NEWS

Venezuelan popular artist Luis Mariano Rivera was born on August 19, 1906. His music is a tribute to life and a commitment to his community’s identity and cultural sovereignty. Rivera’s works remind us that when a people sow their land and tell their stories, they become resistant to oppression and invincible against foreign domination.

A brief and affectionate profile

In the fertile and sunny lands of eastern Venezuela, specifically in the lush village of Canchunchú in Bermúdez Municipality, Sucre State, Luis Mariano Rivera was born on August 19, 1906, 120 years ago. His life was shaped by the rural realities of this area, which combined the abundance of nature with the profound inequalities of a latifundista-dominated agrarian economy.

His childhood was marked by early orphanhood and farm labor. Far from leading to resentment or resignation, this experience shaped in Rivera a loving and vital sensibility that allowed him to dismantle traditional notions of property and patriarchal-landowner hierarchy, enabling him to identify with the land, plants, and animals that surrounded him. This connection to the land enriched his imagination, and his extended family ultimately came to encompass the entire territory.

Rivera’s creative work blossomed after he turned 48. A self-taught musician, poet, and playwright, he composed his first verses using the Venezuelan four-stringed cuatro guitar as his primary instrument. His artistic output became an act of defiance that placed elements dismissed by the dominant culture at the center of Venezuelan poetry: local biodiversity, manual labor, trees, fruits, and wildlife.

Through his popular theater plays and musical compositions, Rivera portrayed a cosmogony in which nature is not merely a resource to be exploited, but a subject with rights to be loved and respected.

Although he never joined any political party nor sought public office, his approach to life and art constitutes a profound political statement. In a Caribbean and Venezuelan context where the neocolonial oil rentier model displaced agricultural production and fueled the exodus from the countryside to the city, Rivera’s insistence on staying in Canchunchú and singing about rural life was a clear act of resistance.

His politics were rooted in pacifism, fraternity, and love for the land. In the face of the metastasizing commodification of life, he prioritized the ethics of care, respect for natural cycles, and community solidarity. Various artists of national and international renown, including Alí Primera, Lilia Vera, Cecilia Todd, Soledad Bravo, Gualberto Ibarreto, and Morella Muñoz, performed his songs, transforming his local message into a banner of continental identity. Alí Primera, in particular, saw Rivera as a beacon of popular dignity, celebrating his ability to transform everyday rural life into revolutionary and loving poetry.

Luis Mariano Rivera passed away on March 15, 2002, in Carúpano, Sucre State, at the age of 95, after nearly a century devoted to cultivating the poetry of life, simplicity, and affection. His legacy is recognized as a symbol of the musical identity that flows directly from the harmonious relationship with the land and the wisdom of the people.

Sound, memory, and collective identity

In many of the ancestral cultures of Abya Yala, sound is part of the creation myth of the women and men who originally inhabited these territories. For all of humanity, sounds have played an important role in the formation of identities. Languages and music stem from this very relationship and our need to connect, to name ourselves, and to determine our own destinies.

Every landscape has its own sonority. In other words, a set of sounds that form its geohistory. This includes our ways of speaking and our music, but also the sounds of the wind, the rain, the sea, the river, birds, insects. In short, all the sounds of life expressing itself, as well as the sounds of human inventions that are now part of our daily lives.

Within this spectrum, there are human beings who manage to connect the sounds of past, present, and future memories to bequeath a sonic identity that transcends the purely artistic realm, becoming the very landscape narrated in their poetry. Luis Mariano Rivera is an example of this transcendental audacity to place oneself beyond time with a unique music.

At the age of 48, driven by the desire to express himself without relying on others to write his letters and thoughts, he taught himself to read and write. Already in his mature years, he began composing verses, parrandas, merengues, and eastern joropos through which he paid tribute to the flora, fauna, and everyday life of his village.

Rivera’s remarkable sensitivity stems from his direct observation of the countryside. His lyrics preserve idioms, sayings, and oral expressions from eastern Venezuela that would otherwise have been lost. Long before the rise of globalized environmental movements, his songs already championed the balance between humans, wildlife, and flora from a local, community-based, and decolonizing perspective. Rivera’s legacy transcends mere musical composition; he represents a defense of communal life and a living example of how it is possible to reclaim one’s own history to create sounds that cement collective identity.

For him, Canchunchú was not merely a geographical reference point, but the center of the world. By singing about his village and embracing rural daily life as a symbol of belonging with a claim to universality, he created an affective geohistory that recognized the dignity of life as equivalent to that of the cherry, the guácara [snail], and the mango. He showed to his community that their own reality is worthy of being celebrated and sung about. As such, his work did not stem from ego. It was born out of the village’s celebrations and gatherings, and like collective knowledge, it has no other purpose than enjoyment and the strengthening of collective unity.

Singing honestly about one’s own village, honoring the vernacular of one’s community without resorting to artificial language, taught us a sense of pride in our ways of feeling, understanding, and reasoning. 

Rivera’s music, paraphrasing Alí Primera, grounds us in our own land, with the profound simplicity of one who surrenders to the magnitude of the surrounding beauty. His deep connection to his native Canchunchú never served as chauvinistic isolation or picturesque folklorism. Rather, it was a gateway to the human condition prior to the violent irruption of Western capitalist modernity, with its imposition of individuality, the commodification of nature, and linear progress, at the expense of communal memory. Rivera’s work operates in the opposite direction: it reconnects with an organic body of knowledge that does not require academia to be legitimate, because it is engraved in the lived collective experience.

It is no secret to anyone that traditional community music, as well as rural poetry, serves as a means of transmitting memory. It is not mere entertainment. Rhythmic patterns, melodic turns, and poetic meter interact with the biological, agricultural, and communal cycles that humankind has cultivated for millennia.

Rivera did not theorize about nature: he embodied it. His philosophy sprang from working the land, from sweat, and from the sounds of the countryside. It is the knowledge transmitted through the body and emotion, that “communal way of life” that predates modernity and remains a reservoir from which to conceive alternatives to capitalism, fascism, imperialism, and Zionism.

True universality does not consist in erasing differences under a single mold with domineering hegemonic pretensions, but rather in reaching our very roots. When we reaffirm the dignity of our communities, we validate the “peripheries” as the center of our own worldviews without the need for external recognition.

Rivera demonstrates that the periphery is a center in and of itself by stripping away the pretensions of colonial modernity. His music taps into the common core of humanity: the wonder of being alive, communal solidarity, and respect for the sacred meaning of life. And this is not a nostalgic gaze toward the past, but rather a reservoir of meaning and hope for the present. It reminds us that beneath the veneer of modernity, the human species remains hardwired to come together, celebrate, and sustain communities.

Finally, Rivera’s production is above all an expression of love. Love toward the full life experience. But when a poet sings about love, it is usually limited to romantic love, or heartbreak in the absence of corresponding feelings. Nevertheless, Rivera did count on a “spiritual companion,” to use his own words: Maximina Marsella, known as La Negra Marsella and whom he affectionately called “la negra,” in what is a very common expression in Venezuela. She was presented as the only woman capable of understanding his silences and his late passion for words. He dedicated many love verses to her, expressing how they shared feelings and devotion for the small things in life and the land.

Writing our own history and cultural sovereignty

The act by which a dispossessed individual reclaims control over the written word is, in essence, an act of sociopolitical liberation. For Luis Mariano Rivera, the decision to learn to read and write on his own as an adult was not merely a matter of functional education or an attempt to conform to bourgeois standards. It represented taking control of his own narrative and a fundamental reaffirmation of his personal and communal sovereignty. In a system dominated by the colonialism of knowledge, where official writing has historically functioned as a mechanism of subordination and administrative control, mastering the alphabet from the campesino perspective means dismantling the monopoly on truth. Rivera lucidly understood that mastering the written code granted him the historical ability to cease being a passive subject, an object of study in folklorism, and become the chronicler and philosopher of his own time. He ceased to be narrated by others and assumed authorship of his territorial memory.

This literacy and poetic endeavor took place against a profoundly adverse historical backdrop. Throughout the twentieth century, Venezuela underwent a traumatic transformation driven by the emergence of the neocolonial oil enclave. Urban modernization advanced aggressively through its ideological and economic strategy of marginalizing the countryside, dismantling traditional community structures, and promoting rural depopulation in favor of slums in the major cities.

The extraction of hydrocarbons by transnational corporations tied to the geopolitical interests of US and European imperialism came alongside an overwhelming wave of cultural propaganda. This ideological penetration sought to impose the American consumerist lifestyle, eroding peasant identity and dismissing local agriculture as synonymous with backwardness and savagery. Venezuela, which was barely emerging from the devastating aftermath of the war of independence and successive nineteenth-century insurrections, revolutions, and civil wars stoked by local elites and foreign capital, saw its food sovereignty and historical memory shaken.

Amid this landscape of alienation, where the country was rapidly transforming into a consumerist, import-dependent enclave, Rivera’s insistence on remaining in his Canchunchú valley and singing about the communal way of life was not a nostalgic or folkloric retreat, but rather a deeply political and assertive affirmation of cultural re-existence.

He sang with such transparent and loving clarity that his powerful message took root in the national collective imagination, ethically reframing the traditions, sufferings, joys, and experiences of campesinos in eastern Venezuela. Against the aesthetics of waste and the logic of neocolonial dispossession, he countered with the ethics of care and the sacredness of everyday life. His compositions served as a mechanism for preserving historical memory: he warned against the collective amnesia regarding the communal way of life driven by the discourse of developmental modernity; he championed food sovereignty in the face of dependence on the globalizing market; he dignified rural labor in the face of urban prejudice, revealing the profound ecological philosophy inherent in popular knowledge. But, moreover, his profound poetic work demonstrates that true national sovereignty is more than just the defense of natural resources or borders. It requires the preservation of the collective soul, the dignity of the living word, and the self-determination of the people’s power.

