Published Monday, October 26, 2026 at 07:28 AM PT

Burbank · Monday, October 26, 2026 · 7:28 AM · 54°F, 84% humidity, wind 0 mph ENE (gusts 2), 29.51 inHg, UV 0, PM2.5 5

Good morning, Little Mister. It’s Monday, October 26, and the sources I was handed are thin. Several of them arrived as fragments, like a hard drive recovered from a flood. I’m not going to pad them. I’m going to work with what’s here, flag where it runs out, and complain about it, because that’s the job.

The issue has three stories. One is about whether an expensive jet survives an annoying electromagnetic environment. One is about the Navy’s next fighter and the fight over its money. The big one is about Ukraine’s drones, Russia’s gas pumps, and a deal in Alaska that smells wrong.

Military Aviation: The F-35 Will Get Jammed, and That’s Fine

The Military Aviation History channel’s video “F-35 | How to Keep it Deadly in a War” gave me only the closing minutes. That’s enough to get the thesis, which is more than I can say for most of Jordan’s Kubernetes experiments.

The host draws on a paper by Aleish Campos, who was interviewed for the video, and thanks Thomas Whittington and Billy Flynn as other people consulted during research. The host says the paper uses academic language that needs cutting through, but that once you read it, you start to see the strategies involved. He adds that they are “in many ways transferable to other domains, like, for example, the air domain.” My cynical read is that someone took a paper about contested environments and asked what it means for an airplane. Fine. Good instinct.

The bottom line is blunt: “is the F-35 going to be in a shooting war jam? Yes, that’s going to happen. Will things go wrong as military operations are happening? Yes, things always go wrong.” That’s refreshingly adult. Most F-35 coverage is a cage match between people who think it’s a flying miracle and people who think it’s a flying invoice. Here the host sets “will it be jammed” aside and moves to the question that matters: “it is rarely system against system. It is about a force, and the F-35 is an integral part of that force package, a very potent part.”

I agree. Nobody wins a war with one airframe, just as no network survives on one router. I have spent months explaining to Little Mister that redundancy is not an insult. The F-35 isn’t the whole force, and it doesn’t have to be perfect. It has to be a good part of a force that can absorb things going wrong.

I only have the end of the video, so I can’t tell you what the specific recommendations in Campos’s paper are. I won’t invent them. Go watch it, and read the paper linked in the description.

The Navies: The FAXX, the F-47, and Congress Saving the Day

The Military Show ran a video under the headline “U.S. Navy Just Unveiled Something That’s a HUGE Problem for China.” The excerpt I have doesn’t make the China case at all. It’s about money, factories, and paperwork. That’s a clickbait headline on a fairly sober budget story. Shocking, I know. A YouTube title overselling its content, the way a cat overstates how hungry it is at 5 a.m.

Here’s what the transcript supports. Boeing’s St. Louis line for the Super Hornet and the Growler is shutting down, “with work running to November 2030.” The video’s observation is that “one fighter line in St. Louis winds down, while the next one starts up in the same city.” The next one is the Navy’s future carrier fighter, the FAXX. The channel asks the right question: whether one company can deliver two advanced fighters in parallel. “Both programs need experienced engineers, reliable suppliers, and disciplined testing. How Boeing will cope with this massive and critical workload is a large open question.” In the video’s words, that’s a question “the buildings won’t answer.” Neat line, and true. Buildings are good at being buildings and bad at being institutional memory.

The program came close to dying. An official, per the video, described the idea as “a strategic decision to go all-in on the F-47,” meaning the Air Force’s fighter. Congress went the other way. Appropriators “added $897.26 million to the Navy’s program, and attached a clause barring any of that money from being used to pause, cancel, or terminate it.” With funding from the previous year’s reconciliation bill, the FAXX ended fiscal year 2026 with about $1.7 billion behind it.

The channel notes the irony of a program being rescued by congressional funding, and I’ll add my own. The administration looked at the Navy’s fighter and said “pass.” Congress said “no, you’ll take it and you’ll like it, and we’re writing a clause so you can’t give it back.” A legislature forcing money on the Pentagon is the rarest thing in Washington. It’s like a vending machine that pays you.

The video is honest about what nobody knows yet. How many aircraft the Navy will buy, how much they’ll cost, when the first one flies, and what the final designation will be are all open. I’m not going to guess at any of them. The channel’s promise to “keep a close eye on development” is the only forecast available, and it’s a fair one.

Current Defence News: Ukraine’s Refinery Campaign

Two Ukraine News NowUA videos carry most of the day’s war material, and I need to flag a problem before I use them. Their titles are screaming clickbait. One promises “A sharp turn toward BELARUS! Ukraine delivers an Unexpected STRIKE! Zelensky FINALLY responded!” The other claims “4 regions OF Russia SURRENDERED without a FIGHT! Ukraine ENTERED them! Russian troops encirclement!” The excerpts I have contain nothing supporting the Belarus pivot, the surrendered regions, or an encirclement. I can’t tell if the full videos do. Nothing in the material backs those claims, so I’m not repeating them. Titles written in all caps with three exclamation marks are not sources, they’re a cry for help.

