In the grand Constantine Palace outside St. Petersburg on Wednesday, Steve Witkoff thanked Vladimir Putin for freeing Stephen Hubbard, a 74-year-old retired schoolteacher from Michigan who had spent four years in Russian detention. “You talk so much about my president, President Trump, being a humanitarian. You are a humanitarian also, sir, and I salute that,” President Donald Trump’s envoy told him. The video traveled faster than Hubbard’s plane.

“Humanitarian” is a generous word for a man the International Criminal Court has wanted since 2023 for the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children — not to mention a brutal war launched against Ukraine that has killed up to 600,000, and countless allegations of torture, authoritarianism and cruelty by Putin’s government. In Moscow, that deportation was billed as humanitarian, too. The poor children could not stay in a war zone, the Kremlin claimed, so Russia took them.

“Humanitarian” is a generous word for a man the International Criminal Court has wanted since 2023 for the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children.

Kyiv counts them in the tens of thousands. How many there really are, and how they are being treated, is hard to verify. According to Ukrainian sources, a few thousand have been returned home. But the formula never changes: What Ukraine and the West call theft, the Kremlin calls rescue. Nobody uses the word “humanitarian” as freely as the people who create the need for it.

The Hubbard story is not a simple one. He had reportedly lived in Ukraine since 2014. After the 2022 invasion, he joined a territorial defense unit in Izium, and Russian forces captured him within months. In 2024, a Russian court gave him almost seven years as a “mercenary.” Washington declared him wrongfully detained. His own relatives had said he held pro-Russian views and was too old to fight. But war is war, and an allegedly pro-Russian pensioner ended up as an enemy combatant.

George Kennan, the great American diplomat who was my mentor at Princeton in the 1990s, taught me to judge a country’s politics from its own point of view, not the one we would like it to have. From Moscow, a foreigner in a Ukrainian unit is an enemy. In Joseph Stalin’s time, he would not have been pardoned, but shot. By the Kremlin’s own standards, letting him go is a real gesture — so it is worth asking what it bought.

Trump says there was “no swap.” True, no one was released in exchange for Hubbard. But five days earlier, the White House waived new Russia sanctions. Trump himself said Hubbard would not be free otherwise. So it was not a swap. It was a down payment.

Witkoff is a real estate man, and a skilled one. He knows to tell the client what the client wants to hear. Since his first visits in 2025, hand pressed to his heart, he has understood how Putin likes to see himself. And Putin very much wants to be seen as something other than what he is.

Witkoff, of all people, must have appreciated the setting. Peter the Great began the Constantine Palace in 1720 and never finished it, and by 1945, only its walls were standing. In 2001, Putin had it rebuilt as his presidential residence, gilded in time for the city’s 300th birthday. As flips go, it is hard to beat. Western leaders once came to admire it, too, at the G8 in 2006 and the G20 in 2013. Six months later, Russia annexed Crimea — the opening act of the current war — and most of them stopped coming.

Last month, Alexander Lukashenko said he and Putin often argue over which of them is the bigger dictator. For Lukashenko, who runs Belarus like the collective farm he once managed, it is an earthy joke he enjoys. For Putin, it is an insult. He sees himself as a benevolent KGB major, even a democrat. Russia holds elections, he likes to remind everyone, while Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose official term ran out in 2024, postponed his because of the war. That Russian elections are staged does not matter. They are proof of good character.

Putin’s well-known deepest conviction is that he would be gentler — if only the circumstances allowed. According to his own rhetoric, he believes he is fighting not just Ukraine but the whole West, which has spent years turning up its war rhetoric. Europe now warns that Russia may turn on it next. In the Kremlin, this reads as a story for tired taxpayers about why Ukraine needs their money. So, Putin has no choice but to be tough. And a man forced into harshness is grateful when someone notices his soft side.

Yet Putin is less original than both his admirers and his enemies think. Nearly every Kremlin occupant, tsarist or Soviet, has said the same thing: I would be different, but the people and the times are not right. In the 16th century, the Habsburg envoy Sigismund von Herberstein, watching Muscovite rule, wondered whether a brutal people made their prince a tyrant, or the tyrant made the people brutal.

Witkoff found the soft spot and pressed it. That is what good negotiators do.