Luis Mariano Rivera’s life journey teaches us that decolonization is not achieved solely through theoretical confrontation or bellicose rhetoric, but above all through an organic connection to the land and the community. By recognizing himself through his own voice, he prevented imperialist corporations and the oil industry’s maelstrom from erasing the humanity of his surroundings. His music endures as an indestructible testament to cultural sovereignty: living proof that a people who remember their roots, cultivate their land, and tell their own stories become resilient in the face of modern oppressions and invincible against any attempt at external domination.

Fabiola José is a Venezuelan singer. She has performed in countries across South America, Africa, Europe, and Asia. Her singles and albums are available on all digital platforms. She hosted and produced “Cantante y Sonante” for Radio Nacional de Venezuela. In 2018–2019, she created a series of videos for social media, published on her YouTube channel #HechoEnCasa. She holds a bachelor’s degree in Music from IUDEM, Caracas (2005); specialized under Maestro Tom Krause in Spain (2007); and an M.A. in Arts and Cultures of the South from UNEARTE, Venezuela (2020).

Fidel Barbarito is a Venezuelan musician and researcher, with a bachelor’s and master’s degrees in music and history, respectively. He teaches in the undergraduate and graduate programs at the National Experimental University of the Arts (UNEARTE). Together with Fabiola José, he promotes several musical projects aimed at disseminating traditional repertoires, integrating them with contemporary compositions inspired by these sounds. Joropo llanero. Parranda de reexistencia is one of his published essays.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

An air strike on a fuel market near Chad’s border with Sudan killed 12 and injured seven, according to officials.

An air strike near Chad’s border with Sudan has killed at least 12 people, with Chad accusing the Sudanese army of launching it.

Addressing Thursday’s strike, a Chadian security source said it “targeted a fuel market where the RSF [Rapid Support Forces] refuel. The strike killed 12 people and wounded seven”, AFP news agency reported about the attack on the paramilitary group.

Chad’s accusation comes against the backdrop of a civil war between Sudan’s army and the RSF which has lasted over three years and displaced millions of people.

Previously, Chad said that Sudan was responsible for an air strike that hit a military convoy in its territory last week. Chad’s army said the strikes took place more than 100km (62 miles) inside its territory in the eastern Ennedi region, and that there were no Chadian casualties.

In response to threats posed by drones, Chad had raised its alert level in the area to its highest point, according to a security source. The country deployed about 100 armoured vehicles and signal-jamming trucks near eastern Tine, close to the Sudanese border, a local source told Reuters news agency.

On Thursday, Sudan said it was surprised by the allegations against its army “before any professional and independent investigation into the circumstances of the incident”.

Sudan’s Foreign Ministry said its forces “are carrying out their constitutional duty to protect Sudan’s sovereignty, security and safety and to face any threats it faces, while respecting the sovereignty of its neighbours and without targeting their territory”.

The US embassy in Khartoum also accused the Sudanese army of launching the recent strikes on Chad, condemning them on Thursday.

The Sudanese army has previously accused Chad of being aligned with the RSF. Meanwhile, nearly one million displaced Sudanese people have fled to Chad, where they have been facing a water crisis.

NASA is starting to explore options to fill the gaps that will be left by the eventual retirement of its iconic T-38 Talons. Since the 1960s, NASA has been using the jets to support astronaut training and as chase planes. However, the Talons are aging, supportability is already a problem, and challenges to sustain them further are expected to grow as the U.S. Air Force replaces its T-38 fleet with new T-7A Red Hawks.

The Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas, put out a contracting notice today seeking information about potential T-38 successors. NASA currently has 25 Talons in its inventory, according to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) online database.

“NASA JSC is conducting market research to obtain industry information regarding availability, capability, schedule, sustainment models, and cost efficacy for modern high-performance jet aircraft that could be used in evaluation and an evaluation program for supporting NASA’s astronaut SFRT [Spaceflight Readiness Training] requirements,” the notice explains. “NASA has operated the T-38N fleet in support of astronaut SFRT for several decades. With the U.S. Air Force planning to retire the T‑38 fleet in the 2030-2035 timeframe, NASA is evaluating options to transition to a more modern high-performance aircraft.”

The T-38N variant is specific to NASA and distinct from the T-38A/B/C variants the Air Force currently operates. The U.S. Naval Test Pilot School also has a handful of T-38Cs. Both the N and C variants are based on the original T-38A, which first entered Air Force service in 1961. The Air Force bailed the first Talons to NASA three years later.

The N models have received various upgrades over the years, including the integration of new modern ‘glass cockpits’ with digital displays starting in the 1990s. As of 2011, compared to contemporary C variants, “the T-38N aircraft includes differences in communications and navigation, such as the addition of weather radar, a data link weather system, the terrain avoidance and warning system, the terminal collision avoidance system, GPS with localizer performance and vertical guidance approach capability, and redesigned electrical, inlet, ejector nozzle, and flight management systems,” according to a report from the National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

NASA T-38 Jets In Flight – Cockpit View Captured by Astronaut | Video

Now, “NASA is seeking information on existing, production, or near-production high-performance jet aircraft capable of supporting SFRT,” per today’s contracting notice from the JSC. “NASA is not restricting industry responses to a specific performance class or aircraft design heritage.”

The notice does provide the following list of desired characteristics:

• “High reliability with established maintenance documentation”
• “Self-starting engine capability”
• “Performance comparable to a modern jet trainer/light fighter aircraft”
• “Capability to support dynamic maneuvering, formation flying, and cross-country navigation”
• “Dual-seat, dual-control configuration (tandem or side-by-side)”
• “Modern avionics compatible with instrument flight operations”
• “Aircraft capable of being single-pilot qualified from either seat is highly desired”

“Prior to any fleet transition, NASA seeks to conduct a limited-scope evaluation program using a small number of modern aircraft,” the notice adds. “This evaluation program is not a full fleet buy or replacement. It is intended to operate a small number of aircraft within JSC’s existing operational framework to assess compatibility, logistics, cost efficacy, and training impact.”

Furthermore, “NASA anticipates evaluating a small number of aircraft over a multi-year period,” it continues. “NASA requests information on potential procurement options such as lease, lease-to-own, barter, or other arrangements due to limited upfront procurement funding.”

NASA is looking to be solely responsible for flight operations of the jets, but is expecting contractors to handle maintenance, whether the aircraft are government-owned or not.

The contracting notice does also say that “NASA is open to operating the aircraft under reasonable flight hour limits, maneuver restrictions, or operational envelopes consistent with contractor recommendations.”

Just what kind of limits and restrictions NASA might be willing to accept is unclear. The entire reason for operating the T-38s now is to offer a high-performance platform with a good degree of maneuverability to support the SRFT requirements. These are attributes that are also valuable when flying as a chase plane and otherwise supporting flight research and test activities.

NASA certainly seems to be willing to consider a wide range of potential operations, both in terms of aircraft and operating schemes. When Boeing won the Air Force’s T-X competition to replace the T-38 with what became the T-7A, TWZ noted the possibility that other Talon operators, including NASA, could follow suit.

There are a wide variety of other jet trainers available on the open market. This includes Korea Aerospace Industries’ (KAI) T-50, a design capable of supersonic flight that has been offered on the U.S. market before through a partnership with Lockheed Martin. A version of the T-50 was one of the losing entrants in the Air Force’s T-X competition.

There are several private companies that operate relevant jet trainer types to provide flight training and ‘red air’ aggressor services, too. NASA’s current administrator, Jared Isaacman, founded one of those companies, Draken International, making him once the owner of the world’s largest private air force. He has also personally bought various demilitarized fighters and jet trainers over the years. During this year’s July 4th celebrations in Washington, D.C., he somewhat controversially flew over the nation’s capital in one of the F-5 Tiger II jets that he owns.

With expectations that funding for new jet trainers will be limited, at least initially, NASA could well seek to enter into some kind of new arrangement with the Air Force (or another branch of the U.S. military) just like it did in the 1960s. It’s also worth noting here that the T-7A program continues to suffer significant delays due to technical issues and other factors. This has led the Air Force to repeatedly push back its own T-38 replacement timeline. The service’s original goal was to reach initial operational capability with the Red Hawk in October of last year, but it is now targeting August 2027 to achieve that milestone. A full-rate production decision is now not expected to come until January 2029. So, NASA actually getting any T-7s anytime before the USAF gets all the jets in badly needs is questionable.

There are also no indications that NASA’s SFRT requirements will slow in the meantime, either. If anything, these training demands could grow as work continues toward the resumption of crewed missions to the Moon under the Artemis program. The Artemis IV mission, currently scheduled for 2028, is set to be the first time astronauts have set foot on the lunar surface since Apollo 17 in 1972.

From the wording of today’s contracting notice from JSC, NASA is still some years away from making a final decision on what will come after the T-38N, but the hunt is now on.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The venue’s board of directors, stacked with supporters of the president, voted to add his name again despite past ruling.

A United States judge has questioned why the Kennedy Center is rushing to restore President Donald Trump’s name to the performing arts venue after it was ordered removed in a previous ruling.

US District Court Judge Christopher Cooper asked Trump administration lawyer Bradley Mayers on Thursday why the venue has said it must begin adding the president’s name back to the building by September 8.

“What’s magic about that date?” Cooper asked.

Mayers stated that the date is aligned with a vote by the centre’s board — composed of members selected by Trump, who then installed him as the head — earlier this month.

