On October 10, thousands of Ecuadorians took to the streets to protest against the government of right-wing President Daniel Noboa. The demonstration was organized by the Autonomous Front of Organized Resistance (FARO) under the slogan “Government vs. People.”

Saturday’s demonstration followed a protest on October 8, organized by labor unions also in Quito, to protest the security, energy, health, and employment crises facing the country. They also protested government cuts to education and health care, as well as alleged mistreatment of workers, according to Edwin Bedoya, president of the United Workers’ Front (FUT).

For its part, the October 10 demonstration – which consisted mainly of high school and college students – set out from the Central University and marched through Quito. Slogans such as “If the people have no peace, neither does the government” and “Out with Noboa, out with him!” were heard along the streets occupied by the demonstrators.

The president of the Catholic University Student Federation, Jatari Ulcuango, told protesters: “Four years ago, this government promised us electricity; two years ago, too – and now the blackouts have returned. Two months ago, the government told us it would provide us with medicine, and yet we’re only receiving 60% of the supply. They’re taking us for fools.”

He added: “We’re dying outside the hospitals. Criminals are kidnapping us, murdering us, and robbing us. That’s why we’ve come out this morning. They plan to dismantle public institutions to force us to hire private security. Who has gotten rich off the health crisis? The private healthcare sector, while the people are getting poorer and poorer.”

The peaceful march headed back to the Central University, where the students gathered. Later, the students reported on social media that they had been harassed and repressed by the police, who had accompanied the entire march.

Likewise, several media outlets reported that the police were aggressive toward them. This was reported by the outlet La Barra Espaciadora, which released a video showing police officers pushing journalists.

TeleSur journalist Elena Rodríguez also reported that law enforcement officers broke the microphone she was using and struck her on the head: “I’m sick and tired of having to recount, time and time again, police attacks against the press. Today, while I was trying to document the violence with which officers were beating young protesters, I was struck on the head from behind with a baton. I turned around, showed my Telesur microphone to identify myself as a journalist, and the response was another baton strike that ended up breaking it.”

She added: “If they think that by beating me up they’re going to get me to stop documenting police brutality, to put my microphone away, or to back off several blocks so I can report from a place where I won’t be a nuisance, they’re wrong. It is not we journalists who should distance ourselves from the events. It is the police who must stop attacking us. The right to report cannot be negotiated at the point of a baton.”

The protests are taking place against the backdrop of a widespread crisis in the country, which includes the worst security crisis in its history (tens of thousands of deaths due to violence between drug trafficking gangs), a very serious health crisis (a lack of supplies and medicines in the public health system), and other major crises such as those in education, public investment, and employment.

Local elections will be held in November, which will reveal the extent of support – or lack thereof – for President Noboa and his neoliberal government agenda, which aligns with the hemispheric security strategy led by the Trump administration.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sat down for an interview with NPR at a time of renewed tensions with the White House.

(Image credit: Svet Jacqueline for NPR)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sat down for an interview with NPR at a time of renewed tensions with the White House.

(Image credit: Svet Jacqueline for NPR)

September brought a flurry of developments in the use of AI in mathematics. The biggest, though far from the only one, was OpenAI’s publication of a solution to the Millennium Prize Problem concerning the Navier–Stokes equations. The announcement set off a heated debate about AI’s impact on the future of science. T-invariant looks at OpenAI’s result and the events that followed it (spoiler: mathematics has changed, and it was AI that changed it).

Top news on scientists’ work and experiences during the war, along with videos and infographics — subscribe to the T-invariant Telegram channel to stay updated.

On September 8, OpenAI published a press release titled “On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem.” It announced that an internal company model (not yet released and more powerful than GPT-6 Astra) had solved one of the Millennium Prize Problems posed by the Clay Mathematics Institute in 2000. OpenAI’s proof was linked right below the headline: a paper in conventional mathematical notation and a formal proof in the Lean language. The company said it would not claim the Clay Institute’s $1 million prize.

The press release refers to work on the Euler equations (a problem closely related to the Navier–Stokes problem; more on it below) by mathematicians Levent Alpöge (an Anthropic employee) and Tristan Buckmaster (a professor of mathematics at New York University). OpenAI acknowledged that it turned its attention to the Navier–Stokes problem on September 1, after hearing rumors that two Millennium Problems had been solved. Building on a theory that mathematicians had developed over nearly two centuries, OpenAI then solved the Millennium Problem in 88 hours using 10,000 agents. Another 17 hours went into formalizing the proof in Lean, which confirmed that it was correct.

The image shows a local incompressible flow. Orange indicates faster angular rotation, turquoise slower rotation. The circulation speed depends on the radius. The trajectories show inward spiraling motion and axial stretching. Illustration: OpenAI

OpenAI’s result drew enormous attention, not only from mathematicians but from the broader public. Today, nearly every educated person has heard of the Clay Prize. That’s not because non-specialists have a deep grasp of the Millennium Problems, but because of the scandal surrounding the first problem on the Clay list to be solved (there are seven in all): the Poincaré conjecture. In 2010, the $1 million prize was awarded to Grigori Perelman, who turned it down. Perelman explained that he disagreed with the decision to give the award to him alone: in his view, the American mathematician Richard Hamilton had contributed just as much to the proof. So no one received the Clay Prize that time. It looks like no one will collect the prize for the second Millennium Problem either.

The other reason for the extraordinary buzz around OpenAI’s proof is far more topical. All sorts of people are asking: “If AI can really solve problems of incredible difficulty at the very frontier of mathematics, does that mean artificial intelligence has beaten humans — and that first programmers and now even top-tier mathematicians are no longer needed?” To begin answering that question, we need at least a rough idea of what the Navier–Stokes equations are and what kind of solution OpenAI found.

A Cup of Tea and the Navier–Stokes Equations

Picture an ordinary cup of tea. You pick up a teaspoon and start stirring. If you move the spoon in circles, a funnel (a vortex) forms in the cup. Stop stirring, and the funnel quickly smooths out. Let’s use this simple example to formulate the Navier–Stokes problem.

The spoon is an external force acting on the liquid. As long as you keep stirring (the external force is acting), the funnel holds; if you take the spoon out (the force drops to zero), the funnel keeps spinning for a while under its own momentum and then smooths out. What smooths it out is internal friction, or viscosity. Different liquids have different viscosities: water, for instance, is far less viscous than honey. In honey, it is harder to produce even a small funnel (you need to apply a large external force).

The Navier–Stokes equations are essentially Newton’s second law for an incompressible viscous fluid. The French mathematician Claude-Louis Navier proposed the first version of the equations back in 1822 — more than 200 years ago. The most convincing derivation was given by the British mathematician George Stokes in an 1845 paper. The Navier–Stokes equations worked beautifully, and they still do. But mathematicians are always interested in limits: when does a model start to break down? Newtonian mechanics, for example, starts to “glitch” in applications as familiar as the navigation app on your phone. The model has to be rebuilt, or GPS won’t work. Today’s navigation systems account for both the satellites’ velocity and the difference in gravity between the Earth’s surface and orbit; here, it is not Newton’s laws that apply, but relativity (both special and general).

For the Navier–Stokes equations, the limit of applicability is the possibility of a “blowup”: can the fluid’s velocity become “infinite” in finite time under a finite external force? That would mean the model breaks down under such conditions. This is the Millennium Problem.

OpenAI says: yes, it can. We’ll begin our discussion of the problem with the Euler equations. They describe an ideal incompressible fluid — that is, a fluid with no viscosity. If you stir such a fluid with a spoon, the funnel will never smooth out (here we ignore friction against the walls of the cup). There are two problems for the Euler equations: one with an external force and one without.

These problems ask the same question as the Navier–Stokes problem: can you stir the tea so cleverly that the funnel behaves in a completely unusual way — speeding up until its rotation becomes infinitely fast? It all began with a solution to the Euler equations with external forcing. Alpöge and Buckmaster reported that they had solved this problem. They showed that the force acting on an ideal fluid can be chosen so that the fluid “blows up”: the vortex reaches infinite speed even though both the applied force and the time are finite. Buckmaster used an internal Anthropic model to find the solution, but for the previous two months he had been working with OpenAI Codex. This is what raised suspicions that OpenAI had “peeked” at the solution, though the company insists nothing of the sort happened. But by the company’s own admission, the rumor that a solution to one of the open problems on the Clay Institute’s list (no one knew which) might have been found was what set things in motion: a huge multi-agent system was launched, with AI agents working intensively alongside a team of OpenAI mathematicians and engineers.

At first, the team tried to tackle every variant of every open Millennium Problem at once, along with simpler related problems. The first to give way was the Euler problem without external forcing. Can the initial conditions (the velocity distribution) be chosen so that even after we take the spoon out of the cup, the vortex keeps spinning up on its own until it reaches infinite speed? One group of agents solved this Euler problem: they found an ingenious initial velocity distribution such that, even after the external force stopped acting (we took the spoon out), the vortex spun up to infinite speed. Once this very hard problem was solved, all resources were thrown at the Navier–Stokes equations — which, unlike the Euler equations, describe a viscous fluid. Finding a force that, in finite time, produces a vortex with infinite speed in a viscous fluid is much harder: viscosity smooths the vortex out and damps it.

OpenAI was deliberately going after the Millennium Problem itself: the Navier–Stokes equations with an external force and viscosity. These are, in fact, perfectly normal physical conditions — but the solution it found was, to put it mildly, “abnormal.” OpenAI did solve the Millennium Problem, fair and square, but mathematicians had hoped for something different from the proof. They expected not an elaborate counterexample, but a deeper understanding of turbulence. Many were disappointed.