A century later, the story goes, a European diplomat rode into the capital of Moldavia past rows of rebels impaled on stakes. On arrival, he reproached the country’s ruler for such cruelty. “It’s easy for you to govern your people,” the prince replied. “Try governing mine.”

In Russia, the line is usually credited to Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great. The mix-up is telling: In Moscow, it has always sounded like something a tsar would say. Kremlin rulers have preferred that answer ever since.

So Witkoff found the soft spot and pressed it. That is what good negotiators do. But Putin is not a typical client. He took the sanctions relief, the praise and the photo opportunity, and gave back one sick 74-year-old man. As deals go, it was a truly humanitarian gesture — if you ask the Kremlin.

The post With his ‘humanitarian’ comment, Witkoff found Putin’s soft spot appeared first on MS NOW.

Elon Musk is arguably the most powerful man in the world — and increasingly he is using that power in deeply dangerous ways.

The Wall Street Journal, citing “U.S. officials and people familiar with the matter,” reported earlier this week that Musk ordered the slowdown of “a military-grade version” of SpaceX’s Starlink satellite system. Ukraine relies upon the system to intercept incoming Russian missiles and fire its drones against Russian targets.

One sentence in the Journal’s reporting speaks volumes about Musk’s increasingly malign influence on politics at home and foreign policy abroad: “With a seeming flick of a switch, Musk has the power to alter the course of a deadly conflict.” (SpaceX didn’t respond to the Journal’s request for comment.)

Since the beginning of the war, Russia has directly targeted civilians with missile and drone strikes. Thousands have been killed and injured. Just this week, a Russian drone attack in a central park in the city of Nova Vodolaha killed two women and four children. The dead included Inna Mariukhna, a 28-year-old school teacher, and her one-year-old daughter Anhelina, who was still strapped into her stroller as the bombs fell.

Musk’s actions make it more difficult for Ukraine to stop these attacks — and increase the chances of a Russian victory against its neighbor. Never before in human history has a single individual not involved in the fighting exercised such extraordinary power over the direction of a major military conflict.

Why is he doing this? In the past, he’s expressed concern that the satellite-based network could play a role in offensive operations that could escalate the conflict into nuclear war. But that doesn’t explain why he’s now making it harder for Ukraine to defend itself.

The simpler explanation is that the world’s richest person is working in concert with President Donald Trump. Over the past two weeks, Musk has joined Trump in publicly attacking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — and blaming him for the continuation of the war.

Trump increasingly holds Zelenskyy and Ukraine responsible for higher global energy prices, which he says are a result of Kyiv’s attacks on Russian diesel refineries. In reality, gas prices are up because of the Iran war that Trump initiated.

Trump is also desperate for a peace deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin and has been increasing pressure on Zelenskyy to capitulate to Russian demands. Hindering Ukraine’s ability to stop drone and missile attacks is consistent with that strategy.

Trump somehow believes that a peace agreement or an end to Ukraine’s attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure will save Republicans in the midterm elections.

But his obsession with the midterms mirrors that of Musk, who has already spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars supporting GOP candidates this year — which dwarfs the $200 million he spent in 2024.

Musk’s most astounding intervention is in the Texas Senate campaign. Musk, who lives in Texas, has bankrolled Republican candidate Ken Paxton to the tune of $150 million. That windfall has not only kept the state attorney general competitive but also allowed Republicans to spend more freely on non-Texas races.

It is obscene that a single American citizen can exercise so much influence over one election. While we can thank the Supreme Court for loosening campaign rules and allowing such excess, Musk’s profligate spending again speaks to his outsize influence. And now, in addition to millions in donations, Musk’s attempts to boost Republicans have extended to interfering directly in an overseas conflict.

Is America a true democracy when a single, unelected citizen can have such a big impact on an American election? Is it consistent with America’s founding ideals for one citizen, unelected and unaccountable, to have the power to influence the outcome of a foreign war in which vital U.S. national security interests are at stake?

This isn’t the first time Musk has gotten involved in matters of state and left behind a trail of damage. After Trump won back the White House in 2024, he rewarded Musk by putting him in charge of the Orwellian-named Department of Government Efficiency.

In its short, calamitous tenure, DOGE wreaked havoc on the federal government, needlessly firing hundreds of thousands of government employees, weakening the Social Security Administration, undermining decades of scientific research and saving very little money in the process.

