African Entrepreneurship Records 2

Chapter 1054 Geopolitical Game
It can be said that there is a natural opposition between Britain and Russia, which has led to a century-long game. This game was inherited by the Soviet Union and Russia in the past, but because of the decline of Britain's national strength, the chess player was replaced by the United States.

It can be simply understood as a geopolitical dispute between the Slavs and the Anglo-Saxons for world hegemony. There are three key points, namely Europe, the Far East and the Middle East (Asia). Needless to say, Europe is the place where Western countries and Russia have been fighting for hundreds of years. The Middle East and Central Asia are also hot spots of contention, and the Russo-Japanese War is the manifestation of the conflict between the two sides in the Far East.

When Europe becomes strong, it will be difficult for Russia to play a role in Europe, so Russia will shift its attention to the Middle East and Central Asia, and finally choose the Far East.

In fact, we can also see this from Russia's actions from the 19th century to the early 20th century. First, it was blocked by Britain and France in Crimea, followed by the Russo-Turkish War, and finally the Russo-Japanese War.

In the geopolitical dispute between Russia and Britain, Persia is at a key node. Britain wants to build a land channel connecting to India in the Middle East and Central Asia. The main line involves India, Afghanistan, Persia, the Ottoman Empire, and finally connects to the Mediterranean.

Of course, the UK has an alternative plan, which is to bypass countries such as Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, etc. that control the western coast of the Persian Gulf.

The driving force behind the formation of the alternative plan was that Britain was at a disadvantage in the game with Tsarist Russia and was unable to control countries such as Persia and Afghanistan. In order to prevent Tsarist Russia from cutting off Britain's ties with India.

In fact, in the past, Africa was also very important in Britain's planned layout. If Britain deployed a horizontal land strategic channel in the Middle East and Central Asia, Britain also designed a vertical land channel in Africa, which is the Two C plan from Cape Town to Cairo.

The intersection of the vertical and horizontal lines is Egypt, and through Britain's strong influence in the Mediterranean, Britain can indirectly control most of Europe, Asia and Africa.

Of course, because of East Africa, Britain’s Two C Plan naturally could not take shape. The existence of East Africa can be said to have broken one leg of Britain’s century-old layout.

Fortunately, Africa was not given much attention by other countries in the past. If it had been a little later, with the British using various means of intervention, East Africa would not have been established so smoothly.

Compared with East Africa, Tsarist Russia undoubtedly posed a greater threat to Britain. Although East Africa occupied half of Africa, Africa's ability to interfere outside the region was obviously not as strong as Tsarist Russia.

Tsarist Russia can be said to be located in the center of the Eurasian continent and can attack in all directions. If Russia cannot be blocked in any direction, then Russia will make further progress in the Eurasian continent.

Therefore, in order to prevent Russia from becoming stronger, countries around the world must devote a lot of energy, such as in the Baltic Sea, Central Europe, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Far East.

If Russia gains an advantage in any region, it will be able to obtain access to the sea with better conditions. Coupled with the land power advantage, it will be even more difficult to suppress Russia.

In contrast, in East Africa, the Sahara Desert in the north blocks the communication between East Africa and Europe and Asia. Although East Africa has the advantage of two oceans, at the current stage, the naval strength of East Africa is not enough to pose a threat to Britain, and attacking from the sea is not as convenient as attacking from land as Tsarist Russia. On the sea, the British can suppress potential enemies with their powerful navy, but Tsarist Russia cannot be easily suppressed by Britain if it attacks from land.

……

Rhine City.

In order to cope with the changes of Britain and Russia in the Middle East and Central Asia, East Africa, including the military, security bureau and other government departments, held targeted discussions. Staff member Cristiano gestured on the map with a triangle ruler and pencil: "Starting from Central Asia and connecting to Persia, Tsarist Russia can obtain the coveted Indian Ocean outlet, or covet the rich Indian colonies through Afghanistan. This is also the key to the conflict between Britain and Tsarist Russia."

"On the contrary, Britain's layout in the Middle East and Central Asia restricted Russia's southern access to the sea, so the two sides have been unable to reach an agreement. The Russo-Turkish War and the Afghan War are concrete manifestations of the game between the two sides."

"From the perspective of the layout of both sides, we can draw two straight lines, one from southern Russia to Central Asia and then to the Persian Gulf, and the other from Syria in the Ottoman Empire to the Persian Gulf and then to India. The intersection of the two straight lines is Persia."

Cristiano drew the line of core interests between Britain and Russia in the region in a lighthearted way, which made other people in the East African government feel depressed.

"This is the Empire. Judging from the map alone, the Empire should have most of the interests in the Middle East and Central Asia. After all, we can exert influence here through convenient sea transportation. But the facts are just the opposite. The Empire has long lacked political influence in the Middle East and Central Asia." said Imperial Foreign Minister Freer.

It is only more than 3,000 kilometers from Mogadishu at the northern tip of East Africa to the Persian Gulf. This distance is not too far for the ocean, and there are almost no obstacles in between, so shipping between East Africa and the Persian Gulf is very convenient.

Overall, the advantages are at least much greater than those of the United Kingdom and Russia. Although Russia is closest to the Persian Gulf, most of it is land, and the cost of land transportation is too high. The United Kingdom is thousands of miles away from the Persian Gulf and has to pass through the Strait of Gibraltar, the Suez Canal, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, or detour around the Cape of Good Hope.

Freer went on to say: "If we want to break the monopoly of Britain and Russia on the region, we must join the competition in the Middle East and Central Asia. Although our navy is far less powerful than Britain's at present, the main forces of the British navy are concentrated in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. We have great room for maneuver in the Indian Ocean."

"As for Russia, we can also block Russia's southward advance through sea transportation and support for local forces. Of course, the British do the same, so we do not completely have no common interests with the UK in intervening in the Middle East and Central Asia."

The stability of the triangle also means that the participation of East Africa will make the situation in the entire Persian Gulf coastal area more complicated. The relationship between Britain, Russia and East Africa is also quite complicated. Even if East Africa temporarily joins in interfering in the region, it will not have much impact on the geopolitics. At least in the short term, no one among Britain, Russia and East Africa can easily gain absolute advantage.

Ernst said: "Our ultimate goal is not to have an irreconcilable conflict with Britain or Russia. The United States has already demonstrated this to us in the Far East Empire, so we must also join in the name of maintaining trade, so that Britain and Russia will have to make certain concessions."

Even if East Africa has extravagant ambitions for the Persian Gulf coast, it cannot achieve its goal all at once. It will take a lot of time just to develop its influence there, and Britain and Russia will not back down just because of East Africa's joining. After all, East Africa does not have the strength to do so.

In the past, the United States was able to enter the Persian Gulf because it inherited British assets. For example, the US naval base in Bahrain is actually the core of the British navy in the Persian Gulf. The British withdrawal was a compromise forced by the two world wars, which caused Britain to completely become a second-rate country. However, even so, Britain's influence on the local area lasted for at least several decades.

Therefore, the effect of East Africa's joining will not be seen in the short term, unless both Britain and Russia suddenly decline terribly. This also requires consideration of factors of local countries and regions. For example, the rise of countries such as Persia in the past made it difficult for the United States to control the Middle East. Therefore, if East Africa wants to make a difference in the Middle East and Central Asia, it will inevitably have to go through a long period of planning.

"In the Middle East and Central Asia, we must also abide by some objective facts. First of all, we must not let Russia profit. If Russia really gains access to the Indian Ocean because of us, it will be a disaster for the empire. So we are in agreement with Britain on blocking Russia."

(End of this chapter)