“White List of Physical Laws”: Satire as a Diagnosis – How to Build Technological Sovereignty

From Imitation to Reality: How to Build Technological Sovereignty
Introduction: Sovereignty as a Capability, Not a Slogan
The satirical “Open Letter to the Respected Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin” calling for the approval of a “White List of Physical Laws” and for vetting scientific constants for compliance with traditional values has caused not only smiles but also bitterness in the expert community. Behind the grotesque lies a deep weariness with a situation where real problems are replaced by symbolic gestures, and instead of building our own competencies, yet another network of committees, working groups, and “road maps” is created.
Yet the absurdity of the measure proposed in the letter does not negate the essential point: technological sovereignty is indeed necessary, and its absence is a threat to national security. The question is how to achieve it. If banning Maxwell’s equations is a dead end, then what is the real path?
The answer lies in systemic work across six areas: reforming science management, restoring our own scientific schools, legal protection of intellectual property, selective international cooperation, personnel (human resources) policy, and ensuring access to information. And where these directions can not only be declared but also publicly discussed, critically analyzed, and translated into practical initiatives, space for real change emerges. The BRICS INNO conference, scheduled for November 4, 2026, is intended to serve as one such platform. As will be shown below, its program resonates with the key theses of our analysis.

1. Governance Reform: From Departmental Fragmentation to a Unified Strategy
Today in Russia, science and technology policy is handled by the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Digital Development, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Russian Science Foundation, the Innovation Assistance Fund, VEB.RF, and various state corporations – the list goes on. There is no single body with budgetary authority capable of coordinating long-term programs.
Concrete solution: Create a Council for Technological Sovereignty under the President or Government, with the authority to allocate resources across agencies and industries. The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) could serve as a model; it acts as a unified center for planning and financing major scientific and technological projects. In the USSR, the State Committee for Science and Technology performed this role, linking academic science with the defense industry.
Example from practice: Precisely thanks to such a coordinating body, China was able to implement its “Made in China 2025” plan over ten years, taking leading positions in the production of semiconductors, electric vehicles, and artificial intelligence. Russia, by contrast, still lacks a microelectronics development strategy approved for more than 3–5 years.
What this would provide: The ability to move from “patchwork” financing (where funds are distributed according to new priorities each year) to long-term programs with a horizon of 10–15 years, without which the creation of new technology platforms is impossible.

2. Restoring Our Own Scientific Schools: From Degradation to Leadership
Russian science has retained strong schools in several areas: nuclear physics, quantum technologies, materials science, mathematics. However, over the past 30 years, there has been a catastrophic reduction in funding for basic research, aging of personnel (the average age of doctors of sciences is 62 years), and an exodus of young scientists.
Concrete solution: Adopt a national “Scientific Schools of Russia” program with an annual budget of at least 500 billion rubles (about 0.5% of GDP), aimed at:
Creating 50 international laboratories under the leadership of leading scientists (including those returning from abroad) with long-term 7-year funding;
Tripling grants from the Russian Science Foundation while simplifying reporting;
Creating a network of engineering centers at universities where fundamental research is directly linked to industrial applications.
Example from practice: In the Soviet period and into the 2000s, the Kurchatov Institute demonstrated a model where a single scientific center unified fundamental research, engineering development, and industrial implementation. It was this integration, not disparate grants, that made it possible to create nuclear reactors, new materials, and medical technologies. Today, this model needs to be restored, but with a critically important condition: the rights to the results of intellectual activity must be fairly distributed among the institute, the individual researchers, and the industrial partners, eliminating situations where “technologies are taken away while the scientists get peanuts.”
What this would provide: The ability to halt the degradation of scientific schools, bring back scientists who have left the country in recent years, and build a foundation for our own critical technologies.

3. Legal Protection of Intellectual Property: A Foundation for Cooperation and Fairness
The lack of clear rules for technology transfer and IP protection makes Russian developments vulnerable when cooperating with foreign partners. However, the domestic dimension is no less important: today, rights to developments created with budget funds are either uncontrollably transferred to private structures or “watered down” to the point where the inventors themselves are left with nothing.
Concrete solution: Adopt a federal law “On Technology Transfer” that would clearly define:
The procedure for transferring rights to results of intellectual activity between state institutions, universities, and private companies;
Mandatory allocation of a share of rights to the authors/researchers (at least 30% of future licensing royalties);
Mechanisms to protect Russian developments when participating in international projects (including the mandatory condition that rights to RIA created with Russian funding be retained);
Creation of a unified database of technology developments accessible to businesses.
Example from practice: India operates the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), which not only funds research but also manages a patent portfolio, granting licenses for developments to Indian companies. Clear rules for royalty distribution exist: up to 30% of royalties go to the authors, creating material incentives for scientists. Thanks to this, India has become a global leader in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.
What this would provide: The ability to protect domestic developments, create incentives for business to invest in R&D, and, no less importantly, restore researchers’ trust in the system by eliminating the practice where “technologies are taken away while the scientists get peanuts.”

