According to an Ifop poll for the newspaper Marianne, nearly half of Muslims and Jews would consider leaving the country if Marine Le Pen were to emerge victorious in the presidential election next year. 20% of them would “certainly” do so.
Which candidate would cause you to leave France? This is one of the questions posed by the Ifop poll for Marianne, released on Thursday, October 15. The study reveals that a significant proportion of Muslims and Jews say they are prepared to leave the country if Marine Le Pen wins the 2027 presidential election.
Some 46% of that number are planning “leaving France to settle in another country,” while 20% say they will “certainly” take the plunge. More broadly, 40% of younger French people say they have made plans to leave. Among voters of La France Insoumise, the figure rises to 43%. Furthermore, 44% of Jewish citizens responded that they would consider leaving the country.
Marine Le Pen’s rise to power could create “significant obstacles” and generate “high levels of fear and insecurity,” Francois Kraus, director of the political division at Ifop, explained to journalists. More than eight out of ten Muslims fear an “increase in attacks and discrimination” against them. This concern is particularly relevant in the context of the National Rally’s plan to ban the wearing of the Islamic veil in public spaces. Confirmed at the end of August by MP Jean-Philippe Tanguy, the new measure would impose stiff fines on offenders and is expected to be included in Marine Le Pen’s platform for the 2027 presidential election. To circumvent the legal hurdles that such a ban might encounter, the presidential candidate is reportedly considering putting it to a referendum.
Meanwhile, only 27% of Muslim respondents would be willing to “conceal [their] religious affiliation on a daily basis,” for example, by ceasing to wear the headdress in public (18%). More broadly, 41% of those surveyed, regardless of their religion, would refuse to “respect laws” they consider “unjust.” This distrust affects three out of four Jean-Luc Melenchon voters and nearly half of civil servants (45%). According to the latest Ifop-Fiducial poll, Marine Le Pen maintains a significant lead in the first round. Depending on the scenario, the National Rally candidate is in first place with between 32% and 36% of the total vote.
While Le pen has remained antagonistic towards Islam in France, she has often cast herself as a protector of the Jewish people in the country.
In 2024, she remarked, “The best shield for French people of the Jewish faith is the National Rally. It is the only movement that has the will, the conviction and the means to fight Islamist fundamentalism, which is the major danger facing them.”
Yet, nearly as many Jews said they would leave the country under a Le Pen presidency as Muslims.
Every October 12, history once again becomes a battlefield. This year, the two events took place just a few days apart and a few thousand kilometers from one another. On one side, the White House, where on October 9, Donald Trump honored Christopher Columbus in front of a marble statue reassembled from fragments of the Baltimore monument that had fallen into the harbor in 2020, and signed a proclamation linking the 1492 voyage to the 1776 Declaration of Independence and promising that the explorer’s legacy will not be erased by “radical extremists.” On the other side were Indigenous organizations that for more than thirty years have rejected even the name of the continent, calling it Abya Yala.
The dispute over the continent’s name is a dispute over sovereignty, and the fact that it is resurfacing with such intensity in 2026 – while Washington is rewriting its relations with the Western Hemisphere in an openly hegemonic manner – is no mere coincidence of the calendar.
The name “America” originated in a cartographic workshop in the Vosges Mountains. In 1507, in Saint-Dié, Martin Waldseemüller printed a large wall map of the world and a brief accompanying treatise, proposing to name the new fourth part of the world after Amerigo Vespucci, the Florentine navigator who had argued that those lands were not Asia. On the map, the name appears in the southern part of the continent. Within a few decades, it came to apply to the entire continental landmass. None of the people who lived there were consulted.
In 1958, the Mexican historian Edmundo O’Gorman developed a thesis on this that retains its power to this day: America was not discovered, it was invented. Not in the trivial sense that it did not exist before, but in the sense that Europe constructed a new geographical and conceptual entity, placing it within its own image of the world and assigning it a role in its own universal history. The name was the first act of this construction. Before being conquered by force of arms, the continent was conquered on paper.
There is also a second appropriation, less discussed in Europe and deeply felt south of the Rio Grande. In common usage, “America” means the United States. The shift is not merely lexical. On December 2, 1823, James Monroe declared to Congress that the American continent was no longer to be considered open to European colonization: the phrase “America for Americans” already contained, in embryo, the idea that the Americans par excellence were those of Washington. Two centuries later, the same logic has led to pressure regarding the Panama Canal in 2025 and the military operation in Venezuela in January 2026. When an indigenous movement utters “Abya Yala,” it thus challenges two names at once: the one imposed by Europe and the one annexed by the United States.
The nomos of discovery
To understand why the word “discovery” is not neutral, we must turn to the law. Carl Schmitt, in a 1950 book that remains one of the foundational texts of legal geopolitics, argues that 1492 ushered in the first global nomos of the earth: an ordering of space based on the seizure of land. The European powers recognized one another as legal subjects and treated the New World as a free space, available for occupation. The papal bull Inter caetera of 1493 and the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 drew a line from pole to pole that divided the planet between Castile and Portugal. Those who lived on those lands did not participate in the division: they were its objects.
Schmitt describes this order with a jurist’s admiration for an effective legal construct, and his analysis must be read with that in mind. But the mechanism he identifies is real and has had a long institutional life. In 1823, the same year as the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case Johnson v. M’Intosh: Justice Marshall ruled that “discovery” conferred sovereign title to the land upon the European power – and later upon the United States as its successor – leaving the indigenous peoples with a mere right of occupation. The Doctrine of Discovery has remained part of American jurisprudence to this day. It was not until March 2023 that two Vatican departments issued a joint statement formally distancing themselves from it, acknowledging that 15th-century papal bulls were used to justify the expropriation of indigenous peoples.
The human cost of this system is measured in figures that remain uncertain, though their order of magnitude is not. A study published in 2019 in *Quaternary Science Reviews* estimated that between 1492 and 1600, the population of the Americas plummeted by about 90 percent, due to the combined effects of epidemics, war, forced labor, and social disintegration; the reforestation of abandoned lands was so extensive that it left a trace in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Tzvetan Todorov, in his book The Conquest of America, had already spoken of the greatest genocide in human history, questioning how knowledge of the other could coexist with its destruction. The “discovery,” in other words, was also the disappearance of most of those who were there.
What Abya Yala means
Abya Yala comes from the language of the Guna, the people who inhabit the Caribbean coast of Panama and certain areas of Colombia. In its form “Abiayala,” it is usually translated as “land in full maturity”; other renderings such as “living land” or “land of vital blood” are also in circulation. The transition from a local place name to a continental name is recent. According to the most widely cited accounts, it was the Bolivian Aymara leader Takir Mamani who proposed that indigenous peoples adopt this name in their documents, in place of that of the colonizers. The proposal took shape during the wave of protests that accompanied the 500th anniversary in 1992, when counter-celebrations marking “500 years of resistance” stood in opposition to the official commemorations. In the 2000s, the summit meetings of indigenous peoples across the continent permanently adopted it as part of their name.
The Guna’s choice is no accident. This is a people who, in 1925, rose up against the Panamanian state and eventually secured an autonomous comarca – now known as Guna Yala – with its own institutions and effective control over the territory: one of the most successful examples of indigenous self-governance on the continent. Borrowing their word means choosing as an emblem a concrete experience of territorial sovereignty, not mere nostalgia.
It should be noted that Abya Yala does not erase the plurality of local names: Anáhuac for the Nahua world of central Mexico, Tawantinsuyu for the political and territorial organization of the Incas, and Pindorama for the Tupi lands of present-day Brazil. Each of these names expresses a different cosmology of space. Abya Yala functions as common ground, a sort of federal name that does not replace the specific ones. This is an important detail, because it signals that the project is not the invention of a single, symmetrical indigenous identity mirroring the “American” one, but rather a coordination among diverse actors.
Cartography as an act of sovereignty
From a geopolitical perspective, naming is the first form of possession. This is well understood by states that rename gulfs and seas, contest place names on official maps, and impose transliterations in international institutions. The year 2025 provided a textbook example with the U.S. renaming of the Gulf of Mexico. In this context, Abya Yala is a counter-toponym: a name that does not seek to occupy school atlases, but rather to wrest from hegemonic power the monopoly on the description of space.
The Latin American decolonial school has given this insight a precise theoretical form. Aníbal Quijano has termed the structure that survives the end of formal colonialism “the coloniality of power”: a hierarchy of peoples, knowledge, and territories that continues to organize the international division of labor and the production of knowledge. Walter Mignolo has shown how “Latin America” itself is a designation that originated in the nineteenth century in French and Creole circles, with specific political functions. The year 1492 marks not only the beginning of the conquest of the Americas but also the birth of the world-system centered first on Europe and later on the Atlantic. Challenging the continent’s name therefore means challenging the founding date of the unipolar order, tracing it back to its very roots.
Here, the issue intersects with the debate on multipolarism. A multipolar order is not merely a different distribution of power among great states. It implies the recognition that there are multiple civilizations, each with its own concepts of space, law, and relationship to the land. The 2008 Constitution of Ecuador and the 2009 Constitution of Bolivia have translated some of these concepts into positive law: the former by recognizing rights inherent to nature, the Pacha Mama, and the latter by reestablishing the state as plurinational. These are imperfect experiments, but they represent the most serious attempt in the hemisphere to build a form of statehood that does not derive entirely from the European model.
Columbus, Italy, and two identity politics
For the Italian reader, the story takes an additional turn. Columbus Day did not originate as a celebration of conquest. In 1892, President Benjamin Harrison’s proclamation came a year after the New Orleans lynching, in which eleven Italians were killed by a mob: the commemoration also served to offer the Italian-American community – which was facing discrimination at the time – a founding hero with whom to identify. Columbus thus became a tool for the integration of a minority that Anglo-Saxons considered little more than white.
Today, that history is being enlisted in a different battle. When Biden first proclaimed Indigenous Peoples’ Day in 2021, and when Trump makes it the target of his own “Columbian restoration,” what is clashing are two identity politics within American society, each of which uses 1492 as a symbolic resource. Italian Americans find themselves serving as a shield for an operation that primarily concerns the definition of the U.S. nation and its relationship with the rest of the hemisphere.
