Japonya'nın 616 sayfalık 2026 savunma strateji belgesinin kapağı anime arkadaş grubundan oluşuyor.

One of Xi Jinping's first acts as China's leader was to ask an audience of senior officials why the Soviet Union had collapsed. It was January 2013, at the Central Party School, and he was speaking to the incoming class of the Central Committee. His speech wasn't published until 2019. He found the answer in ideology. The Soviets, he said, completely negated their own history, negated Lenin, negated Stalin, and thinking was thrown into confusion. Party branches stopped doing anything, he continued, and the military slipped out of the party's control. The result, he said, was that a party that big scattered like birds and beasts, and a country that big fell apart. Kevin Rudd (@MrKRudd), a former prime minister of Australia who got an Oxford PhD on Xi, quotes such passages in a 2022 essay that Foreign Affairs republished last week. His argument is that although Xi may not be a Stalin, he certainly isn't a Gorbachev: the last Soviet leader, who let the party's history be openly criticized and then saw the party fall apart. For 30 years, China watchers in the West believed that ideology died with Deng Xiaoping, who told a party meeting in 1981 to stop arguing about theory. As China got richer, the thinking went, it would loosen up. Xi concluded the opposite. In that January speech, he said that the Mao and market eras should not be contrasted to discredit one or the other. It was a party's repudiation of its own history that caused the Soviet party to collapse, he believed. Only two days into office, he told the Politburo that faith is like calcium in a communist's soul. Without it, you get rickets. Then he acted on what he had learned from the Soviet collapse: a decade of purges, reasserting party control of the military, a study campaign for all party members. So as the West waited for a Chinese Gorbachev, Xi's first lesson in power was that Gorbachev is the way a communist party dies. All that he has built since then makes sense as an attempt to avoid that fate.

The big eurofederalist dilemma: Let’s say Le Pen wins the Presidency next year. One of her first policies is to abolish the right to asylum in France. Everybody claiming asylum will automatically be sent back. NGOs start suing the government immediately. They claim the right to asylum is a fundamental EU and ECHR right. They claim France cannot simply deviate from EU fundamental rights. French courts side with the NGOs. Le Pen ignores the rulings and keeps sending the migrants back without hearing their asylum claim. The NGOs appeal to the highest EU court, the European Court of Justice. The ECJ sides with the NGOs. They argue that: 1) There is a fundamental European right to asylum; 2) This policy violates that right; 3) Ignoring the judges is another violation of fundamental rights; 4) France is bound by EU law and cannot ignore these rulings. After the ruling, Von der Leyen comes out and says: “France does not accept the supremacy of EU law. Regardless of what you think about immigration, this is not allowed. Ignoring EU supremacy undermines the very essence of the EU.” She announces crippling sanctions against France. Le Pen doubles down and says that she no longer recognizes the right of the EU to determine French asylum rules. She will ignore all rulings to the contrary. Which side will the right-wing eurofederalists pick? Le Pen or Von der Leyen?

Bizim nesil bireyselleşmenin doruklarını yaşıyor bence giderek m2si küçülen evler, 1-2 kişilik yemek pişiren airfrylar, minimalleşen yaşamlar... Evde ağırlamaya emek vermek yerine dışarıda alman usulü hesap daha işlevsel geliyor. Çoğunluk kurduğu mini yaşamdan mutluymuş gibi.

I don't think people understand how much entertainment of the past was just going to your friend's house. Like play some cards. Have a beer. Sing some songs. Maybe dance. All for free (besides $1 for the beer). But that's not good enough for anyone anymore