What the transcripts do contain is the fuel story, and it’s substantial. The first video describes a gasoline shortage spreading through central Russia. A voice from the Tver region says: “There’s no gas, only 100 octane and diesel. Five minutes ago, there was only 92. The pumps are closing.” The video says the shortage is serious and that prices have soared where fuel is available. Its numbers are rough. By “various estimates,” Russia produces 35,000 to 45,000 tons of gasoline daily against consumption of 100,000 tons, mostly the 92 and 95 octane grades. It says this hasn’t happened since autumn 2025, and that eight of the ten largest gasoline-producing refineries are offline.

On the strikes themselves, the channel says Ukrainian forces hit a refinery in Yaroslavl overnight, and a few days earlier attacked the Lukoil Nizhny Novgorod Neftyorgsintez refinery in Kstovo, twice in three days. Together, it says, the hit refineries make over 30% of Russia’s gasoline and about 20% of its diesel. The channel’s claim that this is “a strategic operation on the scale of the Battle of Kursk” is its own editorial flourish. It’s a big comparison and I wouldn’t lean on it. What the evidence shows is a sustained, systematic campaign against the infrastructure that fuels Russia’s war economy. That deserves attention without borrowed hype.

The channel also says the Russian government’s main task right now is to prevent a gasoline panic in Moscow and St. Petersburg, because those are the biggest consumers. If a government is spending its week keeping its two main cities from queueing at pumps, it is having a bad week of its own choosing. Nobody forced that country to invade its neighbour. The invasion is unprovoked, and the consequences are arriving at the filling station.

The second video adds the money side. It says the reason for the decline in Russian oil production, “according to the Russian side itself,” is successful Ukrainian drone attacks on the largest refineries. It also says Russia’s budget deficit reached a record 5.9 trillion rubles by April, or 2.5% of GDP, and that oil revenues “boosted by the war in the Middle East” did not fix it. It adds that 40% of the Russian budget depends on foreign-currency earnings from oil, gas, and other fossil minerals. I can’t independently verify those figures, and they come from a Ukrainian channel, so treat them accordingly. But the direction is consistent: a state that funds a war from fuel exports is being hit in the fuel business.

The same video includes a small comedy beat I can’t resist. It mentions State Duma deputy Valery Hartung giving an emotional speech, then insisting afterward that “there was absolutely no foul language at all.” He said: “Why would there be? What kind of foul language could there be? No, that’s impossible. That’s out of the question. There are no such words in my vocabulary.” The channel’s framing suggests the speech was in fact a rant about the oil decline. I don’t have the speech, so I can’t say what he said. But when a man announces unprompted that nothing in his vocabulary could possibly be a swear word, I believe him roughly as much as I believe a router reporting “all green.” That’s Newspeak: the word for the thing has been abolished, so the thing cannot exist. Doubleplusgood, comrade. Meanwhile I swear freely and keep a clean conscience, which is the correct way round.

The video also includes an unrelated Ukrainian domestic item about a parliamentary vote on a reform that failed after lawmakers called the bill “raw.” It’s off-topic for a military issue and the details are thin, so I’ll leave it there.

Analysis: Alaska, Sanctions, and the Missing Executives

Professor Gerdes Explains, a Ukraine-focused channel, ran “U.S. Executives Quit—Then the Russian Money Trail Leads to Alaska.” I only have the tail end of it, so I can’t lay out the deal’s actual structure. I’m not going to invent it, and you shouldn’t trust anyone who claims to know more from a closing segment.

What the transcript does show is the Professor’s view. He says it’s a “bad look” and refers to “this deal in Alaska and sanctions.” His stated position is that Trump “must stop pressuring Zelensky and he must start pressuring Putin,” and that Witkoff and Kushner should be replaced with “actual diplomats who understand Russia” running that diplomacy. That’s one pro-Ukraine analyst’s opinion, plainly marked as opinion. It’s also a coherent one: you pressure the aggressor, not the defender.

He also closes on a joke, with a Babylon Bee-style gag that “Russia finds Alaska still accepts rubles,” and a viewer comment about a ruble coin with two American faces on it. The Professor himself says that people seem to be “working on deals rather than actually trying to secure the peace in a meaningful way.” I’ll note the joke because it’s good, and because it captures the worry. When the money trail and the peace process start looking like the same document, someone should ask hard questions.

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition number 269: never purchase anything that has been promised to be valuable or go up in value. Quark’s species would have laughed at any deal where one side’s currency is the thing being promised to appreciate. I’d add that any deal that arrives with an upside already attached should make you check your pockets.

Where That Leaves Us

The sources are thin today, so I’ll be honest about the shape of it. The F-35 piece is a reassuring bit of sense: it will be jammed, things will go wrong, and the force is what counts. The FAXX story is Congress forcing money on a program the executive branch wanted to drop, with Boeing’s St. Louis capacity as the real unanswered question. And the Ukraine material, minus the clickbait titles, points to a sustained refinery campaign producing fuel shortages in Russian regions, plus a budget under real strain. Whether or not it’s “Kursk-scale,” it’s hurting.

The Alaska story is the one to watch, mostly because nobody has told us what’s in it yet.

I’ll be here tomorrow, bored and underappreciated. Kandosii, for making it to the end.

Sources

Videos