Worst of all, in Musk’s own words, DOGE fed the U.S. Agency for International Development to “the wood chipper.” According to the Center for Global Development and researchers at Boston University, the global death toll from USAID’s shuttering is estimated at between half a million and 1 million people.

Musk’s defenders will point to his successful businesses. But clearly Musk is not content with merely being a successful entrepreneur. His net worth is now around a trillion dollars, and he’s using that fortune to exercise power that, in effect, trumps governments and politicians.

He wants vast, outsize domestic and global influence — and that influence is subverting democracy and quite literally leading to deaths around the world.

While once Musk might have played the part of a cartoon villain, he’s increasingly become an actual villain. If Democrats take control of Congress in two weeks, scrutinizing Musk’s business practices, his vast government contracts and his control of the Starlink system should be among the party’s top priorities.

Politico reported this week that senior House Democrats on multiple committees are planning to do just that should the House flip. But investigations are not enough. Making it harder for the obscenely wealthy to exercise such influence in American elections and on American statecraft should also be at the top of the Democrats’ agenda. Musk’s actions over the past two years provide firsthand evidence of the dangers of allowing one man to have so much influence and power.

Musk is increasingly a menace, and since we know Trump won’t rein him in, Democrats must.

The post Elon Musk is trying to make himself more powerful than the government appeared first on MS NOW.

Instead of prioritizing stakeholder profit, the Witkoff-Europe combo should address Eurasian security architecture and NATO-Russia-China frontiers to gain traction in Moscow.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Back in December 2025, U.S. commentator Sundance, writing in the Conservative Treehouse, wrote about Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner’s new ‘Money Diplomacy’ solution for Ukraine that “require[d] [the establishment of] a system whereby the western opportunity for financial benefit continues”. From this perspective, the U.S. negotiators would “propose a long-term plan for continued financial benefit”.

From their current language it appears that Witkoff and Kusher are still confident they can construct a financial reward system for western banks, investors, politicians and Ukraine officials that will retain the benefits of war without the ancillary ingredient of bloodshed.

As Sundance noted —

“If the U.S. delegation can pull this off, then Russia can gain the territory they want, corrupt Ukraine officials can keep skimming investment money, the EU can retain the power it wants to extract financial payments, American politicians can use the “long-term recovery projects” for money laundering, and quasi-public/private investment banks can benefit from the exploitation of Ukraine resources”.

From this evident New York real estate worldview, all other issues — territorial boundaries, security and NATO’s encroachment into Central Asia’s security architecture — are but ‘downstream details’ “to the stuff that really matters, the money”.

Monetary diplomacy, however, has not brought a solution for Ukraine (nor for that matter, for Gaza either). Nonetheless, Witkoff has a new plan that David Ignatius has outlined in his column at the Washington Post.

Ignatius highlights that despite the recent Ukraine “flap” over its targetting of Russian refineries, “the U.S. and Europe are moving toward a joint peace proposal that would deliver financial and security benefits to both Ukraine and Russia as a baseline for a territorial settlement that falls short of both sides’ war aims”. In other words, ‘a sweetener’ dangled to persuade the sides to stop bombing each other’s refineries and to open the path for this ‘new’ initiative.

If Zelensky agrees to halt refinery attacks, “we’re back in, and we go to Moscow”, an American official told Ignatius.

In gist, the 4-point plan envisages a generous reconstruction framework to meet “Zelensky’s myriad cash needs”; security guarantees for Ukraine equivalent to NATO’s Article 5; the economic integration of Russia, Ukraine and Europe through an energy deal — “This might consist of a pipeline carrying Russian oil and gas to Europe with Ukraine and Russia splitting the profits. Such a pipeline could sharply reduce European energy costs”, a U.S. official said. In addition to providing Russia with “long-term access to the European energy market”, a peace deal would specify how and when existing economic sanctions on Russia would be removed.

The final point – wait for it — would be a ceasefire along the existing front line, or the ‘line of control’.

It seems extraordinary: The U.S. and Europeans negotiate amongst themselves, seemingly oblivious to the explicit statements issued by the Russian side.

Oil and gas would be supplied by Russia to the needy Europeans who voluntarily forsook their earlier cheap Russian supply, who are trapped by their own decisions and who denigrate Russia at every opportunity. And with the profits to be “split” with Ukraine? No way will Russia accept such a one-sided proposal.