Italy and Europe can avoid this dilemma. Remembering Columbus as a navigator, as a figure of Mediterranean and Genoese culture, and as a man of his time does not oblige one to subscribe to the “nomos” of discovery or the legal doctrine that derived from it. One can honor the sailor while rejecting the claim of ownership. Indeed, it is precisely from Europe that a gesture of historical maturity might emerge, similar to the one made by the Holy See in 2023: distinguishing the memory of the person from the legitimization of a spatial order that has produced expropriation and death on a continental scale.
October 12, 2026, revealed two opposing ways of approaching the same date. Washington used Columbus to reaffirm a narrative of national founding that, in foreign policy, translates into a renewed claim to guardianship over the hemisphere. Indigenous movements used Abya Yala to remind us that that hemisphere had names, political systems, and sovereignty before 1492 – and that it still retains some of them today.
There is no symmetry between the two positions. One has aircraft carriers, sanctions, and courts; the other has a word and territories to defend one by one, but the history of maps teaches us that names have a long life – longer than the empires that imposed them. “America” appeared on a map printed in a small town in the Vosges and ended up designating half the planet.
No one can say today what fate awaits Abya Yala, but the mere fact that millions of people refuse to call their land by another’s name already speaks volumes about the crisis of the order that name had ushered in.
Founded less than a decade ago in 2017, US defense technology company Anduril has reached a roughly US$90 billion valuation in a recent employee tender offer, placing its private-market value in the same range as, or above, the public-market capitalizations of long-established defense firms such as Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics.
According to a Bloomberg report, Anduril Industries Inc. opened a tender offer allowing its employees in 16 countries to sell shares at a valuation of about US$94.80 each, with the total offer capped at about US$ 1.3 billion. The subscription period is open from October 13 to November 9.
Unlisted companies often offer employees and others a chance to cash out shares they hold through tender offers to retain talent.
Notably, in recent years, AI-focused, venture-backed startups increasingly use tender offers rather than public listings to give employees access to cash.
AI startups such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Clay, ElevenLabs, and Harvey have used employee tender offers to stay private longer while still offering cash incentives to retain talent.
Anduril’s tender offer will push the AI-focused defense company’s valuation to US$90 billion, up nearly 50 percent from its May valuation of US$60 billion.
Beneath this skyrocketing valuation lies the story of how the global defense market, and the U.S.’s famous defense-industrial complex in particular, has transformed beyond recognition in just a decade.
What Anduril’s US$90 Billion Valuation Tells Us
For generations, slow-moving, mammoth defense-industrial houses lobbied for lucrative Pentagon contracts and delivered hardware-centric defense platforms over decades-long procurement cycles.
This system created the U.S.’s distinct politico-military-industrial complex, dominated by legacy prime contractors, including the Big Five: Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman.
Today, however, venture-backed startups increasingly dominate the U.S. defense market, offering software-defined autonomous weapons systems with AI integration.
In this market, a defense product’s journey from concept to initial operational clearance (IOC) and front-line deployment takes years, sometimes even months, not decades.
For instance, the Zumwalt-class destroyers program traces back to the 1990s Surface Combatant for the 21st Century (SC-21) and DD-21 programs. Construction of the lead ship began around 2009; it was launched in 2013, commissioned in October 2016, and was finally accepted around 2020. The ships have since undergone multi-year modifications to carry hypersonic missiles.
Similarly, the B-2 Spirit program spanned two decades, from the 1970s to the 1990s; the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter) program also took nearly two decades, from early concept work in 1996 to Initial Operational Capability in 2015.
However, venture-backed firms such as Anduril, Shield AI, and Palantir focus on software platforms that can be updated iteratively, often paired with smaller or modular hardware, and use faster acquisition pathways.
For instance, Anduril was founded in 2017. It piloted its AI-powered Sentry surveillance towers on the U.S.-Mexico border around 2018, within a year of its founding, and later made them a program of record, deploying hundreds by the early 2020s.
Similarly, Shield AI was founded in 2015. The company reported deploying its AI autonomy software stack, AI Hivemind, for the first time around 2018, within three years. Hivemind has since operated on dozens of platforms, including drones, F-16s in tests, helicopters, and, more recently, maritime and space systems, in GPS-denied, contested environments.
The Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) programs of these defense AI startups are progressing much faster than the typical two-decade development cycle for traditional fighter aircraft.
For instance, Anduril’s YFQ-44A Fury, a jet-powered, uncrewed autonomous combat aircraft with mission-autonomy software such as Hivemind and Anduril’s own Lattice, is already in testing.
The contrast is stark. While traditional defense platforms were hardware-centric, with development cycles spanning decades, these new software-centric Autonomous platforms emphasize rapid prototyping and continuous software updates, compressing development timelines to years, and even months.
Another advantage of these software-centric defense platforms is that their upgrades also take months, not years, enabling continuous updates.
The war in Ukraine has shown that the modern battlefield is changing every few months.
For instance, FPV drones first appeared in the war in Ukraine around May 2022; by September 2022, Kyiv had introduced maritime drones.
Barracuda-100M. Credits: Anduril Industries.
In 2024, Russia countered Ukraine’s Starlink-linked drones with its Fiber-optic drones, which were immune to jamming. By the end of 2024, these drones carried air-to-air missiles such as the R-73 and R-60. Ukraine also armed its naval drones with surface-to-air missiles.
By 2025, Ukraine had developed multiple drone interceptors that reversed the cost-benefit advantage drones had over traditional interceptor missiles.
Russia responded with jet-powered drones that can fly at 500-600 km per hour and is developing others that can exceed 800 km per hour.
This continuously evolving battlefield means traditional procurement cycles spanning decades no longer suit modern warfare, where systems become outdated within months.
A hardware-centric approach can’t meet the demands of this evolving battlefield; therefore, the Pentagon increasingly prefers working directly with Silicon Valley-based AI defense firms.
Anduril’s US$ 90 billion valuation reflects this broader story. Anduril, however, is not the only AI defense firm cashing in on this trend.
Palantir, founded in 2003, is already worth nearly US$480 billion, more than any of the Big Five.
Palantir’s valuation is nearly seven times Northrop Grumman’s, more than five times General Dynamics’, nearly four times Lockheed Martin’s, three times Boeing’s, and nearly double RTX’s.
Similarly, Scale AI is worth US$29 billion, Shield AI around US$13 billion, and SandboxAQ and Applied Intuition around US$15 billion.
“Companies like SpaceX, Palantir, and Anduril have been tapped for multi-billion-dollar contract awards from the Pentagon for communications, targeting, unpiloted vehicles, anti-drone defenses, and hypersonic weapons. The funds from these awards will flow to the companies over time, which should put them in the top ranks of Pentagon contractors by value of awards within the next several years,” a recent report from the Costs of War project said.
What sets Palantir and Anduril apart is that while most AI defense firms have only one product in their portfolios, such as autonomous aircraft, counter-drone systems, or data fusion software, these two firms are offering a range of products.
Anduril offers AI-powered software, autonomous drones, cruise missiles, drone interceptors, Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), underwater drones, undersea sensor networks, autonomous rotorcraft, surface-to-air interceptor missiles, autonomous sensor towers for land, water, and sea, radars, infrared imaging, and more.
Earlier this month, Anduril won a contract worth up to US$2.9 billion with the U.S. Navy to boost submarine production. The company is also investing US$3.7 billion to scale a new shipyard in Maryland. The new facility will build components for the Virginia-class submarines.
Anduril co-founder Palmer Luckey was also selected to lead “Project Meridian: The Future of Warfare,” a new 120-day initiative tasked with identifying the technologies and capabilities needed for future military dominance.
Anduril has also been selected to build the next generation of Army goggles, the Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS), which are “intended to give soldiers everything from night-vision capability to warnings of incoming airborne threats.”
However, Anduril’s most lucrative contract could be in border security technologies. The Big Beautiful bill commits over US$6 billion for various border security technologies. However, as Eurasian Times reported earlier, the bill’s conditions mean Anduril is the only firm that qualifies for these border surveillance tenders.
Anduril has also been called the Nvidia of the US defense market.
The sky-high valuation of Palantir and Anduril will also have a knock-on effect on other Silicon Valley-based AI-defense firms.
If these new tech defense firms maintain their growth momentum for another decade or so, then we might have to redefine the ‘Big Five’ of the US defense market.
Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK.
He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com
A US Air Force (USAF) pilot flying an F-22 Fighter Jet controlled an Anduril YFQ-44A Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) from the Raptor’s cockpit earlier this month, the service announced on Thursday.
The F-22 pilot served as an airborne “quarterback,” issuing high-level tactical directives to a single YFQ-44A.
The YFQ-44A’s onboard autonomy software interpreted and executed those directives in real time, conducting dynamic flight maneuvers and simulated combat tasks.
“This achievement demonstrates what is possible when we are aligned with industry on a shared imperative: delivering capability to the warfighter at unprecedented speed,” said Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink.
“We are driving urgency into every part of acquisition from rapid integration and flight learning to disciplined assessment, so we can turn promising technology into combat capability at the pace the threat demands.”
The event brought together personnel from the 412th Test Wing, 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron, 309th Software Engineering Group, Experimental Operations Unit, F-22 System Program Office and the CCA Software Autonomy and Teaming Branch.
The Department will use data from this test milestone to inform continued software integration, developmental testing, and the Air Force’s future CCA concepts.
“This flight shows the power of crewed-uncrewed teaming and the advantage it provides our warfighters,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Ken Wilsbach. “We must test often, learn fast and give commanders what they need, when they need it.”
Mark Shushnar, Anduril’s vice president of autonomous airpower, said: “The US Air Force’s CCA program is the fastest-moving, most mature CCA program anywhere in the world, and will be the first to field operational aircraft,” Shushnar said. “Getting there demands that Anduril and the U.S. Air Force work together to prove out the capability, define the operational procedures, and build trust between operators and their semi-autonomous wingmen.”