Under the terms of the Millennium Problem, the external force acting on the fluid must be “infinitely smooth” (the function itself and all its derivatives must be differentiable). OpenAI’s agents assembled this force literally piece by piece, like a jigsaw puzzle. The pieces were fitted together so precisely that they stretched and twisted the vortex; each piece depended on scale, and together they formed an infinitely smooth forcing. Mathematicians had tried many times to solve this problem, but no human can hold in their head, let alone write down, a vast number of different conditions that constantly have to be readjusted. The AI agents pulled it off.

But one more version of the Millennium Problem remains: the Navier–Stokes equations without an external force. What happens then? Can you set a viscous fluid spinning, take the spoon out, and simply watch the vortex accelerate to infinite speed? (Recall that for an ideal fluid, the AI agents did solve this problem.) Mathematicians expected the solution with external forcing to provide a clue to this even harder problem. But the unforced Navier–Stokes problem has held out. It remains open to this day.

The Fields Medalists’ Statement

On September 11 (three days after OpenAI’s press release), a group of Fields Medalists (the Fields Medal is the most prestigious award in mathematics) signed an open letter titled “A Severe Misalignment of AI in Mathematics.”. To date, 28 people have signed it. Among them are leading authorities from every generation: the patriarch Pierre Deligne (who received the medal in 1978), Terence Tao (2006), and rising stars Peter Scholze (2018) and Maryna Viazovska (2022). Six mathematicians trained in the Soviet and Russian mathematical school also signed: Vladimir Drinfeld, Maxim Kontsevich, Grigory Margulis, Andrei Okounkov, Stanislav Smirnov, and Efim Zelmanov (none of whom works in Russia today). The 28 signatories make up more than half of all living Fields Medalists. A collective statement like this is unprecedented.

What alarmed them? The laureates’ manifesto identifies several threats. The first and most important: AI companies are using famous problems as benchmarks. Their message is: look what we can do — buy our tokens, and you can do it too. But the goal of mathematics is not a “true/false” answer plus a thousand pages of unreadable proof code, even if that code is correct. Mathematics seeks to understand the world, and answers like these are more likely to close off paths than to deliver new understanding. Second, with results being published in such a rush, questions of authorship and plagiarism are bound to arise. The prospect of machines being trained on their conjectures and ideas is pushing mathematicians to hide their results: they are afraid to discuss ideas on social media and won’t even present unfinished work at conferences. And that is very bad: science is a collective enterprise. Third, mathematics lives through its students, who grow by solving hard problems. If a neural network does this quickly and incomprehensibly, the human chain of passing on knowledge and training new scientists will simply break.

But here’s the question: can this process be stopped, and should it be? Opinions differ.

[[socialnetworks]]

On September 21, an advisory group on the use of AI in mathematics was set up at the Institute for Advanced Study in collaboration with OpenAI. It includes nine prominent mathematicians, among them Fields Medalists Timothy Gowers, Edward Witten, and — rather surprisingly — Martin Hairer, who had signed the “Severe Misalignment” letter along with his colleagues. In effect, there is no hard line between mathematicians who are betting on AI methods and those who hold more traditional views. Terence Tao is a vivid example: he is trying to slow AI companies down a little, while also making extensive use of AI methods in his own work.

How to Read 166 Pages of Unreadable Text Overnight

On September 4, Anthropic issued a press release announcing: “We are sharing the first complete computer-checked proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem. Claude worked largely autonomously over 11 days to write the proof in the Lean programming language.” Claude wrote Lean programs to check a proof that built on the Wiles–Taylor result. And Lean confirmed that the proof was correct. In fact, for mathematics, this result may be even more important than the puzzle OpenAI put together. You no longer have to take the author’s word for it, rely on authority and collective consensus, or check every step yourself. Let Lean do it.

Here’s a historical example. Vladimir Arnold recalled getting to know the eminent mathematician René Thom (Fields Medalist, 1958): “And indeed, in 1965 it was Thom I became closest friends with. The only trouble was that I simply could not understand his theorem from the paper ‘Topological Models in Biology,’ where he laid the foundations of catastrophe theory. For a couple of decades, Thom gave me the same perfectly clear answer to my questions about this theorem: ‘There will always be fools to find proofs for our theorems.’ In the end, I asked my graduate student B. A. Khesin to sort the matter out, and he discovered that the theorem Thom had announced many decades earlier was false. Specifically, Thom claimed that the number of ‘elementary catastrophes’ … is seven (for the four parameters of our space-time). It turned out, however, that this ‘number of Thom’s catastrophes’ cannot be less than 13 (and, what’s more, no one knows to this day whether their number is even finite, or whether there are infinitely many different catastrophes).”

For “a couple of decades,” no “fool” turned up to check René Thom’s result. And this is not an isolated case. Today, Lean could handle such a task — and it certainly wouldn’t need “a couple of decades.”

It would be completely unfair to say that OpenAI “didn’t do anything — it just unleashed a swarm of agents on the problem.” OpenAI’s mathematicians and engineers conducted a huge orchestra of AI agents that searched for those very puzzle pieces, formulated hypotheses, checked them with Lean, discarded the false ones, used the correct ones — and all the while communicated both with each other and with humans. Setting up a system like that and getting it to work is an outstanding achievement.

On September 17, three mathematicians who are well-known experts on the Navier–Stokes equations published a paper that placed OpenAI’s proof within the broader development of fluid dynamics. Peter Constantin, Mihaela Ignatova, and Vlad Vicol proved that the type of blowup OpenAI constructed is impossible when there is no forcing (or when the forcing is analytic). Whether a blowup of some other form is possible is still unknown, but the way OpenAI assembled its puzzle won’t work there.

But perhaps even more interesting than the result is how the mathematicians worked. They had nine days to prepare and release the preprint. And it isn’t a short preprint, either: 34 pages. Of course, they had a great deal of prior work to draw on, but the speed is simply astonishing. In the paper itself, they describe how it came together.

The mathematicians used publicly available versions of Claude (Opus 5 and Fable 5.1 in Claude Code) and ChatGPT (Sol and Astra in Codex). They write: “By far the heaviest use of these AI systems was in deciphering the statements of the OpenAI paper. Claude and ChatGPT were used to analyze that manuscript, and over the course of several interactive sessions the main properties of the solutions in the OpenAI construction were extracted… These properties were subsequently cross-checked against the publicly available PDF version of and the Lean code released by OpenAI.”

Once the mathematicians understood what OpenAI had done, they turned to their own work. First, they gave the AI agents their published papers and handed them a draft of the new paper containing the main theorem. Claude and ChatGPT were used to turn this draft into a manuscript with complete proofs of every statement. The text was then reworked in Claude Code under the authors’ direct guidance and supervision; this process involved not only stylistic editing but also checking every mathematical calculation. The mathematicians write: “Every suggestion, computation, and reference produced by the AI systems was independently verified and, where necessary, corrected or reformulated by the authors, who take full responsibility for the manuscript as it is presently written.”

Doing all this work without AI in such a short time would have been impossible. The 166-page paper written by OpenAI’s agents really is unreadable — but unreadable for humans; for AI, it is a perfectly accessible text. In other words, human mathematicians were not cut out of writing the paper. On the contrary, their work sped up many times over.

Up-to-date videos on science during wartime, interviews, podcasts, and streams with prominent scientists — subscribe to the T-invariant YouTube channel!

Vladimir Voevodsky’s Program

In 2012, Fields Medalist Vladimir Voevodsky said in an interview: “Pure mathematics works with models of a high level of abstraction and low complexity (mathematicians like to call this low complexity elegance). Applied mathematics works with models that are more concrete but highly complex (many variables, equations, and so on). Interesting applications of the ideas of modern pure mathematics most likely lie in the domain of high abstraction and high complexity. This domain is practically inaccessible today, largely because of the human brain’s limited ability to work with such models. Once we learn to use computers to work with abstract mathematical objects, this problem will gradually fade into the background, and interesting applications of the ideas of today’s abstract mathematics will emerge.”

The 166-page proof built by 10,000 agents falls squarely within that domain of “high abstraction and high complexity” the human brain cannot handle. Yet Peter Constantin and his colleagues managed it with the help of AI. In the same interview, Voevodsky estimated how long it would take to formalize his own proof of the Milnor conjecture in the Coq system as it existed in 2012: about 3–4 years. Formalizing OpenAI’s proof took 17 hours.

In 2012, Voevodsky’s words sounded like science fiction. Today, this is routine work. His intuition was absolutely right, and one can only regret that Voevodsky did not live to see his program come to life.

The Unsettling September of 2026

September 2026 will be remembered by more than just mathematicians. Something profoundly important happened in those few short weeks. For now, it is hard even to gauge the consequences. But a few things can be said.

René Thom brushed it off: “There will always be fools to find proofs for our theorems.” September 2026 showed that such “fools” have indeed turned up — and they work faster and more reliably than humans: they find a construction in 88 hours and verify it in 17. But Thom had good reason to be confident: he was looking not for proofs, but for understanding. And this is where machines cannot yet replace humans. Constantin, Ignatova, and Vicol needed just nine days to figure out what OpenAI’s 166-page puzzle really is and where its limits lie. Perhaps this is what the new mathematics will look like: machines find and verify, humans understand.

Before September 2026, mathematicians asked: will AI be able to solve the great problems? Now the question is different: will humans always be able to understand those solutions? For now, they can — but with AI’s help, too.

Support T-invariant’s work by subscribing to our Patreon and choosing a donation amount that suits you.

The post The Millennium Puzzle: The Navier–Stokes Equations and the Unsettling September of 2026 appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Oct. 13, 2026. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

US Rep. Ilhan Omar on Monday forcefully condemned the Department of Homeland Security’s raid on her Washington, DC home as part of a broader effort to weaponize federal law enforcement against progressives who oppose President Donald Trump’s agenda.

