The idea that Russia and China are going to become close allies fails to account for the constraints and geopolitical imperatives of both countries. Neither can be content in a situation where the U.S. has untrammeled power in the world. But that does not change the geography that makes the interests of Beijing and Moscow so different. In this case, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

The United States is the world's dominant power, and is without peer. But Russia and China are arguably the next two most significant world powers on the list. Russia's economy may be in shambles, and it is in the process of updating its military and rearming for 21st century conflict - but even so, Moscow boasts a formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons and just demonstrated in Syria how effective a limited deployment of Russian troops can be. China now has the second largest GDP in the world, and convulsions in the Chinese economy have global ramifications, asthe crisis of the exporters has demonstrated.
U.S. relations with Russia and China have become tense in recent years. The American "reset" of relations with Russia froze with the Ukrainian revolution of February 2014. The U.S.-China relationship is less hostile: there has been ostensible progress on economic issues, on isolating North Korea and levying sanctions against Pyongyang, and even on issues related to climate change. But China's saber rattling in the South China Sea is a challenge for America's Asian allies and a nuisance to the U.S. Nor can the U.S. be comfortable with Chinese President Xi Jinping's moves to affirm his status as Chinese dictator. On the surface, it would make sense for China and Russia to marry their fortunes together. An alliance would create exactly the type of Eurasian force that U.S. policy is designed to thwart. But here, geopolitics asserts itself.
Areas of Increased Cooperation
That Russia and China might seek to increase cooperation to the point of becoming allies is not a red herring argument. On both a macro and a micro level, relations between Russia and China are arguably better today than they have been at any point since World War II. Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, Sino-Russian relations have improved markedly. The 1991 Sino-Soviet Border Agreement settled many territorial disputes between the two countries - the last of these disputes was addressed in a 2004 agreement that dealt with the eastern section of the border. In 2001, China and Russia signed a Treaty of Friendship, a 20-year agreement that not only provides the basis for peaceful relations, but also has been interpreted as an implicit defense pact.
The countries' ties have accelerated in recent years in three areas: energy, finance and infrastructure/technology. Russia and China flirted with energy cooperation in the past, but in 2013 the two sides signed a number of deals, including a $270 billion oil deal and a joint venture between Rosneft and China National Petroleum Corporation that constituted Russia's first attempt to break into China's gasoline market. Overall, according to the Bank of Russia, Chinese foreign direct investment into Russia increased by a factor of five from 2009 to 2014.
The 2008 financial crisis hit Russia hard and would turn out to be a harbinger for more serious problems to come. Russia once bragged it could survive if oil prices dipped as low as $70 a barrel, which now seems like wishful thinking. The recent March "rally" in oil prices to $40 then just made a catastrophic situation a little easier to swallow. Meanwhile, Moscow's underestimation of the crisis in Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions tacked on after Russia formalized its rule of Crimea drove Russia to look east more than it had in the past. In May 2014, Putin signed a bevy of agreements, though many of these have not moved forward at the anticipated pace. More important for Russia is financing - and this also has picked up. Just last month, Gazprom secured a $2.17 billion loan from the Bank of China, and according to the Bank of Russia, new Chinese loans to the non-financial sector and households in Russia in 2014 totaled $11.6 billion - almost four times as much as Russia's next biggest lender.
On the more mundane level of diplomacy, Russia and China also have seen some of their interests converge. Both have reacted negatively toward recent North Korean nuclear provocations and even signed on to U.S. sanctions against North Korea. But both also see a strong U.S. presence in South Korea, which can be expected to increase over the next decade, as a threat. China is still not quite sure what to do about Russia's Ukraine problem. On the one hand, China has affirmed Ukraine's sovereignty. On the other hand, China does not want to condone the Ukrainian revolution for fear of implicitly lending legitimacy to separatists in places like Taiwan or Tibet. But by and large, China and Russia find themselves, if not on the same side of many issues, pleasantly indifferent to the other's position.
Geographic Realities
Despite these converging interests, geography and history keep China and Russia from becoming meaningful allies, or enemies for that matter. China and Russia have the sixth-longest international border in the world at roughly 4,209 km (2,615 miles). But that figure is misleading, as is simply looking at the border on a flat map. Russia's major population centers are in the west - the view from Moscow looks out across the North European Plain, not towards the Urals.

