another thousand militants with technical skills (mainly the ones operating the heavy military equipment and «jihad-mobiles»), who played a role in breaking through the defensive lines around Palmyra. Therefore intelligence services could not provide a full picture of the concentration of IS forces – there was no massive transfer of forces across long distances.

However, despite having achieved an important tactical success as a result of the whirlwind capture of Palmyra, IS might not have won anything. The front line of Damascus’s battle for Deir ez-Zor and the Iraqi-Syrian border is simply being shifted 150 km. to the west, to the Palmyra region, and this time its job is not simply to oust the insurgents, but to completely encircle and destroy them.

Nor are IS’s calculations about scaring Egypt out of acting as a potential ally of Damascus likely to pan out. Just as the 9/11 attacks failed to stop the Americans all those years ago, instead only goading them into a military onslaught against Afghanistan – so too might Cairo now take a more decisive position in Syria. After all, it would be impossible to do away with the terrorism barraging Egypt without destroying its organizational hubs in that country.

After the terror attack in Cairo, el-Sisi held a meeting of government leaders and senior security officials, at which he urged them to «do more» to eradicate terrorism. At the same time the Egyptian president advised focusing on «the areas outside the country itself», where «deadly attacks» are being planned. 

The state’s international standing in part hinges upon its ability to resist attempts at blackmail by terrorists. So it will not be surprising if the insignia of Egypt’s combat units can be glimpsed here and there on the forces that launch an offensive against IS positions in Syria in early 2017.

Reports have recently emerged from news agencies that the ban on flights to Egypt by Russian airlines will be extended through 2016. That ban dates back to October 31, 2015, when a Russian airliner, an Airbus A321, crashed in the Sinai peninsula.

Many think that the terrorist attack on the Russian jet was linked to Qatar’s response to Russia’s Aerospace Forces operations in Syria. Since events first began to unfold in Syria, Doha has been an active supporter of the armed anti-government opposition in that country. Ever since 2013, Qatar has been behind the strengthening of the terrorist organization known as the Islamic State (IS). Doha has not only given IS a leading role in the ouster of the Ba’athist regime in Damascus, but in doing so has been trying to weaken the position of Saudi Arabia, which has been using pro-Saudi, anti-government armed factions to battle IS. In 2013 Damascus’s enemies thought that the Assad government’s days were numbered, and they were fighting to divvy up the Syrian spoils. The October 2015 terrorist attack was, in a way, a warning to Russia.

But the terror attack also had another objective: to damage Egypt’s tourism industry. In 2012 Qatar helped propel the Muslim Brotherhood into power in Cairo and provided Mohamed Morsi’s regime with blanket support. By the summer of 2013, when rumors began circulating about the possible privatization of the Suez Canal by companies from Qatar, Egypt was obviously being transformed into a colony of Doha…

But Doha’s plans were upended by the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government in July of 2013. Egypt turned out to be too big for the «Brothers», who did not know what to do with the country. The tensions between the Islamists and the secular forces were multiplying there, and the Islamists were unable to reach a consensus. Egypt’s Salafists were also actively working against the Muslim Brotherhood. By the summer of 2013 chaos was raging wildly in Egypt. Under those conditions it was impossible to invest or conduct business in any kind of normal way. There was a dramatic surge in religious intolerance, and attacks on Shiites became more frequent (the country has a Shiite population of several hundred thousand). At the same time the position of Egypt’s Coptic Christians – who number about seven million and comprise over 10% of the population – worsened. Church burnings and assaults on Coptic Christians became an everyday occurrence. The Islamist government was either unable or unwilling to address the situation. As a result, the grassroots Tamarod movement launched a rebellion against the Muslim Brotherhood government, with the army’s support. General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi rescued Egypt from a civil war.

After the Muslim Brotherhood was deposed, Qatar’s influence in the country took a nosedive. The coup had been backed by Riyadh, which extended a generous line of credit to Egypt’s military government, but Cairo still did not become a Saudi puppet. Under the leadership of General Sisi, Egypt began to turn back to the policy of Arab nationalism. Egypt had been the biggest champion of that movement under the administration of President Gamal Abdel Nasser. It is no coincidence that the most senior Arab journalist, Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, who had been Nasser’s friend and cohort, became a presidential adviser to Sisi and the author of many of his speeches. Mr Heikal died recently at the age of 92.

Egypt’s new leaders were very much opposed to the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad, and in September 2015 actually supported the operations of Russia’s Aerospace Defense Forces in that country. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s government has backed the secular Libyan government based in Tobruk and headed by Abdullah al-Thani and General Khalifa Haftar, who are leading the fight against the Islamic State terrorists. A strategic Russian-Egyptian alliance has begun to take shape.