“This is part of the fascist playbook to rile up Trump’s die-hard supporters and give them a big distraction in advance of the midterms,” Omar (D-Minn.) wrote in an email distributed by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee hours after the raid. “With this obviously political investigation, Trump is telling his voters: ‘Ignore the price of gas, ignore the war in Iran, ignore that you’re losing your healthcare—we want you to get angry about this instead.’”

The email followed a statement issued by Omar’s office saying that the congresswoman “has done nothing wrong” and condemning the raid as “an outrageous abuse of power.”

“For a decade, Donald Trump has relentlessly targeted Congresswoman Ilhan Omar with inflammatory rhetoric, repeatedly putting a target on her back,” the statement read. “Now, those attacks have escalated to a pointless federal raid.”

The Trump Justice Department said the raid, executed by the investigative arm of DHS, was “part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation.” Trump administration officials are reportedly probing whether Omar, who entered the US as a child refugee from Somalia and became a citizen in 2000, is in the country illegally. CBS News reported that the investigation centers on paperwork completed by Omar’s late father when she was a child.

Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday that he has “nothing to do with” the Omar investigation while attacking her as a “terrible person.” Omar and the Somali American community in Minnesota have been frequent targets of the president’s bigoted attacks, and Trump has called for the Democratic lawmaker to be jailed or deported.

“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns. This is just the latest escalation in his campaign of political intimidation. I will not be silenced,” Omar wrote in a social media post on Monday.

In the campaign email, Omar called the federal investigation a “sham” and “further proof” that Trump is “willing to use the power of the federal government to try to intimidate and silence anyone who stands up to him.”

“It’s up to us to make sure it doesn’t work,” Omar added.

The raid on Omar’s home drew widespread condemnation, including from top Democrats in Congress. The leadership of the House Democratic caucus issued a statement calling the raid a “deeply disturbing” act that “raises serious questions about the continued corrupt weaponization of the federal government against Donald Trump’s adversaries.”

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) denounced the raid as “fascism in the extreme.”

“Trump is weaponizing the federal government to escalate his racist attacks against Rep. Omar, undermine her ahead of the midterms, and distract from his failures as president,” Kamlager-Dove added.

Ukraine’s president says his country has halted strikes on Russian oil refineries for two days after Trump’s energy ceasefire announcement

On frozen Russian assets, Poland’s Sikorski says the use of frozen Russian assets is “a complicated issue,” but takes a very clear stance in response to any suggestion of releasing them back to Russia.

“We are working on it, but there is also some rumours that some people are expecting these assets to be released back to Russia.

I don’t think I’m speaking just for myself in saying: over our dead bodies.”

“Russia right now is not ready for ceasefire, but still, this only can encourage us to stay with Ukraine and to, strengthen, the pressure on Russia and always be ready for conversations, but and also especially for, for ceasefire negotiations.

But, until this doesn’t happen, we are with Ukraine. We are with the president the German government is is backing the Ukrainian government and the president, completely. He is the person to lead Ukraine, and we are with him.”

In accordance with the Regulations of the George Gamow® Award, established by the Russian American Science Association (RASA-America) in honor of the distinguished Russian American physicist Professor Georgy Antonovich Gamow (1904–1968), and to recognize members of the Russian-speaking scientific diaspora for outstanding achievements widely acknowledged by the scientific community, the 2026 G.A. Gamow Prize is awarded to Natalia Berloff and Mikhail N. Epstein.

Natalia Berloff, professor at the Cambridge University “For her groundbreaking contributions to quantum hydrodynamics and physics-inspired computing, and for her extraordinary breadth of interdisciplinary research connecting fundamental theoretical advances with experimental realizability and technological potential across the logistics, fintech, pharmaceutical, and data management sectors.”

Mikhail Epstein, professor at Emory University “For his pioneering contributions to the study of Russian postmodernism and conceptualism, significant advances in the philosophy and literary theory, construction of alternative concepts and propositions to multiple symbolic systems and theoretical models; and for his role as a public intellectual and advocate for the humanities and their transformative potential, articulating a vision of scholarship as a creative and forward-looking process.” 

“Gamow wrote that “it took less than an hour to make the atoms”. Nature solved an enormous many-body problem in an hour without executing a single instruction: the physics was the algorithm. Physics-inspired computing takes this literally. We write a hard optimization problem as the energy of a network of interacting spins, build that network out of real physics, condensates, coupled lasers, oscillators, and let it relax toward its lowest-energy state. Reading off that state reads off a solution: what a digital computer does by search, the hardware does by simply evolving. I thank the RASA and the Award Committee for this recognition, and I hope it draws more physicists, mathematicians and engineers into the question of how to make physics compute,” notes Natalia Berloff.

“The Gamow Award holds special significance for me. George Gamow embodied the kind of intellectual daring that bridges disciplines and crosses borders—a physicist whose thought ranged from the origins of the universe to the code of life, and who never lost the playful curiosity that makes science kin to the humanities. I see this award as a sign that the boundary between the sciences and the humanities is becoming ever more permeable—and that the humanities, no less than the sciences, can be a creative and world-transforming force,” Mikhail Epstein added.

Natalia Berloff is Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Cambridge’s Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics and a Fellow of Jesus College. Born in Orenburg, she graduated from Lomonosov Moscow State University and received her Ph.D. from Florida State University. After research and faculty positions at the University of California, Los Angeles, she joined Cambridge in 2002. She has been Director of Photonics at Skoltech (2013-2016) and a visiting researcher at Microsoft (2021-2023). Berloff’s research concerns coherence in non-equilibrium quantum systems: superfluids and Bose-Einstein condensates of atoms, excitons and polaritons. Her group was among the first to propose polariton condensates and other optical systems as physical simulators and optimizers, and now develops physics-inspired computing, from Ising and XY machines to neuromorphic architectures and analog platforms for artificial intelligence. Her honors include an NIH/NHGRI Career Development Award and the Pilkington Prize. She leads the π-computing group, co-directs the UK Multidisciplinary Neuromorphic Center (NeuroSYNC) and chairs the American Physical Society’s Committee on International Freedom of Scientists.

Mikhail N. Epstein is a Russian-American philosopher, cultural theorist, and literary scholar—one of the founding theorists of Russian postmodernism. The unifying impulse of his work is the expansion of the thinkable: where scholarship usually describes what exists, Epstein constructs alternatives to prevailing theories and sign systems—possible philosophies, new disciplines, genres, concepts, and words. His work has given rise to the philosophy of the possible, transculture, and the transformative humanities—scholarship as a creative, world-changing force. In recent years he has been developing a philosophy of artificial intelligence as a new stage in the evolution of thought.

Educated at Moscow State University, Epstein moved to the United States in 1990. He is Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor Emeritus of Cultural Theory and Russian Literature at Emory University. He is the author of 50 books and numerous articles, translated into 26 languages. His honors include the Andrei Bely Prize (1991), the Liberty Prize (New York, 2000), and the MLA Scaglione Prize for the best book in Slavic studies (2023).

The award ceremony will take place as part of the 17th annual conference of the Russian American Science Association (RASA), which will take place on November 7-8,2026, at the Simpson Querrey Biomedical Research Center, Northwestern University (Chicago, Illinois) and will honor Andrei Sakharov – a brilliant physicist, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and an enduring symbol of intellectual courage and integrity.

The RASA award has been established in 2015 in memory of Georgy Antonovich Gamow, an outstanding representative of the scientific diaspora, an influential Soviet and American theoretical physicist, astrophysicist and popularizer of science. Chemist Anna Krylov and historian Mikhail Yampolsky are its 2025’s laureates.

The post Natalia Berloff and Mikhail Epstein are the new George Gamow award laureates appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read.

On October 25, Brazilians will return to the polls to choose between President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Flávio Bolsonaro, son of former president Jair Bolsonaro, who was sentenced to 27 years in prison for his role in an attempted coup. The first round gave Flávio 47% of valid votes against Lula’s 45%, revealing the enduring strength of the far right four years after its electoral defeat. The runoff takes place as Donald Trump seeks to restore US domination over Latin America, with Brazil emerging as a consequential battleground in Washington’s campaign to contain China’s growing relations with the region.

Read more: Why did Brazil’s far right win the first round?

Over the past two decades, Brazil and China have built a political partnership that has expanded the space for independent action among countries of the Global South. Under Lula and Xi Jinping, this relationship has deepened through cooperation in industrial development, infrastructure, science, and technology. The election will determine whether this project advances or Brazil’s international orientation is subordinated to Washington’s renewed Monroe Doctrine as part of the continent’s rightward shift.

Read more: Brazil’s angry tide and the struggles ahead

Since Lula’s return to the presidency in 2023, the two governments have connected Chinese cooperation with Brazil’s development programs, including Nova Indústria Brasil, the Growth Acceleration Program (PAC), and the Ecological Transformation Plan. Lula’s May 2025 visit to Beijing produced 36 agreements covering infrastructure, finance, artificial intelligence, public health, and industrial cooperation. Behind these agreements is a long-standing challenge: overcoming Brazil’s dependent position in the international division of labor, where commodity exports continue to outweigh advanced industrial and technological development.

This cooperation has also reached Brazilian popular movements. Through the International Association for Popular Cooperation (Baobab), Brazil’s Landless Rural Workers’ Movement (MST) and other organizations have worked with Chinese institutions on agricultural mechanization, bioinputs, and digital technologies for family farming. These initiatives include the Digital Family Farming and Agroecology Laboratory and IARAA, an artificial intelligence project for agroecology and agrarian reform developed by Brazilian popular movements using Chinese open-source models. In a countryside marked by extreme concentrations of land, machinery, and capital, such cooperation offers new tools to peasant organizations fighting for agrarian reform and the production of healthy food.