“That’s all fine and good,” Cooper responded. “What does that have to do with what Congress intended in these statutes? That’s really what’s before me.”

The legal saga around Trump’s effort to inscribe his name on the building of the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC, is one of several examples of the president’s desire to reshape the landscape of the national capital.

In addition to changes to the performing arts centre, Trump has demolished the East Wing of the White House and sought to replace it with an enormous ballroom.

He also has pushed forward with plans for an enormous triumphal arch to be erected in a traffic circle not far from the historic Arlington National Cemetery.

The president and his allies have faced numerous legal challenges to those efforts, with critics arguing that the projects require congressional approval.

Previously, in May, Cooper found that the addition of Trump’s name to the building was illegal and that Congress alone could rebrand the building.

He also struck down an attempt to close the building for two years. The board had described the effort as necessary to maintain the building, but critics saw the closure as retaliation against the backlash to the renaming effort.

Earlier this month, however, the Trump-aligned board renewed the push to add his name back to the facade, by adding the inscription, “Restored and Renovated By President Donald J Trump”.

The vote also called for the plaza in front of the venue to also be renamed after Trump.

On Tuesday, administration officials threatened to demolish the Kennedy Centre if the renovations do not go through. They warned the performing arts centre would become “decrepit” without the board’s interventions.

In Thursday’s hearing, however, Cooper rejected the idea that court orders were standing in the way of any repairs.

“No one is stopping the center from doing any necessary repairs,” Cooper said. “The notion that continued judicial involvement is standing in the way of accomplishing necessary repairs is not quite fair.”

The lawsuit against the board’s changes to the Kennedy Center was brought by Representative Joyce Beatty, a Kennedy Center trustee who represents the state of Ohio in Congress.

Lawyers for Beatty said on Thursday that they view the board’s recent actions “as outright defiance” against the court.

The Kennedy Center was named by Congress as a living memorial to John F Kennedy, the 35th US president who helped fundraise for its establishment. He was assassinated in 1963. Under the law, no other national memorial to Kennedy is allowed in Washington, DC.

Russia used a longer-range Iskander ballistic missile for the first time in an attack on Kyiv, Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence Directorate (GUR) said on Thursday. Missiles fired from deeper inside Russia would present additional challenges to Ukraine’s new campaign to attack the systems before they launch.

“In one of the combined missile strikes on the capital this summer, the enemy first used the updated 9M723-2 ballistic missiles, also known by the code name ‘Iskander-1000,’” GUR stated. “The updated missile, due to the increased engine and, accordingly, the increased launcher, is capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 550 km (about 341 miles).”

According to GUR, the range of the previous Iskander variant, the 9M723-1, is 390 km, or about 242 miles.

In its statement about the new Iskander, GUR included photos of what appear to be recovered components of the weapon. However, the agency did not provide any specifics about what the components were, where they were found or when.

While GUR states that the new Iskander short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) was only recently fired at Ukraine, unconfirmed reports emerged in January that this weapon may have been introduced back then. Reports also began to appear last year that Russia was poised to start mass-producing a new version of the Iskander SRBM, with a range of about 600 miles and improved accuracy. Talk of the development of this new missile emerged after the termination by the United States of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 2019. This had previously prohibited the Soviet Union (later Russia) and the United States from fielding any ground-launched conventional or nuclear-capable missile of any type that can hit targets between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (310 and 3,420 miles) away. Russia formally abandoned the treaty a short while after the U.S pulled out.

We have reached out to GUR for details.

A Telegram channel operated by Russian paratroopers lauded the development.

“Now, rearward facilities that were previously considered relatively safe are within range,” gloated the Paratrooper’s Diary. “The missile retains its ballistic trajectory, which means it can maneuver throughout its flight path, making interception more difficult for air defense systems.”

“According to preliminary data, the increase in the fuel compartment may have allowed for adjustments to the warhead mass, but the missile is still capable of carrying both cluster and high-explosive warheads with increased power,” the paratroopers continued. “The deployment of the ‘Iskander-1000’ indicates that the Russian defense industry is not only replenishing stockpiles but also scaling up a major modernization of missile weaponry.”

Reducing the size of the warhead and increasing fuel storage is a well proven way of extended the range of certain missiles without drastically chaining its outer mold line. Other improvements, such as new motors and guidance capabilities can also help in this regard.

Russia produces dozens of these weapons a month, noted missile expert Fabian Hoffmann.

“Recently, Ukrainian intelligence provided an updated estimate of Russian missile production capacity, stating that Russia produces around 60 9M723 ballistic missiles per month,” he pointed out in May.

“Based on recent employment trends, this figure is not entirely implausible (at least compared to when this number was first mentioned in 2024), though it should be treated as an upper-bound estimate,” Hoffmann added. “More realistically, Russia’s combined 9M723 and Kh-47M2 production capacity in mid-2026 may be between 600 and 800 units annually, with monthly production potentially fluctuating significantly depending on the availability of internationally sourced components. This would allow Russia to sustain an average employment rate of roughly 50 to 70 monthly ballistic missile strikes against Ukraine, with greater peaks possible if part of the production is stockpiled in a given month.”

To bolster its stocks of short-range ballistic missiles, Russia is receiving more KN-23 and KN-24 missiles from North Korea, which are loosely akin to the Iskander-M. Russia has also asked Pyongyang for an additional tranche of KN-30 missiles, also known as the Hwasong-11C, according to a separate GUR report issued today.

“The new KN-30 ballistic missiles, which are three times more powerful than the KN-23/24, were requested by Moscow from Pyongyang, but so far, the transfer of these missiles from North Korea to Russia has not been recorded,” GUR added.

The KN-30 is an enlarged derivative of the original Hwasong-11 and designed to carry larger warheads. North Korea has previously said it has tested subvariants of the Da/C type with 2.5-ton and 4.5-ton conventional high-explosive warheads, and that it can also be fitted with a nuclear warhead.

Ukraine has had to absorb a lot of damage because it ran out of Patriots months ago. However, President Volodymyr Zelensky recently said an unspecified number of additional interceptors would be delivered. Evidence has also emerged that a new supply of Patriots is being used against Russian missiles, including Iskanders. Still, the concern stands because of the precarious nature of Ukraine’s interceptor supply and Russia’s ability to make new and improved missiles.

As we noted earlier in this story, Ukraine has a new campaign, recently announced by Zelensky, to go after Russia’s ballistic missiles prior to launching to offset a dearth of interceptors. However, Russia’s ability to launch missiles another 100 or so miles further away from Ukraine will make them harder to find and hit.

“When our anti-ballistic missile stocks are at a minimum, there is another tactic,” Zelensky commented. “It is more difficult, and we developed it. It is hunting their nearby positions from which ballistic missiles are launched.”

Zelensky offered no details about how the campaign would be carried out. However, “Ukraine has already targeted Russian ballistic missile infrastructure in several operations this year in Crimea and Rostov, Russia, with drones, Euromaidan Press reported.

❗️Zelensky says Ukrainian forces struck an Iskander-M missile launcher on Russian territory near Ukraine’s border. He called it another success and said operational details cannot be disclosed because of the mission’s sensitivity, but confirmed the launcher was hit. #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/Ao0ooa8JYt

— NOELREPORTS 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 (@NOELreports) August 23, 2026

It is always preferable to shoot the archer not the arrow, but doing so reliably is very challenging as the Iranians proved again in Epic Fury. Despite a concerted campaign by the U.S. and Israel to go after Iranian missile launchers, the Islamic Republic was still able to fire off numerous volleys, creating a swath of destruction across the region.

For Ukraine, this kind of effort would have to mirror its mid-range strike campaign against Russian logistics using longer-range drones. Ukrainians told us they are hitting targets up to 250 km away in the occupied territories. However, that’s been aided in no small measure by the use of Space X Starlink systems.

Carrying out a similar campaign in Russia would be challenging, because Space X owner Elon Musk is reluctant to allow their use deep inside Russia. As we previously noted, Ukraine is asking Musk for permission to “use Starlink-equipped drones against ballistic missile launchers up to 200km inside Russia,” the Financial Times reported last week.

However, Zelensky recently said Musk ultimately refused to grant that permission.

GUR is calling for increased efforts to cut off the supply of foreign assistance Russia receives.

“To counter the aggressor’s plans, it is crucial to consolidate efforts aimed at limiting Russia’s program for the development, production, and modernization of ballistic weapons,” the directorate proffered.

The Ukrainian intelligence information about the new Iskander was part of a report on the amount of foreign components found on these missiles. The information is published on the directorate’s War & Sanctions portal, which identifies foreign assistance to Russia’s weapons programs.

“Only a quarter of the 140 components published today are manufactured by Russian enterprises,” GUR stated.

Almost half – 63 – were manufactured by American firms, GUR explained. The Iskanders also contained components from Switzerland, Belarus, Germany, Taiwan and China.

“In one of the most important components of the missile guidance system — the flight information processing unit obtained from the laser gyroscope — only 5 out of 43 components are manufactured in the Russian Federation,” GUR added. 

That foreign components would be found in Russian weapons is neither surprising nor new. TWZ has been chronicling this since the start of the war. These parts have been found in everything from helicopters to radars to cruise missiles. There was even a decoy drone found to be made completely of Chinese components.

These parts all found their way into Russian weapons despite international sanctions designed to prevent that from happening.

Russia isn’t the only country whose weapons – reliant on foreign components – have been used in attacks on Ukraine. A short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) produced by North Korea and used against Ukraine by Russia in 2024 relied on more than 290 foreign-sourced components, many of them originating from U.S. manufacturers. This is the alarming result of a study by Conflict Armament Research (CAR), a U.K.-based investigative organization.