The bulk of China's population lives on the coast and drops precipitously west of the line marking 15 inches of annual rainfall. China can be seen as a very densely populated island, surrounded on one side by ocean and on the other side by vast buffer regions of mountains and deserts. Much has been made of China potentially slowly taking over Siberia through demographics. It's unclear how many Chinese people live in Siberia but even if immigration increased wildly, Siberia is far from China's core - Beijing has a hard enough time managing its northwestern Xinjiang territory. China has never in its long history dominated Siberia, and there's no reason to expect it to begin to now.

A leak of 11 million confidential documents said to reveal how the world’s rich use tax havens to hide their wealth also allegedly shows how Putin’s associates are involved in a staggering billion-dollar money laundering business

Associates of President Vladimir Putin of Russia have channeled as much as $2 billion through offshore accounts, banks and shadow companies, according to a massive leak of documents from a Panamanian law firm.
More than 11 million documents, dubbed the Panama Papers, show how dozens of rich and powerful people around the world have used offshore and secret accounts to dodge taxes and sanctions and launder money.
The documents were leaked from the law firm Mossack Fonseca and connect to 140 politicians in more than 50 countries. Current and former leaders of Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Iceland, Georgia, Qatar and Iraq were among those named in the documents. Families and associates of Syrian president Bashar Assad, former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, and former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak have also been implicated, the BBC reports.

An investigation by more than 100 media groups, described as one of the largest such probes in history, revealed the hidden offshore assets of around 140 political figures 

Fusion has a breakdown of world leaders who are connected either themselves or through family or friends.
More than 370 journalists from 107 news organizations were involved in a year-long investigation, which began when the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung was leaked 2.6 terabytes of data. Süddeutsche Zeitung then worked in collaboration with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, which published the findings Sunday along with other media partners.

"I think the leak will prove to be probably the biggest blow the offshore world has ever taken because of the extent of the documents," ICIJ director Gerard Ryle said to the BBC. The files go back through 40 years of the inner workings of the secretive law firm.

The ICIJ reports that the papers describe in detail the role of classical cellist Sergey Roldugin, a very close friend of Vladimir Putin, who is "a behind-the-scenes player in a clandestine network operated by Putin associates that has shuffled at least $2 billion through banks and offshore companies."
Roldugin is listed as the owner of several offshore companies, and is in "ostensible control" of $100 million worth of assets, The Guardian reports. Roldugin says he is not a businessman. But the ICIJ says evidence "suggests Roldugin is acting as a front man for a network of Putin loyalists – and perhaps for Putin himself."
From the ICIJ:
In almost every instance, the result is the same: money and power moves in the direction of the network, to companies and people allied to Putin. The network's covert deals allowed it to receive money in a variety of ways including hundreds of millions of dollars in sweetheart loans from a bank controlled by the Russian government.
Leading political figures in Iceland are named in the documents as well. The prime minister, finance minister and minister of the interior have "links" to secret offshore companies, Süddeutsche Zeitung reports.
FIFA, no stranger to scandal, also has a number of officials named in the leaked documents. Juan Pedro Damiani, who sits on FIFA's ethics committee, is now being investigated himself. According to Süddeutsche Zeitung, documents show Damiani "managed companies through which FIFA members may have received bribes."
Mossack Fonseca is one of the leading creators of shell companies, according to theCenter for Public Integrity. The ICIJ notes that the files include data on 214,488 "offshore entities" involving individuals in 200 countries and territories.
The law firm responded to the reports in a statement Sunday:
Mossack Fonseca is a leading international company with a presence in over 40 countries and with close to 40 years of history in the legal industry. We operate through our own and representative offices. All our offices maintain the highest due diligence standards that comply with all international laws and regulations.
They also said: "The vast majority of our clients are regulated entities, such as premier banks, attorneys, accountants, other law firms, trust companies, etc.―all of them well-known and reputable business companies and firms."