Brazil’s relationship with China also reveals the different class interests at work in the country, with contradictions particularly visible in the countryside. Massive exports of soybeans, meat, and minerals have continued under both Bolsonaro and Lula, but their governments have pursued very different political relationships with Beijing. While Jair Bolsonaro attacked China and aligned himself with Washington, Lula has sought to deepen strategic cooperation, including in industrial development, technology, and agrarian reform. Flávio Bolsonaro now promises an “economically pragmatic” relationship with China while cultivating close ties with Trump. For sectors of Brazil’s ruling classes that profit from commodity exports, continuing to sell to China while embracing Washington’s political agenda presents little contradiction. For Brazil’s efforts to rebuild its industry and develop technological sovereignty, the consequences are far greater.

The return of the Monroe Doctrine

Washington’s ambitions were made explicit in its November 2025 National Security Strategy, which announced a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, seeking to restore US pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere and deny outside powers control over strategic resources and infrastructure. Five days later, China published its third Latin America policy paper, reaffirming sovereignty, non-interference, regional integration, technological cooperation, and support for the region as a Zone of Peace. The two documents reveal fundamentally different approaches to the political future of the continent.

Brazil’s position is decisive. As Latin America’s largest economy, a founding BRICS member, and a leading participant in Mercosur, it possesses industrial, scientific, and political capacities that could strengthen independent development across Latin America and beyond.

The emergence of a new technological era makes this struggle particularly consequential. Brazil is among the few countries of the Global South capable of pursuing digital and technological sovereignty that could benefit its neighbors and parts of Africa. Its roughly 23% share of global rare earth reserves is an important starting point, but control over minerals alone is insufficient. The greater challenge is developing the capacity to process them, manufacture advanced components, and build the digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence systems, and technologies that will shape future production.

Flávio has made his orientation clear. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in the United States in March 2026, he offered Brazil as the “solution” to Washington’s dependence on China for critical minerals, explicitly linking rare earths to artificial intelligence and US military superiority. Chinese economic reporting has also described proposals from his team to exclude China from rare-earth supply chains. Rather than using Brazil’s resources to develop its own industrial and technological capacities, this agenda would place them at the service of US technological and military power.

The same political orientation extends to digital sovereignty. In July 2026, Flávio’s campaign submitted proposals to US trade authorities that included preventing Brazil’s Pix payment system from connecting to non-Western international payment networks and loosening commitments within Mercosur. These proposals converge with a wider US campaign involving tariffs, digital regulation, strategic minerals, and attempts to influence Brazil’s electoral process. Meanwhile, Washington’s January 2026 bombing on Venezuela and kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores demonstrated how far it is prepared to go to impose its will on the continent.

BRICS and the struggle for an independent foreign policy

Brazil, particularly under Lula, has helped build institutions through which countries of the Global South can reduce their dependence on Western-dominated structures. At the July 2025 BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, the group advanced cooperation on development finance, local-currency transactions, and international institutional reform. The New Development Bank, headed by former Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, is an important expression of this effort.

The BRICS cannot automatically overcome economic dependency or guarantee sovereignty for working people. Yet its expansion offers greater room for independent development, provided that participating governments have the political commitment to use these possibilities.

Brazil’s history reveals how difficult that independence has been to defend. In 1961, vice-president João Goulart became the first high-ranking representative of a Latin American government to visit the People’s Republic of China, meeting Mao Zedong when revolutionary China remained diplomatically isolated and subjected to US sanctions. Three years later, Goulart was overthrown in a US-backed civil-military coup that inaugurated a 21-year dictatorship. The early history of China–Brazil friendship was inseparable from struggles over national sovereignty, agrarian reform, and the forces determined to suppress them.

The international material conditions for South–South cooperation are considerably more favorable today, but political direction remains decisive. Jair Bolsonaro hosted the 2019 BRICS summit in Brasília while pursuing close alignment with Washington. A government can weaken institutions from within by abandoning the commitments that give them political substance.

The far right’s resurgence also reflects the enduring power of Brazil’s own ruling classes. Bolsonarismo has a domestic base among sections of agribusiness, finance, the security apparatus, militias, conservative religious networks, and major media. These forces, whose electoral and institutional advances have continued, were strengthened by the 2016 parliamentary coup against Dilma Rousseff and the judicial persecution of Lula. They possess their own organizations, material interests, and sources of power, which do not disappear when an election is lost. Their economic dependence on Chinese markets has not prevented their support for Washington’s political agenda.

Beyond the election

Beijing has followed the Brazilian election closely, reflecting the importance of the political relationship built between Lula and Xi over years of cooperation. In July, Xi reaffirmed China’s support for Brazil against external interference during a conversation with Lula, which also covered cooperation in artificial intelligence, satellites, mineral processing, and relations between China and Mercosur. In September, Foreign Minister Wang Yi received Lula’s adviser and former foreign minister Celso Amorim in Beijing, reaffirming the bilateral strategic partnership.

China’s principle of non-interference means that the choice of Brazil’s government belongs to the Brazilian people, but Beijing’s diplomatic restraint should not be confused with an absence of political interests or an assumption that all governments would pursue the same relationship. Chinese analysts have described the possible outlook under Flávio as one of “cold politics, hot economics”: commodity trade would likely continue, but the political relationship and cooperation in strategic sectors could deteriorate. The experience of Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency has already shown the limits of commercial interests in sustaining a broader political partnership.

For the Brazilian people, the consequences extend well beyond foreign policy. The election will also shape the struggles over labor rights, public services, agrarian reform, and the defence of democratic space. Brazil’s renewed role in South–South cooperation under Lula has opened possibilities for a development project that responds to the needs of its working people, but realizing those possibilities depends on the political and social forces capable of carrying it forward.

The Brazilian people have fought through dictatorship, neoliberal restructuring, parliamentary coups, and the rise of the far right to defend their political and social gains. This election is another moment in that longer struggle, now unfolding amid renewed US imperial intervention and a transformation of the world’s technological foundations. The future of China–Brazil cooperation will depend on the capacity of organized popular forces to build a sovereign national project and turn international cooperation into lasting changes in people’s lives.

Tings Chak 翟庭君 is the Asia Co-Coordinator of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Researchand an editor of the international edition of Wenhua Zongheng: A Journal of Contemporary Chinese Thought.

The global defense industry appears to be entering a period of structural transformation, driven by rising military spending, technological change, and increasing private-capital involvement.

The “Aerospace & Defense M&A Report 2026: Deal Activity, Market Trends and Outlook,” published by Ropes & Gray LLP  on October 7, 2026, says that Aerospace and Defense Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A), Private Equity (PE), and Venture Capital (VC) funding are likely to expand further, showing that 2026 is on track to be one of “the strongest deal-making years” on record.

The report highlights that Defense Tech/Services is the fastest-growing segment at a 22% Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR), followed by Aerospace at 16% CAGR; Aircraft Manufacturers, Parts & Components at 14% CAGR; and Air, Land, & Sea Defense at 9% CAGR.

The report argues that the growth is not simply a temporary response to international conflicts. Governments are rebuilding industrial capacity, replenishing weapons inventories, strengthening supply chains, and accelerating the development of advanced military technologies.

In the United States, the largest market, proposed increases in defense resources, procurement reforms, longer-term contracts, and financial support for defense technology companies aim to attract private capital and expand manufacturing capacity.

In Europe, the EU’s Security Action for Europe initiative aims to mobilize about €800 billion in defense-related investment through national fiscal flexibility, loans, and related financing support.

Germany’s increased spending and procurement reforms can accelerate equipment acquisition and industrial expansion. Collectively, these policies are reshaping the geography of defense investment in Europe.

In fact, the report says that  Europe has emerged as a major driver of new activity. “Europe has become a primary engine of deal flow, not a secondary market. Rising national budgets and new EU-wide financing mechanisms are reshaping where capital is being deployed as well as dictating deployment speed”, it says. NATO’s higher spending ambitions, European rearmament and new financing arrangements are encouraging companies to expand, consolidate and acquire specialist capabilities.

Meanwhile, the Indo-Pacific is undergoing a rapid, structural alignment driven by what regional planners call a “contested era.”

China is consolidating its domestic defense industry, though restrictions on cross-border investment limit Western investors’ access. Japan is rapidly reshaping its defense posture and adapting to an environment where the traditional binary definitions of “peacetime” and “wartime” have effectively blurred.

In this era of continuous competition, the report says Japan has elevated allied burden-sharing to its foundational organizing principle.

This shift is most visible in the digital domain. With the operationalization of Japan’s Active Cyber Defense Oversight Commission, Tokyo has adopted a proactive cyber defense strategy. By implementing legal public-private threat reporting and neutralized-access protocols, Japan is signaling a willingness to legally counter and neutralize state-sponsored infrastructure targeting before cyber assaults can cripple critical domestic networks.

One of the report’s most important observations is that defense investment is increasingly a private-equity story. Private-equity firms are acquiring established manufacturers, selling businesses to strategic buyers and building larger companies through additional acquisitions. Venture capital is also financing newer businesses developing military technologies.

Among the ten largest transactions listed for 2026 up to September 30 was GE Aerospace’s $11.8 billion acquisition of Consolidated Precision Products. Other major deals involved aerospace leasing, maritime defense, aircraft components, and specialist detection technologies.

Dubai Aerospace Enterprise bought Macquarie Airfinance for $9.0 billion in what was a leasing consolidation. In a move that signals European rearmament, land-defense scaling, and main-battle tank production, KfW Group (German State Bank) is backing KNDS [Franco-German tank maker Krauss-Maffei Wegmann + Nexter] with $7.8 billion.

In other words, private investors are no longer confined to peripheral suppliers. They are becoming key participants in the industrial ecosystem that supports national defense.

Significantly, the traditional reliance on a handful of legacy prime contractors is giving way to an ecosystem heavily backed by private equity and venture capital.

The private sector is now driving global defense deal-making as it pivots toward software-defined defense, autonomy, and next-generation platforms.