China is also providing engines for Russia’s drones, including its jet-powered variants.

All this news about Russian missile supplies comes as President Vladimir Putin has threatened to escalate attacks on Ukraine over its strikes on Russian infrastructure and the faltering peace process. The Russian leader is also reportedly again mulling using tactical nuclear weapons to stop these attacks. That would be a word-changing escalation and TWZ cannot independently confirm those claims.

Though he hasn’t pulled the trigger on expanding attacks yet, Putin is clearly building the means to do so if he chooses.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

US trade officials downplay French language dispute, calling claims fabricated.

Canada’s top trade negotiator with the United States, Dominic LeBlanc, says he “welcomes” a shift in the US position on “discoverability”, “labelling” and “measures to promote French language and Canadian culture” not being subject to US tariffs.

LeBlanc praised the move in a post on Thursday on X and added that Canada is looking “forward to further constructive U.S. clarifications on their other positions, which would create the possibility of a mutually beneficial trade agreement”.

Al Jazeera reached out to the White House for comment, but it pointed to an interview with US Trade Representative Jamison Greer on the Canadian broadcaster CBC in which Greer said French language discoverability on streaming services “is not something where we push hard or condition or red-line”.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick echoed those comments at a news conference on Thursday outside the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC.

“Do I care about how the Quebecois speak? I mean, what could matter less to America? We don’t care. So the fact is we never brought those words up. This is manufactured, and that’s why the president put out a [post on Truth Social] saying it was a complete lie, right? It was manufactured,” Lutnick told reporters.

The comments come on the heels of tit-for-tat tariffs between Washington and Ottawa.

Canada announced retaliatory tariffs on roughly $20bn of US goods ranging from 15 to 50 percent that will go into effect on September 8. Those levies were in response to 50 percent tariffs announced by Washington on Canadian goods as negotiations collapsed over the weekend.

US President Donald Trump ramped up his rhetoric against Canada in recent days, including signing an executive order on Thursday to rename Lake Ontario, the easternmost of the five Great Lakes, which borders Ontario, to Lake America.

On Saturday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said US officials made “threats to the French language” as well as threats to the culture of Canada and Quebec specifically.

Canada’s retaliatory tariffs are to hit hundreds of consumer products, including ice skates, dishwashers and construction materials. However, on Wednesday, Ottawa scaled back some tariffs, including those on fish and other seafood products.

“Based on feedback, we have made select adjustments to protect against economic harms, including removing seafood and fish products from our list of counter-tariffs,” Canada’s Department of Finance said in a post on X.

“We are continually working with Canadian industries to assess the effectiveness of these measures, with a primary focus on industries that have been targeted by US tariffs.”

Order declares a national emergency over an ‘unusual and extraordinary foreign threat’ to the grid.

United States President Donald Trump has declared a national emergency over what his administration describes as security risks linked to foreign-made equipment used in the US electricity grid.

Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday that restricts the purchase and installation of certain foreign-produced equipment used in the bulk-power system.

The order cited an “unusual and extraordinary foreign threat” from foreign-made systems, saying they could create vulnerabilities for US national security.

The directive targets certain bulk-power system equipment as well as related software and digital capabilities that the Trump administration said could create cybersecurity or operational risks.

The Department of Energy has 120 days to publish formal rules implementing the policy. In the meantime, experts are watching utility companies, which face the enormous task of compiling an inventory list of equipment flagged by the Trump administration.

“Blocking new purchases is the easy part. Knowing what’s already running is where the real work starts,” John Bruggeman, virtual chief information security officer of the telecommunications company CBTS, told Al Jazeera. “Utilities running foreign-sourced grid equipment … have a live compliance clock starting today.”

The move is the latest effort by the White House to address potential foreign security threats against the grid. Last year, US experts reported finding undisclosed communication devices in some Chinese solar power inverters. In July, the Federal Communications Commission banned all new foreign-made power inverters designed with remote communication capabilities and operating within the electric utility grid.

Still, the order does not prohibit all foreign-made equipment used in the US electricity system. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright has been directed to establish conditions for the continued use and operation of affected equipment.

“The executive order establishes the authority to act,” Michael Centrella at the cybersecurity company SecurityScorecard, told Al Jazeera. “The difficult next step will be giving operators scalable, independent visibility into which assets and vendor relationships present the greatest risk without disrupting the reliability of the power system.”

Europe is entering an interesting, and potentially highly consequential, period in the development of beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air weapons. While the public emergence of new U.S. weapons in this class has unsurprisingly grabbed the headlines in recent months, Europe is meanwhile working on several projects that ultimately seek to field its next generation of far-reaching air-to-air missiles.

As in the United States, the immediate catalyst is the rapid evolution of Chinese air-to-air missiles, particularly the PL-15 and newer systems that are emerging around it. The India-Pakistan air combat experience from last year has brought the issue into sharper focus, demonstrating the operational consequences of underestimating an opponent’s long-range air-to-air capabilities. However, while Pakistan said its Chinese-made fighters and missiles shot down several Indian aircraft, the precise circumstances, numbers, and tactics involved remain the subject of competing claims and outside analysis.

For Europe, the MBDA Meteor is currently the state of the art in terms of BVR air-to-air missiles, and its unique set of capabilites is something we have discussed in depth in the past. The question is increasingly not simply how to improve the Meteor, but what should come after it, and what kind of weapons architecture (or ‘kill chain’) will be needed for the next generation of crewed and uncrewed combat aircraft and their weapons.

One of the most intriguing current developments is France’s Comet program, which appears to be led by the French side of the pan-European MBDA consortium. Very little is publicly known about the weapon, and its exact specifications remain unclear. It nevertheless appears to represent an effort to provide a significant step beyond the current MICA family, offering greater range and speed. If the apparent timeline of around 2030 is correct, Comet could be viewed as a relatively near-term response to an increasingly demanding threat environment.

Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) research institute in London, told TWZ that Comet looks like “a response to the exchanges between the Pakistanis and the Indians, where, on day one, the Indians underestimated how aggressive the Pakistanis were going to be, particularly with PL-15. It seems coincidental at the very least that this kind of thing has just popped up onto the horizon.”

That would distinguish Comet from the U.K.’s Future Air Superiority Effectors, or FASE, program which appears to be associated much more closely with the longer-term requirements of the U.K.’s Future Combat Air System and GCAP/Tempest.

Talking to TWZ, Justin Bronk, a research fellow for airpower at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), explained that FASE “is likely aimed at providing significantly better combat capabilities by the early-mid 2030s than a mid-life upgrade of the Meteor missile would be able to offer within the bounds of its basic layout and size.”

Creating an interesting overlap with FASE and Comet is a joint Franco-British study looking at what comes after Meteor. In April, the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding launching the 12-month effort that will assess future air-combat threats and potential next-generation missile concepts. The study is intended to identify the technologies required for a successor weapon and establish a development roadmap. While the two countries are at least formally examining the same post-Meteor problem, their longer-term combat air priorities appear to be diverging.

Beyond Meteor

Meteor remains one of Europe’s most capable air-to-air weapons. Its ramjet propulsion system gives it an important advantage over conventional solid-rocket missiles by allowing it to retain propulsion and energy much further into an engagement.

However, the threat environment that Meteor was designed against is changing. Meteor’s requirements were established in an environment dominated by the Soviet/Russian air-to-air missile threat. Today’s planning increasingly has to account for Chinese weapons such as the PL-15 and newer systems that may combine very long range with substantially greater speed.

“Since the Meteor is still more than a match for current Russian air-to-air missiles in air-to-air engagements, it is likely that the capability goals for the FASE program will use far more capable Chinese air-to-air missiles, aircraft, and sensors as pacing threats,” Bronk ​​​​added.

That raises the uncomfortable question of what happens when both sides can launch extremely capable BVR weapons against each other?

Simply put, higher speed now matters more, because it reduces the target’s reaction time and can make the terminal engagement substantially more demanding. One of Meteor’s advantages is the considerable energy it retains when it reaches the terminal phase, but the tradeoff is a slower average speed across the entirety of its flight envelope.

Meteor

Barrie explained: “Meteor’s fly-out speed is somewhere between Mach 3.5 and somewhere below Mach 4. If you launch a PL-15 off a J-20, which is doing Mach 2, that weapon probably stays above Mach 5 for an awfully long time, which is one of the issues. It’s that risk of a mutual kill. Obviously, if the weapon against the J-20 is coming out at Mach 3.5 to Mach 4, then you have a bit an issue there.”

At the same time, a missile’s effectiveness depends on many other factors, including launch conditions, flight profile, midcourse guidance, seeker performance, electronic warfare environment, and target maneuvering.

However, the nature of the threat may push the next generation of European weapons toward a combination of greater range, substantially higher speed and greater terminal energy rather than simply another incremental improvement to Meteor. Indeed, the United Kingdom has dropped its plans for a Meteor mid-life upgrade, presumably to focus its efforts on an altogether more ambitious and capable successor, or successors.

Does the next weapon need a ramjet?

The Meteor was designed around a ramjet motor, especially since it was expected to face a ramjet version of the Russian R-77 (AA-12 Adder) missile. This was never fielded, and, as far as we know, China doesn’t have a weapon in this class either. A Meteor successor therefore won’t necessarily use the same kind of propulsion.

Meteor demonstrated the advantages of air-breathing propulsion, but there are trade-offs involved in using a ramjet or another air-breathing system. Achieving very high speeds while maintaining useful range and maneuverability can become increasingly difficult, and propulsion complexity adds cost and potentially consumes valuable internal volume.