Egypt occupies a unique geopolitical position, right between Maghreb and Mashriq, i.e., the East Asian and West African parts of the Arab world. By controlling the passage from the Indian Ocean into the Mediterranean Sea, Egypt is able to influence Syria, Palestine, Arabia (Yemen), and North Africa. The Middle East has not forgotten that every important strategic decision in the Arab world in the second half of the twentieth century was made along the Cairo – Damascus – Baghdad axis.

Egypt, Syria, and Iraq were at one time the most powerful states in the Middle East. Slowly that situation began to change in the late 1970s, when Gulf monarchies with an Islamist agenda took center stage. The disproportionate expansion of their power is one of the causes of the current Middle East crisis. Damascus has endured so much aggression that a long time will pass before that country will be able to take on the role of an independent regional center. And Iraq’s future is uncertain. Cairo remains the only hope for a revival of independent Arab politics.

The threat of terrorism is a big headache for Egypt, but the peril should not be exaggerated. The biggest problems are found in the Sinai Peninsula, where the terrorists from the so-called Islamic State have proclaimed the establishment of the Wilayat Sinai. The country’s other regions, including the major cities, are fairly quiet.

Egypt’s Achilles’ heel continues to be its economy. After Abdel Fattah el-Sisi took power, the government managed to reduce unemployment. Egypt’s new leaders are devising plans to add a new shipping lane to the Suez Canal and to establish industrial zones to manufacture high-tech products. However, these ambitious plans have been stymied by a simple lack of funds. The Egyptian government buys much of the country’s food (Cairo purchases 40 % of its grain from abroad) and is forced to subsidize imports, since poor Egyptians cannot afford to buy bread at market prices. Thus Egypt will either have to apply for loans from international financial institutions (with the risk that the West might make reciprocal political demands) or else devalue the Egyptian pound. The latter step would lead to cuts in subsidies and there could be the danger of a social mutiny.

A cheaper pound could help the tourism industry, but after the tragedy in the Sinai, Egyptian resorts have stood empty. The influx of tourists not only from Russia, but also from Great Britain and Germany, has plummeted. Assistance for Egypt could take the form of investments. Given the current situation, any country that extends a helping hand to Cairo will find itself with a reliable ally in the region. 

Traffic through the Suez Canal will now travel in both directions: northbound ships will pass through the old channel and southbound – through the new. The reduced congestion will shorten the waiting and transit time from 18 to 11 hours, and an average of 97 ships will be able to pass through the canal each day, rather than today’s 49.

The Suez Canal is one of the world’s most important shipping lanes, used by 7% of all global maritime cargo traffic. The Suez Canal Authority chairman, Vice Admiral Mohab Mamish, says that “the canal represents a new birth for the country and a victory in the peaceful battle for development.” And President Abdel Fattah Khalil el-Sisi calls Suez, “the great Egyptian dream and a channel of prosperity.”

However, not everyone approves of el-Sisi’s autonomy and tenacity. Since the Muslim Brotherhood and their protégé Mohamed Morsi were ousted in July 2013, the relationship between Cairo and Washington has sharply deteriorated. The new Egyptian president interrupted the steady momentum of the Arab Spring. The Obama administration announced the suspension of shipments of heavy weapons, jet fighters, and military aid to Egypt and canceled their annual joint military exercises.

The Egyptian president can do much to draw the ire of the White House. Not least because the Suez Canal, both the old and new channels, remains state property. The expanded section of the canal was built by Egyptian military engineers who started and completed the project with few or no international loans. Local investors – Egyptians – eagerly bought bonds (yielding 12% per annum) to finance the construction.

Many times history was edited to suit the interests of politicians and turned into a weapon. This is why it is important to remember the relationship between the Suez Canal and Egyptian and global past.

This new Egyptian waterway, which opened on Aug. 6, 2015, has been dubbed the “second phase of the Suez Canal.” And it is indeed the second, if one considers the conduit built by the French engineer Ferdinand de Lesseps to be the first. But if one looks back at the history of the human efforts to construct a passageway between the Mediterranean and Red Seas, then the 2015 expansion is not really the second phase but the sixth. However, the ancient “phases” of the canal that originated in the Red Sea did not lead to today’s Port Said, but instead swerved to follow the course of the Nile River. Even the pharaohs grasped the tremendous significance of this passageway, and the first phase of the Suez Canal was built by Ramses II (14th century BC).

That canal’s fortunes mirrored those of Egypt herself, and so it languished along with the state and was eventually buried in sand. During the reign of the Persians in the 5th century BC, a second phase of the canal was dug that according to Herodotus was wide enough that two triremes (a type of ancient warship) could freely pass each other. By the end of the Hellenistic era the canal once again fell into decline. The third phase of the Suez Canal was during the zenith of the Roman Empire under Emperor Trajan. The fourth was under the Arab caliphs… Interest in the Suez Canal was a major impetus for Napoleon’s famous Egyptian expedition.