The report shows how defense technology is changing the industry’s center of gravity. Although aerospace and defense remains one of the most active and strategically complex sectors for private capital deployment, software-defined defense, autonomy, and next-generation platforms are pulling ahead as the fastest-growing corner of the market.

Investors are particularly interested in artificial intelligence and software-defined defense systems; autonomous platforms, including unmanned aircraft and maritime systems; counter-drone and missile-defense capabilities; space infrastructure and surveillance; and specialist electronics, communications, and mission-critical components.

However, while these technologies can drive rapid growth, they also carry risks due to restrictive policies in the US and Europe. The report notes that regulatory compliance is becoming a structural hurdle rather than an afterthought.

In the United States, the largest market by transaction value, more national security vetting—including CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) and FOCI (Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence) mitigation—is becoming foundational to ensuring a clean exit.

In other words, the global defense landscape seems to be marked by a distinct paradox.

On the one hand, geopolitical threat vectors are accelerating at breakneck speed. On the other hand, the financial and regulatory machinery needed to field next-generation capabilities faces structural friction.

As a result, companies may depend heavily on a single government customer, handle classified information, or face restrictions on intellectual property developed under government contracts. Cybersecurity compliance and access to sensitive facilities can also complicate acquisitions.

In the United States, the CFIUS can scrutinize foreign investment for national-security risks. FOCI can also affect access to classified work and sensitive facilities.

Similarly, European foreign-investment screening is marked with many complexities. Even businesses that are not conventional arms manufacturers may face scrutiny if they supply strategically important electronics, software, communications or other dual-use technologies.

Commercial risks matter too. Fixed-price government contracts can leave manufacturers exposed when costs rise unexpectedly. Buyers must therefore examine contract liabilities, working capital, supply-chain resilience, workforce retention and the restrictions that could affect a future sale, the report advises.

The report’s overall conclusion, therefore, is that while defense investment opportunities are expanding,  success increasingly depends on technological relevance, reliable industrial execution, regulatory compliance and the ability to navigate national-security restrictions throughout the ownership cycle.

What lessons could India draw from the trends above?

For India, the report is particularly relevant because it highlights a shift in how advanced military capabilities are developed and financed. The implications extend beyond aircraft, missiles, and ships to defense electronics, artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, space technology, supply chains, and foreign investment.

India’s first opportunity is to integrate more deeply into international aerospace and defense supply chains. As Western manufacturers expand production and diversify their suppliers, Indian companies could become more important producers of precision components, avionics, electronics, aerospace structures, and maintenance services.

The most instructive lesson may come from GE Aerospace’s September 8, 2026 acquisition of Consolidated Precision Products (CPP). Experts say that it was a paradigm shift in aerospace and heavy industrial manufacturing. For decades, aerospace primes aggressively outsourced manufacturing to optimize their balance sheets, shifting capital-expenditure risks onto multi-tiered supply chains.

But years of systemic, compounding engine delays—magnified by the Pratt & Whitney GTF powder metal crisis and Boeing’s structural manufacturing gridlock — exposed a fatal flaw: primes (like GE) outsourced execution, but they could never outsource the risk.

Therefore, GE Aerospace decided to buy the absolute bottleneck of jet engine production: structural castings and complex airfoils. Its deal with private equity firms Warburg Pincus and Berkshire Partners is meant to address persistent, industry-wide shortages of critical engine parts and airfoils. In other words, GE bought the supply chain to control the delivery.

For India, this implies that beyond focusing on “Make in India” as screwdriver assembly, it should also consider “Own the Supply Chain.”

Second, as defense technology gains primacy, expanding AI-enabled systems, autonomous platforms, counter-drone technology, advanced sensors, and space infrastructure could be more relevant for India than producing isolated components.

Some experts argue that because European primes are cash-rich and seeking low-cost engineering, they would prefer a JV with India to meet capacity needs.

Lastly, as the Ropes & Gray LLP  report illustrates, private equity and venture capital can help consolidate fragmented industries, finance expansion, and support specialized technology businesses. India could adapt this approach to build stronger domestic defense suppliers.

• Author and veteran journalist Prakash Nanda is Chairman of the Editorial Board of the EurAsian Times and has been commenting on politics, foreign policy, and strategic affairs for nearly three decades. He is a former National Fellow of the Indian Council for Historical Research and a recipient of the Seoul Peace Prize Scholarship.
• The author can be reached at prakash.nanda (at) hotmail.com

The post Europe Is Rearming — and U.S. Wall Street is Writing the Checks, Including GE’s Nearly $12 Billion Deal appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

As Kevin Rees is jailed for 15 years for blowing up a Ulez camera with a homemade bomb, Dr Tilak Doshi looks at why London's anti-motorist money-making 'clean air' scheme is so widely hated.

The post There’s a Reason Ulez is So Hated appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

An Ecuadorian judge ordered the immediate release of nearly 30 fishermen whose two boats were destroyed by the US military in the Pacific Ocean. The Ecuadorian prosecutor’s office had charged them with alleged illegal activities.

The sequence of events is telling.

In two separate instances between late August and early September, the fishing boats Conquista II and María Candelaria were boarded by US military forces while on the high seas. The US forces, after transferring the fishermen to other vessels, destroyed and sank their boats.

The fishermen’s families quickly reported that they had lost communication with their loved ones. Only after prolonged uncertainty were the crew members handed over at Ecuadorian ports and placed under the control of Ecuadorian authorities.

In other words, the crew members were not charged with any crime before their vessels were destroyed, but rather afterward. This move has drawn heavy criticism from criminal defense attorneys (who argue that these actions violate due process) and caused anxiety among Ecuadorian fishermen, who have expressed their fear of fishing on the high seas and suffering the same fate as their compatriots. Several other boats have been intercepted and sunk in the Pacific by US forces in recent months, only increasing fears about transiting there at all.

The US military, for its part, claims that the destroyed vessels serve as fuel refueling points for other boats involved in drug trafficking. Under this strategy, US Southern Command intercepted at least eight Ecuadorian vessels between August and September 2026.

Foreign military actions on Ecuadorian soil have been defended by the government of right-wing President Daniel Noboa, who has aligned himself with Donald Trump’s hemispheric security policy embodied in the Shield of the Americas. During a recent visit to the South American country, Marco Rubio defended the military operations as necessary to dismantle drug trafficking routes.

But why destroy a vessel that has already been evacuated of its crew? 

Defense Minister Giancarlo Loffredo, who defends US military operations against Ecuadorian fishermen based on alleged “prior intelligence,” said that destroying a vessel that has already been evacuated of its crew is justified because it is too risky to tow the vessels to shore. He also said that seizing the fuel on board is dangerous.

However, the minister’s justifications have not convinced everyone. Human Rights Watch stated that both the United States and Ecuador must present evidence justifying the destruction of the vessels: “Of the detained crew members, 90 are facing criminal investigations in Ecuador, 56 were released because Ecuadorian judges ruled that their detention was illegal, and another 14 were not brought before a judge.”

In addition, Juanita Goebertus, director of the Americas division at Human Rights Watch, said: “Intercepting fuel trafficking at sea can be an important step in stopping criminal groups, but that does not give security forces the right to detain people without evidence, destroy their boats, and commit abuses.”

The fact is that the Ecuadorian fishermen deny any involvement in the crimes of which they are accused. For now, the Ecuadorian courts have ruled in favor of nearly 30 fishermen from the Montecristi and the Don Rufo, stating that the prosecution failed to present evidence to support its accusations. With them, the total number of acquitted crew members stands at 56. Another 32 fishermen are on probation while investigations into alleged criminal association continue.

Building on the commercial success and popularity of its PAC-3 interceptors, Lockheed Martin unveiled the more advanced PAC-3 Edge, a program that it is advancing with millions of dollars in funding.

The PAC-3 Edge “will add a revolutionary defensive capability against hypersonic and advanced missile threats,” Lockheed said in an official press statement announcing the interceptor’s debut on October 9, 2026.

The interceptor “leverages combat-proven PAC-3 MSE technology and the latest, industry-leading capability to deliver decisive performance against the Army’s most critical threats,” the company emphasized. 

Although details about the missile remain limited at this stage, the defense giant has indicated that the PAC-3 Edge will have a longer range, higher altitude reach, and greater effectiveness against maneuverable targets than the PAC-3.

The company noted that the PAC-3 Edge achieves superior performance with a next-generation seeker developed by its Strigo Product Center. This seeker—incorporating the latest defense technologies—is expected to significantly boost the interceptor’s ability to defeat highly sophisticated threats. It also features a multi-pulse solid rocket motor from Northrop Grumman that provides precise, controlled thrust throughout the flight profile.

Furthermore, Lockheed’s additional control-system upgrades extend the missile’s effective range and altitude capabilities, the company added.

Lockheed Bets Big on PAC-3 Edge

Lockheed said the improved PAC-3 interceptor is part of the US Army’s Future Interceptor program, “which is currently under competition,” though it stopped short of naming the other competitors.

“The Army’s decision to progress Lockheed Martin into the next stage of development affirms its confidence in Lockheed Martin’s proven Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) experience and the company’s ability to deliver an advanced, layered defense against what’s next,” the company stated.

The US Army’s Future Interceptor program is meant to develop a next-generation interceptor, primarily as an advanced successor or major upgrade path for the Patriot PAC-3.

The effort focuses on the lower tier of the ballistic missile defense battlespace and aims to counter current and emerging air, missile, and hypersonic threats with improved velocity, altitude, range, and maneuverability. It is meant to strengthen the Army’s layered IAMD architecture against near-peer adversaries like China and Russia. 

The unveiling comes as the US military is seeking a Patriot successor amid evolving threats from adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, which have amassed sophisticated hypersonic missiles that are typically much harder to intercept because of their high speeds, unpredictable trajectories, and enviable maneuverability.