FM Lavrov said at the UNGA no ceasefire under any format. That means that any negotiations would have to take place under fire, and Putin has suggested that even then, he would ‘think twice’ about starting any negotiations (whether under fire or not).

Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed just last week that “piecemeal solutions and agreements” would prevent a comprehensive settlement from being reached; a “freeze” of the conflict would not help either —

“[Ukraine] is a highly complex matter, and the settlement must be comprehensive … We need a solution for future generations — one that is guaranteed and safeguarded against setbacks”.

It seems that the Europeans have not grasped that a Korean-style cessation of hostilities (as argued by General Kellogg) along a front where two militaries face each other is a recipe for precisely no solution. It has been 73 years since the Korean War was frozen by armistice. Nothing has changed.

The repeated return to this mantra of a ceasefire along line of contact, rather than solution first; ceasefire last, shouts out to the Russians that the West wants to keep Ukraine in the locker-room for the time when a platform from which to exert pressure (again) on Russia in the future is to be jacked-up.

The fatal flaw to this initiative is its cultural deafness. For Witkoff and Kushner it may be “all about the stuff that really matters – money” — but that is not the case for Russia.

If the Witkoff-Europe combo recalled Russian history, they would understand why, for Russia, security, security, security comes top.

Walter Munchau cautioned just this week that “the Ukraine war risks escalating” —

“We should be under no illusion about a war with Russia. We are absolutely not in a position to win. Whose bond markets are going to be blown up first? Who is going to run out of interceptor missiles first? … On every [count] — military, energy, finance — Europe is at a disadvantage. That’s not all. There is a relatively plausible scenario in which Ukraine and Iran merge into a single West Eurasian war — and become the ultimate proxy conflict between the U.S. and China”.

If, instead of putting continued ‘stakeholder’ grift first, with its mechanism to ensure “that the western opportunity for financial benefit continues”, the Witkoff-Europe combo chose rather to address the fundamentals to the conflict — the deeper question of a Eurasian security architecture; the definition of where exactly the frontier that separates NATO security interests from those of Sino-Russian interests physically lies — they might find a more receptive audience on their next trip to Moscow.

Alas, circumscribing NATO’s extent is not possible – as things stand.

UK public debt crossed the £3 trillion mark for the first time at the end of September 2026, the National Statistics Office reported on Wednesday, October 21.

---

The accumulated public sector liabilities stood at £3.005 trillion, equivalent to €3.57 trillion, according to the provisional estimate released by the National Statistics Office. The figure represented 94 percent of UK gross domestic product and marked a historic high, the agency reported.

The balance grew by £91.7 billion compared with the level recorded twelve months earlier, about €109.074 billion, according to the provisional estimate.

RELATED: U.K. Slashes International Aid Budget by 56% to Fund Defense

Despite the nominal record, the weight of the liabilities on the economy as a whole fell by seven tenths compared with the 2025 level, the agency reported. The agency recalled that net debt exceeded £2 trillion in June 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, and had surpassed £1 trillion in February 2010, following the global financial crisis.

September public borrowing amounted to £24.5 billion, or €29.142 billion, and was the second highest recorded for that month, according to the National Statistics Office. Only the September 2020 figure, unadjusted for inflation, was higher. Compared with the previous year, the imbalance increased by £1.8 billion, or 7.7 percent, because spending growth outpaced income growth, the agency reported.

Britain’s national debt has climbed above £3tn for the first time, underlining the pressure on the public finances before John Healey’s maiden Budget next week

🔗 https://t.co/xKIQKqOhib pic.twitter.com/ExKxQ7hI95

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) October 21, 2026

Central government debt interest reached £10.9 billion in September, the highest figure recorded in the ninth month of the year since monthly records began in 1997, according to the National Statistics Office.

Annual inflation stood at 3.5 percent in September, four tenths above the August figure and the largest increase since October 2025, according to the National Statistics Office. The price of goods rose 3.2 percent year on year, compared with 2.7 percent in August, while services became 3.7 percent more expensive. Core inflation, which excludes energy, food, alcohol and tobacco, advanced to 2.8 percent, two tenths more than in August.