Other well-known milestones: 1869 – the opening of the canal, which was initially a Franco-Egyptian joint venture, and 1882 – the British occupation of the Canal Zone. During both world wars the Suez Canal served as a supremely important military and strategic artery. In 1956,  Nasser nationalized the canal and war immediately followed. Filled with naval mines, the channel sat idle for six months. The Six-Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973 also closed off this major global artery, but then once again the channel was cleared of mines and sunken ships.

Today the Suez Canal not only connects two seas and two oceans – it connects Egypt with the future.

Our world is a big one, however, and is not limited to Europe. China, India, Latin America and the Middle East all have impressive economic potential and are attractive markets for Russian goods and services. But most importantly, they are demanding an alternative model of world order that will allow countries and peoples to decide their own fate for themselves, without depending on the cosmopolitan global elite and their American outpost. At present, while the Ukrainian crisis is dominating the global agenda, these vast geopolitical spaces are becoming a focus area for America’s diplomatic efforts aimed at preventing other countries from developing strong relations with Russia wherever possible and, even better, inspiring them to support the anti-Russian sanctions. 

Which is why the diplomatic front of the new Cold War is also becoming one of the most important for Russia. Following the collapse of the USSR, Russia lost its Soviet geopolitical legacy little by little and, as a result, many countries saw the withdrawal from power of people who had been friendly with the USSR and Russia, and these people were replaced by pro-American elites educated in American universities and military academies. This course was reversed in Moscow in good time, however. In the face of a large-scale geopolitical offensive by the US, Russia did not hunker down. Today, Russian diplomacy is staging a counterattack in a number of directions, and these counterattacks are producing tangible successes. Take just the Turkish Stream, for example. Or the formation of the Eurasian Economic Union involving five post-Soviet states – Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan.

This was the context of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Egypt on 9-10 February. Egypt is an extremely important country not just in Middle Eastern geopolitics, but also in global geopolitics. Control of the Suez Canal gives Egypt a key role in maintaining the stability of global trade. Egypt was the first country to sign a peace treaty with Israel, and now its position with regard to the Hamas movement in many ways determines the security of the Jewish state, since the legendary underground tunnels link the Gaza Strip specifically to Egypt.

At one time, during the presidency of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt was a reliable ally of the Soviet Union in the Middle East. When Great Britain, France and Israel invaded Egypt in 1956 following Nasser’s nationalisation of the Suez Canal, Khruschev even threatened to launch a nuclear attack on these countries and the invasion ended. In the 1970s, however, following Nasser’s death, the country found itself tightly embedded in the orbit of US policy. Nasser’s successor, Anwar Sadat, expelled Soviet advisers from the country, relations between the Soviet Union and Egypt virtually died out, and Egypt became a major beneficiary of US military and financial aid. 

The situation remained like this even under Hosni Mubarak. America’s transition to a geostrategy of export instability, however, meant that the authoritarian secular regime, which had been holding on tightly to the reins of power, lost its value in the eyes of America. Washington’s sympathies were given to the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamist group founded in 1928 with the assistance of the English especially to keep the country within the bounds of its semi-colonial status. It was banned under Nasser, and for a long time after him, but the Arab Spring opened the road to power for the group.

A member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Morsi, became the president of Egypt with the full support of the US and during the year of his reign, he managed to plunge the country into complete chaos, much to the delight of his overseas patrons. Anarchy threatened to completely destroy the ancient Egyptian state, but the army intervened and Morsi was removed from power. The current president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who hails from military circles and is an admirer of Nasser, has declared that he will return the country to a secular path of development. 

Analysts note that there is much in common between the presidents of Russia and Egypt, including their age, their officer’s rank and their knowledge of the West. But above all is their desire for their countries to follow an independent path in global politics, to give them immunity to external pressure. The existence of mutual sympathies between the two leaders was obvious to anyone who followed the TV reports of Putin’s visit to Cairo, and they played their role in filling the bilateral relations with real content.

Both sides have agreed that Russian will contribute to the construction of a nuclear power plant in Egypt, as well as the creation of Egypt’s own nuclear power industry along the Nile for peaceful purposes. Egypt’s portfolio of military orders from Russia totals USD 3.5 billion and there are plans for this to increase. Equally important is the fact that both sides have declared Egypt and Russia’s unity of approach in combating terrorism in general and in Syria in particular.