In fact, this effort may have gained more urgency after the debacle in the Middle East, where US facilities suffered massive damage in Iranian strikes during its ongoing Operation Epic Fury.

Lockheed says PAC-3 Edge is designed to integrate with existing and future IAMD capabilities, including the Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS), the M903 launcher, containerized launchers, and HIMARS Flex. It plans to accelerate missile development in 2027 to match PAC-3 Edge’s rapid deployment schedule for 2031.

A noteworthy aspect of Lockheed offering the PAC-3 Edge for the Future Interceptor Program is that it is putting its own money on the line to deliver the interceptor faster than traditional acquisition timelines usually allow.

Lockheed reportedly plans to invest hundreds of millions of dollars of its own funds in the missile alone, in addition to further investments in its solid rocket motor and seeker. “We’ve already probably somewhere between $50 [million] and $100 million or better put into this,” Tim Cahill, president of Lockheed Martin, was quoted as saying by Breaking Defense.

He added that the seeker tech is expected to receive roughly $800 million in total company investment so the technology can be reused across other offensive and defensive systems.

The company has already invested about $250 million in the Strigo Product Center to fund new, industry-leading seeker technology that enables greater precision and maneuverability, as noted in the press statement.

Notably, this heavy investment indicates that rather than waiting for traditional government contracts to fully mature, Lockheed is treating PAC-3 Edge as both a technical leap and a strategic corporate bet.

This approach aligns with Lockheed’s recent emphasis on self-funded prototypes and enabling technologies, including work on a space-based interceptor aimed at an on-orbit demonstration around 2028, or the backward integration of advanced Skunk Works technologies, among other similar efforts.

This overall approach of self-funding projects, or parts of them, reflects the company’s deliberate shift toward “home-run” internal research and development (R&D) that produces real hardware the government can evaluate.

Leveraging The Patriot PAC-3 Appeal 

Lockheed Martin is not selling the PAC-3 Edge as a clean-sheet leap into the unknown. Instead, it is deliberately packaging the new interceptor as the logical, low-risk evolution of the US’s most trusted and successful missile-defense weapon. “Lockheed Martin’s PAC-3 Edge interceptor leverages the combat-proven PAC-3 MSE, delivering even greater maneuverability, power and velocity to ensure the Army’s layered defensive architecture remains the most advanced in the world,” Cahill stated.

PAC-3 has been tested against ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and even hypersonic threats in Ukraine and the Middle East, with Lockheed and US officials repeatedly describing high kill rates, despite leaked missiles.

Lockheed claims the PAC-3 Edge inherits the same PAC-3 hit-to-kill architecture and operational pedigree, allowing it to claim continuity. By keeping Edge within the PAC-3 family, including the same launchers, fire-control software, and logistics footprint, Lockheed reduces the usual political and programmatic friction that accompanies a new interceptor.

Notably, Lockheed will leverage the PAC-3’s infrastructure for the new-generation interceptor and, according to reports, will build the PAC-3 Edge on its existing PAC-3 line in Camden, Ark.

Furthermore, the company claims it will cost the same as the PAC-3.  “The cost of this would be about that of the existing PAC-3 MSE,” Tim Cahill told Reuters. “At full production, the annual rate would be about 2,000 units a year, comparable with PAC-3 MSE.”

Against this backdrop, Congress and the United States Army can view Edge less as a risky new start and instead see it as the next spiral of a system that is already proven, funded at scale, and desired by allies.

The PAC-3 Patriot interceptors are the most advanced in the US inventory, alongside the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense). In fact, the recent conflicts in Iran and Ukraine have driven a massive global surge in the missile’s orders. About 17 countries currently operate or have ordered PAC-3 variants, including the United States, the Netherlands, Japan, Germany, the UAE, Taiwan, Kuwait, Qatar, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Romania, Poland, Sweden, Bahrain, Switzerland, Spain, and Denmark.

Many of these have multi-billion-dollar outstanding orders and are actively expanding their stocks.

For foreign customers, Lockheed could position the PAC-3 Edge as a natural path to ordering the next-generation PAC-3 instead of evaluating an all-new option.

Earlier this year, Lockheed also unveiled PAC-3 ACE, a less powerful, more affordable MSE variant accessible to clients outside the US. “It is not designed to replace the MSE, but to supplement it — it has its heritage and maturity, but we bring the costs down by changing some of the components,” Tim Cahill said at the time. 

Therefore, it may not be an exaggeration to say that Lockheed is now diversifying its interceptor portfolio within the same brand: the PAC-3 ACE as a lower-cost, high-volume option for less-stressing threats, PAC-3 MSE as the current high-end workhorse, and the PAC-3 Edge as the future higher-altitude, longer-range, hypersonic-capable top end. 

The unveiling of the new PAC-3 Edge comes as the company already executes a historic ramp-up of capacity. Earlier this year, Lockheed signed a seven-year framework agreement to increase annual PAC-3 interceptor production from 600 to 2,000 under a roughly $58.6 billion framework agreement. The overall expansion effort reportedly includes new facilities, robotics, automation, and supplier expansions.

In summary, Lockheed Martin is backing the PAC-3 Edge with hundreds of millions of its own dollars while keeping the design closely tied to the existing PAC-3 production base and operational architecture. The strategy aims to offer the Army a faster, lower-risk route to a more capable interceptor. Whether this will pay off now remains to be seen.

• Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

The post Lockheed Unveils PAC-3 Edge — Next-Gen Patriot Interceptor To Counter Hypersonic Missile Threats appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Carve a pumpkin? You can do better than that. Fun and unusual ways to celebrate the season, from writing a gratitude letter to making an ancestral altar.

Carve a pumpkin? You can do better than that. Fun and unusual ways to celebrate the season, from writing a gratitude letter to making an ancestral altar.

Russian mathematics is losing ground, scientists are leaving, and international ties are fraying — yet the government’s new Concept for the Development of Mathematical Sciences through 2036 presents all of this almost as a force of nature. The number of researchers has “declined,” access to global science has been “restricted,” and the country’s competitive edge is at risk of being “lost.” Who restricted what, where the scientists went, and why Russia is losing influence, the document hardly explains. T-invariant read the Concept and found a striking picture: global mathematics appears in it as something like a warehouse to which access must be “ensured” — preferably along with additional funding.

On September 24, 2026, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin signed Directive No. 2631-r approving the Concept for the Development of Mathematical Sciences in the Russian Federation through 2030 and in the Long Term through 2036 (the Concept). The full text of the document is available here. At a meeting with his deputy prime ministers on September 28, Mishustin explained that the document is meant to “ensure the active application of fundamental research in high-priority, high-tech fields.” In his words, this “will open up additional opportunities not only for industry, medicine, and agriculture, but also for energy, aircraft manufacturing, and the space industry.” Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Chernyshenko has been put in charge of overseeing its implementation.

The Concept’s stated goal is “to achieve and strengthen Russia’s position in the mathematical sciences in order to ensure the state’s technological leadership, competitiveness, independence, and security.”

The Concept runs to about twenty pages. It opens with reflections on the role of mathematics in the world, then describes the “current state of affairs” and the tools for achieving its objectives. The main tool is the Program of Fundamental Scientific Research in the Russian Federation for the Long Term (2021–2030), adopted on December 31, 2020, and substantially amended on December 25, 2025 (the Program). In addition, a network of international and regional mathematical centers is expected to play an important role in developing mathematics. The document closes with a table of four indicators under two scenarios: a target scenario and a conservative one.

Negative Growth

If the Concept is to be believed, mathematics in Russia is developing quite normally. There are, admittedly, a few difficulties: “At the same time, unfavorable trends have persisted… In 2020–2024, the number of researchers in the group of scientific specialties 1.1, ‘Mathematics and Mechanics,’ fell by 24.3 percent, including a 20.3 percent drop among holders of advanced degrees. In research training, the share of graduates who defended dissertations among all graduates of PhD programs in field group 01.00.00, ‘Mathematics and Mechanics,’ rose in 2020–2022 (from 10.6 to 17.9 percent), but this growth gave way to a decline in 2023–2024 (to 11.2 percent).”

Apparently, something happened in 2022 that made PhD graduates far less likely to defend their dissertations. But the authors of the Concept have an answer: “The trends described are caused by a combination of factors, including the low level of material support and social guarantees for graduate students, scientists, and faculty, which does not match their actual workload and adversely affects both the quality of teaching and research activity. In addition, access is restricted to scientific and technical information in mathematics and related sciences contained in international citation and analytics databases, including scientific monographs, analytical reviews, and other sources of information.”

The answer is simple: raise salaries and “ensure access.” If such measures were enough to advance Russian mathematics, then it really would be in fine shape. But the Concept warns that unless something changes now, “within the next 10 years the Russian Federation will lose its competitive advantage in training research and teaching personnel in mathematics.” The conservative scenario shows a gradual contraction: mathematicians’ share of all researchers falls from 2.8 percent in 2026 to 1.8 percent by 2036. The Concept admits that unless the salary problem is solved and access is “ensured,” Russian mathematics will shrink by more than a third. So the government had better hurry.

History of Mathematics: The Unwritten Chapters

The Concept includes a section on the glorious traditions of Soviet mathematics. It mentions the November 13, 1986, resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the USSR Council of Ministers On Strengthening Research in Mathematics and Its Applications and Improving the Working and Living Conditions of Scientists. According to the authors of the Concept, implementing this resolution “contributed to steady progress” that has allowed Russia “to maintain world leadership in a number of areas of mathematical research to this day.” True, some problems did arise, but they were successfully overcome: “The Soviet school of mathematics held leading positions in the main areas of the mathematical sciences. The socioeconomic and political upheavals of the late 1980s and the 1990s led to an outflow of scientific personnel abroad and into other sectors of the economy. Nevertheless, the Russian Federation managed to preserve its high potential and global competitiveness in mathematics and related sciences.”

