How «neutral» is Egypt's «neutrality» regarding the Russia-Ukraine war today?

Egyptian diplomacy uses someone else’s war in its own interests to minimize its own internal discomfort, turning neutrality into a tool for hidden legitimization of Russian encroachments in Ukraine and creating a dangerous precedent for future armed expansions.

Egyptian expert and analyst Sidki Abdin, who publishes his articles and materials at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, published an analytical article on the Center’s website entitled «Possibilities to Freeze the Russian-Ukrainian War».

It feels like Sidki Abdin understands what he is writing about and tries, if possible, to adhere to a neutral position in analyzing the situation. However, it is noticeable that sometimes he is drawn to Moscow’s rhetoric. The author of the article is a recognized expert on the problems of Asia, not Ukraine, and therefore some of his statements look, at least, strange when he writes about the possibilities of freezing the war.

According to Sidki Abdin: «Several scenarios can be discussed for the end of the Russian-Ukrainian war, whether in the near future, in the foreseeable future, or even in the distant future. Moreover, the end of the war does not exclude the possibility of its renewal, as long as the root causes of its outbreak remain unresolved. This is the main dilemma: each side has its own view of the origins of the war. From the Russian point of view, the situation is clear: there is a Western conspiracy against Russia, in which Ukraine is used as a frontline. Ukrainians of Russian origin have been targeted for years, and the Ukrainian regime has chosen hostility to everything Russian, reviving Nazism. Therefore, all this cannot be tolerated, especially considering that the United States has refused to provide security guarantees to Russia, refused to promise that Ukraine would not join NATO, and has not fulfilled its previous commitments to expand the alliance to the east. With the outbreak of the war, the situation has become even more precarious. Russia insists on annexing all Donbas, and if Ukraine wants to end the war, it must withdraw its troops from the rest of the region, change its policy, and replace the ruling elite in Kyiv. These conditions seem impossible to fulfill, and no Ukrainian official could accept them for fear of being accused of treason. Ukraine demands the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from all of its territory, including Crimea, and also calls for increased Western support and further sanctions against Russia».

It is noteworthy that, while repeating Russian propaganda narratives, Sidki Abdin did not say a single word about the reasons for the war from the Ukrainian side’s point of view. And what about declared neutrality then?

Because if he repeats Moscow’s rotten thesis that «the Ukrainian regime has chosen hostility towards everything Russian, reviving Nazism», then why didn’t he say anything about Moscow’s geopolitical revanchism, the imperial essence of the Russian Federation, and Putin’s attempts to destroy Ukrainian statehood and Ukrainians themselves? And didn’t he say anything about the Russian dictator’s goal of reviving the USSR by forcefully driving the countries it once occupied into its fold? Skillfully jumping to the conclusion that «Ukraine demands the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from all of its territory, including Crimea».

The conclusions of this Egyptian expert are no less revealing. He writes: «Has Russia moved in its military operation from simply disciplining those it perceives as aggressors to a retaliatory operation that provoked countermeasures? This is especially relevant, given that some in the West advocate Russia’s strategic defeat. Then the fundamental question arises: will Russia accept such a defeat, regardless of the price?»

That is, according to Sidki Abdin, the start of a terrible, unprovoked bloody war by Putin is nothing more than simply «disciplining those» whom Russia perceives as aggressors, and the Russian-Ukrainian war itself is a «retaliatory operation that provoked countermeasures»?

Such a strange “logic” reflects the deep penetration of Russian propaganda clichés into the media and expert space of the countries of the Global South, where attempts are often made to wrap the Kremlin’s aggression in the guise of «legitimate defense» or «confrontation with NATO». Since a significant part of the Egyptian and generally Arab intellectual elite has traditionally been raised on anti-colonial rhetoric and skepticism about Western policies, Russia skillfully manipulates these sentiments, substituting causes and consequences.

Turning reality upside down, when a full-scale unprovoked invasion, Ukraine’s sovereign right to self-defense, and international assistance to the victim of aggression are interpreted as «aggressive actions by the West» that Moscow is forced to «counter», is a classic technique of information warfare.

Instead of analyzing the violation of international law, sovereignty, and recorded war crimes by Muscovites, such experts focus on the geopolitical confrontation between great powers, effectively depriving Ukraine of subjectivity and thereby justifying a destructive war with Russia’s desire to preserve its imperial status at all costs.

Siddiqui Abdin continues: «It is clear that this war, now in its fifth year, is a symptom, or rather a festering wound, of the transformations in the international order over the past four decades. These transformations have inflicted wounds and scars on some sides while fueling megalomania in others, leading to the proclamation of the «end of history» and the «final victory of capitalism». This has forced the West and its leaders to act as if they alone dominate the world. Does this mean that the war will continue until the international order is reformed, or will it serve as a harsh lesson to all sides, paving the way for a more just international system – one that is fair not only to the strong but also to the weak?».