The performance being attributed in open sources to Chinese solid-propellant weapons like the PL-15 suggests that another approach is possible.

Barrie would not be surprised if the ramjet is dropped. “The issue with a ramjet is it’s not impossible to get above Mach 5, but it’s difficult, and there are lots of compromises you probably have to make … I wonder if they may just look at energetic solids.”

A future European missile could therefore use a substantially larger solid-propellant motor, potentially coupled with a different boost and sustain architecture, to achieve the required combination of speed and range. Using more than one stage, or a multi-pulse solid rocket motor could be other solutions to the issue.

The size problem

Perhaps the biggest opportunity for a new European BVR weapon comes from the aircraft that will carry it.

Meteor was developed within the physical constraints imposed by existing fighter aircraft and their weapons-carriage arrangements, including internal carriage in the F-35. A future combat aircraft such as Tempest is expected to have significantly greater internal volume available for weapons.

“One of the drivers for Tempest is internal carriage, obviously, but lots of it,” Barrie continued. “A big main bay, and then probably sizeable side bays as well. That lets you carry a considerably larger weapon mass internally than an F-35. If you look at size of the platform in terms of what they’ve released, it’s a big aircraft, and one would assume it has a very significant internal weapons bay.”

A larger missile can carry more propellant, potentially support a more powerful propulsion system, accommodate a larger or more capable seeker, and provide additional volume for electronics and other subsystems.

As we have explained in the past:

There are different ways of increasing the range of an air-to-air missile, but this process is always easier if the weapon can be made larger. Bigger dimensions can translate to a bigger engine, more fuel, multi-stage rocket motors, and air-breathing engines, like the ramjet used in the Meteor. Other range-extending options that the United States has examined include throttleable “multi-pulse solid rocket motors” and more exotic “propellants, grain configurations, cases, and liners,” all of which would also be able to ensure greater range — as well as higher speed — compared to existing weapons.

The result could be a weapon that is considerably larger than Meteor but still fully compatible with the aircraft for which it was designed.

This realuty, and the use of the plural effectors in the U.K.’s FASE terminology raises the possibility that the future European BVR requirement may not be for one missile, but for a family of weapons — at least as far as the British are concerned.

Why “effectors” may matter

If FASE ultimately refers to multiple effectors rather than a single missile, that could point to the broader direction of future air combat, involving crewed aircraft as well as various uncrewed wingmen.

Tempest is expected to operate as a so-called quarterback, supported by a number of uncrewed combat aircraft, remote carriers, or other systems operating considerably farther forward. Those uncrewed systems will have different size, payload and weapons-carriage constraints from the crewed aircraft.

This means that not every platform will need the same BVR weapon, or even be able to accommodate them, when it comes to the larger missiles.

Instead, a future force might require something resembling a family:

• A large, long-range, high-speed weapon for the crewed Tempest aircraft, optimized for the highest-end air-superiority engagements.
• A medium-sized weapon suitable for existing fighters and potentially future aircraft with more constrained weapons carriage.
• A smaller weapon optimized for CCAs or other uncrewed systems where internal bay dimensions, payload and cost are more restrictive.

A modular missile could possibly cover two of these categories at once. More broadly, these weapons could share technologies without necessarily being identical missiles. Common seekers, electronics, datalinks, software, guidance technologies or other subsystems could potentially be reused across the family.

The result would be a fundamentally different approach from simply developing a single Meteor replacement.

The seeker may be as important as the motor

The front end of a future European BVR weapon is another area where significant change is likely.

An active electronically scanned array (AESA) seeker would seem a logical baseline for a next-generation weapon. The United Kingdom’s previous work with Japan on the Joint New Air-to-Air Missile program, or JNAAM effort was particularly interesting in this regard, given Japan’s experience with active electronically scanned air-to-air seekers.

A future weapon could also incorporate a passive radio-frequency capability alongside its active radar. That would provide another means of detecting or tracking emitting targets and could increase the weapon’s resilience in a heavily contested electromagnetic environment.

For its PL-17 ultra-long-range air-to-air missile, China appears to have chosen a combination of active and passive seekers, although, as Barrie points out, it also appears to have been designed around a very specific target set: E-7 Wedgetail, E-2 Hawkeye, other airborne early warning and control platforms, and support assets, like tankers and strategic electronic surveillance and attack aircraft.

Whether such a capability is worth the additional cost and complexity is another question. A highly sophisticated multimode missile will inevitably be expensive, however, the same technologies could potentially provide utility against a broader range of targets than conventional fighter-on-fighter engagements. An air-to-surface capability should also not be ruled out, with a passive seeker potentially bestowing an anti-radiation missile (ARM) capability on the weapon.

Another passive seeker alternative could be based on an imaging infrared (IIR) sensor. This could provide an interesting complement to an active-radar seeker, making use of the same kind of two-way datalinked midcourse guidance system already included in Meteor. It could be esepcially relevant for engaging small or low-signature (stealthy) targets and in a heavily contested electromagnetic environment.

The weapon is becoming part of the network

Perhaps the biggest change will be the extent to which future BVR missiles exploit the wider kill chain, becoming much more than weapons guided by the aircraft that launches them.

The key requirement is for the missile to be track-source agnostic. This means a future long-range air-to-air missile could receive targeting information from a CCA, an airborne early warning aircraft, another fighter, a naval platform, or potentially space-based sensors.

For example, with Tempest operating alongside forward-deployed CCAs, the sensor that initially detects a target could be the CCA. The launching aircraft could then receive the track, launch a weapon, and continue receiving updates from multiple platforms.

Alternatively, a CCA could launch the weapon using targeting information generated by the crewed aircraft or another sensor elsewhere in the force, provided it is on the network.

Two-way datalinks, midcourse guidance, electronic warfare resilience, and the ability to accept high-quality third-party targeting information become central requirements. Some of this functionality is available, to varying extents, on some current air-to-air missiles, but it will be even more important as air combat becomes increasingly reliant on distributed sensor networks and crewed/uncrewed aircraft teaming.

If it can rely on offboard sensors, the missile’s engagement range no longer needs to be constrained by the organic sensor range of the launching fighter. Faced increasingly by the realities of an anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) environment, this could enable weapons that fly far beyond what the launch platform could independently detect and engage. The A2/AD threat is alreayd pushing research into much farther-reaching air defese missiles, potentially with a range of up to 1,000 miles.

This also opens the door to more exotic propulsion concepts, including multi-stage weapons designed to combine very high-speed boost with a separate sustain or terminal stage.

The next generation of long-range air-to-air missile may therefore be defined as much by the kill chain they plug into as by the architecture and performance of the missile itself.

What happens to Meteor?

Meteor is one of Europe’s strongest examples of a successful multinational defense program. Six European nations participated in its development, and the program eventually produced a weapon that is widely regarded as a highly capable system.

Now, however, the countries that developed Meteor do not necessarily have identical requirements for the next generation.

The United Kingdom is moving toward GCAP/Tempest with Japan and Italy. Its future combat air requirements will increasingly be shaped by that program and by the threat assessment driving it.

The United Kingdom appears to want a very large, very high-performance weapon optimized for Tempest and the future air-superiority mission, especially in the Indo-Pacific region. Japan likely needs very much the same.

Meanwhile, other Meteor users may prioritize a weapon that can be integrated onto existing fighters and remain affordable in larger numbers.

France’s Comet effort could meet that requirement, since it appears to be a comparatively rapid response to the emerging threat. With that in mind, France could eventually find itself with a near-term weapon, a future clean-sheet requirement, and a continuing relationship with the Meteor family, all while pursuing its own future combat air requirements.

Overall, it is far from clear whether the Meteor consortium will survive for another generation, at least in its current form.

Could Japan become part of the answer?

Given that it’s a partner in GCAP/Tempest, and based on its previous air-to-air missile studies with the British, Japan is particularly interesting in this context.

Japan faces a threat environment in which long-range air combat is of obvious importance, and Japan has already demonstrated advanced capabilities in active electronically scanned air-to-air seekers. The Japanese-developed Mitsubishi AAM-4B became the first air-to-air missile to feature an AESA seeker.

Although earlier air-to-air missile cooperation between Japan and the United Kingdom did not evolve into an operational program, the two countries are now developing a combat aircraft together through GCAP.

With Britain and Japan designing the future combat aircraft together, they could eventually develop some of its principal weapons together as well, although Italy’s requirements are likely very different.

Thinking beyond the missile

Europe can almost certainly build a faster missile than Meteor, but there are plenty more questions about what kind of air combat system that missile — or missiles — will fit into.

A future BVR weapon will have to operate from multiple types of platforms (crewed and uncrewed), receive targeting data from offboard sensors, communicate with CCAs, function in a highly contested electromagnetic environment, engage maneuvering targets at extreme range, and retain enough energy to remain dangerous in the terminal phase.

Increasingly, it seems that, rather than a single weapon, a family of effectors will be the solution.

For the United Kingdom, FASE may become one of the most important programs to watch because it could reveal how Britain intends to bridge the gap between Meteor and the weapons of the GCAP/Tempest era. At this stage, FASE appears to be ‘for U.K. eyes only,’ although Japan and Italy would appear to be likely beneficiaries, due to their teaming on GCAP.

Elsewhere, Comet could provide an early indication of how France intends to respond to the emerging long-range missile threat while maintaining flexibility for a future system.

And for the wider Meteor consortium, it remains to be seen whether the program’s success can be carried forward into another multinational weapon, or whether the emergence of GCAP/Tempest and increasingly divergent national requirements marks the beginning of the end for the Meteor model.