Top news on scientists’ work and experiences during the war, along with videos and infographics — subscribe to the T-invariant Telegram channel to stay updated.

Anyone who remembers the late 1980s will read this with a bitter smile. Three or four years after the 1986 resolution was adopted, the largest exodus of mathematicians in the country’s history began. Many of those who had made the Soviet school of mathematics famous left for Princeton, Berkeley, Paris, Bonn, and Tel Aviv. Today, every Fields Medalist who came out of the Soviet school — Grigory Margulis, Vladimir Drinfeld, Efim Zelmanov, Maxim Kontsevich, Andrei Okounkov, and Stanislav Smirnov — works abroad. The only Fields Medalist who stayed in Russia, Grigori Perelman (awarded in 2006), has not published any new work in twenty years.

The second historical episode is just as telling. The Concept cites as an example Kolmogorov’s 1957 theorem on representing continuous functions of several variables as superpositions of functions of one variable and addition. According to the Concept’s authors, the theorem “created the theoretical foundation for the effectiveness of neural network architecture.” That is a gross exaggeration. Together with Arnold’s result, Kolmogorov’s theorem settled Hilbert’s 13th problem — a remarkable achievement, but one only indirectly related to neural networks. The real theoretical grounding for neural networks comes from entirely different theorems that appeared much later, in the 1980s. Interest in Kolmogorov’s construction revived only in 2024 with the emergence of the KAN neural network architecture, and its practical value is still an open question.

Yet Soviet and Russian science has made genuine contributions to machine learning. These include Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory and Nesterov’s accelerated method, both widely used in today’s neural networks. Vladimir Vapnik and Yurii Nesterov are both still working — but not in Russia. In 2024, Vapnik received RASA-America’s George Gamow Award. Nesterov, a professor at the University of Louvain, received the Gauss Prize this summer and delivered a special plenary lecture at the International Congress of Mathematicians. Their contributions to machine learning are beyond dispute. Yet for some reason, the Concept points to a decades-old result by Kolmogorov.

Invisible Supercomputers

The section on supercomputers is a frank admission of how far behind Russia has fallen. The best academic machine named in the Concept, Lomonosov-2, no longer appears in the current TOP500 list (as of June 23, 2026). The document says Lomonosov-2 ranks 451st, but that stopped being true long ago: all of the TOP500 data it cites are from 2025 or even earlier and do not reflect the list as it stands today. All of the Russian machines on the TOP500 belong to private companies — Yandex and Sber. The most powerful of them, Chervonenkis, has a peak performance of 29.4 petaflops (ranked 101st). The Concept speaks of the need to develop “Russian computing resources based on open hardware architectures.” This can be read as an admission that modern Nvidia processors are hard to come by in Russia: they are not supplied legally, and gray-market channels are unreliable and cannot meet demand.

The Lomonosov-2 supercomputer. Photo: hi-tech.mail.ru

Among the countries ahead of Russia on the TOP500 list (Russia has slipped to the bottom of the top 20) is the Netherlands. Listed under the Netherlands are two machines owned by Nebius, the company led by former Yandex head Arkady Volozh: ISEG and ISEG2, with a combined peak performance of about 425 petaflops. By the Concept’s own figures, the five Russian machines on the TOP500 together deliver less than 100 petaflops of peak performance. In other words, Arkady Volozh’s company alone has more computing power than all of Russia’s TOP500 systems combined.

[[socialnetworks]]

The TOP500 is a list of machines (and not all of them, only those whose developers have submitted their systems) ranked by high-precision performance on the Linpack benchmark. It is a good “yardstick” for comparing computing power for climate modeling or numerical solutions to fluid dynamics problems. Neural networks, which the Concept’s authors keep bringing up, run today on low-precision arithmetic, and for such computations the same GPUs deliver orders of magnitude more operations. AI workloads are handled by other machines. The world’s largest AI clusters, owned by xAI, Meta, OpenAI, or Google, do not appear on the TOP500, and neither do the largest Chinese AI clusters. The document invokes the AI race to justify developing Russian supercomputers, but it talks about machines that are only indirectly relevant to that race: they were not built for it.

Among the priority problems listed in the Program is this one: “Differential equations are essential for modeling all physical, technical, or biological processes, from celestial motion to bridge design and interactions between neurons. The central problem in this field remains the global existence of smooth solutions to the three-dimensional Navier–Stokes system, which describes the motion of a viscous Newtonian fluid and underlies fluid dynamics. It is also one of the ‘Millennium Prize Problems.’” A team of mathematicians, engineers, and AI agents working on an AI cluster owned by OpenAI has proved the opposite: rather than existing globally, a solution can “blow up” even under a smooth external force. This was a huge step forward in the study of the Navier–Stokes equations. Yet the Concept didn’t even notice these machines (after all, they aren’t on the TOP500): it cares only about classical supercomputers traditionally used for mathematical modeling, and today that is no longer enough.

Just Give Us Access

Several times, almost word for word, the Concept repeats the same formula: Russian scientists must be guaranteed “access… to scientific and technical information… contained in international citation and analytics databases.” Once, it says that this access is “restricted.” By whom, when, and why it was “restricted” is never specified.

But on the whole, mathematicians don’t suffer much from this “restricted access.” Many results are published open access, preprints are posted on arxiv.org, and authors upload their papers (and even monographs) to academic social networks. Colleagues working in the same area also rarely refuse to share their papers with one another.

What Russian mathematicians really do need is legal “access” — but not to papers. Vladimir Arnold wrote: “Mathematics is a part of physics. Physics is an experimental science, a part of natural science. Mathematics is the part of physics where experiments are cheap.” One can argue about whether mathematics is part of physics, but the claim that mathematical experiments are cheap no longer holds up: they simply aren’t. What’s more, with the rise of neural networks, mathematics is becoming a very expensive science. The 88 hours of work by 10,000 AI agents searching for a solution to the Navier–Stokes equations, plus another 17 hours spent verifying the results, cost OpenAI (by its own estimate) millions of dollars. And that was just one problem, albeit a great one. This is the kind of “access” Russian mathematicians lack. Russia has no “sovereign” AI clusters comparable in power to OpenAI’s machines — and, as the work of Arkady Volozh’s Nebius shows, it would have them, were it not for the events the Concept never mentions.

The Concept portrays global science as a warehouse to which “access must be ensured,” rather than as a community to take part in: publishing in top journals, attending conferences, working with leading mathematicians from other countries. Yet this is precisely where Russian mathematicians face their biggest problems: they can’t pay open-access publication fees, their coauthors have scattered around the world, a Russian affiliation makes things awkward, and traveling to a conference is risky.

As one of its development tools, the Concept names a network of mathematical centers, above all four “world-class international mathematical centers”: the Steklov Mathematical Institute, the Moscow Center for Fundamental and Applied Mathematics, the Euler International Mathematical Institute in St. Petersburg, and the “mathematical center in Akademgorodok” (oddly, not capitalized as a proper name). There is nothing “international” about how these centers are described today. Their mission, according to the Concept’s authors, is “to promote the interests of the Russian school of mathematics worldwide,” not to engage in active collaboration.

The Russian Academy of Sciences is mentioned in the Concept many times and is given a separate section on its “role in the development of the mathematical and related sciences.” There, the Academy is described in the present tense and exclusively with active verbs: it “develops,” “takes into account,” “participates,” “carries out.” Among the Concept’s objectives is “scaling up the system of scientific and methodological guidance” — in other words, expanding the powers of the Academy itself. Universities are barely mentioned.

Yet three of the four “world-class centers” are consortia with universities. The Moscow center includes Moscow State University (its Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics, Faculty of Computational Mathematics and Cybernetics, and Research Computing Center) together with two institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The Euler Institute’s lead institution is St. Petersburg State University. The Akademgorodok center brings together the Sobolev Institute of Mathematics and Novosibirsk State University. The document lists the centers but carefully “erases” any mention of universities, even when a university is the lead institution.

An Unenviable Share

All four of the Concept’s target indicators are shares: mathematicians as a share of all researchers, the same share for computer science, and two ratios of dissertation defenses to the number of students admitted to PhD programs. There is not a single absolute number, and no quality indicators either. Perhaps the Concept’s authors mean that some absolute numbers and quality indicators (including the percentage of publications in White List journals [Russia’s official list of recognized academic journals — T-invariant]) can be found in the Program, but that should have been stated explicitly.

Up-to-date videos on science during wartime, interviews, podcasts, and streams with prominent scientists — subscribe to the T-invariant YouTube channel!

Shares have a well-known property: they grow not only when the numerator goes up, but also when the denominator goes down. Cut the number of physicists and chemists, and the share of mathematicians will “grow” even if not a single mathematician has been added. The share can rise even as the number of mathematicians falls, as long as everyone else is declining faster. A document that promises “accelerated development” has chosen a metric by which the shrinking of science can look like a success for mathematics.

Mathematics, meanwhile, has a “yardstick” that can’t be gamed by cutting chemists: the number of invited speakers at the International Congress of Mathematicians. At the 2026 congress in Philadelphia, according to our count based on the official list, there were three sectional talks with a Russian affiliation and not a single plenary.

In 2022, the International Congress of Mathematicians was supposed to take place in St. Petersburg. Many Russian mathematicians were involved in preparing it, and the bid had been championed by Fields Medalists Stanislav Smirnov and Andrei Okounkov, who were then actively working in Russia. But the congress was relocated and held online. Smirnov and Okounkov removed their Russian affiliations from the congress materials. Even so, HSE University and the Steklov Institute fielded five speakers, two of them plenary. In addition, Nikolai Andreev received the Leelavati Prize for popularizing mathematics, and there were invited speakers from St. Petersburg and Novosibirsk. Overall, Russian mathematics was well represented at the congress. But four years have passed, and a lot has changed.