4. Selective International Cooperation: The Principle of “Exchange for Exchange”
As shown in the first article, BRICS in its current form reproduces a dependency model: China provides ready-made technologies, while the other countries import them. To escape this trap, the very philosophy of participation in international projects must change.
Concrete solution: Adopt the principle of technological exchange, whereby Russia participates only in joint projects where:
A joint venture with an R&D center on Russian territory is created;
The Russian side receives access to source codes, design documentation, and know-how, not just the finished product;
Intellectual property created within the project is shared proportionally to the parties’ contributions.
Example from practice: In nuclear energy, Russia successfully implements this principle. Rosatom doesn’t just build nuclear power plants abroad (Turkey, Egypt, Bangladesh); it also transfers operational technologies to partners, trains local personnel, and in some cases organizes joint ventures for fuel production. This allows it to retain control over core competencies while expanding its market.
Counterexample: In the automotive industry, after Western brands withdrew, Russia bet on Chinese companies that came with their own platforms without transferring technology. As a result, we gained assembly plants but did not develop our own automotive industry.
What this would provide: The ability to transform from a technological “consumer” into an equal partner, preserving and developing our own competencies in areas where we have competitive advantages.

5. Personnel Policy and Access to Information: Overcoming the “Vacuum”
One of the most acute problems identified in the first article is the creation of an “information vacuum” for scientists due to internet regulation policies, including paid VPN tiering (so-called “Internet tickets”). Without access to international databases, scientific journals, and collaboration platforms, conducting research at a world-class level is impossible.
Concrete solution:
Create a national system for access to scientific information, providing Russian scientists with legal and free access to key international databases (Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE, arXiv, etc.) through a single gateway that does not require VPN use.
Introduce academic immunity for research organizations, allowing them to freely obtain the information necessary for their work without the risk of administrative sanctions.
Launch a scientist repatriation program, offering not only grants and housing but also guarantees of access to scientific infrastructure, including unlimited access to international resources.
Example from practice: In China, despite the strict “Great Firewall,” special access channels to international databases are provided for scientists and researchers through national universities and the Academy of Sciences. This allows them to maintain links with global science even while restricting general access.
What this would provide: Halting the outflow of scientists who today leave not only due to low salaries but also because of the inability to work with current information. Restoring the ability of Russian researchers to participate in international collaborations, publish in leading journals, and be part of the global scientific community.

6. Educational Reform: From “Spiritual-Moral Physics” to Real Competencies
The satirical letter mocks attempts to introduce ideological filters into education. However, behind this lies a real problem: school and university programs are often outdated, and attempts to “modernize” them are being substituted with rhetoric about “traditional values.” As a result, graduates lack the modern tools (mathematical modeling, programming, big data) essential for engineering and science.
Concrete solution:
Amend the Federal State Educational Standards in engineering and natural sciences to increase the proportion of practical training, project-based learning, and work with modern CAD/CAE systems.
Create a network of engineering lyceums at leading universities and scientific centers (following the model of the Humanities and Mathematics Lyceum at Moscow State University and the Phystech Lyceum), where gifted children from grades 8–9 receive in-depth instruction in mathematics, physics, and computer science.
Introduce mandatory internships at real industrial enterprises (aerospace, nuclear industry, microelectronics) lasting at least 6 months, with pay and subsequent job placement.
Example from practice: The P. L. Kapitsa Phystech Lyceum in Dolgoprudny demonstrates outstanding results: its graduates enter the best technical universities in the country and later become leading specialists in knowledge-intensive industries. This model could be scaled to 10–15 regions.
What this would provide: The training of engineers and scientists capable not only of operating but also of creating new technologies, thus bridging the gap between academic education and the real needs of industry.