Spain’s prime minister has passed housing laws he says will stand up to speculating ‘vulture funds’

© AFP/Getty

Spain’s prime minister has passed housing laws he says will stand up to speculating ‘vulture funds’

© AFP/Getty

Spain’s prime minister has passed housing laws he says will stand up to speculating ‘vulture funds’

© AFP/Getty

A new planning application has been lodged for a seven-apartment block in Farnworth, designed to address specific spatial deficiencies that led to the rejection of a previous proposal. Mr Edward submitted the application on 23 September for a two-storey residential building on land north of Westland Avenue. This follows a similar application in January for a single-storey block of nine homes, which was refused by Bolton Council. The earlier rejection cited 'long, narrow rooms' and 'inadequate outlooks,' alongside a lack of data regarding trees and carbon energy. The current proposal distributes the lower number of units across two floors to increase the floor area per dwelling, directly responding to the spatial constraints identified in the first refusal. Unlike the previous submission, the new documentation includes the required tree and carbon assessments.

Exclusive: A poll of 4,000 Israelis shows that it is unlikely that Netanyahu’s bloc will hold on to power when the country votes next week

© Reuters

Exclusive: A poll of 4,000 Israelis shows that it is unlikely that Netanyahu’s bloc will hold on to power when the country votes next week

© Reuters

Exclusive: A poll of 4,000 Israelis shows that it is unlikely that Netanyahu’s bloc will hold on to power when the country votes next week

© Reuters

Counsel to the President William Scharf accuses outlet of publishing ‘series of demonstrably false and defamatory articles in an apparent effort to manufacture a narrative of dysfunction and infighting’

© Getty

Counsel to the President William Scharf accuses outlet of publishing ‘series of demonstrably false and defamatory articles in an apparent effort to manufacture a narrative of dysfunction and infighting’

© Getty

Counsel to the President William Scharf accuses outlet of publishing ‘series of demonstrably false and defamatory articles in an apparent effort to manufacture a narrative of dysfunction and infighting’

© Getty

Elizabeth Struhs’ parents are members of a religious group that rejects modern medicine

© Family handout

Elizabeth Struhs’ parents are members of a religious group that rejects modern medicine

© Family handout

Elizabeth Struhs’ parents are members of a religious group that rejects modern medicine

© Family handout

New research involving 6,607 patients indicates that women with autoimmune diseases are significantly more likely than men to have their conditions incorrectly identified as psychiatric or psychosomatic. The study, led by the University of Cambridge and the University of East Anglia (UEA), also found that women experienced longer delays between the onset of symptoms and receiving a correct diagnosis. The gap in diagnostic timelines Autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and multiple sclerosis, occur when the immune system mistakenly attacks the body's own tissues. These conditions are often more prevalent in women and can be difficult to identify because early symptoms-such as fatigue, pain, sleep disturbance and low mood-are common to many general health issues. When visible signs or specific blood test results are absent, diagnostic clarity can take months or even years. According to the findings, the most frequently reported time to diagnosis for men was less than three months. In contrast, for women, the most common timeframe was one to two years. Women also reported a higher number of healthcare consultations during this period.

Amid stiff competition from Silicon Valley-based, AI-focused defense companies, Northrop Grumman, part of the US defense market’s ‘Big Five,’ has posted better-than-expected sales and a record order backlog of US$ 109.6 billion.

Notably, at nearly $110 billion, the company’s order backlog is nearly 1.4 times its US$78 billion market cap and equals about two and a half years of sales.

Northrop Grumman’s record backlog suggests that traditional prime contractors in the US defense-industrial complex continue to win substantial new orders even as their leadership faces increasing pressure from AI-focused defense firms such as Palantir and Anduril.

For instance, Anduril, founded in 2017, is already worth US$ 90 billion, more than Northrop Grumman’s and General Dynamics’ market caps.

Meanwhile, Palantir, founded in 2003, is already worth nearly US$480 billion, more than any of the Big Five.

Northrop Grumman’s steady sales and record US$109.6 billion backlog should reassure investors that traditional defense primes can continue to thrive alongside the rapid growth of AI-focused defense companies.

The Virginia-based defense contractor reported third-quarter revenue of US$11.12 billion, up 7% from US$10.42 billion a year earlier.

Net income rose to US$1.12 billion from US$1.10 billion a year earlier.

However, the biggest surprise came in the company’s backlog order book. The company received US$16.4 billion in net contract awards during the third quarter (Q3) of 2026, pushing its net outstanding backlog to US$109.6 billion.

A year ago, at the end of Q3 2025, the company’s backlog stood at US$91.4 billion. Since then, it has received new contracts worth US$18.2 billion.