YFQ-44A CCA
USAF Takes Delivery of Fury and Vengeance Drones
Earlier, as EurAsian Times reported, the USAF took delivery of its first two CCAs, Anduril’s FQ-44 Fury and General Atomics’ FQ-42 Vengeance, and sent them to the Experimental Operations Unit at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada.
The aircraft, developed under prototype designations YFQ-44A and YFQ-42A, will now test how uncrewed, semi-autonomous jets can fly with crewed fighters and add cheaper mass in contested airspace.
“Anduril delivered the first CCA, the YFQ-44A, to the Experimental Operations Unit [EOU] last month, and General Atomics delivered the YFQ-42A last week,” the USAF announced on September 24. The aircraft were delivered at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada, and will now support Air Combat Command-led operational experimentation to refine how CCA will be employed alongside crewed aircraft in contested environments, the USAF added.
Earlier, Meink highlighted the significance of putting the systems in Airmen’s hands: “Putting CCA in the hands of Airmen is how we build the operational future of this program. Anduril’s Fury and General Atomics’ Vengeance deliveries show we can move at incredible speed, compete, and deliver cost-effective combat power to the force.”
The sentiment was echoed by the Chief of Staff, Gen. Ken Wilsbach, who said, “We’re thrilled to welcome Fury and Vengeance to the experimental operational unit. Our Airmen are excited to see what Collaborative Combat Aircraft can do.”
The program secured deliveries in just over two years after the service down-selected the two contractors in April 2024, and within a year of the two aircraft’s maiden flights.
In July, an Anduril YFQ-44A fired an AIM-120 AMRAAM at a simulated target over the Mojave Desert after taking off from Edwards Air Force Base. The Air Force called it the first CCA live-fire event; some accounts said the missile was inert.
A human operator retained weapons-release authority throughout the demonstration. That month, the Air Force also conducted an Agile Combat Employment exercise with both Collaborative Combat Aircraft designs at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada, shifting the platforms from controlled test conditions into more realistic operational use, as the EurAsian Times reported.
More recently, Meink said the service aims to have at least 500 CCAs in service by 2032, speaking at the Air & Space Forces Association’s 2026 Air, Space & Cyber Conference. “Today, the first FQ-42 and FQ-44 increments are already rolling off the assembly line,” he said. “They’ll be performing many of the same missions that we do with manned fighters today,” he added.
A YFQ-42A Collaborative Combat Aircraft lands after a test flight at a California test location. The program is structured to develop modular, uncrewed aircraft designed to operate alongside fifth and sixth-generation aircraft. (Courtesy photo)
CCA Gathers Pace
The CCA program is a flagship USAF initiative to develop a new generation of uncrewed “fighter drones” to fly alongside manned jets. The CCAs, or “loyal wingmen,” are designed to boost air superiority in contested environments like the Indo-Pacific or even the Middle East.
They are intended to boost the USAF’s combat capabilities by carrying extra air-to-air munitions, extending sensor coverage, and executing missions that would otherwise put human pilots at risk.
Reports have indicated that these CCAs will primarily serve as airborne “missile trucks” in their initial deployment, flying in formation with crewed jets to provide additional firepower. However, their roles could be expanded to include electronic warfare, intelligence gathering, surveillance, reconnaissance, and, in the future, fully autonomous missions.
The Pentagon plans to mass-produce these CCAs at a significantly lower cost than conventional fighter jets. The USAF-developed CCA drones are estimated to cost between US$25 million and US$35 million each, about one-third the cost of an F-35.
USAF officials report that the service plans to order about 150 drones in Increment 1. However, the service is seeking about 1,000 of these aircraft over several iterative development cycles. This large number may also drive design modifications and evolution over time.
Earlier, Frank Kendall, the former United States Secretary of the Air Force and who launched the CCA program, said the USAF is working to acquire what could ultimately be a fleet of multiple CCA drone types through iterative development cycles.
“I don’t regard CCAs as expendable. They’re not munitions. … we don’t send them all to die,” Kendall said. “So there needs to be enough survivability in them – the combination of how you equip them, design them, plus tactics so that you can have reasonable attrition in most areas – but they are things that you are willing to let a few of die to gain an advantage”.
Earlier, Kendall explained in 2022: “These have got to be cheaper platforms, and one of their features is that they’re at least attritable, if not expendable. That opens up a whole range of tactics that we currently would not contemplate because we’d be sacrificing manned aircraft, and we’re not going to do that.” (2022) “We need to imagine a world in which fighter planes aren’t the dominant platform, and that the CCAs are not just there to help the fighter planes; they’re actually there to win the war.
You’ve got to free your mind of the idea that there will always be a fighter pilot.” On building trust through exercises: “I think that’s going to be fascinating when we start using CCAs at Red Flag. When the guys with the CCAs are beating the crap out of the guys without them, and not losing any manned fighters, that’s going to be pretty obvious, right?” He also recounted asking a pilot why there wasn’t more resistance: the answer was, “Sir, these things are going to save our lives.”
Lt. Gen. Christopher Niemi, Air Force Chief Modernization Officer and Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategy, Design and Requirements, made an interesting remark in May 2026: “I have a lot of experience with that program [CCA]. My prior job was out at Nellis Air Force Base, where [we were] standing up the Experimental Operations Unit. And I’m very enthusiastic about the opportunities of the future for CCA-type aircraft. It’s one of the primary platforms that we will use to explore practical use for AI.
There’s no doubt in my mind that we’ll find some disappointments and nasty surprises, but we’re also going to discover some opportunities as we fly the aircraft in an operationally representative environment…
I would also add that there are adversaries that are working very aggressively to field their own autonomous CCA-like capabilities, and I don’t think we can predict when this will happen, but I think most of us, based on what we’ve seen from artificial intelligence, would assess that there will come a point where a robot fighter is better than a manned fighter. And I say this as a person who identified and grew up professionally in the fighter pilot community.
The question is, when will that happen? And I think it would be a tragic shame if the United States didn’t have a better answer if we were facing robot fighters that were better than our manned fighters. So for all these reasons, I’m very bullish on CCAs, but it’s going to take decades to develop.”
“I can imagine a day in the future, 10 years [from now], maybe more, where a CCA autonomy algorithm does a better job flying a fighter airplane than I did as a captain. That hurts my ego a little bit. But at the same time, I see that this trend is happening, and we’ve got to find a way to do that… As you institutionalize these capabilities, it’s not too surprising that maybe fighter pilots are not too enthusiastic about the idea of fielding a capability that will start to replace some of what they do—how they define themselves.”
Another oil-rich region is at the center of political tension. This time, the region is not in the Middle East or South America (Venezuela), but in North America.
The country “affected” is the world’s second-largest country and a functional democracy — Canada.
Ahead of a Monday vote on whether the oil-rich province of Alberta should begin the process toward a binding independence referendum, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is aggressively campaigning for national unity.
Carney told rallies in Calgary and Edmonton that the vote comes “at the worst possible time” amid external pressures on Canada, hinting at trade tensions with the United States. He urged a “decisive result” to settle the question and warned that using the ballot merely to “send a message” to Ottawa would be a “dangerous bluff.”
“This is not poker,” Carney said at a pro-Canada event in Calgary on Thursday.
“A vote against Canada is a dangerous bluff that will lead to years of deep division and great uncertainty.” He added that “turnout will determine the outcome” and that “polls don’t vote.”
Alberta holds most of Canada’s proven oil reserves, the fourth-largest in the world.
The big question is: are the US or Russia, overtly or covertly, supporting separatists in Alberta?
Role of the US & Russia
Donald Trump has previously called Canada a potential 51st state. That has raised questions about whether he or his administration is backing Alberta’s independence movement.
Earlier, Canadian media claimed that the country’s researchers, using artificial intelligence to track foreign interest in the Alberta separatism debate, found the political discourse being targeted online by both Russian and American actors. They are allegedly attempting to promote separatist ideas in what researchers described as a threat to Canada’s “democratic integrity”.
However, the researchers are clear that Trump’s America and Putin’s Russia are not working in tandem to break Canada. They work in parallel for very different reasons.
This pattern of parallel action by Washington and Moscow is not new.
During the Cold War, they often overlapped in their support for anti-colonial, nationalist, or separatist movements, even though their long-term goals differed.
Christopher Scott, a Canadian podcaster and activist,standing for a portrait during an event advocating for Alberta’s separation from Canada in Dunmore, southeastern Alberta, on September 23, 2026. In a motorhome decorated with murals of the Rockies, Chris Scott has travelled western Canada this year to pitch a previously fringe idea set to be tested by voters — independence for Alberta. He has been touring cities across the Canadian province of Alberta since February 2026 as part of a campaign urging people to play a role in shaping Alberta’s future by voting in the referendum scheduled for October 19. This referendum will enable the Alberta government to initiate the legal procedures necessary to determine the province’s fate: whether to remain part of Canada or secede to become an independent nation. (Photo by ABED ZAQ / AFP)
The US wanted to build friendly capitalist democracies and stop the spread of communism, while the then USSR aimed to spread Marxist ideology and weaken Western capitalist alliances.
Both propped up separate local leaders with funds and weapons. Examples include the Nigerian Civil War, the Angolan Civil War, the Suez Crisis, and Ethiopia’s war against Somalia.
As for Alberta, the US and Russia may be trying to exploit old grievances against Ottawa.
Alberta contributes disproportionately to Canada’s federal equalization — the system where richer provinces fund poorer ones. It has oil, gas, beef, and a frontier self-image. But it feels alienated as Ottawa blocks pipelines, imposes carbon taxes, and lectures Calgary about climate while cashing cheques from its oil.
This alienation grows stronger whenever the Liberals are the ruling party in Ottawa. After all, Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced the National Energy Program in the 1970s.
Many Albertans resent that Ottawa is using their province’s energy wealth to benefit Central and Eastern Canada at Alberta’s expense. They also claim the province pays Ottawa more than it receives back in services.
