‘The Republican Party is starting to look pretty good,’ Trump told supporters as polls suggest a potential midterm blue wave
© Getty Images
‘The living conditions in that trailer were horrific,’ said Jay Cook of the Licking County Sheriff’s Office
© Licking County Sheriff's Office
Le Pen leads with 32-36%. France’s minorities are preparing their exit.
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
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.
Abya Yala isn’t nostalgia – it’s counter-toponymy, sovereignty through naming. Empires die; names endure.
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
A name imposed from outside
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.
‘They were going at it for hours,’ Smith said of Trump and Maher, who also dined together at the White House last year
© Fox News
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.
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.
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.
U.S. and China’s Nuclear Submarines Race For Dominance in the Indo-Pacific as Trump & Xi Talk
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.
The post The U.S. Defense Startup That Beat Northrop & General Dynamics: How Anduril Reached $90B Valuation in Less Than 10 Years appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
Officials at Norfolk International Airport only discovered the non-traveler access perk had been removed after passengers complained about missing online booking options
© AFP via Getty Images
Zacharia’s contentious interview with Trump-pal Sean Hannity was described as a ‘sanctioned hit’ by one insider
© Getty Images
The weather service also issued a red flag warning for parts of central and Northern California
© AFP/Getty
Zacharia fawned over the president despite her brutal firing less than a week in the job
© @KatieZacharia, X
© PAULO NOVAIS/LUSA
São esperados mais de 900 mil estudantes para a segunda fase da Olimpíada Brasileira de Matemática das Escolas Públicas (Obmep), que está em sua 21ª edição. Eles foram classificados entre os 18,3 milhões de alunos do 6º ano do ensino fundamental ao 3º ano do ensino médio que participaram da primeira fase, em 9 de junho.
O resultado será conhecido em 15 de dezembro, e a olimpíada vai distribuir 8.450 medalhas nacionais, sendo 650 de ouro, 1.950 de prata e 5.850 de bronze, além de 51 mil certificados de menção honrosa.
Segundo o Impa, os medalhistas nacionais da Obmep terão acesso ao Programa de Iniciação Científica (PIC Jr.), com aulas avançadas de matemática e bolsa mensal de R$ 300, concedida pelo Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq).
Além do Impa, a Obmep é realizada pelo Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI) e pelo Ministério da Educação (MEC).
No caso dos docentes, o Impa aplicará a primeira Olimpíada de Professores da Obmep Mirim. Podem participar profissionais com matrícula ativa que lecionam do 1º ao 5º ano do ensino fundamental em escolas públicas e privadas.
Serão distribuídas 25 medalhas de ouro, 50 de prata, 100 de bronze e 500 menções honrosas. Os premiados participarão de um curso de formação em matemática para professores do ensino fundamental I, oferecido pelo Impa.
No caso dos medalhistas de ouro, haverá ainda atividades presenciais no Rio de Janeiro, com despesas custeadas pelo Impa. Além disso, eles poderão submeter projetos pedagógicos para aplicação em sala de aula, com a possibilidade de receber uma bolsa de R$ 700, por quatro meses, para a implementação.
Segundo o Impa, a iniciativa busca fortalecer a formação em matemática e valorizar o trabalho dos docentes que atuam nos anos iniciais da educação básica.
O instituto conta com apoio acadêmico da Associação Nacional dos Professores de Matemática na Educação Básica (ANPMat).
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.”
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.
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.”
Mail us at: editor (at) eurasiantimes.com
The post USAF Puts F-22 Raptor in the “Quarterback” Seat for First Flight Test Controlling Anduril’s YFQ-44A Fury appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
© Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
© Igor Martins
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?
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.
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.
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.
There are other constitutional hurdles too.
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.
The post Are Both Putin & Trump Supporting Alberta Separatists to Break Canada? Here’s What the Evidence Shows appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
Donald Trump told the newly appointed press secretary to ‘reconsider’ her position
© AFP/Getty
Os trabalhadores e pensionistas vão receber mais dinheiro em novembro, mas esse reforço do rendimento líquido poderá traduzir-se em reembolsos de IRS mais pequenos em 2027 ou até numa fatura a pagar ao Estado. A redução excecional da retenção na fonte para metade é a forma escolhida pelo Governo para antecipar o efeito da descida extraordinária do IRS aprovada pela Assembleia da República para os rendimentos de 2026, como efeitos retroativos a janeiro.
A medida permite que as famílias sintam já no salário ou na pensão o efeito da redução do imposto, em vez de terem de esperar pela liquidação anual em 2027. Mas, ao receberem mais dinheiro agora, os contribuintes também entregam menos imposto antecipadamente ao Fisco, o que influencia o acerto de contas do próximo ano.