Either way, the next generation of European BVR weapons is likely to be larger, faster, more networked, and more deeply integrated with the combat air system around it. At the same time, the need to create a family of effectors designed around a distributed force of crewed aircraft, CCAs, and offboard sensors will bring some formidable challenges.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Voting from home

California’s mail-in voting system has also become a particular target for Trump.

Voting by mail surged during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, California passed a law to automatically mail a ballot to every registered voter.

More than 80 percent of the state’s voters cast a mail-in ballot in 2024 alone.

Moreles, the Santa Clara registrar, said his county has an even higher rate. More than 90 percent of voters in his jurisdiction use mail-in ballots to vote.

His county processed more mail-in ballots in the last general election than the entire state of Texas did. While Texas accepted roughly 342,000 mail-in votes, Santa Clara County sent out more than a million.

That widespread use suggests that voters do not share Trump’s scepticism of the mail-in system, according to Moreles. “They like the accessibility of it. They must believe it’s secure as well,” he said.

But mail-in ballots can continue to trickle in after the election ends, causing vote tallies to fluctuate in the days and weeks after polling stations close. In California, all mailed ballots are valid so long as they are postmarked by election day, and must also be received no later than seven days after.

Trump has pointed to those long vote counts and shifting tallies as evidence of fraud.

Even some Democrats have pushed for the process to be faster. By law, elections must be certified within 30 days of the election. But Moreles argued that not rushing can have its virtues, too.

“For the folks who are living here and are used to it, it makes sense and, to a lot of people, is reassuring,” Moreles said. “Taking the time to get it right is something that intuitively makes sense to people.”

Still, on August 24, the Supreme Court opened the door to additional uncertainty surrounding mail-in ballots.

In a six-to-three ruling, the court’s conservative majority allowed the Trump administration to begin implementing a March executive order that would impose new restrictions on mail-in voting.

The order could impact both the design of mail-in ballots and who is eligible to receive one.

But state officials have questioned the feasibility of redesigning and reprinting ballots with so little time before the midterm elections. Early voting in some states starts as early as September.

Others have speculated about whether the legal wrangling with cause confusion or discourage voters who rely on mail-in ballots.

On Wednesday, California announced it was co-leading a group of 24 state attorneys general in filing a new lawsuit to see the executive order blocked.

“Donald Trump does not run elections. States do. And his latest attack on democracy is proof of how weak he has become,” the state’s Governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement accompanying the suit.

“California will continue to lead the way in defending democracy — using every tool at our disposal and every minute in our day. This perilous moment in history demands no less from us.”

A second court order pausing part of Trump’s plan for mail-in ballots remains in effect.

Meta has agreed to a landmark $18bn settlement in a major US federal case accusing it of endangering children, the terms of which will force the social media giant to introduce new safety features to platforms including Instagram and Facebook.

The social media giant has faced an avalanche of legal cases against it this year, mostly arguing that it deliberately designed its platforms to be addictive and that they have harmed children. It has already lost two of these and been forced to pay damages.

Under the agreement, child users under the age of 18 will see a slew of changes to their Facebook and Instagram accounts, ranging from night curfews to two-hour usage limits, which Meta must implement as part of the settlement reached on Wednesday with 48 US states.

The agreement could have a global ripple effect as several countries around the world are already taking regulatory action against Meta and other social media companies over their platforms.

So, what is in the settlement Meta has reached in the United States, and how will Instagram and Facebook change for users?

What was the lawsuit about?

Twenty-nine US states sued Meta, accusing it of designing its platforms in ways that “encourage addictive behaviour, fail to verify users’ ages, encourage adolescents to bypass parental controls, and inadequately safeguard against harmful content and/or intentionally amplify harmful and exploitative content”, according to filings at the Court of Appeal in California.

The first four of the states that originally filed their federal lawsuit against Meta in 2023 – California, Kentucky, Colorado and New Jersey – began their cases in a California federal trial last week.

The attorneys general bringing the case also asked the court to order that changes be made to Meta’s platforms to protect young social media users. In particular, they demanded that Meta introduce a process of parental verification for teenage users; change its “dopamine-manipulating” algorithms; remove image filters for users’ personal images; forbid the creation of multiple accounts; and end “disappearing” messages and posts.

The lawsuit also alleged Meta had violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting, ⁠retaining and using personal data from children under 13 without proper parental consent.

In February this year, Meta lost a multimillion-dollar case brought on similar grounds by a young woman referred to as KGM in Los Angeles, over platform features linked to addiction in younger users.

In March, a US jury ordered Meta to pay $375m for endangering children in a case brought by the state of New Mexico.

Last month, a judge in New Mexico also ordered Facebook and Instagram owner Meta to pay a further $567m in a second phase of the trial.

Meta denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle after evidence was heard that Meta knew its products harmed children’s mental health. The total payout – to be paid over 10 years – is a fraction of Meta’s 2025 revenue of $201bn.

The company, which was originally founded as Facebook in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, agreed to make maximum payments totalling $16.7bn to 47 US states as well as Washington, DC; Puerto Rico; American Samoa; and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Among those, California could receive a $2.2bn payout, while New York could receive $1.1bn. Texas reached a separate settlement worth more than $1bn. Some states will deposit funds they receive in general accounts, while others will earmark portions to address children’s mental health services.

The settlement does not require Meta to discontinue personalised recommendations or targeted advertising.

It also does not address some content researchers found particularly problematic, including posts that made Instagram users uncomfortable with their body image.

“Ensuring teens have a safe and productive experience on our platforms is an absolute imperative for Meta,” Meta said in a blog post. “We want to get this right for parents and teens.”

What changes will be seen on Instagram and Facebook?

Under the agreement, children under 18 using Meta platforms will be restricted to two hours’ use per day, with a night curfew in place from midnight to 6am. Meta will limit “social comparison” features by hiding likes and reactions to children’s accounts, and will ban “cosmetic procedure filters” that alter the appearance of a user’s image, as a default setting. These settings will only be able to be overruled by parental consent.

The company also agreed to disable the majority of push notifications from the platforms during school hours – 8am to 3pm – for teenage users.

It will also facilitate much closer parental supervision of social media accounts by giving designated adults the ability to more extensively monitor and change settings on a social media account.

Parents and guardians will be able to receive information about time spent on platform apps, and usernames of social connections and accounts sending messages to children.

Supervising parents will also receive daily notifications from Meta any time the teen account messages an adult account for the first time, as well as a link to the adult’s account. Parental accounts will also be notified any time the teen account searches for keywords related to suicide, self-harm or eating disorders.

Meta also agreed to improve the technology used to check children’s ages, using its own as well as third-party tools, with regular outside audits on how well this monitoring is working. This measure is particularly notable because Australia banned under-16s from using social media platforms in December last year. However, the Australian internet watchdog, eSafety, found in August this year that more than eight in 10 young Australian teens and preteens continue to use them – largely because age-check procedures are ineffective.

So far, Meta has only agreed to pay 70 percent of the settlement, or roughly $12.7bn, over the next 10 years. It will only pay the remaining amount, about $5bn, if its rivals – including Snapchat, TikTok and Alphabet-owned YouTube – adopt similar measures and agree to pay the same. It also said it would reduce time restrictions to one hour per day if other platforms do the same.

These changes would be phased over time. Once the court approves the settlement, non-personalised feeds would be introduced within four months; broader compliance measures within six months; and major age-assurance requirements within one year.

While these changes will apply to users in the US, it is unclear if Meta plans to introduce them worldwide. However, Meta is already under rising regulatory pressure in European Union countries and those elsewhere to implement similar changes.

How much difference will these changes make?

Critics and child safety advocates have acknowledged that this settlement has forced landmark changes by Meta, the world’s biggest social media company, which owns Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger, each of which has more than two to three billion monthly active users.

However, critics say the central plank of Meta’s latest settlement deal is the move to restrict teens to two hours per day on platforms, rather than fundamentally changing their addictive algorithms.

Sacha Haworth, executive director of The Tech Oversight Project, which campaigns for youth safety online, said the deal is a “historic settlement that will have a lasting impact, but we cannot truly protect all children and teens until these protections are required on every platform and are permanent – that’s something only Congress can do”.

Ella Bradshaw, policy officer for child safety online at the NSPCC, a UK children’s charity, welcomed moves to rein in “addictive” design features like personalised algorithms and likes. “These are the things that we know keep children hooked and feeling out of control of their screen time, so action here is necessary and welcome. However, important gaps remain,” she told Al Jazeera.  

Bradshaw described the settlement as taking “piecemeal action” on tackling risky features and addictive design choices which drive harm of children.

“This means features like disappearing messages, infinite scroll, the ability to gift and livestreaming remain unaddressed. Similarly, little has been announced on how Meta’s AI chatbots will be made safer – better guardrails are needed, particularly when children raise safeguarding concerns.”

Bradshaw also called for stronger protections for younger children as well as protections that “don’t suddenly drop away the moment a teenager turns 18.”   

Furthermore, she said: “Not all children have families they can rely on to oversee their online worlds and help them to stay safe. We know that the issue of patchy online protections extends across the online world.

“This settlement must spur governments and regulators to go further faster; taking stronger action across the online ecosystem including private messaging, AI tools and online gaming. Without that wider shift, children will continue to face avoidable harm.”

What action are other countries taking against Meta?

While action against social media giants in the US is mostly taking the form of lawsuits, elsewhere it is regulators who are leading the charge.

In the European Union, regulators are pursuing several legal and regulatory cases against Meta, covering antitrust rules for artificial intelligence (AI) on WhatsApp, as well as child safety protections and addictive platform features under the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The EU specifically accused the group of designing Facebook and Instagram to be “addictive”, adding that Meta has failed to adequately assess the danger its products pose to users’ physical and mental health.