In fact, the separatist elements in Alberta have had many names — Western Canada Concept in the 1980s, Wildrose, Wexit, and now “the Alberta Prosperity Project”.
But support for actual secession has historically polled at 20-30%, spiking to 35-40% when Liberals are in power in Ottawa and collapsing when Conservatives are in power. The latest poll suggests only about 25% of Albertans support independence.
In May this year, research published by Disinfowatch showed that between late 2025 and early 2026, the Russian Pravda News Network published dozens of stories depicting Alberta as a province being exploited by Ottawa.
An influence campaign known as Storm 1516 reportedly went further, creating websites such as albertaseparatist.com to circulate fabricated claims—including the assertion that the federal government fleeces $20,000 a year from every Alberta family.
Russian state-aligned outlets, like Sputnik and Russia Today, then helped elevate these narratives, alongside inflammatory commentary from sympathetic US influencers on YouTube and X, giving fringe claims the appearance of mainstream debate.
Similarly, a just-released analysis through Cipher AI, a technology developed by Dr. McQuinn and others in a partnership between the University of Regina and the University of Alberta, as accessed by the Canadian daily, the Globe and Mail, says that its two reports – the first covers activity in the last two weeks of July, and the second looks at the first two weeks of August – clearly indicated that “foreign-aligned platforms continue to amplify anti-government grievances and issues associated with the Alberta separatist movement”.
Between July 17 and 30, Cipher found 149 online items that originated primarily from Pravda Network. Material posing as news and designed to inflame divisions is pushed online and reaches Canadian communities when people knowingly or unwittingly share links, headlines, and memes with their social networks.
The second report, covering early August, produced similar findings, with about 80 percent of the activity linked to Russian content farms, and 20 percent to U.S. sources.
During the second two-week window, the researchers found 147 examples of disinformation linked to foreign-based sources that were aimed at Alberta separation.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks at a rally hosted by Forever Canadian on Canadian Unity at the Edmonton Expo Center in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada on October 16, 2026. Alberta voters decide next week if they want the oil-rich province to begin the process of separating from Canada, a pivotal test for the country as it confronts a hostile United States. (Photo by Megan Albu / AFP)
The latest analysis has also found that statements from right-wing US podcasters and MAGA influencers have promoted the narrative that Canada is a failed state and that Alberta has no choice but to leave.
Such narratives followed statements from Alberta separatist leaders this year who said they met with Trump administration officials in Washington on three occasions, and comments from US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent who, when asked about Alberta in January, said he had heard “a rumor that they may have a referendum” and called the province “a natural partner for the U.S.”
Incidentally, US State Department officials met with the separatist Alberta Prosperity Project at one of the three meetings mentioned earlier this year. The group reportedly sought a $500 billion (US) line of credit from the US to support Alberta if it won a referendum.
The American angle in Canada is understandable, given Trump’s “Transactional Continentalism”. Though the Trump Presidency has not officially endorsed Canada’s breakup, the Trump ecosystem seems to have. Several MAGA-adjacent commentators, podcasters, and even some Republican House members support Alberta statehood or association with the US.
After all, Alberta holds the world’s fourth-largest proven oil reserves. For a Trump administration obsessed with energy dominance and lowering domestic fuel prices, direct access to Alberta oil without Ottawa’s environmental regulations is, it is said, a dream.
Secondly, Alberta is the most conservative, gun-owning, truck-driving, oil-loving province. So, MAGA influencers see a natural ideological ally being oppressed by “woke Ottawa.”
On the other hand, Russia’s motive is viewed as far more strategic. Two possible reasons could be the following:
One is “Payback for Ukraine”. Canada, after all, is one of Ukraine’s most hawkish supporters. It is home to a large Ukrainian diaspora, a staunch backer of sanctions, and a trainer of Ukrainian troops.
Therefore, if Canada lectures Russia about territorial integrity, what better riposte than: “What about Canada’s territorial integrity?” It is whataboutism as a weapon.
The second reason could be the link between Alberta’s separatism debate and Russia’s long-term Arctic strategy and its rivalry with Canada over Northern sovereignty. Canada is actively upgrading its military footprint in the North. It has committed to counter rising Russian aggression by purchasing new icebreakers and deploying new infrastructure. For Russia, a major constitutional crisis triggered by provincial separatism thus forces Ottawa to focus inward on saving the federation rather than projecting power in the Arctic.
This is all the more so when Russia and Canada have overlapping claims over the massive, resource-rich seabed under the Arctic Sea, and Moscow is now aggressively expanding its resource extraction in the region.
Viewed thus, Trump and Putin are not exactly partners in Alberta. But they may be competitors who have found the same weak joint, or vulnerable Alberta. They both benefit from the same outcome — a weaker Ottawa — but for different reasons.
Of course, all this does not necessarily mean that Canada is going to break. As pointed out above, separatism in Alberta is still a minority voice. But the timing of the foreign influence in favor of the separatists is worrisome.
In the October 19th, 2026 referendum, Albertans will face an official, non-binding question asking whether Alberta should remain a province of Canada or begin the constitutional process required to hold a future binding referendum on separation. This is not yet an independence vote.
Constitutional pundits point out that the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark Reference re Secession of Quebec case established that a province cannot unilaterally secede.
Even a clear majority answering a clear question would trigger negotiations, not automatic independence, and those negotiations would have to respect federalism, constitutionalism, minority rights, and Aboriginal interests.
But Canada is witnessing a global phenomenon: “Sovereignty” is not just about borders; it is about narrative sovereignty. If you do not control your domestic narrative, someone else will. And that is precisely what Trump and Putin seem to be doing.
Author and veteran journalist Prakash Nanda is Chairman of the Editorial Board of the EurAsian Times and has been commenting onpolitics, 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.
Original Article Published on 27th August 2026. The article has been updated with the latest information.
US President Donald Trump on Friday put a sweeping package of sanctions and tariffs targeting Russian energy revenues on hold, saying the waiver was in the country's national interest. The relationship between Washington and Kyiv has been fraying since Trump struck a deal with Moscow to ease sanctions in exchange for Russia flooding the global market with diesel to bring down fuel costs.
Let’s get right into the heart of the matter: carefully examining the chessboard, the political and military leadership in Tehran has already reached the conclusion that a joint U.S.-Israeli attack, with planning advancing at a feverish pace, is inevitable.
So they are now positioned themselves as a coiled cobra, ready to strike and inject deadly venom at the first whiff of an imminent Epstein Syndicate threat – even without waiting for an actual attack.
The preemption drive, already delineated, will be devastating, extending beyond U.S. bases in West Asia to other regional targets, and potentially including Gulf energy infrastructure and undersea cables (in this case mostly affecting the Gulf and India, much more than the U.S. and Europe).
We are into clear and present danger territory: a U.S.-Israeli military movement intended as pressure certainly will be interpreted in Tehran as the opening of an attack.
So the death cult/Trumpian pressure for war now meets a dangerously low Iranian threshold. Pentagon strike options range from Iranian nuclear installations to energy infrastructure.
It goes without saying that the Sociopath-in-Chief – already freaking out with the imminent mid-terms debacle – is an easy prey to the powerful pro-war Zionist lobby/donors. The supreme strategic danger then is that this non-stop pressure may produce a signal that Tehran interprets as an imminent attack, even while Washington publicly maintains that no strike will happen before the mid-terms.
Yemen is taking it all to the next level
In parallel, privileged sources in Islamabad confirm a successful Pakistani missile test at Mach 7, with a range of several thousand kilometers. This new capability has all that it takes to materially alter West Asia’s balance of power, strengthening Pakistan’s deterrent reach and how it will be able to influence every regional security calculation, and adding to Pakistan’s deepening interconnection with China, Iran and the Gulf petro-monarchies.
And now for another esclusive: Israeli military intelligence personnel, including a Major-General, have left Riyadh after MbS, in an alleged moment of lucidity, said “No” to the death cult’s offer of “assistance”. And yet more than 100 CENTCOM personnel remain.
MbS’s decision may have been forced on him by Turkiye and Pakistan – the other two signatories of the Mecca Defense Alliance, who suddenly found themselves in the same war room in Riyadh side by side with death cult operatives.
Now their departure may have removed one escalation risk, but U.S. operatives remain exposed: any strike, wherever it comes from, generating U.S. casualties will immediately draw Washington into the Saudi-Ansarallah war.
The Saudi-Ansarallah war, in fact, is hitting the next – volatility – level. The toxic mix of a cruise-missile interception over Medina province; drone interceptions elsewhere in Saudi Arabia; and Yemeni Armed Forces missile strikes on Aden’s puppet government presidential complex is just the start.
What happened after Ansarallah targeted Najran – one of the southern Saudi provinces stolen from Yemen in 1934 by the British – is total eyebrow-raising territory.
A Saudi spokesman accused Ansarallah of launching a cruise missile at Medina. The response by iconic spokesman for Yemeni Armed Forces, Gen Yahya Saree, was a killer: “We did not carry out any military operation targeting Saudi territory today. Therefore, the Saudi enemy’s claim that Medina was targeted is an outright fabrication and a grave falsehood.”
Translation: Yemen hits one of their former provinces; the Saudis go for total fake news, fabricating an attack on one of the two sacred mosques – no doubt as preparation for a false flag; then Yemen promptly denies striking any (italics mine) Saudi land.
That means that Sana’a is subtly declaring, for everyone to understand, that they no longer conduct foreign (italics mine) operations on the three provinces: Jizan, Najran and Asir. They are already – psychologically and operationally – setting the stage to recover their stolen territory.
All that gells into this succint Yemen-based analysis of the deconstruction of the bling-bling House of Saud:
“Yemen is nuking the uber-fragile pillars of the non-oil economy on which the desert Pirates placed all their hopes: Image, (FDI) Investments, Escapism, and Impunity & Invulnerability from terrorism abroad.”
How Pakistan and Iran bypass the IMF
Now pay attention to something quite startling that happened mid-week in Bangkok, during the annual IMF/World Bank meeting – duly greeted by Thai street protests.