'Biggest leak in history'

The massive leak of documents recalls Wikileaks' exploits of 2010 -- which included the release of secret military files and diplomatic cables.

However, in terms of size, "the 'Panama Papers' is likely the biggest leak of inside information in history," according to ICIJ. "It is equally likely to be one of the most explosive in the nature of its revelations."

More than 500 banks, their subsidiaries and branches have worked with Mossack Fonseca since the 1970s to help clients manage offshore companies. UBS set up more than 1,100 and HSBC and its affiliates created more than 2,300.

The documents show "banks, law firms and other offshore players often fail to follow legal requirements to make sure clients are not involved in criminal enterprises, tax dodging or political corruption," the ICIJ said.

Mossack Fonseca is already subject to investigations in Germany and Brazil, where it is part of a huge money laundering probe that has threatened to topple the current government.

The ICIJ alleges its co-founder, Jurgen Mossack, may also have been involved in helping Britain's notorious Brink's-Mat robbers -- who stole 7,000 gold bars, diamonds and cash in 1983 -- keep their proceeds.

The law firm told the ICIJ the claim was "entirely false".

"These findings show how deeply ingrained harmful practices and criminality are in the offshore world," said Gabriel Zucman, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, cited by the consortium.

The leaked documents were reviewed by a team of more than 370 reporters, though their source was not immediately clear.

The firm, Mossack Fonseca, one of the world's most secretive offshore law firms, said it had operated with impunity for decades in its efforts to help clients launder money and avoid tax.

A special report exposes the offshore holdings of 12 current and former world leaders and reveals that Putin's associates secretly shuffled as much as $2 billion via banks and shadow companies.

The leak documents link current and former leaders, including longtime Egyptian autocrat Hosny Mubarak and Syria's Bashar Assad, to illicit financial transactions.

The massive leak gives details about a suspected billion-dollar money laundering ring that was run by Bank Rossiya, which is subject to U.S. and EU sanctions following Russia's annexation of Crimea.

Money has been channelled through offshore companies, two of which were officially owned by one of the Russian president's closest friends.

Sergey Roldugin, one of Putin's closest and dearest, and the godfather of Putin's eldest daughter Masha, is said to be a behind-the-scenes player in a clandestine network operated by Putin associates that shuffled at least $2 billion through banks and offshore companies.

In the report, it is also claimed that Roldugin was listed as the owner of the offshore companies that obtained payments from other companies worth tens of millions of dollars.

"In almost every instance, the result is the same: money and power moves in the direction of the network, to companies and people allied to Putin," the report adds, further stating that Putin's clandestine network's "covert deals" allowed it to receive money in a variety of ways including hundreds of millions of dollars in "sweetheart loans" from a bank controlled by the Russian government, in other words, the St. Petersburg-based Rossiya Bank which has been identified by the U.S. government as the "secret cashbox of Putin."

"Nowhere in the Mossack Fonseca files is the name of the Russian president, a former KGB spymaster, actually mentioned," the report says, adding that audio recordings and witness accounts show that even when Putin's closest confidants secretly discuss his financial dealings, they use pseudonyms for him or "simply gesture to the heavens rather than utter his name.

Mossack Fonseca data also shows how Iceland's Prime Minister Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson has been allegedly hiding millions of dollars of investments in his country's banks behind a secretive offshore company.

Leaked documents show that Gunnlaugsson and his wife bought offshore company Wintris in 2007.

The project, which included a team of more than 370 journalists from more than 70 countries, is believed to be the largest leak journalists have ever worked with. It contains 2.6 terabytes of data, 11.5 millions documents, and 214,000 shell companies.