7. BRICS INNO as a Tool for Implementing Solutions: Linking Agenda to Real Actions
The first article concluded that Russia today faces two false forks in the road: dependency on the East or ideological self-isolation. The program of the BRICS INNO conference, scheduled for November 4, 2026, demonstrates an attempt to find a third path – a path of critical reflection, without which movement toward genuine sovereignty is impossible.
An analysis of the conference’s four main blocks shows that their agenda directly resonates with the problems described in the first article and offers space for discussion and overcoming them. Below, the mapping between each block and one or more solutions from our list is shown.
7.1. “Sketches of the Future” vs. Failed Foresights
Problem from Article 1: For decades, “road maps” and foresights have been created that did not lead to actual results. Investors poured money into trends declared “breakthrough,” only to often find themselves disappointed.
Block Agenda: “Why will many dreams not come true and many goals set by the announced trends – on which fabulous sums are being allocated today – not be achieved? Why are they doomed to failure, leaving investors disappointed?”
Link to Solutions: Such critical analysis is the first necessary procedure on the path to sovereignty (Solution 1 above: Governance Reform). As long as we cannot distinguish real technological trends from “bubbles,” we will continue to invest resources in projects doomed to fail. This block creates space for honest expert evaluation, which has so often been replaced by ideological loyalty.
7.2. “Paradigmatic Shift of the Digital. Neuro-Network Fatigue” vs. Institutional Inertia
Problem from Article 1: Incompatibility of performance assessment systems, institutional inconsistencies, lack of coordination among agencies.
Block Agenda: “Traditional management models based on rigid determinism and hierarchical control are increasingly failing when faced with self-organizing and only partially predictable systems… In new conditions, a new paradigm is needed.”
Link to Solutions: This block directly addresses the need for institutional reform (Solution 1). Old management methods do not work in an environment where technology develops exponentially. Discussing a new paradigm is the first step toward creating the aforementioned Council for Technological Sovereignty and a unified coordination system.
7.3. “Engineering Kindergarten” vs. Personnel Crisis and Brain Drain
Problem from Article 1: Aging personnel, exodus of young scientists, gap between academic education and industry.
Block Agenda: “The fundamental problems of industrial and technical development have created demands for technologies to reassemble transdisciplinary engineering knowledge… How to ensure the integrated implementation of tasks in reverse engineering, refactoring, reengineering; robotics; transfer; recycling; … convergence of global engineering knowledge.”
Link to Solutions: This block directly mirrors Solutions 5 and 6 (Personnel Policy and Educational Reform). The term “Engineering Kindergarten” acknowledges that engineering thinking must be formed from the earliest stages of education. Discussing reverse engineering and knowledge transfer offers concrete mechanisms that can be implemented through a network of engineering lyceums and mandatory industrial internships.
7.4. “Paradoxes of Techno-Sovereignty” vs. Legal Vacuum and Eastern Dependency
Problem from Article 1: Lack of legal protection for intellectual property, asymmetry of technological exchange within BRICS, dependence on Chinese ready-made solutions.
Block Agenda: “Many states have set the task of ensuring their Techno-Sovereignty – the ability to independently develop, produce, and control key technologies and infrastructure. Can we protect scientific developments, innovative ideas, and intellectual property from data leaks or unauthorized access in the old ways? How do financial models of ‘innovation factories’ destroy sovereignty?”
Link to Solutions: This is the central block of the conference and directly corresponds to Solutions 3 and 4 (Legal Protection of Intellectual Property and Selective International Cooperation). It is here that recognition could – and should – be voiced that “technological exchange” within BRICS is currently asymmetric and that achieving sovereignty requires not new committees but clear legal mechanisms to protect the rights of developers.
7.5. Master Class “Innovation and/or Profanation” vs. the Problem of Distinguishing Real Developments from Imitation
Problem from Article 1: “Innovation fatigue,” where too many projects touted as breakthroughs have turned out to be duds.
Block Agenda: “Where is the objective, independent, and reliable measure of innovation and profanation? Who is responsible for the TEARS of Investors?”
Link to Solutions: This block is a tool for implementing Solution 1 (Governance Reform). Without a mechanism to distinguish real innovation from profanation, effective allocation of state resources is impossible. The master class involves a “game” – simulating situations where participants can learn to recognize fake technologies. This is exactly what is missing from the current system of grants and funds, where evaluation is often replaced by lobbying.

8. From Words to Deeds: What BRICS INNO Can Offer
Thus, contrary to the skeptical view of it as “just another committee,” the BRICS INNO conference can become a platform where the problems described in the first article receive public and professional discussion for the first time, and the solutions proposed in the second article gain specific formats for implementation.

BRICS INNO is not just another conference. It is a space where the stated goal is to “separate the wheat from the chaff,” and the speakers are not officials but practitioners who have faced the real problems of commercialization, intellectual property protection, and bringing technologies to market. This is where concrete demands for changes in legislation, the grant system, and the legal status of scientists may be born.

Conclusion: From Imitation to Reality – Through Dialogue
The satirical open letter to the President demanding a “White List of Laws” is not just a joke. It is a diagnosis: the system is so weary of imitative activity (committees, strategies, road maps) that the only way to draw attention to problems is through the grotesque.
“It must be acknowledged frankly: restricting access to the works of the reactionary scientific school is insufficient. As long as calculations of reactor processes or projectile trajectories continue to be determined by bourgeois pseudo-formulas and models developed outside our scientific tradition, talking about genuine sovereignty is premature,” writes the author.
One can agree with him on the main point: genuine sovereignty is indeed premature. But not because we use “pseudo-formulas,” but because we have not created conditions in which our own scientific and engineering thought could develop freely and be in demand. And, we should add, because we have not created a system where the creators of technologies – scientists and engineers – receive a fair share of the fruits of their labor.
BRICS INNO, with its program built around critical questions (“Why do foresights fail?”, “How to distinguish innovation from profanation?”, “Can intellectual property be protected the old way?”), represents an attempt to escape this dead end. Instead of yet another committee – a public debate. Instead of reporting achievements – an honest analysis of the reasons for failure. Instead of declarations about sovereignty – a discussion of concrete legal and institutional mechanisms.
If these questions receive not rhetorical but practical answers – if the conference leads to real changes in the science management system, intellectual property protection, and personnel training – then BRICS INNO will indeed become the “step towards Russian sovereignty” the author of the letter spoke of. Only a step not towards ideological purges, but towards real institutional work.
The choice lies with the conference participants and those who will make decisions after it.

© Tatyana Burmagina & EWA
Source: The Trends https://thetrends.tech/tpost/from_imitation