The head of Iran’s Central Bank, Abdolnaser Hemmati, met the head of Pakistan’s Central Bank, Jameel Ahmad, on the sidelines of the foremost annual ritual in praise of the U.S. dollar.
Pakistan is under the fierce structural adjustment clutches of the IMF/World Bank – and on top of it threatened with U.S. sanctions because it trades with Iran.
So Pakistan-Iran de facto discussing de-dollarization right inside the lion’s den – the U.S. dollar temple – is beyond priceless.
The infrastructure is in place since 2023 – via a currency swap agreement using the rial and the rupee instead of the U.S. dollar. Barter is managed by both Central Banks, and banking channels run through Bank Melli in Iran and Bank Mellat in Pakistan. Their border markets – at least 6 of them – are booming: physical trade routes completely bypassing the U.S. dollar.
What they were discussing in Bangkok earlier this week is how to expand the whole thing: they couldn’t give a damn to U.S. secondary sanctions. Especially because Tehran is offering Islamabad what the American system simply cannot: sovereignty, no regime change, no austerity, no lecturing and most of all no structural adjustment.
Not to mention that Pakistan badly needs Iranian gas – and China-enabled New Silk Road trade routes.
Iran built a whole economy completely bypassing the IMF – and capable of surviving a tsunami of sanctions, a blockade, and war.
Now Iran and Pakistan are deep into building a post-American financial order in the intersection between West Asia and South Asia – complete with currency swaps, barter trade, booming border markets and appropriate banking channels, making a mockery of secondary sanctions.
By the way, this is happening just as an immense Iranian train, loaded with crude oil – and the first of many – is ready to depart to… China via Central Asia, on the New Silk Road railway built by China.
The coiled cobra may be ready to strike. But the cobra, since times immemorial, also loves to do business.
The contradictions are absurd but instructive of the criminal proxy war that the U.S. and European powers have perpetrated against Russia under the guise of “defending Ukraine”.
Western sanctions on Russia – the most heavily sanctioned nation on Earth – were meant to supposedly punish Moscow for its alleged unprovoked aggression against Ukraine.
The United States recently signed into law a “sanctions bill from hell” in honor of the late war hawk Senator Lindsey Graham, aimed at crushing the Russian economy, principally by shutting down its energy exports.
Likewise, the European Union has implemented more than 20 rounds of sanctions imposed on Russia over the past four years, again purportedly to block Russian exports of oil and gas. The EU has vowed to terminate all Russian energy imports by the end of this year.
The official rationale out of Washington and European capitals is to exact retribution on Russia for its alleged invasion and violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. Western embargoes on Russia’s economy were immediately announced after Moscow launched its Special Military Operation in February 2022. (The real background to the SMO – unreported by Western media – was the NATO-backed coup in Kiev in 2014, and the arming of NeoNazis to conduct a proxy war against Russia.)
The U.S. and European Union, as well as Britain of course, presented the attempted economic blockade of Russia as a demonstration of the West enforcing international law and supporting Ukraine. The latter is portrayed in Western media as a fair maiden of democracy assailed by a drooling Russian tyrant.
In a nutshell, the sanctions are sold to the Western public as a plausible way of neutralizing “Russia’s war machine.” If Moscow’s oil and gas exports could be cut off, then, the dubious logic goes, Russia would not be able to continue its war effort in Ukraine.
However, laughably, the supposedly noble Western rationale is in tatters this week after the U.S. Treasury lifted sanctions off Russian diesel exports for the next six months in order to boost global oil supplies and curb soaring energy prices.
Another shattering blow to the facade of Western “principles” was the disclosure by Russia’s energy minister, Alexander Novak, that the European Union has continued to buy Russian energy exports at nearly pre-war levels. (Cue Western media silence on that!)
Since 2022, the EU has bought a total of $320 billion worth of Russian hydrocarbons. To put the expenditure in perspective, that far exceeds what the European governments have donated to Ukraine, some $226 bn, according to EU data.
How’s that for a contradiction? The European governments are throwing hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ money at Ukraine supposedly to defend itself against Russia, yet these same governments are giving Russia much, much more by buying its energy resources. In other words, to use their own rhetoric, Brussels and other European capitals are “fuelling the Russian war machine.”
As for the United States, it is equally duplicitous. The Americans blew up the Nord Stream pipeline in 2022 so that Europe would not be at the mercy of Russian oil dependency. Washington also imposed sanctions on Russian energy while increasing its more expensive gas exports to Europe. Yet last Friday, October 9, President Donald Trump announced, to the dismay and alarm of the Europeans and Ukraine, that he had made a deal with Vladimir Putin to release 3.5 million tonnes of Russian diesel onto the world market to ease pressure on crippling pump prices.
Whatever happened to American laws against “trading with the enemy”?
Of course, Trump is desperate for relief over record-high fuel prices as a result of his criminal aggression against Iran and Iran’s closure of the Persian Gulf oil route in retaliation. With the mid-term Congressional elections only three weeks away, Trump is seeking to assuage angry American consumers and spare his Republican Party from an electoral drubbing that will tarnish his presidency.
Out of sheer expedience, Trump wants Russian diesel exports to save his political neck. Some observers may question whether Moscow should oblige Trump considering that Washington is arming the NeoNazi Kiev regime with missiles and intelligence. Perhaps the Kremlin is calculating that Trump could finally pull off a peace deal in Ukraine.
Another smart move by Moscow, perhaps, is that the diesel deal with Trump has managed to unleash a storm of recriminations from Europe and Ukraine, which is severely undermining the transatlantic axis. Is this political judo by Putin?
The European NATO partners and the Kiev puppet president Vladimir Zelensky reacted with unprecedented insults and defiance of Trump. They accused the American leader of treachery and of siding with Russia. Within Washington, Trump has also been lambasted for “betrayal”.
Trump and his aides hit back furiously, dismissing the Europeans as “hypocrites” over their own record purchases of Russian energy exports. Trump even called for Zelensky to be replaced by someone who he can work with.
For his part, Zelensky doubled down with truculence, badmouthing Trump for being “weak” and accusing him of putting Ukrainian lives at risk. He refused to stop Ukrainian air strikes on Russia’s oil refineries, as requested by the White House. And the little money-grabbing, narco-Führer also attempted blackmail by suggesting to Trump that he would halt air attacks on Russian energy infrastructure “if” the Pentagon supplied more Patriot missiles.
Trump’s anger has exploded over Zelensky and his European patrons. He sees their obstruction of his diesel deal with Russia as not only hypocritical but a political attack on his presidency ahead of the crucial November polls.
The debacle is a rich farce. American and European posturing is seen for what it is, without any principle or genuine motives. It is a plague on all their houses.
Both the U.S. and its European partners are buying Russian energy like never before to sustain their struggling economies. The sanctions they imposed on Russia never had anything to do with “upholding international law” or “defending Ukraine”.
Using their own disingenuous logic, the NATO nations are fuelling the Russian war machine with their continuing business-as-usual purchase of Russia’s oil and gas.
That contradiction, in turn, exposes the fraud of the war in Ukraine. It was never about defending democratic Ukraine – a corrupt NeoNazi dictatorship – or European security from Russian “threat”.
The whole murderous episode has always been about fomenting a proxy war to defeat Russia. That covert policy is a gargantuan crime of aggression that has cost millions of lives and bankrupted Western societies. What’s more, it is an utterly failed policy which Western governments are covering up to avoid accountability. The destruction and deception go hand in hand.
What is all the more damning is that this travesty could have been easily exposed years ago if the Western news media had actually reported on facts instead of being the propaganda service they so evidently are to enable criminal aggression by their imperialist masters.
A White House Press official said Friday that Secretary Katie Zacharia was "let go" from her role after US President Donald Trump signaled she was on her way out, a week after he picked her for the post. Zacharia's credentials as an attorney had come under scrutiny and she admitted to not having passed the bar in an interview with Fox News on Thursday.
A White House Press official said Friday that Secretary Katie Zacharia was "let go" from her role after US President Donald Trump signaled she was on her way out, a week after he picked her for the post. Zacharia's credentials as an attorney had come under scrutiny and she admitted to not having passed the bar in an interview with Fox News on Thursday.
A pesar de la culminación de su función específica como enviada, la funcionaria estadounidense se mantiene incorporada al aparato exterior de la Casa Blanca en calidad de asesora principal del subsecretario de Estado, Christopher Landau.
For the first time, the US Navy has deployed an uncrewed surface vessel (USV), or a sea drone, alongside a carrier strike group (CSG), accelerating the integration of cost-effective autonomous systems into high-end naval operations.
Speaking at an Army conference in Washington, DC, on October 14, 2026, the Acting US Navy Secretary Hung Cao announced that the Navy has deployed a Leidos USV with the USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group (CSG) headed to the Middle East.
“Right now, the Roosevelt carrier strike group just deployed on Oct. 8 with a medium-sized unmanned surface vessel,” Cao noted.
“This is the first carrier strike group to ever deploy with a large-sized unmanned surface vessel, and this is a force multiplier. Imagine having more guns out there,” he added. Notably, Cao did not name the sea drone, but media reports citing informed officials identified it as the Leidos Seahawk, a 145-ton, 42-meter-long medium USV reportedly built to sail long distances uninterrupted for months
Leidos describes the Seahawk as a medium-displacement unmanned surface vessel (MD-USV) with a composite trimaran hull. It is roughly 135–137 feet long, with a full-load displacement of about 145 tons, and a fuel capacity of around 14,000 gallons.
It is designed for extended autonomous operations with limited human intervention and uses Leidos’ Autonomous Vessel Architecture (LAVA) for navigation, perception, collision avoidance (COLREGs-compliant), and other functions.
“Seahawk is substantially larger than other US Navy USVs and has significantly increased capabilities compared to smaller USVs in terms of range, seakeeping, and payload capacity. Seahawk is designed to operate with minimal human involvement, providing a forward-deployed, rapid-response asset in the global maritime surveillance network,” Leidos stated.