This week marks five years since the beginning of the horrific Syrian civil war and the Arab Spring movement. A net assessment of the affected countries shows the ineffectiveness of the movement.
Protests began in Syria on March 15, 2011 in the capital Damascus as Syrians demanded democratic reforms and the release of political prisoners. The protests spiralled into pain and madness when President Bashar al Assad’s security forces opened fire on the protesters, leading to a full-scale civil war and the dissolution of Syria as a viable country.
Over the next five years the conflict would attract almost every major world power, each joining the fight against various Syrian factions – or each other – for their own political purposes. A new generation of jihadists, evolving far past the al qaeda movement, took advantage of the chaos to build what has become known as the Islamic State in both Syria and the riven Iraqi north.
Earlier this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that the bulk of his forces in Syria would begin departure from the conflict, having “achieved” the Kremlin’s initial military goals. Bolstering al Assad in Syria and setting the conditions for power-sharing negotiations between the rebels and the regime were indeed accomplished as a result of Russia’s intervention in Syria.
For Mr Putin, intervening in Syria was never strictly about that conflict. Rather it was used to demonstrate Russian power and seriousness to encourage concessions with the West regarding the frozen conflict in Ukraine.
It remains to be seen whether these wider goals can now be realised due to the actions in Syria. The Europeans and the US hold the strategic initiative in Ukraine and will probably conduct tough negotiations with the Kremlin. Meanwhile, the Syrian war grinds on.
Of the other three countries deeply affected by the Arab Spring – Egypt, Tunisia and Libya – only Tunisia has managed to forge something resembling a democratic government. Although it is fragile and under pressure by Islamist political forces, the government is currently under the control of Nidaa Tounes party, or Call for Tunisia, following the 2014 election.
Nidaa Tounes has a plurality of seats in parliament and enjoys significant support from the traditional power bases that enabled strongmen such as Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Habib Bourguiba (Tunisia’s founding president) to govern the country. Essentially, some democratic progress has occurred, but not much has changed in the North African country since the protests. Many of Mr Ben Ali’s inner circle are back in power among the judiciary and executive branches.
The story is much the same in Egypt. The country received the most glowing media coverage during the mass protests in early 2011. According to most narratives Egyptian citizens were rising up against the dictator Hosni Mubarak, hoping to encourage a democratic transition.
Instead, the military – to which Mr Mubarak was deeply connected – worked to oust the dictator while paying lip service to protester’s demands. They made this decision because immediately before the protests began Mr Mubarak had nominated a controversial family member to succeed his rule. The military leadership felt threatened by this new face and used the protests as an excuse to remove Mr Mubarak’s regime and retain power.
And after a theatrical democratic election temporarily brought the provocative Muslim Brotherhood party to power in Cairo, the military leadership became concerned with many of the party’s proposed reforms and once again worked to remove the Muslim Brotherhood. Presently, a group of military leaders known as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) remain in control of Egypt, as it always has been.
Libya is a broken country after limited democratic protests in the eastern city of Benghazi turned violent in 2011. Dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s regime was subsequently removed from power by a mix of Islamists and ethnic forces in a bloody civil war. Libya was the only country in 2011 where Western forces intervened. When the regime appeared to existentially threaten the uprising, US and European militaries conducted airstrikes to cripple Mr Gadhafi’s forces.
After his regime collapsed, the rebel factions split the country into at least three major sections along existing ethnic and historical lines. All the underlying tensions held together by the dictator have so far precluded the rebels from coalescing into a functional transitional government while strongmen from Mr Gadhafi’s regime have taken control of the various groups.
The UN has attempted multiple times to create a unity government, but each construction has failed. As a result of the present anarchy, an affiliate of the jihadist group Islamic State (IS) has gained control of the city of Sirte and threatens almost 250 kilometres of territory along the Libyan coast.
Even though Western forces quickly departed Libya after the regime fell, they are now preparing to re-enter Libya under the pretence of fighting IS to provide legitimacy to the nascent unity government.