As simulações realizadas pela EY para o ECO (ver em baixo) mostram que o impacto pode ser significativo. Um trabalhador solteiro, sem filhos, com um salário bruto mensal de 1.500 euros, passa de um reembolso estimado de 147,06 euros para um pagamento de 20,94 euros. Já um casal com dois titulares e dois filhos, em que cada elemento recebe 10.000 euros brutos por mês, passa de um reembolso de 927,26 euros para uma fatura de IRS de 2.700,74 euros.
A redução da retenção na fonte está diretamente relacionada com uma alteração fiscal aprovada pelo Parlamento, com base numa proposta de lei do Governo, que determina uma nova descida das taxas gerais de IRS aplicáveis aos primeiros seis escalões de rendimento coletável, com efeitos sobre os rendimentos obtidos desde 1 de janeiro de 2026.
A redução das taxas varia entre 0,3 e 0,5 pontos percentuais. A taxa do primeiro escalão desce 0,3 pontos percentuais, a redução é de 0,5 pontos entre o segundo e o quinto escalões e de 0,3 pontos no sexto escalão. As taxas normais dos três escalões superiores não são alteradas por esta medida.
A proposta foi aprovada pela Assembleia da República, permitindo que a redução do imposto se aplique aos rendimentos de todo o ano de 2026. Segundo o Governo, a medida representa um alívio fiscal adicional de cerca de 400 milhões de euros para as famílias.
Para fazer chegar esse benefício aos contribuintes ainda este ano, o Ministério das Finanças decidiu reduzir em 50% a retenção na fonte de IRS sobre os rendimentos do trabalho dependente e as pensões pagos entre 1 e 30 de novembro.
O mecanismo procura refletir no rendimento disponível das famílias a descida das taxas de IRS aprovada para 2026, incorporando igualmente o efeito correspondente às retenções efetuadas desde o início do ano. Em vez de rever os descontos de todos os meses anteriores, o Governo concentra este ajustamento excecional no processamento de novembro. A medida abrange também o subsídio de Natal, quando é pago durante esse mês. Em dezembro, as retenções regressam às tabelas normais em vigor.
Para compreender o efeito no acerto anual, importa distinguir o imposto devido da retenção na fonte. Esta última é um adiantamento mensal do IRS: o empregador ou a entidade pagadora da pensão entrega ao Estado uma parte do rendimento do contribuinte, que será posteriormente considerada na liquidação anual.
Quando chega a altura de apurar o imposto definitivo, a Autoridade Tributária compara o IRS efetivamente devido com o que foi retido durante o ano. Se o contribuinte tiver adiantado mais dinheiro do que aquele que devia pagar, recebe um reembolso. Se os descontos ficarem abaixo do imposto devido, terá de entregar a diferença ao Estado.
É aqui que entra o efeito da medida de novembro. Ao reduzir a retenção na fonte, o Governo deixa mais dinheiro nas contas dos trabalhadores e pensionistas, mas reduz simultaneamente o montante que estes antecipam ao Fisco. Por isso, o reembolso será inferior — ou o valor a pagar será superior — ao que resultaria sem esta redução excecional da retenção.
Ao reduzir a retenção na fonte, o Governo deixa mais dinheiro nas contas dos trabalhadores e pensionistas, mas reduz simultaneamente o montante que estes antecipam ao Fisco. Por isso, o reembolso será inferior — ou o valor a pagar será superior — ao que resultaria sem esta redução excecional da retenção.
Este efeito não significa que a descida extraordinária das taxas de IRS seja anulada. A redução das taxas diminui o imposto devido nos termos aprovados para 2026; a redução da retenção altera o momento em que o contribuinte beneficia desse alívio e o montante que adianta ao Estado. O menor reembolso em 2027 é, assim, o outro lado da moeda de receber mais salário líquido em novembro.
As simulações da EY para o ECO comparam precisamente os dois cenários, com e sem redução de 50% da retenção na fonte em novembro, considerando os rendimentos do trabalho dependente.
No caso de um trabalhador solteiro, sem filhos, com um salário bruto mensal de 1.500 euros, a EY estima que, sem a redução excecional da retenção, o contribuinte teria direito a um reembolso de 147,06 euros na liquidação do IRS de 2026, a realizar em 2027. Com a redução da retenção para metade em novembro, o resultado passa a ser um pagamento de 20,94 euros ao Estado. A diferença entre os dois cenários é de 168 euros.
Se o mesmo contribuinte receber 2.500 euros brutos por mês, o reembolso encolhe de 573,06 euros para 102,06 euros. Neste caso, continua a receber dinheiro do Fisco, mas menos 471 euros do que receberia sem a medida.
Para um salário bruto mensal de 4.000 euros, a diferença é ainda mais expressiva. Em vez de um reembolso de 1.404,44 euros, o contribuinte passa a receber apenas 349,44 euros, menos 1.055 euros.