The company reportedly delivered the Seahawk USV to the United States Navy in 2021.
The Seahawk will likely conduct electronic warfare missions and information, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) operations rather than serve as an armed combatant. Notably, the carrier’s deployment to the Middle East comes as US President Donald Trump weighs fresh strikes on Iran.
Earlier this month, he told Time magazine that the US military could ramp up bombing of Iran after the November 3 midterm elections.
The autonomous vessel Seahawk is pictured underway in the ocean (Photo Courtesy: Leidos)
The arrival of the USS Roosevelt would bring the number of American aircraft carriers available in the region to three by late October, joining the USS George H.W. Bush, USS George Washington, and the USS Boxer Amphibious Ready Group.
As for the Leidos USV, the Navy had already practiced at-sea refueling with the Seahawk vessel and integrated it during this year’s Rim of the Pacific exercise. However, moving this unmanned system from trials into real-world operations could mark a crucial step in shaping the US Navy’s future strategy.
Integrating USVs Into Combat
The presence of the large autonomous vessel in a carrier strike group marks an important step in the US Navy’s future operations. Interestingly, it comes amid a growing presence of uncrewed systems in the ongoing Middle East conflict.
In June 2026, for instance, a Saronic Corsair drone boat operated by the US Navy’s Task Force 59 was used to locate and rescue two crew members after an AH-64E helicopter went down near the Strait of Hormuz.
This first-of-its-kind rescue mission involving sea drones took about two hours, as the EurAsian Times reported at the time.
Separately, the US Navy used one-way attack sea drones in combat for the first time in July 2026 to strike coastal Iranian military targets.
The US Navy has admitted that unmanned vessels have been extensively deployed in the clearance of mines from the Strait of Hormuz, which has remained under a de facto closure imposed by Iran for over seven months.
These incidents signal a broader appetite within the US Navy to delegate crucial combat tasks to unmanned vessels.
For example, although CSGs are the centerpiece of American naval power projection, adversaries also view them as high-value targets. Therefore, introducing a USV could let the Navy deploy a medium-sized autonomous vessel closer to threats at sea, keeping sailors out of the danger zone.
Moreover, adding a USV to the carrier strike group would enhance the US Navy’s sensor coverage and maritime awareness, reducing dependence on crewed vessels.
Cao’s remarks about having more firepower likely reflect the US Navy’s broader strategy to integrate uncrewed vessels with heavy ships.
In February this year, the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Daryl Caudle, presented his “Fighting Instructions” framework, outlining plans to employ a “hedge force strategy” that aims to leverage unmanned technology and develop a range of tailored options that fall outside the scope of the conventional carrier strike group model.
Since the specifics of this strategy and its structure are currently still being worked out, the deliberate pairing of medium USVs with carrier strike groups may be an early expression of the approach Caudle underscored. The USV’s performance with the Theodore Roosevelt group could potentially inform how subsequent strike groups are configured, accelerating the path toward more medium USVs in the fleet.
The US Navy’s increasing integration of sea drones into established combat practices may have been influenced by Ukraine’s use of these systems to decimate the Russian Navy.
Ukraine has emerged as a pioneer in sea drone technology, showing how relatively simple, affordable technology can neutralize expensive naval assets. In fact, Iran itself has extensively deployed these vessels to launch frequent operations against the US as well as the tankers trying to transit the Hormuz Strait in violation of the Iranian blockade.
The US, for its part, wants to leverage the asymmetric advantage of autonomous systems in combat when facing adversaries that can threaten its state-of-the-art warships.
If the Seahawk demonstrates reliable integration, endurance, and utility, it may accelerate the Navy’s ability to field hybrid strike groups that combine the decisive power of a carrier air wing with the distributed, lower-risk presence of autonomous vessels.
This assessment may, in turn, inform strategies for combat in other, more contested theatres, such as the Indo-Pacific, where the US faces a Chinese threat.
With a smaller but more advanced fleet, the US can use large numbers of attritable unmanned platforms for sustained surveillance, chokepoint control, and harassment without tying down manned ships.
Against that backdrop, lessons from this first operational pairing may shape concepts of operations (CONOPS), help tailor force packages, and inform the broader shift toward distributed maritime operations, all of which are meant to complicate targeting in a contested environment by near-peer adversaries.
Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
The Saudi kingdom is facing the danger of collapse from soaring war costs as Yemeni air strikes ramp up, hitting its northern neighbor’s capital and industrial centers with impunity.
Yemeni journalist Hussein al-Bukhaiti says the corruption and arrogance of the “House of Evil” is culminating in historic defeat. Its U.S. patron seems unable to avert the coming collapse.
Despite decades of the U.S. selling weapons worth hundreds of billions of dollars to the Saudi rulers, the regime seems shockingly exposed, with no viable defenses. Yemen’s missiles are striking Saudi Arabia at will. The panicky rulers are pleading with the United States and Europe for help.
Yemen’s armed forces are taking the war to Saudi Arabia, striking its airports, imposing a no-fly zone over the entire state and shutting down its vital oil industry.
“The Saudis cannot stop our drones and hypersonic missiles… we are taking the war to them,” says Sanaa-based Hussain al-Bukhaiti.
With no oil exports, Al-Bukhaiti reckons the Saudi rulers are facing an existential nemesis. Many observers have long predicted that the autocratic Saudi kingdom, created by the British Empire, is awaiting downfall from its ossified and family-run power structure.
Speaking from the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, Hussain al-Bukhaiti described the Saudi monarchy as “a house of glass” that is now being shattered by air strikes that cannot be defended against.
“Yemen did not want this war, but we are bringing the fire back to Saudi Arabia.”
Western politicians and media are portraying the conflict between the two Arab Peninsula countries as being caused by recent aggression from the Ansar Allah-led Yemeni government.
Saudi Arabia’s King Khalid international airport was attacked on October 10 with ballistic missiles that killed several people. Other Saudi airports have also been hit. This has led international airlines to suspend flights.
The state-owned Aramco oil industry has also been blasted with missiles. Fires are raging at major facilities, including at the main base of operations in Dammam on the Persian Gulf coast.
Following the missile strike on Riyadh airport at the weekend, U.S. President Donald Trump and all European leaders condemned an “act of terrorism” by Yemen.
Hussain al-Bukhaiti pointed out the gross hypocrisy of European governments not condemning the thousands of Saudi air strikes on Yemen that have occurred since 2015. These governments still remain silent about the ongoing Saudi atrocities against Yemeni civilians. The European Union even declares “solidarity” with Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi monarchy, led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, started the war with unprovoked attacks in March 2015. The aggression was enabled by the United States, Britain, and France supplying warplanes, bombs, and intelligence.
These Western powers continue to arm and direct the Saudi regime in its war against Yemen.
Since 2015, there have been thousands of Western-backed air strikes on Yemen, resulting in more than 20,000 mainly civilian deaths.
“They hit everything, schools, hospitals, water-treatment plants, farms, homes, wedding and funeral halls,” says Al-Bukhaiti.
In addition, over 400,000 Yemenis have died from starvation and diseases caused by a blockade on the country imposed by Saudi Arabia and its Western backers for over 10 years.
He says the war reignited in July 2026 after the Saudis broke a four-year truce signed in 2022 by bombing Sanaa international airport. There was no condemnation by Europe of the Saudi violation then.
What Yemen is doing to Saudi Arabia now is but a taste of what the House of Saud inflicted on Yemenis since 2015 with Western support.
The Yemenis this week rejected a reported Saudi proposal for a short-term truce because they see it as just a ploy by the Saudis for rearming and regrouping in a losing situation.
For the war to end, Saudi Arabia must respect Yemen’s sovereignty and stop interfering in its internal affairs.
However, Hussain al-Bukhaiti thinks that the United States will double down and escalate its military involvement in Yemen with a full-blown war. This is not primarily to support the Saudi monarchy, he believes, but rather to prop up the Israeli regime.
Yemen has inflicted huge damage on the Israeli state since it intensified the genocide against Palestinians in October 2023. Yemeni air strikes have repeatedly struck Tel Aviv despite American air defenses.
An expanded U.S. war in Yemen might seem surprising given that Trump has made such a mess of his reckless aggression against Iran and may not have the military forces at his disposal.
But Al-Bukhaiti believes the issue is beyond Trump’s choice. Washington is locked in with the Zionist regime and will do whatever it takes to salvage Israel from defeat. Yemen represents the biggest threat to Israel from the cutting off of its shipping in the Red Sea.
“We are ready for the war that is coming,” he warns.
London is terrified of the prospect of losing America’s support for the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, so it’s doing everything in its power to prolong it.
Written by Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst
President Donald Trump was never really a fan of the Kiev regime frontman Volodymyr Zelensky. Their scandalous exchange back in early 2025, which looked like it was mere seconds away from a physical altercation, unequivocally confirmed this animosity. Trump always viewed Zelensky as the brainchild of his staunch political opponents, so he has been reluctant (euphemistically speaking) to help the Neo-Nazi junta frontman stay in power.
Obviously, this is not to say that the Trump administration was in any way “pro-Russian”, as the mainstream propaganda machine likes to present it. Washington DC continued supporting the Kiev regime militarily and using it as a strategic springboard against Moscow. This includes everything from ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) support to weapons shipments.
President Trump reneged on his promises to end the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict “in 24 hours”, leading to further escalation. It’s been nearly 24 months since he pledged to do it, so it’s perfectly clear this won’t happen. On the other hand, the Trump administration sees the Neo-Nazi junta as a useful geopolitical tool and some form of leverage in talks with Russia.
Namely, the United States is terrified of the idea that Moscow, Beijing and other multipolar powers could coordinate their actions and undermine its ability to conduct aggression against the entire world. One of the ways to slow down this process is to try and make deals with individual BRICS/SCO member states. Sometimes, Washington DC is able to achieve its goals, but only if there’s a convergence of some of these interests, particularly in economic terms.