The outcome of President Putin’s visit to Egypt is yet more evidence of America’s failed attempts to isolate Russia in the international arena. And the significance of the visit is not just limited to Egypt. New opportunities in relations between Russia and Saudi Arabia have also emerged, for example. After the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood from power in Egypt, Riyadh immediately offered financial aid to the new Egyptian government and is currently one of its main allies in the region. In strengthening its partnership with Egypt, Russia is also opening up the opportunity to improve its rapport with Saudi Arabia – and with this country, too, Moscow will find common ground.

Al-Sisi won the presidential election in May 2014. The Muslim Brotherhood were excluded from the country’s political life as a terrorist organization, according to the new constitution approved by 98% of voters at the January 2014 referendum. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Minister of Defense and the head of security services won over 96% of the vote. The victory was unprecedented in the 60 year history of Republican Egypt. The country became a republic in 1953. Moscow was the destination of his first foreign trip in the capacity of Defense Minister when he met President Putin in February 2014. On the part of his people the Russian President wished Egypt’s top military officer «success» in the nation’s presidential run. The relationship between the two countries has historic roots. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi enjoys strong support among those who stick to the legacy of former President Gamal Abdel Nasser, for instance: the National Salvation Front, including Al Wafd (Delegation Party), one of the oldest and most influential Liberal Democratic parties, the Arab Nasserist Party and the Tamarod (Rebellion) grassroots movement representing left-wing and Liberal Democratic forces. In Egypt al-Sisi is often compared to Gamal Abdel Nasser who ruled the country in 1954-1970. 

The Nasser’s socialism-oriented policy was aimed at maintaining the Egypt’s leadership in the Arab world and countering the neo-colonial pressure of the West being an ally of the Soviet Union. The bright examples of bilateral cooperation are the construction of Aswan dam and the support rendered to Egypt by the USSR in the days of Great Britain, France and Israel’s intervention against this country in 1956. The attack was stopped upon the demand of the Soviet Union stressing its right to intervene and strike the aggressors. The people of Egypt remember the support rendered the USSR those days. Quite often demonstrators on the streets of Cairo carry together three pictures of al-Sisi, Nasser and Putin. 

The world has greatly changed since the times of Nasser but neo-colonialism is still alive. For instance, the United States stopped military and financial aid to Egypt after Morsi was overthrown, The former President implemented pro-Western foreign policy, especially towards Syria. The departure of Morsi did not meet the US interests, so it labelled his deposition as a «violation of democracy and military coup». The African Union terminated Egypt’s membership in the organization. No matter that Egypt is adamant on the way of restoring its position as the leader of Arab world and a regional center of power. 

As a result of the events in Crimea and Ukraine Russia faces a stand-off with the West. The international events make one presume it’s not the last confrontation. To counter the challenge Russia needs allies outside the Western world – in Asia, Latin America and Africa. With its long history of ties with Russia, Egypt, a leading Arab nation, can become a Russian ally. 

Abdel Fattah Saeed Hussein Khalil el-Sisi was born November 19, 1954 in Cairo to a religious family. He himself is also known for his adherence to Islamic traditions (he often quotes the Quran from memory in conversations, and his wife wears a hijab), but he is not a fanatic and is tolerant toward other faiths. He has always maintained good relations with the Orthodox Copts. Keeping in mind the irritation caused in the country by the «high society» behavior of H. Mubarak's family, especially his son Gamal, he prudently keeps his family out of public view. He has three sons and a daughter, about whom little is known. He loves order and discipline. Those around him called him «General» even in childhood. In 1977 he graduated from the Military Academy. He subsequently received additional higher military education in several institutions of learning in Great Britain and the U.S. He is interested in history and law. He was the Director of the country's Military Intelligence and Reconnaissance Department, as a representative of which he held the prestigious post of military attaché to Saudi Arabia. He has good connections with the top brass of the Saudi military and in a number of other Arab countries, particularly in Syria. In a time difficult for Egypt, when the West turned its back on it, el-Sisi, thanks to his authority, was able to obtain generous financial assistance from the Persian Gulf countries. When he became part of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces of Egypt, he was its youngest member. On August 12, 2012 he was appointed Chairman of the Council and also became the Minister of Defense. 

Since July 3, 2013, when the military removed President Mohamed Morsi, who represented the Muslim Brotherhood, from power, el-Sisi, although formally only Deputy Prime Minister, has in fact already been the undeclared leader of the country. The upcoming elections will only confirm and legalize his real position. The path for this was opened by the successful referendum on the approval of a new constitution to replace the one adopted under the Muslim Brotherhood. Critics pointed out that only 39% of the population came out to vote in the referendum; however, they forgot to mention that only 32% voted in the referendum on the previous constitution, and only 63.8% of referendum participants voted in favor, as opposed to 98% this time. The growth of national support is clear. It is worth noting that in the opinion of experts, it was to a great extent women who stood behind this result; they voted unanimously for the new constitution, which restored rights which had previously been taken from them.