Já no caso de um solteiro sem filhos que aufira 10.000 euros brutos por mês, a simulação aponta para uma inversão do resultado da liquidação. Sem a redução extraordinária da retenção, teria um reembolso de 2.279,63 euros. Com a medida, passa a ter de pagar 1.391,37 euros ao Estado. Neste último caso, a diferença entre os dois cenários ascende a 3.671 euros, mostrando como o efeito do ajustamento pode ser particularmente significativo para rendimentos elevados.
O impacto também se faz sentir nos agregados com dois titulares e dois filhos, embora os valores sejam diferentes devido às regras de retenção aplicáveis à situação familiar. Num casal em que cada titular recebe um salário bruto mensal de 1.500 euros, o reembolso estimado passa de 165,12 euros para 40,12 euros, uma redução de 125 euros.
Se cada elemento do casal ganhar 2.500 euros brutos por mês, o reembolso diminui de 714,12 euros para 286,12 euros. No caso de salários de 4.000 euros por titular, o montante a receber recua de 1.819,89 euros para 806,89 euros, menos 1.013 euros.
No cenário de rendimentos mais elevados, em que cada elemento do casal aufere 10.000 euros brutos mensais, a simulação aponta para uma mudança ainda mais acentuada. Sem a redução excecional da retenção, o agregado teria um reembolso de 927,26 euros. Com a medida, passa a ter de pagar 2.700,74 euros de IRS, uma diferença de 3.628 euros.
As simulações da EY para o ECO têm em conta um conjunto limitado de deduções à coleta. Nos cenários com filhos, foram consideradas as deduções pessoais por dependentes, assumindo que ambos têm mais de três anos. Foram também incluídas as deduções relativas a despesas gerais e familiares, considerando o limite máximo desta categoria, de 250 euros para solteiro e de 500 euros para casal com tributação conjunta.
As contas não contemplam, contudo, outras deduções à coleta que os contribuintes possam conseguir através de despesas elegíveis realizadas ao longo do ano. Estas poderão melhorar o resultado final da liquidação do IRS em 2027, permitindo aumentar o reembolso ou reduzir a fatura a pagar ao Estado.
É o caso de determinadas despesas de restauração, cabeleireiros e institutos de beleza, bem como dos passes e bilhetes de transportes públicos, que podem dar acesso a benefícios fiscais através da exigência de fatura. Estas despesas não permitem deduzir o valor total pago, mas sim uma parcela do IVA suportado.
Para beneficiarem destes montantes, os contribuintes devem pedir faturas com o respetivo número de identificação fiscal e verificar se as despesas estão corretamente comunicadas e classificadas no e-Fatura. No caso das despesas abrangidas pela dedução por exigência de fatura, existe um limite global de 250 euros por agregado familiar.
Assim, um contribuinte que tenha despesas elegíveis ainda não refletidas nas simulações e que não tenha esgotado os limites das deduções aplicáveis poderá conseguir um resultado mais favorável do que o estimado pela EY. O efeito concreto dependerá das despesas realizadas, dos montantes já considerados para efeitos fiscais e do imposto devido por cada agregado familiar.
Estas deduções adicionais não alteram o mecanismo da redução extraordinária da retenção na fonte em novembro: permitem, isso sim, reduzir o imposto final apurado, atenuando o impacto da menor retenção antecipada ao longo de 2026.
O Executivo escolheu o mês de novembro para antecipar o alívio fiscal, relativo à redução das taxas de IRS até ao sexto escalão, sem ter de esperar pela entrega das declarações e pela liquidação do imposto no próximo ano. Por exemplo, um trabalhador solteiro, sem filhos, com um salário bruto mensal de 1.500 euros, descontava habitualmente 168 euros de IRS por mês. Em novembro, a retenção desce para 84 euros, o que representa mais 84 euros disponíveis nesse mês, de acordo com as simulações da EY.
Se o subsídio de Natal for pago também em novembro, a redução da retenção estende-se a esse rendimento, reforçando o montante que entra na conta bancária. É esse dinheiro adicional que ajuda a explicar por que motivo o reembolso do ano seguinte poderá ser mais pequeno ou dar lugar a imposto a pagar.
O Governo optou, assim, por fazer refletir de imediato a redução do IRS aprovada para os rendimentos de 2026, em vez de deixar todo o acerto para a liquidação anual. Para os contribuintes, a contrapartida é terem de olhar para o salário líquido de novembro e para o eventual reembolso de 2027 como duas faces do mesmo mecanismo: mais rendimento disponível agora, mas menos imposto entregue antecipadamente ao Estado, logo menos dinheiro a receber do Estado ou até serem chamados a pagar, no próximo ano.
Two Australians and one American victim were shot dead in 2024 in a botched robbery
© Baja California Attorney General’s Office/Supplied
Login