This quote from Siddiqui Abdin’s article reflects the classic critical view of the Global South on the crisis of the modern security architecture, where the current war is seen not as an isolated regional conflict but as a natural consequence of the systemic dysfunction of a unipolar world.

Here the author appeals to Francis Fukuyama’s concept of the «end of history», which, after the collapse of the USSR, recorded the ideological triumph of liberal capitalism and created an illusion of absolute dominance among Western elites.

This long period of geopolitical asymmetry and the sole dominance of the United States led to the fact that such totalitarian states as China and Russia began to believe that their interests were being ignored and their geopolitical influence was being artificially limited. Which ultimately pushed them to form a revisionist alliance to destroy the current unipolar world order.

For these geopolitical revisionists, Russia’s war in Ukraine appears as a manifestation of the transition period from the old order, which is no longer functioning, to a new one, the contours of which are only being formed.

Analyzing the dilemma posed by Sidki Abdin – whether the war will continue until the international order is completely reformed, or whether it will become a sobering lesson for the creation of a more just system, it is worth recognizing that both scenarios are interdependent processes, not alternatives.

The history of international relations proves that the global rules of the game and international structures (such as the Westphalian system, the Congress of Vienna, the League of Nations, or the UN) have never been transformed in an evolutionary or purely diplomatic way in times of peace.

They have always been the result of large-scale cataclysms and military clashes that fixed a new balance of power. Therefore, the Russian-Ukrainian war, unfortunately, is an instrument of an attempt at this violent reformation, where hostilities and economic confrontation determine the limits of influence of future poles of power.

However, the hopes of the Egyptian analyst for building a «more just system that will protect the weak» look idealistic and contradict the ruthless logic of modern geopolitics.

The transition to multipolarity, which China and Russia now want to impose on the world, does not at all guarantee the automatic granting of rights to weak states, but rather the opposite – it strengthens the positions of regional leaders and sharply reduces the effectiveness of international law. Therefore, from the weakening of the United States, or the strengthening of China and Russia, Egypt will not be able to gain anything, but, most likely, will only lose.

When global institutions like the UN are paralyzed, the world returns to the politics of brute force, where the security of small states becomes a bargaining chip in the competition of great powers. The harsh lesson of the Russian-Ukrainian war is not that the strong will suddenly voluntarily take care of the weak, but that the old security «umbrella» no longer protects, and each state is forced to seek new forms of survival, alliances, and militarization.

But as Egyptian political scientist Sidki Abdin is convinced: «It is clear that the consequences of the Russian-Ukrainian war are not limited to the two parties directly involved or their supporters. There is also the possibility, albeit small, of direct involvement by other parties, whether under the pretext of border incidents here and there, or naval attacks that have recently spread, or based on existing agreements. These parties must be held accountable for the negative consequences of this war, which will affect numerous issues, including the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the goals of sustainable development around the world. This is an important message in a world obsessed with building up military arsenals to supplement those used in existing wars and preparing for new ones. This world is indifferent to the millions of people suffering from hunger, not to mention the thousands, perhaps millions, killed and wounded. Therefore, any efforts to stop this war and others like it, even if they take place under the guise of a ceasefire, are welcome».

The statements of the Egyptian political scientist Sidki Abdin vividly demonstrate the discourse prevalent in the countries of the Global South, which consciously distances itself from the moral and legal assessments of Russian aggression, shifting the focus of attention to the global geopolitical and economic consequences.

This text does not mention the genocidal nature of the actions of the Putin regime, the massive shelling of Ukrainian cities, the death of children or the colonial essence of this war. And such an approach is not just an «oversight», but a well-thought-out strategic position inherent in many intellectuals of the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa).

The authors of such concepts tend to view the Russian-Ukrainian war not through the prism of international law or the human suffering of a particular people, but through the lens of neorealism, where Ukraine is perceived more as an object of global confrontation between great powers, rather than as a sovereign entity with its own identity and the right to defense.

By shifting the focus to the risks of nuclear proliferation, the destruction of sustainable development goals, and the threat of famine, Sidki Abdin effectively adjusts the topic of war to the agenda of developing countries. For Egypt, which is critically dependent on grain imports and the stability of logistical routes in the Black Sea, the primary priority is to eliminate economic discomfort, not to restore justice.

That is why the text suggests that any ceasefire is «welcome». Such a position completely ignores the fact that a hasty ceasefire without deoccupation of Ukrainian territories and punishment of the aggressor will only legitimize the occupied territories, give Russia time to regroup, and create a precedent for new colonial conquests in the future.

So the question naturally arises – to what extent is Egypt’s «neutrality» today «neutral»? After all, by promoting an immediate ceasefire for the sake of restoring logistics and stabilizing the grain market, Cairo de facto plays into the interests of the aggressor, as it puts aside the issues of international law, de-occupation of territories, and fair punishment of the Russian Federation for its crimes.

In this way, Egyptian diplomacy uses a foreign war in its own interests to minimize its own internal discomfort, turning neutrality into a tool for hidden legitimization of Russian encroachments in Ukraine and creating a dangerous precedent for future armed expansions.