The fact that el-Sisi follows religious traditions has served him in good stead and misled the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, who placed their main stakes on him out of all the military. In fact, it turned out that national interests are more important to el-Sisi than Islam. Or more precisely, he does not believe that Islam must always resist modern life or other religious beliefs. His credo is that «We are first and foremost Egyptians, and only then Muslims and Christians». He believes that a democratic society and pluralism are fully compatible with Muslim norms; however, a gradual path to this should be taken, in his opinion. In the research paper «Democracy in the Middle East», written by el-Sisi during his year-long studies at the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania, he writes that democracy will be difficult to make a reality in the Middle East because the form of government must be adapted to the local cultural and religious situation. In this paper el-Sisi spoke against a theocratic society, but expressed his conviction that democracy in Egypt should be based on Islamic values. At the same time, he has always said that the army should be on the side of the people, and consequently of all the country's citizens. El-Sisi is oriented not toward an endless confrontation with the Muslim Brotherhood, but toward national reconciliation. For example, the influential Egyptian Copts, who number 8-10 million in the country, unanimously support him. It is no accident that on the eve of his promotion to field marshal and the announcement that the military was nominating General el-Sisi for president on January 26 of this year, he was visited by the patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Theodore II, who was accompanied by six bishops.

The fact that el-Sisi's opponents are resorting to terrorist attacks, despite their bloodiness, is a sign that they are no longer able to organize real mass protests against him and are resorting to desperate measures. With each such senseless attack his authority is only getting stronger, as the population is increasingly convinced of the need for a «firm hand». Popular confidence in him is now exceptionally high. He is supported by former pro-Western liberals, who are rather disappointed in their patrons; religious minorities; and government and military employees; but he is also supported by the majority of ordinary people from among devout Muslims, who see in el-Sisi a reincarnation of Nasser, a man who is capable of maintaining social justice in society. The former elite are also on his side. For example, former president Hosni Mubarak stated in an interview with the channel al-Arabia that the Egyptian people support el-Sisi. «They want to see him as president; they will achieve that and win that battle», said the ex-president. One of the main candidates in the previous election, former Secretary-General of the Arab League Amr Moussa, has already urged citizens to vote for el-Sisi. He himself is not going to run again. El-Sisi's popularity sometimes takes grotesque forms; there are posters with his portrait everywhere, often as a collage together with Nasser, and sometimes with V. Putin as well. At the numerous souvenir stands, el-Sisi's picture and initials are extremely popular. They can even be seen on pastries. But all of this does not go against the national culture and is not regulated from above. Such are the sentiments of the people. 

El-Sisi's potential foreign policy orientation and the steps he will take to restore Egypt's former influence in the region are also the subject of close attention. 

El-Sisi's attitude toward cooperation with the U.S. is a strictly pragmatic one. Having spent a fair amount of time there, he knows America well, but he is not at all blinded by its grandeur, for he knows its price. It is no coincidence that some American media sources call him an «opaque» and «enigmatic» figure. El-Sisi was critical of the White House's actions in Iraq, and did not hide this even during his studies in the U.S.; sometimes he encountered angry rhetoric from American veterans who had returned from there, which also apparently remained in his memory. At the time Morsi was overthrown, el-Sisi bluntly accused the American administration in an interview with The Washington Post of unfriendly actions toward his country: «You left the Egyptians. You turned your back on the Egyptians, and they won’t forget that». The fact that Cairo has already refused to accept Robert Ford, the current American representative in Syria who is well known for his close ties with the Islamist Syrian opposition, as the future U.S. ambassador is quite noteworthy, for example. This also characterizes el-Sisi's attitude toward events in that country, especially considering the fact that it is most likely on his initiative that official relations between Cairo and Damascus, broken off by the Muslim Brotherhood, were reestablished. Nevertheless, the Americans, who announced the suspension of their yearly military aid to Egypt in the amount of 1.5 billion dollars after the army came to power there, were forced to announce a return to their former practice for geopolitical reasons.

One of the reasons the White House decided to reestablish the aid payments was obviously concern about the security of Israel and the possibility of Cairo switching to other strategic preferences. For example, the Israeli media frightened the West with Moscow's supposed ambition to create bases for its navy in Egypt, indicating four prospective locations for them – in Alexandria, Port Said, Damietta and Rosetta – as well as with plans for large shipments of Russian armaments meant to fully replace American models. But where would Russia get so many ships, or Egypt so much money? The point of these scare tactics is quite obvious. Israel has no interest in the Americans turning away from Egypt and is motivating them to keep it in their tight embrace. 