How many Russian mathematicians were invited to the 2026 congress but declined is unknown: the International Mathematical Union does not publish refusals. But consider the climate in which Russian scientists were deciding whether to attend. Since 2022, Article 275.1 of the Russian Criminal Code has made “confidential cooperation” with a foreign state or organization a crime. To bring charges under this article, it is enough to establish the mere fact of contact. According to data from Mediazona, 82 people had been convicted under this article by fall 2025. On January 26, 2026, half a year before the congress, Deputy Minister of Science and Higher Education Konstantin Mogilevsky sent out a letter. It advised scientists to “carefully assess the nature of events for possible politicization,” to weigh the “advisability of participating” in events held in “unfriendly” countries [Russia’s official term for states that have imposed sanctions on it — T-invariant], and to inform the ministry. The 2026 congress was held in the United States. In a climate like this, you’d think long and hard before accepting even an invitation as prestigious as speaking at the International Congress of Mathematicians.

The Concept does contain some things that are unquestionably right. It calls for a “decent salary” for mathematicians and teachers, and for stipends that let graduate students study and do research “without having to take” side jobs. It acknowledges the shortage of math teachers and identifies math circles and olympiads as the core of the tradition, to be made accessible regardless of family income. Any mathematician would sign on to that. But young mathematicians don’t leave the country just for the pay. They go where they can publish freely, attend conferences, work with the best people in their field, and not worry about what an email exchange or a meeting with a coauthor from another country might cost them.

Impersonal Sentences

The strongest impression the Concept leaves is not any particular figure or error, but the document’s style. The number of researchers has “declined.” Access is “restricted.” The competitive advantage may be “lost.” All of this just happens on its own, like fog rolling in or the weather turning bad. The Concept contains no war, no sanctions, no post-2022 emigration, no criminal cases, no relocated 2022 International Congress of Mathematicians. There is only a “combination of factors,” chief among them low salaries.

It is impossible to believe that the document’s authors are unaware of all this. It is equally clear that a 2026 government Concept cannot name the causes, and impersonal phrasing makes it possible to ask for money by blaming “bad weather.” The document records the decline but leaves out what caused it. And so it seems as though the decline can be fought with higher salaries, stipends, and new Kolmogorov prizes. But that won’t work.

T-invariant has been keeping its Chronicles of the Persecution of Scientists for three years now. Instead of studying in Paris, the young and gifted Leonid Katz is sitting in pretrial detention. Azat Miftakhov, instead of talking with colleagues at international conferences, is writing his study of Chui’s conjecture in a prison in Dimitrovgrad. Andrey Dymov, an associate professor in the Faculty of Mathematics at HSE University who was named best teacher in 2022 and 2024–2025, is now awaiting transfer to a penal colony to serve a three-and-a-half-year sentence instead of teaching students. Distinguished Professor Mikhail Volkov has been dismissed from the department where he had worked for half a century and ordered to pay a fine. The Concept is deeply worried about Russia falling behind in supercomputing, yet Sergei Abramov, a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and a leading expert in parallel computing, has been barred from working, ordered to pay a fine, and stripped of his civil rights, and he waits for hours for his own pension to be released from his own account so that he doesn’t starve. These are far from all the mathematicians in our files. It is no surprise that their names are absent from the Concept. What is strange is that it reads as if their names were absent from its authors’ memory as well. And yet its authors are mathematicians, too. Some of them are even real ones.

Support T-invariant’s work by subscribing to our Patreon and choosing a donation amount that suits you.

The post Access Restricted: What Russia’s Concept for the Development of Mathematics through 2036 chooses not to see appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

Thailand’s Queen Suthida flew a solo sortie in the Royal Thai Air Force’s Saab JAS 39C Gripen fighter jet, becoming the first Thai female Gripen pilot and the first reigning Queen anywhere in the world to fly a modern combat jet solo.

Without an instructor or a co-pilot in the back seat, Thailand’s Queen Suthida took off from a military airbase in southern Surat Thani on October 8, 2026.

For about 41 minutes, the Queen of Thailand owned the air even as King Maha Vajiralongkorn waited with flowers and a golden patch, an honorary Swedish insignia for those who have flown the aircraft.

Local media reported that the flight marked the culmination of extensive simulator training at the base and about 10 hours in a two-seat JAS39D Gripen. However, she was already a pilot before she began training on the Gripen-C, which forms the cornerstone of the RTAF.

On May 13, 2010, the Queen made her flying debut aboard a Cessna T-41D belonging to Fleet 604 at Wing 6 in Bangkok. Since then, she has amassed 1,188.48 flight hours in various aircraft, including the Cessna T-41, CT-4E Airtrainer, Pilatus PC-9, Mooney M20M, Piper PA-34 Seneca, Boeing 737-400, Boeing 737-800, and a twin-seater Gripen-D.

In the past, the Queen has reportedly served as the king’s co-pilot on both domestic and overseas flights while performing royal duties. The royal duo even successfully landed a royal aircraft at Paro Airport in Bhutan in April 2015, widely regarded as one of the world’s hardest airports for pilots.

Notably, only a few precedents exist of royalty or heads of state flying aircraft beyond performing duties. However, a few notable examples exist.

The Spanish Crown Princess Leonor, for instance, flew her first solo flight in December 2025, piloting a Pilatus PC-21 turboprop trainer. She reportedly concluded her air force training with a joint flight alongside her father, King Felipe VI, with both piloting separate Pilatus PC-21 training aircraft.

Some reports also say she flew in an F-5 fighter jet with an instructor.

Meanwhile, Princess Salma bint Abdullah of Jordan, daughter of King Abdullah II, became the first woman in the Jordanian Armed Forces to complete fixed-wing pilot training and receive her wings in 2020.

She even joined the kingdom’s royal air force in providing humanitarian aid to the war-torn Gaza Strip after Israel launched a devastating bombing campaign on the enclave following the October 7 attack by Hamas.

Interestingly, the Jordanian princess comes from a long line of pilots trained to fly both civilian and military aircraft. Jordan’s current leader, King Abdullah II, qualified as a pilot of a Cobra attack helicopter and other types during his military career. He is also purportedly known for his hands-on involvement with the Royal Jordanian Air Force, which operates F-16 AM/BM fighter jets based at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base. 

King Abdullah II’s father, King Hussein, was also a highly skilled pilot who flew a variety of military and civilian aircraft, including the De Havilland Vampire and the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, Lockheed L-1011 TriStar, and Boeing 737, to name a few.

In one instance, the king, flying an unarmed, twin-engine De Havilland Dove prop airplane, was intercepted by two Soviet-built Syrian MiG-17 fighter jets but managed to get away using low-level maneuvers, as documented in several reports.

Britain’s King Charles III earned his Royal Air Force (RAF) wings in 1971 after completing jet pilot training at RAF Cranwell in Lincolnshire. He trained as a fast-jet pilot on the BAC Jet Provost, but unverified reports suggest he also flew a Hawk and some helicopters. Similarly, King Felipe of Spain trained across the services and flew with the Spanish Air Force, including the Pilatus PC-21 turboprop trainer and the Dassault Falcon 900B.

Meanwhile, former US President George H.W. Bush was a combat-decorated WWII naval aviator. He performed 58 combat flights throughout the war and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for valor after the Japanese shot down his torpedo plane on September 2, 1944. He later flew the Convair F-102A Delta Dagger supersonic interceptor jet while serving in the Texas Air National Guard between 1970 and 1973. 

Some civilian heads of state have also flown in military aircraft purely for the love of the game, though they did not pilot them themselves.

For example, Russian President Vladimir Putin flew in the pilot seat of a modernized nuclear-capable Tu-160M “White Swan” supersonic strategic bomber during a 30-minute flight departing from the Kazan Aviation Plant in 2024. Before this, he flew the previous model of the Tu-160 bomber in August 2005. Similarly, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi flew in the cockpit of the Tejas LCA, though only as a passenger. 

The Thai Queen, however, has achieved a milestone no other reigning queen in the world has, thereby registering her name in the annals of history.

This development may also boost the popularity of the Gripen, a Swedish-origin jet that forms the backbone of the RTAF alongside the F-16s.

Thailand’s Gripen

Thailand ordered the Gripen C/D fighter jets in 2008, with the first batch comprising six aircraft arriving at Wing 7 in Surat Thani in February 2011.  

In 2015, the Thai Gripen-C/D overpowered the Chinese J-11 aircraft during Exercise Falcon Strike 2015. During the first two days of the war game, the J-11s shot down 16 Gripens in a visual-range battle without taking any losses. But the Gripens completely annihilated the J-11s during beyond-visual-range engagements, as the EurAsian Times explained earlier.

The aircraft were deployed for combat as hostilities broke out with Cambodia last year.

On July 26, 2025, as shelling intensified near the Phu Ma Kua ridge and the ancient Ta Muen Thom temple, the Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF) deployed its Gripen C/D fighters in a targeted strike against Cambodian artillery positions—marking the combat debut of the type not just within the RTAF but anywhere in the world since the jet became operational.

The RTAF is now upgrading by acquiring the Gripen-E/F, the most advanced aircraft in the Gripen family.

In August 2025, Thailand approved buying a dozen Saab Gripen-E fighter jets instead of the American Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 70/72, which was also on offer.

The newly purchased Gripen-E variant will replace the aging F-16s and integrate into the RTA’s existing SAAB Gripen jets.

Whether the Queen will join the Gripen-E’s cockpit as a solo pilot remains to be seen.

• Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

The post Thai Queen Flies Gripen Fighter Jet Solo, Becomes 1st Reigning Queen to Pilot a Modern Combat Jet Alone appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.