Other countries across the region experienced only limited uprisings during the months of the Arab Spring. Protests in Bahrain were largely unsuccessful because of an extremely effective and heavy-handed security response by military and police forces of Saudi Arabia, which were invited to protect Bahrain by its government. In Saudi Arabia, the security response to isolated uprisings in the predominantly Shia east were quelled swiftly before they could connect and metastasise.
Saudi Arabia has also been involved in Yemen’s civil war on behalf of the elected President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi. The fighting may be resolved in the next few months as coalition forces are poised to retake the capital Sanaa. The Yemeni uprising was only peripherally a result of the wider Arab Spring, but protests did undermine the regime of former president Ali Abdullah Saleh leading to instability and worried attention from Riyadh.
Monarchies in Jordan, Oman, UAE and Saudi Arabia all escaped the spread of the Arab Spring. For reasons presently unknown, the royals possessed perhaps both greater legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens and the international community than the unpopular dictators in the afflicted countries, and were able to introduce sufficient security force at critical moments to quell uprisings.
However, Jordan struggles to cope with the weight of millions of refugees fleeing to the country from the Syrian civil war to its north. Amman has set up temporary camps but its infrastructure (Jordan has little fresh water and few natural resources) has been stretched thin for years. The royal family faces only a weak threat from civil unrest, but the dangerous mix of refugees, over-stretched resources and a growing infiltration of terror groups may push it over the edge.
Saudi Arabia is carefully moving through a significant leadership transition as the second generation of its monarchs depart. Although the new rulers are the sons of the outgoing kings, they are a mixed group of highly experienced and unexperienced individuals. The regime is also barely coping with extremely low oil prices (hurting its vital social subsidies programmes).
Riyadh’s rulers have been unable to extinguish the flames of the Arab Spring and will not be blind to the threat against the regime’s status quo from growing democratic fervour. But to avoid the dangers inherent in the grey area of transition, Saudi rulers will need to manage how much political reform they can absorb without undermining the family’s rule. But the balance will be delicate.
Ultimately, while the Arab Spring introduced plenty of turmoil which is still not fully expunged, the pro-democratic movements have largely been a failure.
The reality is that old and entrenched government figures are still in control in most Arab governments or complete anarchy is the political norm. The protesters of five years ago had the heart for change, but not the might. And in the game of power, might will always make right.
Still, those old power structures continue to face challenges. Forces outside their control on a global economic or financial scale could result in a more effective catalyst for true revolutionary change should they compound in the next few years. Oil prices remain low and unemployment is high, alongside many of the very same reasons that boiled over in 2011 and haven’t been addressed.
Western actions over the past decade in the Arab world were a factor in stirring the unrest. Many protesters were hoping to foment democratic reform, an observation leading to the naming of the uprisings as the “Arab Spring.” But it is important not to deny the agency of the demonstrators.
A significant group of people desired change, but in the direction of more austere cultural traditions such as Islam – not for greater liberal values. These forces remain a strong undercurrent in Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria especially. Their goal was to remove the entrenched leaders not because they were undemocratic, but because they were not traditional enough. What this means in practise to the individual ethnic groups is as varied as the countries themselves, and doesn’t suggest an easy answer.
There are great divisions still raw across the Arab world, and far greater splits occurring along the ancient lines of Islam. The question is whether the violence observed today will reach a conclusion, or will continue seemingly without end in a cyclical nature or perhaps as a continued deterioration.
Or perhaps seeds of true change were planted in 2011 which will eventually lead to democratic and liberalised democracy. Washington, especially, would appreciate this outcome. It pays to remember that Europe spent centuries of nasty internecine conflict before it evolved away from religious wars to the consensus of the “nation state” system.
Perhaps the Arab world too is on this same path. But it is not a guarantee. If so, then at minimum the international community can expect an entire generation of fear and trembling in the region. Yet geopolitics moves quickly there and the Arab Spring surprised every intelligence agency on the planet. Predicting what happens next will always an imperfect science, to say the least.