At the same time, the Russian vector of Egypt's future policy indeed has good prospects, but they are a result not of mythical military preparations, but of objective economic factors. The three pillars of the modern Egyptian economy are tourism, revenues from the Suez Canal and extraction of natural gas. With regard to Suez Egypt is not dependent on anyone, but with regard to gas and especially tourism, cooperation with Russia could be of the closest kind. Russian citizens, who are not easily frightened by anything, literally saved the country's tourism industry in the crisis-filled year 2013; 2.5 million people visited Egypt that year. For its part, Egypt, which is highly dependent on food imports, imported 3 billion dollars' worth of grain alone from Russia in that same year, taking first place in this category of Russia's exports. The planned creation of a free trade zone between Egypt and the Customs Union could give the further development of cooperation between the two countries a strong impetus. If one considers that the famous American military aid is mostly just credits for price reductions on outdated armaments which could easily be replaced with shipments from other places on favorable terms, it turns out that Washington simply has nothing to offer that the Egyptian people truly need.

Periphery for new zone

Some time ago Washington started to plan a string of «color revolutions» to facilitate the world division into two free trade zones – Transatlantic and Transpacific. The aim was to expand the world periphery under its control. As far back as in 2007 the US plans to reshape the maps of North Africa and the Middle East leaked into media. It was said openly that the way to effectively control the region was to stage «regime changes» in Libya, Algeria and Morocco. The major part of the territory belonging to these countries was to go to a new state populated by Berber people, a mini-state of Nubya on the remnants of Egypt and the mini-state ruled by Polisario (from the Spanish abbreviation of Frente Popular de Liberación de Saguía el Hamra – Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). In some cases it was a failure, like in Morocco, where the powers that be were prudent enough to institute a new constitution used as a sop or crumbs from the master's table for local liberals. The same happened in Algeria where the military stepped in timely to bring back law and order. Somewhere it panned out as planned like in Libya and Tunisia, for instance. In other places healthy elements of society consolidated in the times of need to turn the process back, like it was in Egypt. In other cases a country was plunged into a bloody drawn-out conflict as a result of rebellion, the example is Syria. 

Libya «before» and «after»

Vitali Klitschko, the leader of UDAR political party, has recently addressed the Euromaidan filled by protesters. He made no bones about it saying Victor Yanukovych may follow the fate of Gaddafi… Perhaps he does not know what the life in Libya had been like under Gaddafi. I can remember. 

In 2010 the country boasted the highest living standard in Africa. The Gross National Income per capita exceeded $14 thousand (twice as much in comparison with Ukraine). An average salary was 1050 dollars. Half of the country’s oil income went to the people; every working man got $500 in addition to his monthly wage. This principle was used for distributing welfare among different walks of life. There was a pay equal to $700 for taking care of a child being born. 64 thousand dollars were paid to those who just got married to enable them to buy a house. 20 thousand was the sum given to those who wanted to become farmers. Monthly unemployment benefit was $730. Electric power was gratuitous. There was no housing rent to be paid. Credits were granted without interest rates. The price of gas was 14 cents per liter. Healthcare and education were free. Life expectancy was 74. Literacy was 89%. 

Muammar Gaddafi created the eighth wonder of the world – an artificial river. 5 million cubic meters of water from Sahara underground lakes were transported to the north of the country daily. The price of a cubic meter was 35 cents. Before the river was dug, Europeans had sold water to Libya at the price of 3, 75 dollar per cubic meter. 

How does the country look after Americans and their NATO allies intervened to bring it «freedom» and «democracy»? Libya is war-torn, armed formations fight each other. Actually the country is divided. The tribes in the south refuse to be under the central control. Nobody knows exactly who is fighting who and what the death toll is. 

Ministers are kidnapped in the capital (even Prime Minister was kidnapped once to spread fear around). Airports and military facilities are captured. High standing officials and foreigners are killed. Those left without household leave the country to become brigands in neighboring foreign lands. Now France, the country that initiated the intervention into Libya, faces armed gangs going on a rampage in Mali and the Central African Republic. French servicemen lose their lives. 

Libyan economy is in doldrums. Oil production has gone down from 1, 5 million to 250 million barrels a day. Some time ago the country accounted for 12% of world production, now it has to bring in diesel and black oil. 

Owl of Minerva over Egypt

Famous philosopher Hegel said that «the owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering». Minerva is the Roman name of the Greek Athena, goddess of wisdom and philosophy, and associated with the owl. His particular point is that it is only at the end of human history) that human beings can come to understand history's developmental logic. It makes remember the events in Egypt. I happened to witness the Hosni Mubarak’s overthrow and the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power. I also witnessed the toppling of Islamist regime by «military-people’s revolution» led by General al-Sisi, who resolutely put down the street protests and did it in the spirit of great traditions which are the legacy of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Now the General has each and every chance to win the next presidential election. In the Nasser’s times everyone studied and got education. It all changed under Mubarak who launched the process of economic liberalization. Officially 30 percent of Egyptians are illiterate. Egyptian sociologists say in reality the number is as high as a half of population if not more. 

