My TakeClear evidence from Middle East: regime change only leads to misery

Hardcore democrats, in their ideological zest, would risk instability and the collapse of governments to advance their cause.

Political realists, who are opposed to ideological zest, prefer stability over any ideological cause. If the risks are high and the outcome uncertain, the imperfect status quo along with all its ethical compromises may be preferable.

The leaders in Moscow and Beijing have all along been supreme realists on the Middle East and particularly the Arab Spring.

They must now be shaking their heads at Western countries, particularly Britain, France and the United States with their interventionist foreign policies, and thinking, "I told you so."

The wave after wave of desperate refugees fleeing northern Africa and the Middle East to the shores of Europe today is one of the most terrible consequences of the so-called Arab Winter, which followed the euphoric Spring with civil wars, anarchy, pervasive terrorism and collapse of governments.

The Chinese and Russians have long argued that effecting regime changes in the Middle Eastern powder keg would only worsen conditions, introduce greater instabilities and encourage extremism.

Beijing's policy of non-interference, irresponsible in many cases, is well-suited to dealing with the region.