“In a complex world with the growing need for solutions that scale and perform, our customers continue to turn to Northrop Grumman,” Chair, Chief Executive and President Kathy Warden said in the earnings announcement.

According to company filings, the company’s third-quarter contracts totaled US$16.4 billion, which included US$4.6 billion for classified programs, US$2 billion for the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program, and US$1.4 billion for Virginia-class submarines.

The company also received US$1.3 billion in awards related to the F-35 fighter jet and US$1 billion for the E-2 Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft.

The Q3 contracts show strong demand for the company’s products in fighter jets, AWACS, missiles, submarines, and space programs.

Overall, Defense Systems accounted for the largest portion of the company’s backlog at US$36.5 billion, followed by Aeronautics Systems at US$26.8 billion and Space Systems at US$26.3 billion.

Strong Demand for Northrop Grumman’s Aeronautics Systems

In Q3, Northrop Grumman reported aeronautics systems revenue of US$3.58 billion, up 14% year-on-year, and won new contracts worth over US$3 billion.

Strong aeronautics systems performance is driven by demand for the F-35 fighter jet, progress on the B-21 Raider program, maintenance work on the B-2 Spirit bomber, and work on Army helicopters such as the AH-64 Apache, CH-47 Chinook, UH-60 Black Hawk, and others.

Northrop Grumman is a principal contractor on the F-35 Lightning II program, with Lockheed Martin as the prime contractor. The company contributes roughly 25% of the aircraft and produces or supports several major structural and mission systems for all three variants – F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C.

Northrop Grumman designs and produces critical F-35 components, including the center fuselage, AN/APG-81 AESA radar, communications subsystems such as the AN/ASQ-242 Integrated Communications, Navigation, and Identification (CNI) system, and the EO/IR Distributed Aperture System.

It also leads mission systems development, pilot and maintenance training courseware, and low-observable technology support to ensure readiness and modernization across all three F-35 variants.

The company also received new contracts worth US$1.3 billion for F-35 fighter jets.

It also won contracts worth US$1 billion for the E-2 Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft.

Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor, Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), and sole designer, developer, and manufacturer of the E-2 Hawkeye family, including the current E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.

Northrop Grumman is also the prime contractor for both the B-2 Spirit and the B-21 Raider.

In 2024, Northrop won a US$7 billion award for the B-2 Spirit modernization and sustainment program, including programmed depot maintenance of the fleet, sustaining engineering, software maintenance, support equipment, logistics elements, and interim contractor support.

This B-2 Spirit modernization and sustainment work continues at Palmdale, California; Whiteman Air Force Base (AFB), Missouri; Tinker AFB, Oklahoma; Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; Edwards AFB, California; and Hill AFB, Utah, and is expected to be completed by May 2029.

In 2015, Northrop Grumman won the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) program, also known as the B-21 Raider.

However, the US Air Force has deliberately withheld detailed pricing for the program.

Earlier this year, the USAF and Northrop agreed to expand B-21 Raider production capacity by about 25% with roughly US$4.5 billion in government funding.

A 2021 Pentagon Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) study estimated that developing, procuring, and operating a fleet of 100 B-21 Raider aircraft could cost about US$203 billion over the next 30 years.

In September, Northrop Grumman also won a US$4.84 billion Army contract for CIRCM (Common Infrared Countermeasure) laser-based missile defense systems to protect Army helicopters, such as the AH-64 Apache, CH-47 Chinook, UH-60 Black Hawk, and others, from infrared-guided missiles. The program will run through 2035.

Another critical program is Northrop’s role in the Sentinel missile program, a key part of the US Nuclear triad.

In the third quarter, the company won a US$2 billion contract for the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program.

Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor for the LGM-35A Sentinel program, also known as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD).

Under the program, Northrop will design and produce a new three-stage solid-propellant ICBM with improved range, accuracy, reliability, and modularity compared with Minuteman III.

It will also construct hundreds of new or heavily modernized hardened launch silos and related facilities across multiple states, and new nuclear command-and-control networks. Sentinel will provide the US with on-alert nuclear deterrence through 2075.

Northrop Grumman is also a major supplier and Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) for key components on Virginia-class submarines. It won a US$1.4 billion contract in Q3 for the Virginia-class submarines.

Northrop also plays an important role in the Patriot missile defense system. It supplies the solid rocket motors, ignition safety devices, and related propulsion elements for PAC-3 MSE missiles.