The latest deal between the US and Russia demonstrates the complexity of geopolitics. Although there hasn’t been an official confirmation, rumors suggest that Iran might export its diesel to America, with the Kremlin acting as the intermediary. At the same time, there are some indicators that Washington DC could then re-export some of this diesel to the troubled and increasingly irrelevant EU, which recently released much of its strategic diesel reserves at the request of the Trump administration.
Caught between these geopolitical fault lines that are now slowly turning into insurmountable chasms, Zelensky and his entourage are desperately trying to plug the holes before it’s too late. Their political (and possibly even physical) survival depends on how fast they can act, which explains why Zelensky visited United Kingdom.
Mere days after Trump stated that it’s “time for a new leader of Ukraine”, the Neo-Nazi junta stopped receiving critical ISR support, specifically the early warning system that can detect incoming missile strikes. Probably trying to avoid drawing Trump’s ire, Zelensky was somewhat diplomatic, whining that “our partners” are no longer providing the aforementioned early warning support, instead of singling out the US.
Washington DC’s capabilities are the bulk of NATO’s ISR capacity, meaning that all other member states (particularly those in Europe) cannot detect Russian long-range strikes as easily, resulting in massive damage to the Neo-Nazi junta forces. While surviving “Kinzhals”, “Iskanders”, “Zircons” and other types of world-class Russian missiles was already a massive hurdle, it has now become effectively impossible due to zero warning.
Terrified of the prospect of losing America’s support for the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, the “Perfidious Albion” is doing everything in its power to prolong it. Something similar happened back in the early days of the special military operation (SMO), when the then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson urgently flew to Kiev to ensure Zelensky opts out of the already signed deal with Russia.
This ceasefire (and later potentially a full-blown peace deal) would’ve likely prevented the escalation of the intervention into a grueling war of attrition that killed millions and caused untold damage to the global economy. Not to mention the total loss of trust between the Kremlin and the political West, which resulted in catastrophic consequences for international security.
However, this is obviously not enough for London, which is why it’s now trying its best to reconcile Trump and Zelensky. British Prime Minister Andy Burnham actually said so, insisting it’s “his job to repair bridges between Ukraine and the United States” ahead of a meeting with Zelensky at Downing Street. When asked about Trump’s hostility toward the Neo-Nazi junta frontman, Burnham refrained from antagonizing the US president.
Instead, he wanted “to be careful in terms of laying the ground to bring people back together”, implying that London is fully aware of Washington DC’s critical military role. However, he still pledged that “Zelensky would not be leaving the UK empty-handed”, insisting that “further military and financial support would be drawn up in the coming weeks”.
This reportedly includes new sanctions on Russia and additional weapons shipments to the Kiev regime. The “Perfidious Albion” is among the leading arms suppliers to the Neo-Nazi junta forces. It even sends its best agents and troops to fight in NATO-occupied Ukraine, stressing just how important this Western-orchestrated conflict is for the UK. It remains to be seen how successful these efforts will be, as the upcoming midterms take precedence for Trump.
Lacking the material conditions to challenge Chinese industrial supremacy, the European Union insists on turning its economic difficulties into a justification for a new escalation of hostilities.
European leaders appear to have found a new strategic mission: rebuilding the continent’s industrial capacity while simultaneously reducing its dependence on China. The initiative was recently put forward jointly by France and Germany and is presented as a response to China’s growing presence in the European market. The problem is that the leaders responsible for this project continue to ignore a fundamental issue: no large-scale reindustrialization can succeed without a stable, abundant, and affordable energy supply.
Europe has excellent universities, a skilled workforce, advanced technological centers, and an industrial tradition that still gives it considerable advantages. However, these assets cannot function in isolation. Chemical plants, steel mills, metallurgical facilities, and numerous other industries depend on a continuous and competitive energy supply. Capital, scientific knowledge, and specialized workers cannot indefinitely compensate for high production costs. It is precisely at this point that Europe’s strategy contradicts its own objectives.
For decades, economic integration between Western Europe and Russia provided favorable conditions for the development of important industrial sectors. Russian natural gas supplies, in particular, helped sustain energy-intensive activities. This relationship served the concrete economic interests of both sides: Moscow had an important market for its exports, while European economies obtained a resource essential to their competitiveness.
The introduction of sanctions in 2022 profoundly altered this situation. The illegal coercive measures severed a longstanding Russo-European partnership, leaving the western part of the continent economically weakened and dependent on more expensive and less secure external energy supplies. Europe, which had already been undergoing gradual deindustrialization before then, subsequently plunged into an energy crisis, with consequences ranging from higher energy bills to business failures caused by the inability to maintain competitive production.
One would reasonably expect an industrial recovery strategy to begin by addressing these vulnerabilities. Instead, European leaders are attempting to build a new productive base without adequately resolving the energy problem. Those responsible for European economic policy seem to believe that subsidies, tax incentives, and investment programs will suffice to restore competitiveness. Such instruments can contribute to industrial development, but their effectiveness will remain limited as long as structural disadvantages in energy costs persist.
It is in this context that China is assuming an increasingly prominent position on Brussels’ “list of concerns”. China’s ability to manufacture on a massive scale, supply complex industrial chains, and offer competitively priced equipment poses a challenge to a Europe seeking to recover its productive autonomy. Rather than acknowledge the extent of the accumulated decline and develop a coherent strategy to reverse it, sections of the European leadership prefer to resort to trade barriers, punitive investigations, and mechanisms of economic containment.
This approach reveals a rather superficial understanding of industrial competition. Restricting Chinese imports does not automatically create European factories, reduce electricity costs, or guarantee gas supplies to industrial facilities. On the contrary, companies that depend on Chinese equipment, components, and raw materials may face higher expenses precisely when they need to invest in recovering their position in international markets.
The Russian question makes this situation even more delicate. Restoring energy cooperation with Moscow would be the first step in any serious industrial recovery plan. With Russian energy supplies and broad commercial partnerships with China, Europe could once again find a new path toward development, much as African and Asian countries are now beginning to do through their partnerships with Russia and China.
Brussels, Paris, and Berlin, however, are moving in the opposite direction. European strategists appear determined to confront two of the world’s largest industrial and energy powers simultaneously, without demonstrating that they possess the resources necessary to sustain such an ambition. First, they undermined a fundamental energy relationship with Russia. Now, they risk turning China into a permanent trade adversary.
Ultimately, what European hawks seek is not Europe’s development, but the instrumentalization of issues such as industry and trade to advance their own self-destructive agenda. Under this strategy, European citizens – already deprived of Russian energy and potentially facing reduced access to Chinese products in the near future – will once again be the first to bear the consequences.
In a major policy reversal of its pre-October 7 Apache drawdown plans, Israel has signed a deal with the United States to procure 12 Boeing AH-64E Apache Guardian helicopters.
The Israeli Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced the deal on October 14, with deliveries expected in the early 2030s. Israel has not officially disclosed the deal’s value, but Israeli media reported it is expected to cost around US$ 1 billion.
Interestingly, the deal was announced nearly nine months after the US government approved the sale of up to 30 Apache helicopters to the Israeli Air Force (IAF) for an estimated USD 3.8 billion.
Israel has not disclosed if and when it will place the follow-on order for 18 more Apache attack helicopters, approved under the US government’s foreign military sale (FMS) program in February this year.
“The helicopters, scheduled for delivery at the beginning of the next decade, are of the Echo variant, the newest and most advanced model of the helicopter,” the Defense Ministry said.
According to the FMS agreement announced in February, the AH-64E will be delivered with mast-mounted Northrop Grumman AN/APG-78 Longbow fire-control radars and manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) receivers.
This latest version adds a dedicated maritime strike capability and nearly doubles Apache’s stand-off range by increasing the range of the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-78 mast-mounted fire-control radar from 8 to 16 km.
The Apache AH-64E can fire the Lockheed Martin AGM-114 Hellfire II air-to-surface missile, the Rafael Spike Non-Line-Of-Sight (NLOS) missile, which will extend its stand-off firing range beyond 25 km, Stinger air-to-air missiles, Hydra rockets, and can rake targets two km away with 1200 rounds of 30mm milk-bottle-sized cannon ammunition.
The AH-64E models, equipped with advanced radar, sensors, and fire-control systems, can detect, identify, and engage targets at long range, including in adverse weather and poor visibility.
According to manufacturer Boeing, they also provide aircrews with significantly improved situational awareness compared with older models.
“The procurement of the Apache helicopters is a critical step in the IDF’s force buildup, one that will strengthen its operational capabilities against a wide range of threats and contribute to the security of the State of Israel in the years to come,” Defense Minister Israel Katz said.
Notably, the agreement was announced within a week after Israel missed the deadline to sign, and the US reportedly threatened Jerusalem that it would prioritize other foreign customers if Israel did not sign immediately.
Despite changing battlefield requirements, Apache attack helicopters remain in high demand, and nearly half a dozen countries have signed deals for over 150 new-build Apache AH-64Es in the last five years, including Poland, Saudi Arabia, India, and Morocco, with Boeing in advanced talks with countries like Kuwait, Egypt, and South Korea for the sale of these helicopters.
However, many experts question the rationale behind investing billions of dollars in expensive attack helicopters in the era of drone warfare, where they’re vulnerable to cheap, mass-produced FPV drones, shoulder-fired MANPADS, or even SHORAD (Short-Range Air Defense) missiles.
Interestingly, in the years leading up to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks, the Israeli Air Force was itself planning to reduce its attack helicopter force, primarily AH-64 Apaches, including potentially closing one or more squadrons over rising maintenance costs.
Before the 2023 Hamas attacks, the IAF operated two Apache squadrons, the 13th “Hornet” and 190th “Magic Touch”. The 13th Hornet Squadron flies the AH-64D, and the 190th Magic Touch Squadron flies the AH-64A; both are based at Ramon Air Base in the Negev Desert.
A General Staff decision in the early 2020s called for shutting down one of the two Apache squadrons, which would have cut the attack-helicopter fleet by more than half.
The force cited aging platforms, with some IAF Apaches flying for over 35 years, high maintenance costs, and a broader doctrinal shift toward unmanned aerial platforms and drones.