This week marks five years since the beginning of the horrific Syrian civil war and the Arab Spring movement. A net assessment of the affected countries shows the ineffectiveness of the movement.
Protests began in Syria on March 15, 2011 in the capital Damascus as Syrians demanded democratic reforms and the release of political prisoners. The protests spiralled into pain and madness when President Bashar al Assad’s security forces opened fire on the protesters, leading to a full-scale civil war and the dissolution of Syria as a viable country.
Over the next five years the conflict would attract almost every major world power, each joining the fight against various Syrian factions – or each other – for their own political purposes. A new generation of jihadists, evolving far past the al qaeda movement, took advantage of the chaos to build what has become known as the Islamic State in both Syria and the riven Iraqi north.
Earlier this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that the bulk of his forces in Syria would begin departure from the conflict, having “achieved” the Kremlin’s initial military goals. Bolstering al Assad in Syria and setting the conditions for power-sharing negotiations between the rebels and the regime were indeed accomplished as a result of Russia’s intervention in Syria.
For Mr Putin, intervening in Syria was never strictly about that conflict. Rather it was used to demonstrate Russian power and seriousness to encourage concessions with the West regarding the frozen conflict in Ukraine.
It remains to be seen whether these wider goals can now be realised due to the actions in Syria. The Europeans and the US hold the strategic initiative in Ukraine and will probably conduct tough negotiations with the Kremlin. Meanwhile, the Syrian war grinds on.
Of the other three countries deeply affected by the Arab Spring – Egypt, Tunisia and Libya – only Tunisia has managed to forge something resembling a democratic government. Although it is fragile and under pressure by Islamist political forces, the government is currently under the control of Nidaa Tounes party, or Call for Tunisia, following the 2014 election.
Nidaa Tounes has a plurality of seats in parliament and enjoys significant support from the traditional power bases that enabled strongmen such as Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Habib Bourguiba (Tunisia’s founding president) to govern the country. Essentially, some democratic progress has occurred, but not much has changed in the North African country since the protests. Many of Mr Ben Ali’s inner circle are back in power among the judiciary and executive branches.
The story is much the same in Egypt. The country received the most glowing media coverage during the mass protests in early 2011. According to most narratives Egyptian citizens were rising up against the dictator Hosni Mubarak, hoping to encourage a democratic transition.
Instead, the military – to which Mr Mubarak was deeply connected – worked to oust the dictator while paying lip service to protester’s demands. They made this decision because immediately before the protests began Mr Mubarak had nominated a controversial family member to succeed his rule. The military leadership felt threatened by this new face and used the protests as an excuse to remove Mr Mubarak’s regime and retain power.
And after a theatrical democratic election temporarily brought the provocative Muslim Brotherhood party to power in Cairo, the military leadership became concerned with many of the party’s proposed reforms and once again worked to remove the Muslim Brotherhood. Presently, a group of military leaders known as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) remain in control of Egypt, as it always has been.
Libya is a broken country after limited democratic protests in the eastern city of Benghazi turned violent in 2011. Dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s regime was subsequently removed from power by a mix of Islamists and ethnic forces in a bloody civil war. Libya was the only country in 2011 where Western forces intervened. When the regime appeared to existentially threaten the uprising, US and European militaries conducted airstrikes to cripple Mr Gadhafi’s forces.
After his regime collapsed, the rebel factions split the country into at least three major sections along existing ethnic and historical lines. All the underlying tensions held together by the dictator have so far precluded the rebels from coalescing into a functional transitional government while strongmen from Mr Gadhafi’s regime have taken control of the various groups.
The UN has attempted multiple times to create a unity government, but each construction has failed. As a result of the present anarchy, an affiliate of the jihadist group Islamic State (IS) has gained control of the city of Sirte and threatens almost 250 kilometres of territory along the Libyan coast.
Even though Western forces quickly departed Libya after the regime fell, they are now preparing to re-enter Libya under the pretence of fighting IS to provide legitimacy to the nascent unity government.
Other countries across the region experienced only limited uprisings during the months of the Arab Spring. Protests in Bahrain were largely unsuccessful because of an extremely effective and heavy-handed security response by military and police forces of Saudi Arabia, which were invited to protect Bahrain by its government. In Saudi Arabia, the security response to isolated uprisings in the predominantly Shia east were quelled swiftly before they could connect and metastasise.