Patriot interceptors are in global demand due to the two ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

In August, the Department of War (DoW) signed framework agreements worth US$3 billion for expanding Patriot interceptor missile production.

The contract allocates nearly US$2 billion for solid rocket motors and ignition safety devices, in which Northrop will play a key role.

Northrop is also the prime contractor for the Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS), which integrates Patriot with other air- and missile-defense assets.

The company is also executing many of the USAF’s classified space-segment programs.

Many of these contracts, such as the B-21 Raider, F-35, Sentinel, and Patriot PAC-3 MSE interceptors, will run for decades, providing Northrop with a steady source of income. However, execution risk remains.

Demand for many of the company’s products, such as aircraft, missiles, and space systems, remains strong; however, investors’ key question is whether Northrop can turn its record US$109.6 billion backlog order book into improved margins and earnings.

• 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

The post Northrop Wins Fresh F-35, B-21, Sentinel & Virginia-Class Work as Backlog Hits Record $110 Billion appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Dozens of prominent writers, actors, musicians and activists have rallied behind Irish novelist Sally Rooney after her books were withdrawn from sale in Britain over her support for the banned pro-Palestinian group Palestine Action.

The open letter, titled "Sally Rooney is a writer, not a terrorist", was published on the front page of British political magazine New Statesman, condemning the withdrawal of her books as an attack on freedom of expression.

Among the signatories include acclaimed authors Zadie Smith, Ahdaf Soueif, Arundhati Roy and Nobel Prize-winning writer Annie Ernaux, alongside actors Paul Mescal, Daisy Edgar-Jones, Tilda Swinton and Susan Sarandon.

The intervention comes amid growing controversy over Britain's decision to proscribe Palestine Action under anti-terrorism legislation, a move that has sparked concerns about the criminalisation of pro-Palestinian activism and the wider implications for civil liberties.

Rooney, one of the most prominent novelists of her generation, has been an outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights and has refused to distance herself from Palestine Action despite the legal and commercial consequences.

The group, known for direct-action protests targeting companies linked to Israel's military, was proscribed by the British government as a terrorist organisation. The designation remains the subject of legal challenges.

Last year, Rooney pledged to donate proceeds from her books and their television adaptations to Palestine Action, turning her literary success into a source of financial support for the pro-Palestinian movement.

However, her position has placed her at the centre of a growing dispute over whether Britain's anti-terrorism laws are being used to restrict political expression and solidarity with Palestinians.

In November 2025, Rooney revealed that Element Pictures, the Irish production company behind the television adaptation of her bestselling novel Normal People, had warned that paying her royalties could breach British law if she intended to donate the money to Palestine Action.

Her publisher, Faber, subsequently announced that it would no longer supply her books, prompting widespread criticism from fellow writers and public figures.

But the controversy appears to have fuelled renewed interest in Rooney's work.

On Wednesday, The Guardian reported that sales of her books had surged by nearly 300% in the week following Faber's announcement.

Rooney's Normal People has sold more than one million copies in Britain alone, while its television adaptation helped establish her as one of the country's most widely read contemporary authors.

'Sally Rooney is a writer, not a terrorist'

The open letter denounces the withdrawal of Rooney's books and urges the British government to change the legislation that has led to their removal from sale.

"Sally Rooney is a writer, not a terrorist. Her books must be available to the public," the signatories declare.

They describe the withdrawal of her books as "an affront to basic principles of free speech and expression so long taken for granted in this country".

"We categorically reject censorship – whether direct or indirect – and urge the government to change course, amending the legislation which has led us to this point of repressive absurdity."

The letter brings together some of the most recognisable figures in British and international culture, including Oscar winners Jessie Buckley and Jonathan Glazer, filmmaker Asif Kapadia, Irish musician CMAT and former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Mescal and Edgar-Jones, who starred in the acclaimed television adaptation of Normal People, also added their names, publicly standing alongside the author whose work helped propel them to international fame.

Other signatories include British football presenter Gary Lineker, Massive Attack musician Robert Del Naja, Irish rap group Kneecap, author Omar El Akkad and Palestinian-British writer and activist Ahdaf Soueif.

Their collective intervention has placed renewed attention on the consequences of Britain's Palestine Action ban, particularly its impact on artists, writers and public figures who openly support Palestinian rights.