However, following the Hamas attacks, the IAF not only reversed its decision to shut down one of the two Apache Squadrons, but also decided to expand its attack-helicopter fleet.
So, why did Israel reverse its policy on attack helicopters following the 2023 Hamas attacks?
Image by the IAF of an Apache, this time with all four Hellfires sporting yellow bands
October 2023 Hamas Attacks & Apaches
The October 2023 Hamas terror attacks were one of the biggest security failures in Israeli history.
These security lapses and the failure to respond promptly prompted deep introspection and major defense policy reviews in Israel.
One of the major lessons for Israel was that Apache attack helicopters remain highly relevant and are often the most viable platform for responding to certain security contingencies.
In January 2024, Israeli media JNS reported that in light of the current and future threats to Israel and the lessons learned from the current war in Gaza, the Israeli Air Force is expected to grow dramatically and devise a new plan to procure four squadrons of advanced fighter jets, two squadrons of combat helicopters, and a refueling aircraft.
It also plans to procure two squadrons of advanced Apache helicopter gunships, it said.
“The delay in responding to Hamas’s attack in the initial hours of the war and the frequent use of close ground support during the fighting made it clear that a larger fleet of combat helicopters was needed. Therefore, it was decided to immediately initiate proceedings for the purchase of one Apache squadron, and subsequently also a second squadron,” it said.
Notably, since then, Israel has already ordered six Boeing KC-46A Pegasus tankers for US$ 2.4 billion and 25 F-15IAs for US$ 5.2 billion. Now, Israel has ordered 12 Apache AH-64E attack helicopters.
In 2025, Israeli news media platform YnetNews reported that the IAF has issued a new order, called “Thunder,” which details steps to be taken to deal with another large-scale infiltration attempt from Gaza.
“As part of the changes, minimum readiness levels for surprise infiltration scenarios have increased 2.5-fold, including attack helicopters, transport helicopters for moving forces, drones, and fighter jets,” it said.
In this US Army photo taken from an undisclosed location on December 19, 2025, a US Army AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter prepares to support Operation Hawkeye Strike in the US Central Command area of responsibility. US forces struck more than 70 Islamic State group targets in Syria on Friday in what President Donald Trump described as “very serious retaliation” for an attack that killed three Americans last weekend. (Photo by US AIR FORCE / AFP) /
The report noted the usefulness of attack helicopters in providing close air support to ground forces and in countering surprise, large-scale infiltration attempts.
Israeli business daily Calcalist reported that Apache AH-64E combat helicopters are intended to increase firepower and improve the Air Force’s response time to surprise attacks.
“October 7 sharpened our understanding that in many combat scenarios, attack helicopters still hold a distinct advantage over Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPAs),” a former senior Air Force official told Calcalist.
“There is a huge advantage in having a battalion commander on the ground able to speak directly with a pilot hovering over the combat zone to coordinate precise, high-intensity strikes, capabilities an RPA simply cannot match.”
Apache attack helicopters also proved their worth in the war in Gaza following the Hamas attack.
Israeli defense officials commended Apache’s performance in the October 7 Hamas attack and the war in Gaza, saying the line-of-sight advantage offered by the helicopters was essential for identifying attackers, striking swiftly, assisting ground forces, and thwarting early-morning abduction attempts.
Eitan Ben Eliyahu, a retired Maj. Gen. and former Commander of the Israeli Air Force said: “This is a lesson from the war in Gaza. After it appeared that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were pushing attack helicopters out, making them seem obsolete on the battlefield, the lesson learned during [the war] was different.” The last two years of war have shown that the Apaches “remain a vital necessity on the battlefield, particularly in urban warfare and commando operations.”
A report in The Jerusalem Post noted that senior Israeli defense officials said limited helicopter numbers, combined with the need to cycle aircraft through refueling and rearming, strained operations during prolonged, high-tempo fighting.
They said the experience reinforced the need for longer range, heavier payload, improved survivability, and better networking with forces on the ground.
Notably, newer AH-64E models support heavier fuel and weapons loads, improved durability, and a reduced acoustic signature, which can make the aircraft harder to detect by sound.
Additionally, the ability to control multiple drones from the helicopter offers pilots more options for reconnaissance and targeting while staying in the fight.
Commenting on the continued relevance of Apache combat helicopters in the era of drone warfare, Indian Air Force veteran Air Marshal Anil Chopra (retd) in a previous EurAsian Times article explained, “The main reason attack helicopters will not disappear is that they fill a niche that very few platforms can fill. They are the only 350 KMPH missile carriers that can hide behind trees, pop up, and literally shoot and scoot.”
“Apache helicopters are still the most survivable, efficient, and formidable flying anti-tank platforms available to militaries. They also have significant roles as anti-UAV and anti-attack helicopters,” Air Marshal Chopra added.
The October 2023 Hamas attacks, ironically, gave a new lease of life to Apache attack helicopters in the Israeli Air Force.
Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK.
He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com
Macron is, today, quite possibly, the most unpopular president on the planet, with only 15% approval, according to an Ipsos BVA-Cesi poll. Under his command, France faces economic stagnation (0.6% growth in 2025) and indebtedness (120% of GDP). Under Macron, France has also seen the accelerated deindustrialization of the country, with industries accounting for only 9% of GDP, the lowest level in the European Union, and not surprisingly, purchasing power has plummeted, with half of French people saying their income only covers the essentials and only 70% of citizens of working age currently holding a job.
As if that were not enough, in approximately 10 years of Macron’s government, approximately 4 million immigrants entered the country (many of whom do not work but receive social benefits); an amount that makes economic absorption as well as the ethnocultural assimilation of newcomers impossible. Naturally, linked to the immigration失控 are crime rates, the formation of slums in urban centers, and increased social tensions. Many ethnic French people feel demographically replaced in their homeland, and not by chance, everything indicates that Marine Le Pen will (finally) win the French presidential elections in 2027.
We do not know what the results of a Le Pen presidency would be and it is reasonable to be skeptical about it, but clearly France’s current course is extremely dangerous, including in its foreign policy.
Gradually, over the last 2 years, numerous signs have begun to appear that Macron would be preparing the country for a war with Russia. The French government created a voluntary military service and approved the expansion of the permanent armed forces to 275,000 men, as well as a budget increase for defense. General Fabien Mandon, of the General Staff, stated in 2025 that France should prepare for a high-intensity conflict with Russia within three to four years, and now in September 2026 Macron declared that France “could” become a target of explosive drones. Constantly, too, one hears speeches about the need to transform the French economy into a “war economy.”
Therefore, it may be surprising to many (but not to us) that amid all this that has been happening in the country, the Macron government still finds time for the implementation of a censorship and repression apparatus of totalitarian levels.
Its new victim is the association Egalité et Réconciliation (Equality and Reconciliation), created by sociologist and writer Alain Soral. The association identifies as “left-wing nationalist” and has as its main slogan “left of work, right of values,” appealing to an overcoming of the false dichotomy between left and right and, even more importantly, for a national reconciliation among all social sectors; in recent years, it has been involved in the Yellow Vests protests, in some activities linked to the National Rally party (despite, simultaneously, maintaining a posture of “constructive criticism” against certain Zionist and liberal tendencies present in the party) and in pro-Palestinian activism.
It happens that, on October 9, the Interior Minister of Macron’s government, Laurent Nuñez, announced the opening of a dissolution procedure against the association Egalité et Réconciliation, under the accusation of “political extremism.” Its legal team was given a deadline of 1 week to defend itself, and the decision on the matter should occur, still, in October.
Alain Soral himself is a figure of high nonconformist spirit, which is why he has already been the victim of countless judicial persecutions – dozens in fact – mostly for “opinion offenses,” that is, for critical comments against specific people or “protected minorities.” In convictions, Soral has already accumulated millions of euros to be paid in indemnities to various globalist NGOs, an obviously unpayable sum, as well as having already been imprisoned several times, also for the same reasons. The judicial persecution was so intense that Soral had to exile himself from his homeland, first in Switzerland and then in Russia.
Now, beyond the official justifications, for what reason would the French State ban a relatively small organization with few financial resources?
It is possible to analyze the “angle” of Alain Soral’s presence in Russia in more than one sense. First, because by being in Russia Soral finally became immune to the constant judicial persecution and threats of imprisonment he suffered in France, while at the same time continuing to take an active part in the French political and cultural debate, even from a distance. In this, he was able to exercise and expand his influence, “under the protection of the Russians,” which certainly feeds the typical current paranoias of the French elite about a Russian “informational war.”
There is, however, also an internal aspect. Recently, Alain Soral has again been much discussed by the French media for two reasons. One is the “Bardella case,” which concerns the discovery of supposed “politically incorrect” writings by Jordan Bardella, president of the National Rally party, and the information that in his youth Bardella’s main intellectual influence was Alain Soral. The second is an opinion poll indicating that 15% of French men under 35 years of age identify with Soral’s ideas.
This, on the eve of the presidential elections, represents a significant risk for Macron and for the French establishment. Although, apparently, there is no chance of victory for any candidate against Le Pen, we cannot doubt the possibility of manipulation of the electoral process, as happened in Romania.
This silencing is even more concerning due to the fact that Soral and E&R are practically the only socially and culturally relevant figures in France today who defend national reconciliation and who avoid inciting internal tension, promoted by the most Islamophobic elements of the RN and by the very leadership of Mélenchon’s LFI with its “army” of antifa and immigrants.
Following US President Donald Trump's October 9 announcement of an agreement signed with Russian President Vladimir Putin to import Russian diesel into the United States, a number of pro-Russian social media accounts began claiming that a Russian oil tanker was already carrying thousands of barrels of diesel to the United States. The ship was actually carrying fertiliser.
A 16-year-old gunman killed three children and a teacher at Silver Rail Elementary School in Bend, Oregon, on Thursday before being killed by a community member who pursued him inside, police said. Two other people were wounded in the shooting.
Federal authorities are investigating potential fraud in her family's immigration paperwork and have issued grand jury subpoenas to some of her relatives
Login
, X