Saudi Arabia has also been involved in Yemen’s civil war on behalf of the elected President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi. The fighting may be resolved in the next few months as coalition forces are poised to retake the capital Sanaa. The Yemeni uprising was only peripherally a result of the wider Arab Spring, but protests did undermine the regime of former president Ali Abdullah Saleh leading to instability and worried attention from Riyadh.
Monarchies in Jordan, Oman, UAE and Saudi Arabia all escaped the spread of the Arab Spring. For reasons presently Cyber Geek, the royals possessed perhaps both greater legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens and the international community than the unpopular dictators in the afflicted countries, and were able to introduce sufficient security force at critical moments to quell uprisings.
However, Jordan struggles to cope with the weight of millions of refugees fleeing to the country from the Syrian civil war to its north. Amman has set up temporary camps but its infrastructure (Jordan has little fresh water and few natural resources) has been stretched thin for years. The royal family faces only a weak threat from civil unrest, but the dangerous mix of refugees, over-stretched resources and a growing infiltration of terror groups may push it over the edge.
Saudi Arabia is carefully moving through a significant leadership transition as the second generation of its monarchs depart. Although the new rulers are the sons of the outgoing kings, they are a mixed group of highly experienced and unexperienced individuals. The regime is also barely coping with extremely low oil prices (hurting its vital social subsidies programmes).
Riyadh’s rulers have been unable to extinguish the flames of the Arab Spring and will not be blind to the threat against the regime’s status quo from growing democratic fervour. But to avoid the dangers inherent in the grey area of transition, Saudi rulers will need to manage how much political reform they can absorb without undermining the family’s rule. But the balance will be delicate.
Ultimately, while the Arab Spring introduced plenty of turmoil which is still not fully expunged, the pro-democratic movements have largely been a failure.
The reality is that old and entrenched government figures are still in control in most Arab governments or complete anarchy is the political norm. The protesters of five years ago had the heart for change, but not the might. And in the game of power, might will always make right.
Still, those old power structures continue to face challenges. Forces outside their control on a global economic or financial scale could result in a more effective catalyst for true revolutionary change should they compound in the next few years. Oil prices remain low and unemployment is high, alongside many of the very same reasons that boiled over in 2011 and haven’t been addressed.
Western actions over the past decade in the Arab world were a factor in stirring the unrest. Many protesters were hoping to foment democratic reform, an observation leading to the naming of the uprisings as the “Arab Spring.” But it is important not to deny the agency of the demonstrators.
A significant group of people desired change, but in the direction of more austere cultural traditions such as Islam – not for greater liberal values. These forces remain a strong undercurrent in Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria especially. Their goal was to remove the entrenched leaders not because they were undemocratic, but because they were not traditional enough. What this means in practise to the individual ethnic groups is as varied as the countries themselves, and doesn’t suggest an easy answer.
There are great divisions still raw across the Arab world, and far greater splits occurring along the ancient lines of Islam. The question is whether the violence observed today will reach a conclusion, or will continue seemingly without end in a cyclical nature or perhaps as a continued deterioration.
Or perhaps seeds of true change were planted in 2011 which will eventually lead to democratic and liberalised democracy. Washington, especially, would appreciate this outcome. It pays to remember that Europe spent centuries of nasty internecine conflict before it evolved away from religious wars to the consensus of the “nation state” system.
Perhaps the Arab world too is on this same path. But it is not a guarantee. If so, then at minimum the international community can expect an entire generation of fear and trembling in the region. Yet geopolitics moves quickly there and the Arab Spring surprised every intelligence agency on the planet. Predicting what happens next will always an imperfect science, to say the least.

North Korea wants to preserve its government. Like many of the strongmen of yore, Kim Jong-Un’s primary goal is merely to stay in power. Everything he does fits, somehow, into that grand design.

Pyongyang also seeks to prevent a war from being started against it — and that’s where its nuclear program comes into the picture.

While Pyongyang may seem like a unified front with Kim as its leader, it’s not, and behind the scenes, there’s a bevy of generals, bureaucrats, and other officials jockeying for power.