On Thursday, a European Commission spokesperson said it is waiting on Meta to present changes to limit the addictive designs of its social networks.

“We have been very clear … Meta knows what we are expecting from them. … the ball is in Meta’s court,” Thomas Regnier said. “Now it is for the company to offer these commitments in the European Union to protect our kids here, too.”

In June, the UK government also announced a sweeping ban on social media for those below 16 to come into force next year, following a global trend after Australia pioneered it. The UK is also considering overnight curfews and ways to prevent infinite scrolling for those under 18.

In Brazil, a prominent consumer rights organisation, the Collective Defence Institute, filed twin lawsuits for three billion reais ($525m) in damages against the Brazilian subsidiaries of Meta, TikTok and Kwai in October 2024.

Those lawsuits also accuse the groups of failing to implement safeguards against addiction and use by children and adolescents. Since March this year, platforms have been required to link the accounts of children below 16 to legal guardians under Brazil’s Digital Statute for Children and Adolescents.

South Korea’s media regulator also reacted on Thursday to Meta’s settlement, calling for better protections for young users to be ideally applied worldwide, rather than just in specific markets.

Poland has asked the European Commission to impose a €250 million ($291.3 million) fine on Meta, accusing the social media company of failing to adequately tackle fraudulent advertisements and scams on its platforms.

Polish Digital Affairs Minister Krzysztof Gawkowski said on Wednesday that Meta had failed to respond effectively despite repeated warnings from Polish authorities and cybersecurity teams.

“Despite repeated reports from the relevant Polish authorities and teams responsible for cybersecurity, Meta still does not provide an effective and adequate response to fraudulent advertisements,” Gawkowski said in a post on X.

Poland’s Cybersecurity Tests Raise Concerns

The request followed tests conducted by CERT Polska, Poland’s national cybersecurity incident response team. The team identified 122 advertisements that were classified as fraudulent.

According to Gawkowski, Meta decided not to remove 106 of those advertisements, representing 86.8% of the cases. Only 10 advertisements were removed, while authorities received no response in six cases.

The Polish minister called on Meta to introduce more effective tools to identify and remove scams, false advertising and promotions for illegal applications.

Meta did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

The dispute adds to broader regulatory and legal pressure on Meta over the content and safety of its platforms.

The company has faced criticism over allegations that its products can harm children and that it has misled the public about their safety. In Poland, Meta has also faced criticism over fraudulent advertisements and a lawsuit filed by billionaire Rafal Brzoska over fake advertisements using his identity.

In April 2026, a Warsaw appellate court ruled that Meta was responsible for advertisements hosted on its platforms. Meta has argued that it should not be held responsible for fraudulent actions carried out by its users.

Poland’s request places the issue within the broader European debate over the responsibility of major technology platforms for illegal and deceptive content. The European Commission now faces a decision over whether the evidence provided by Polish authorities warrants further enforcement action.

Analysis

The dispute highlights a growing regulatory challenge for social media companies: whether platforms can continue treating fraudulent advertising primarily as user generated content or must take greater responsibility for what they distribute.

For Poland, the requested €250 million penalty is not only about individual scam advertisements. It is also a test of whether existing European digital regulations can compel major platforms to respond more effectively when national authorities identify systemic failures.

If the European Commission takes action, it could increase pressure on Meta to strengthen its advertising verification and content moderation systems across Europe. It could also establish a broader precedent for holding technology companies accountable when their platforms repeatedly facilitate fraudulent advertising.

With information from Reuters.

The firm said it only became aware of the hack on Tuesday and quickly prevented the hackers gaining any more access, and notified affected customers.

“We immediately contained the risk and have been working with specialist advisors and taking appropriate steps to protect our customers and systems,” MAG said.

“We have informed and are working with the relevant authorities.”

The airport group said the e-mail addresses obtained by the hackers came from passengers signing up to the airports’ on-site wifi.

More detailed data, including vehicle registrations, came from people booking car-park spaces, arranging access to lounges, and booking fast-track.

Customers are urged to remain vigilant about suspicious emails, text messages or phone calls and avoid opening attachments from unknown contacts.

The identity of the hackers was known, MAG said, and the relevant authorities had been informed.

Warning: This article contains details people may find upsetting

Two police officers killed in a crash on the A66 died from head and neck injuries, an inquest has provisionally concluded.

Cleveland Police officers PC Matthew Blades, 37, and PC Tom Clough, 38, died on Saturday when their police vehicle was hit by a Volkswagen Passat which was going the wrong way down the dual carriageway near Middlesbrough.

Area Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool Paul Appleton opened and adjourned their inquests at Teesside Coroner’s Court in short, consecutive hearings.

Further inquests, into the deaths of the five young men in the VW Passat, are expected to open later.

Appleton said both officers died in a fatal road traffic collision on the A66 between Normanby Road and Church Lane in Eston, after their vehicle was in collision with a Volkswagen Passat that was driven “against the flow of traffic”.

He said there had been an “aborted” police pursuit, which both officers were “not directly involved in”.

The inquest was told PC Blades’ provisional cause of death was head and neck injuries, while PC Clough’s provisional cause of death was given as neck injuries.

It was told PC Blades was identified by his wife and PC Clough by his partner.

The coroner said he was waiting on a report on the full post-mortem examinations into the men’s deaths, a report from the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and a police collision report.

A fundraising appeal set up by the Cleveland Police Federation for the two officers’ families has raised more than £1m.

Follow BBC Tees on X,, external Facebook, external, Nextdoor and Instagram, external and listen to Radio Tees on BBC Sounds.

Italian football federation says its decision is based on Infantino’s recent initiatives on international competitions.

Italy’s football federation (FIGC) has withdrawn its support for embattled FIFA President Gianni Infantino over his failed attempt to sell off stakes in the World Cup.

“This decision is intended to clearly and transparently express the FIGC’s position… regarding the recent initiatives promoted by the FIFA president concerning the governance and development of international competitions,” said a FIGC statement on Wednesday.

The move comes as a host of European national associations, including England, Ireland and Wales, have already scrapped their backing of Infantino, who is seeking re-election at next year’s FIFA Congress.

Infantino has come under increasing pressure to step down as head of world football’s governing body over his now-abandoned plan to secure private investment in FIFA tournaments, including the World Cup.

“We will continue to work alongside UEFA and the other European federations to promote a vision of football based on merit, solidarity, sustainability and the central role of the fans,” said FIGC head Giovanni Malago.

“We identify with a model of dialogue, listening and shared responsibility which has, to date, enabled football to grow, innovate and, at the same time, defend its founding principles.”

However, Italy’s World Cup-winning captain, Fabio Cannavaro, and his Brazilian counterpart, Cafu, have joined a group of former footballers backing Infantino.

Their social media messages expressing support came after another group of former players, led by Frenchman Mikael Silvestre, called for “change” in FIFA’s leadership.

“Over the last ten years, world football has improved,” and footballers “have once again taken centre stage,” Cannavaro – who was part of Italy’s 2006 World Cup-winning team, posted on social media on Wednesday.

“Infantino has done a great job… Not acknowledging that would be intellectually dishonest,” added the former centre-back, who coaches the Uzbekistan national team.

Similar messages were posted on Tuesday night by Brazilians Cafu and Roberto Carlos, Argentines Javier Zanetti and Esteban Cambiasso, Colombia’s Ivan Ramiro Cordoba and Mexico’s Jared Borgetti.

“We have followed the work of FIFA and president Infantino to promote the representation of players in football, something that didn’t exist before,” wrote Cafu, who lifted the World Cup with Brazil in 1994 and 2002.

Infantino, the 56-year-old former UEFA secretary general, had the broad backing of European nations when he succeeded Sepp Blatter as FIFA president in 2016.

European football body UEFA said it would formally withdraw its threat to boycott FIFA competitions after receiving assurances that Infantino’s failed sell-off plan will not be revived.

UEFA, which oversees European football, had threatened to boycott FIFA competitions.

The government hopes the plug-in panels will offer people a more affordable way into solar energy compared to roof installation, although savings will be lower because they generate less power.

A one-panel kit will cost £699 while two-panels will be £1,089, according to UK solar company UKSOL.

The current regulations only allow people to plug in one device per property, but this may be changed in future. A single device may include more than one panel.

The government expects prices to settle at £400-£600 as competition increases and more products are developed.

Its research shows a household could save between £70 and £110 a year on their energy bills.

The precise amount will depend on how the panels are orientated and how long they run. An unshaded south-facing spot is best.

Households which use energy during daylight hours will benefit most as the electricity must be used as it is generated.

Any power not consumed will flow back to the grid, but it’s unlikely homes will get any cash for this.

Unlike rooftop solar panels, these systems do not need to be certified under the official Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS), which is the UK’s official quality mark for small-scale renewable energy systems.

But it also means they will not normally qualify for the Smart Export Guarantee that pays people for excess solar power.

The United Kingdom is clearing the way for Ukraine to locally assemble the Storm Shadow/SCALP cruise missile, adding another layer to Kyiv’s rapidly expanding long-range strike arsenal. Storm Shadow/SCALP was first used by Ukrainian forces years ago and became the weapon of choice for standoff strikes against high value targets. Since then, stockpiles of these missiles have dwindled, but Ukraine’s own defense industry has made large leaps in producing increasingly advanced standoff weapons, which will apparently include a version of Storm Shadow/SCALP in the future.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham arrived in Kyiv today for his first overseas trip since taking office, bringing with him a significant new commitment to Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities. The U.K. government has authorized defense contractor MBDA to release classified information relating to British-made components incorporated into the SCALP long-range cruise missile. The move is intended to allow France and Ukraine to establish local assembly lines for the weapon inside Ukraine.