I personally often met people whose eyes sparked at the mention of the Tahrir square events in Cairo; they started to speak emotionally about «all Egyptian people standing up to the tyranny». Just like those who join the Kiev maidan. Like in Kiev now, the revolutionaries in Cairo were provided with food, water, clothes and received money for their activities – hefty sums according to Egyptian standards. As they say, every revolution has a price. 

There were so many corpses on Tahrir square that it was a tall order to take them away in timely manner. There were scores of them lying in the ice from city refrigerators. The ice was melting and water was mixed with blood. The mixture was sucked by stray dogs. Scores of flies were hovering around… 

A half a year passed. There was no more spark and glitter in the peoples’ eyes. The life after the «revolution» became worse. Many industrial enterprises stopped. By the summer of 2011 the southern and western provinces were hit by hunger, the state had to distribute subsidized bread – one Egyptian pound for twenty loaves. If the assistance had been targeted, it would have probably helped many. But the country has no voters’ lists and no lists of those who are needy. The bread was sold to everyone; people had to stay in miles-long lines to buy it… 

Tourism suffered greatly. The number of tourists went down almost 40%. At the times of Mubarak tourism brought in 11, 5% of national GDP and provided jobs to 14% of able-bodied population. After the government was toppled, around 100 thousand people lost jobs in hotels and left Hurghada. The overpopulated and hungry villages of southern Egypt were not happy to see them coming. The owners and employees of multiple restaurants, cafes and shops, guides, bus and taxi drivers, those who produced, clothes and leather products – they all indirectly suffered. 

True and tried ways were used to let steam out of heated social melting pot by inciting Muslims against Coptic Christians, who were killed, raped and their churches were burnt. The «international community» was tacit pretending not to know what was going on the very same way it is ignoring the events in Kiev now. The gangs of maidan mobsters beat up passer-byes, exhibit ostentatiously obnoxious anti-Semitism and burst into other people’s homes. The West suggests that these actions should be seen as opposition protests aimed at protecting «European values». 

General al-Sisi saved Egypt by moving the country away from abyss and the danger of division, and he did it literally at the very last moment. But Islamists remained to go underground. Getting outside help they switched to terror and intimidation. There are voices raised on Kiev’s maidan saying they are ready to continue the fight underground too…

Many have noticed the unprecedented support of Saudi Arabia for the Egyptian military's actions, which they have declared, despite the facts of the harsh suppression of mass protests, a «fight against terrorism». The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the UAE have been stanch supporters of the leader of the military regime, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. In the face of serious socio-economic problems compounded by unrest, financial aid from these Arab states could become a decisive factor for Egypt in consolidating the situation in the country under army leadership. Moscow has also been paying attention to the unexpected Saudi-Egyptian alliance, as shown, for example, by the recent visit of the director general of the Saudi Intelligence Agency, Prince Bandar, to Moscow and his exhaustive 4-hour conversation with Russian President V. Putin. It is interesting that Prince Bandar did not respond to a similar invitation from Washington, which speaks indirectly of Riyadh's dissatisfaction with U.S. policy in the Middle East. An extremely curious configuration of powers is taking shape which could have positive significance for the resolution of other problems as well, particularly in overcoming the crisis in Syria. 

President Obama prefers not to publicly support the Egyptian military regime. After the bloody events of August 14 he attempted to call General al-Sisi and urge him to «stop repressing the protesters and firing live ammunition». The White House officially condemned the declaration of a state of emergency in the country. However, according to some sources, «Egypt's strongman» did not even take Obama's call – unheard-of audacity. Instead, the Egyptians suggested that the White House call the interim president Adly Mansour, which the Americans, in turn, declined to do. This is an admission of how limited U.S. influence now is; attempts to talk the Egyptian generals out of harsh measures against protestors failed, and the refusal to grant Egypt 1.3 billion dollars in American aid will simply become an invitation for rich Arab states to replace the U.S. in this role. The KSA and UAE have already provided the Egyptian military regime with 12 billion dollars, and the total amount of promised aid comes to 40 billion dollars. The stakes are high. After all, the Muslim Brotherhood are republicans, and despite their adherence to Islam, for the Persian Gulf monarchies they are deadly enemies. Power is more important than religion to the Brotherhood. The Americans continue to harp on democracy in the Middle East, but an increasing number of observers are coming to the conclusion that by that they mean not the freedom for the people to choose, but the proverbial «controlled chaos».

Defense Minister and Commander of the Egyptian army Abdel Fattah al-Sisi openly criticized the administration of the U.S. and President Obama, saying, «You left the Egyptians, you turned your back on the Egyptians and they won't forget that». Al-Sisi urged the administration to do more to support his country, including exerting influence on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Experts recognize that «today, a democratic transition that the West sought to portray as a model that other Arab nations could emulate lies in tatters».

Former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer writes, «One thing already can be said for certain: the basic distribution of power within Egyptian society has not changed. The military and the Muslim Brotherhood divide power between themselves. The Western-oriented liberals do not have any real power and stand, as we are seeing now, on the army’s shoulders». In a broader sense, the military coup in Egypt, along with the civil war in Syria, the destabilization of Lebanon which threatens to spread to Jordan, and the prevalence of violence in Iraq, heralds, in Fischer's view, the end of the Arab revolutions, at least for the time being. 

And well-known economist Jeffrey Sachs believes that «here, the feckless West – torn between its democratic rhetoric and its antipathy to the Islamists – showed its hand. The result was equivocation and delay, rather than commitment and assistance. The IMF has talked with the Egyptian government for two and a half years since Mubarak’s overthrow without so much as lending a single cent, sealing the Egyptian economy’s fate and contributing to public unrest and the recent coup».

Analysts are increasingly interested in the future course of Egypt. They are paying special attention to the current de facto leader of the country, General al-Sisi. For example, journalist Yasser Rizk from the Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm describes his meeting with General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in early 2011, when the latter was Egypt's director of military intelligence. It turns out that as early as April 2010 General al-Sisi predicted the inevitability of a popular revolution against the Mubarak regime in a report to Marshal Tantawi and suggested that the army support the people. It is not surprising that subsequently, on August 12, 2012, Mursi appointed him commander in chief and minister of defense. Among the Muslim Brotherhood there was even a widespread rumor that he was a secret member of their brotherhood. However, Rizk asserts that al-Sisi was always first and foremost an «Egyptian nationalist».

After al-Sisi took his new post, his first goal was to restore the fighting capacity of the Egyptian army. He also kept it from participating in political games and interparty conflicts. The general hoped that «the political forces would reach a consensus for the sake of Egypt's future». For him the coup was a matter of necessity. Afterwards, one of al-Sisi's first decisions was the dismissal of General Shehata as the director of Egypt's General Intelligence Directorate, a very important post in Egypt's situation, on July 5 and the appointment of General Mohamed Fareed al-Tuhami, who had for a long time headed the Administrative Control Authority under Mubarak. Thus, al-Sisi already made clear his intent to partially reinstate prior experience.

Al-Sisi, as those who know him well point out, is a calm, level-headed and self-assured person. Despite his seeming mildness, which at one time deceived Mursi, he has a very determined character. At the same time he is sensitive: when he hears the traditional solemn address «the great, free Egyptian people», his eyes fill with tears. He has undoubted charisma. He believes in his mission to save Egypt from impending catastrophe. He places the interests of his country above all. He once told Yasser Rizk, «Egypt is the mother of the world and, God willing, it will fulfill this role». The journalist is certain that in his qualities al-Sisi can only be compared with «the extraordinary leader Gamal Abdel Nasser». The commander of the Egyptian army refuted reports that he plans to run for President of Egypt, although he did not fully rule out the possibility.  But according to DEBKAfile, al-Sisi will almost certainly run for the highest government post late this year and has already essentially begun his election campaign. He plans to restore the traditional high status of the army in Egyptian socio-political life, despite protests from Europe and America. Al-Sisi plans to conduct democratic changes under his own strict control. One of his main characteristics is that he claims to represent the interests of all Egyptians, not only one religious or social group. 

Some experts see al-Sisi as a symbol of «reborn Egyptian nationalism» whose roots go back to Nasser. If events confirm such an assessment, it will serve as a historical justification for advancing military men to the center of social change in Egypt. It is no accident that demonstrators in Cairo who support the actions of the military regime carry portraits of Nasser and al-Sisi in front of them, pointing out the continuity from one to the other. Media loyal to the military regime is more and more frequently calling al-Sisi the «new Nasser», while experts such as Cairo University professor Mohamed Soffar assert that «Egyptians are psychologically not ready for a civilian leader».

The rebirth of the spirit of Nasserism as an ideological and political foundation for the activities of the new government in a critical moment for the country could also open new opportunities for collaboration between Egypt and Russia. In Moscow, as in Cairo, they remember that in the Nasser era this collaboration was very productive, and Egypt was then an influential factor in world politics, including as part of the Non-Aligned Movement.