SCALP is the French designation for the air-launched missile known in British service as Storm Shadow. The two variants share substantial French and British technology and are produced by MBDA. According to the U.K. Ministry of Defense, Storm Shadow has a range in excess of 300 nautical miles, although in its export configuration it has an officially stated range of around half that.

The weapon is an air-launched, conventionally armed cruise missile designed for precision attacks against fixed targets well beyond the immediate battlefield. Its primary targets include command facilities, hardened infrastructure, and other high-value installations.

Storm Shadow/SCALP

The announcement removes a major technology-transfer barrier surrounding British-origin components in the Franco-British weapon, allowing the French-Ukrainian production project to move forward.

Ukraine is already heavily dependent on Western deliveries for some of its most capable long-range weapons, while European stocks of Storm Shadow and SCALP missiles have been depleted by years of procurement limitations and transfers to Kyiv.

Local production could eventually give Ukraine a new source of these weapons closer to the battlefield and reduce its dependence on foreign stockpiles.

At the same time, the Storm Shadow/SCALP project is only one part of a much broader Ukrainian effort to build a sustainable deep-strike capability.

Ukraine has spent the past several years rapidly expanding its domestic long-range strike industry, with long-range one-way attack drones currently forming the largest and most mature component of that arsenal. Ukrainian forces are now capable of launching large numbers of domestically produced strike drones against targets hundreds and, in some cases, more than a thousand kilometers from Ukraine. Relatively inexpensive one-way attack drones can be launched in mass and used to overwhelm air defenses, attack energy and industrial infrastructure, and impose a sustained cost on targets deep inside Russia.

Alongside those relatively inexpensive systems, Kyiv is pushing ahead with domestically developed cruise missiles intended to provide a substantially heavier payload and more sophisticated guidance and penetration capability. The most prominent example is the FP-5 Flamingo, developed by Ukrainian defense company Fire Point, while other indigenous cruise-missile programs are also progressing.

Video showing the launch of an FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile:

Випробувальний пуск ракети “Фламінго”

Ukraine is also moving into the ballistic-missile arena. Domestic ballistic-missile programs have progressed toward testing and deployment, with Ukrainian officials and industry working toward serial production of systems intended to extend the country’s ability to strike targets deep inside Russia. With their high speed and steep terminal trajectories, ballistic missiles provide a substantially different challenge to Russian air defenses.

Western-supplied systems such as Storm Shadow/SCALP and the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) short-range ballistic missile have meanwhile provided Ukraine with critical combat experience and an immediate deep-strike capability while its domestic missile industry matures.

Rather than simply replacing missiles consumed in previous campaigns, the planned Ukrainian production of Storm Shadow/SCALP is particularly significant because it could eventually give Kyiv another sophisticated cruise-missile type within an arsenal that is becoming increasingly indigenous.

A domestic assembly capability could provide Kyiv with greater control over production rates, sustainment, and replenishment while reducing the logistical burden associated with obtaining complete weapons from foreign stockpiles. Potentially, Ukraine might also have the option to adapt the missile according to its own requirements. This could include changes to the guidance system or warhead, and perhaps even adaptation for launch from the ground.

The limited availability of the Su-24M/MR Fencer swing-wing combat jets that currently launch Ukraine’s Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles are currently a limiting factor and there is no realistic means of replacing them. It was expected that Mirage 2000 fighters transferred to Ukraine by France would be modified to launch SCALP, but this has so far not been confirmed. Should Ukraine receive the French-made Rafales that it plans to, then SCALP compatibility would be provided from the outset.

Maybe even more importantly, it would allow these weapons to be used however Ukraine wants, without geographical and target type restrictions that are currently dictated by whoever donates them. It could also result in critical technology transfer, including about low observable cruise missile design, that Ukraine can gestate and deploy into other programs. Finally, it’s possible this could even be a future export for the country, especially if it can produce a variant that is adaptable and economical.

It is unclear when locally built Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles will join Ukraine’s strike arsenal. However, establishing an industrial production line for a sophisticated cruise missile is a major undertaking, particularly inside a country that remains under sustained Russian missile and drone attacks.

As noted in the opening of this article, the United Kingdom supplied Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine beginning in 2023, giving Kyiv a long-range precision-strike capability that was previously unavailable from most of its Western partners. Soon after, France committed to sending SCALP missiles, and Italy, another Storm Shadow operator, has similarly supplied the missiles to Ukraine.

Bangladesh is moving toward formal negotiations with China over a potential purchase of J-10CE fighters and attack helicopters, in what could become one of the country’s most significant defense acquisitions in years. The development also underscores the growing international interest in a Chinese fighter that has gained considerable attention since seeing combat in Pakistani service last year.

Bangladesh’s Prime Minister’s Information and Broadcasting Adviser Zahed Ur Rahman said Tuesday that a government panel is preparing a draft agreement that could pave the way for negotiations with Beijing. The government has not disclosed how many aircraft it intends to acquire, the potential value of the deal, or a delivery schedule, with those details expected to be determined during negotiations.

Local reporting has previously pointed to a potential requirement for as many as 24 J-10CEs.

If ultimately contracted and delivered, Bangladesh would become only the second confirmed foreign customer of the export version of the J-10C, after Pakistan. However, there has been growing speculation about other potential customers, too, fueled by imagery showing apparent export-standard J-10s being tested in China.

The potential acquisition comes as Bangladesh seeks to modernize its aging combat aircraft fleet. Dhaka already maintains a long-standing defense relationship with Beijing, which has supplied Bangladesh with combat aircraft, naval vessels, tanks, missile systems, and other military equipment over the past two decades.

The J-10CE is a much more capable proposition than many of the older fighters still operated by air forces that have historically relied on Chinese or Soviet-designed equipment, of which Bangladesh is a prime example. Currently, the Bangladesh Air Force’s fighter fleet is made up of different versions of the Chengdu F-7 (an updated Chinese version of the MiG-21 Fishbed) and much smaller numbers of MiG-29 Fulcrums.

Maintaining aging Soviet-designed fleets increasingly presents challenges in terms of airframe life, avionics, spare parts, weapons, and overall readiness. Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine and accompanying sanctions serve to make Russia an even less reliable source of military aircraft and other arms.

The J-10C is a single-engine multirole fighter equipped with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, modern avionics, electronic warfare capabilities, and the ability to employ a growing range of Chinese precision-guided weapons. The export J-10CE also provides access to weapons such as the much-vaunted PL-15 beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile.

The aircraft’s growing reputation has been helped considerably by Pakistan.

Pakistan became the first foreign operator of the J-10CE, and the aircraft received intense international attention during the May 2025 conflict between Pakistan and India. Pakistan said its Chinese-made fighters were involved in shooting down several Indian aircraft, while the precise circumstances, numbers, and tactics involved remain the subject of competing claims and outside analysis.

Nevertheless, the conflict provided the J-10CE with an unusual degree of combat visibility for a Chinese export fighter. Now, Bangladeshi officials have explicitly acknowledged that the aircraft’s reported performance during that conflict has attracted attention in Dhaka.

The J-10CE is also particularly well positioned within China’s emerging fighter-export portfolio.

China is developing more advanced stealth aircraft, including the FC-31/J-35 family, but that program represents a different proposition for prospective customers, coming with greater cost and potential uncertainty attached. The J-10C is a much more mature design already in operational foreign service, giving China an aircraft that can be offered today rather than relying entirely on future capabilities.

That combination of modern systems and an established production line could prove attractive to countries that need to replace aging fighters without taking on the financial, political, or industrial commitments associated with acquiring a Western combat aircraft.

As well as the potential Bangladesh deal, Uzbekistan has been linked to the J-10CE.

For months, Chinese military aviation observers have speculated that Tashkent could become another customer for the fighter. More recently, imagery of an aircraft carrying the serial number 1020 has generated renewed interest, with low-visibility markings on its tailfin appearing to resemble the Uzbek flag.

According to the company’s travel logs, shared with the Press Association, the age of the missing British citizens ranges from 13 to 65.

Alpine Eco Trek said the youngest member of the group is believed to be a 13-year-old girl, according to PA.

It also reported four of the firm’s Nepali tour guides are also missing.

The company’s manager Kumar Adhikari said he was in contact with the guides until 08:40 when they were expected to be at Tibet’s immigration office, but their phones were disconnected.

“We were hoping that inside it was safe,” he told PA, “but later the video came from China’s government which [showed] even Tibet’s side was hit by the flood.”

Adhikari said he was “slowly responding to” the families of the Britons but has been unable to give them any updates, adding he has been in contact with the British consulate and forwarded them copies of the clients’ passports.

“I feel so sad. We are just thinking about what to do next…We are in pain at the moment, deep pain.”

Another tour company impacted by the flash floods, Himalayan Glacier US, told the BBC they have lost contact with a group of 47 guests and staff who where making a pilgrimage to Mount Kailash, which included two British citizens.

Kailash Journeys also reported a group of 27 guests and staff missing, with a spokesperson saying they were last in contact with them early Wednesday morning local time.

A list of names provided to the BBC included two men who are British citizens.

Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said he is “deeply concerned” by news of the flash flooding, and wrote on social media: “All my thoughts are with those affected and with British nationals in the area and their relatives here at home”.

In a joint statement with Australia, the EU, Finland, France, Norway and Switzerland, the UK embassy in Nepal urged British nationals in Nepal to “exercise caution in affected areas”.