From Imitation to Reality: How to Build Technological Sovereignty — Solutions, Talent, BRICS INNO

16 Apr, 2026
| Salome K

From Imitation to Reality: How to Build Technological Sovereignty

Introduction: Sovereignty as a Capability, Not a Slogan

The satirical “Appeal to Respected Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin,” demanding the approval of a “white list of physical laws” and verification of constants for compliance with traditional values, evoked not only smiles but also bitterness in the expert community. Behind the grotesque lies a deep fatigue with a situation where real problems are replaced by symbolic actions, and instead of building our own competencies, yet another committee, working group, and “roadmap” are created.

However, the absurdity of the measure proposed in the appeal does not negate the main 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 systematic work along six directions: reforming the governance of science, restoring our own scientific schools, legal protection of intellectual property, selective international cooperation, personnel policy, and ensuring access to information. And where these directions can not only be declared but also publicly comprehended, critically analyzed, and translated into practical initiatives, space for real change emerges. The BRICS INNO conference, scheduled for November 4, 2026, is intended to be one such platform. As will be shown below, its program resonates with the key theses of our analysis, not by chance.

1. Governance Reform: From Departmental Fragmentation to a Unified Strategy

Today in Russia, scientific and technological 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 Foundation for Assistance to Small Innovative Enterprises, VEB.RF, and state corporations in various industries – the list goes on. At the same time, there is no single body with budgetary authority capable of coordinating long-term programs.

Specific solution: Create a Council for Technological Sovereignty under the President or Government with the function of distributing resources among ministries and industries. An analogue could be the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), which acts as a unified center for planning and financing major scientific and technical projects. In the USSR, this role was performed by the State Committee for Science and Technology, which ensured the connection between academic science and the defense industry.

Example from practice: It is precisely thanks to the presence of such a coordinating body that China was able to implement the “Made in China 2025” program in 10 years, taking a leading position in the production of semiconductors, electric vehicles, and artificial intelligence. Russia, however, still does not have an approved strategy for the development of microelectronics designed for more than 3-5 years.

What this will provide: The ability to move from “patchwork” financing (where funds are distributed annually according to new priorities) to long-term programs with a horizon of 10-15 years, without which the creation of new technological 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 fundamental research, aging of personnel (average age of doctors of science is 62 years), and an exodus of young scientists.

Specific solution: Adopt a national program “Scientific Schools of Russia” with an annual budget of at least 500 billion rubles (about 0.5% of GDP), aimed at:

Creating 50 international laboratories led by leading scientists (including those returning from abroad) with long-term 7-year funding;
Tripling the grants of 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: The Kurchatov Institute, during the Soviet period and in the 2000s, demonstrated a model where a single scientific center combined fundamental research, engineering development, and industrial implementation. It was this integration, not scattered grants, that made it possible to create nuclear reactors, new materials, and medical technologies. Today, it is necessary to restore this model, but with a fundamentally important condition: the rights to the results of intellectual activity must be fairly distributed between the institute, the specific researchers, and industrial partners, eliminating situations where “the technology is taken, but the scientists get pennies.”

What this will provide: The ability to stop the degradation of scientific schools, bring back scientists who have left the country in recent years, and create a foundation for our own technologies in critical areas.

3. Legal Protection of Intellectual Property: The Basis for Cooperation and Fairness

The lack of clear rules for technology transfer and intellectual property protection makes Russian developments vulnerable when cooperating with foreign partners. But the internal dimension is no less important: today, too often, rights to developments created with public funds are either uncontrollably transferred to private structures or “blurred” so that the inventors themselves are left with nothing.

Specific 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 author-researchers (at least 30% of future license fees);
Mechanisms for protecting Russian developments when participating in international projects (including the mandatory condition of retaining rights to RIA created with Russian funding);
The creation of a unified database of technological developments accessible to businesses.

Example from practice: India has a CSIR system, which not only funds research but also manages the patent portfolio, transferring licenses for developments to Indian companies. At the same time, there are clear rules for the distribution of royalties: up to 30% of the proceeds go to the authors, which creates material motivation for scientists. Thanks to this, India has become one of the world leaders in pharmaceuticals and biotech.

What this will provide: The ability to protect domestic developments, create incentives for businesses to invest in R&D, and, no less importantly, restore the trust of researchers in the system, eliminating the practice where “the technology is taken, but the scientists get pennies.”

4. Selective International Cooperation: The “Exchange for Exchange” Principle

As shown in the first article, BRICS in its current form reproduces a dependency model: China supplies ready-made technologies, the other countries import them. To break out of this trap, it is necessary to change the very philosophy of participation in international projects.

Specific solution: Approve the principle of technological exchange, according to which Russia participates only in those joint projects where:

A joint venture with an R&D center is created on Russian territory;
The Russian side gains access to source codes, design documentation, and know-how, not just the finished product;
The intellectual property created within the project is divided proportionally to the contribution of the parties.

Example from practice: In nuclear energy, Russia successfully implements this principle. Rosatom not only builds nuclear power plants abroad (Turkey, Egypt, Bangladesh) but also transfers operational technologies to partners, trains national personnel, and in some cases, organizes joint ventures for fuel production. This allows them to maintain control over key competencies while expanding the market.

Counterexample: In the automotive industry, after Western brands left, Russia bet on Chinese companies that came with their own platforms, without transferring technology. As a result, we got assembly plants but did not develop our own automotive industry.

What this will provide: The ability to transform from a technological “consumer” into an equal partner, preserving and developing our own competencies in those 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 tariffs (“internet coupons”). Without access to international databases, scientific journals, and collaboration platforms, it is impossible to conduct research at a world-class level.

Specific solution:

Create a national system for accessing 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 the use of VPNs.
Introduce academic immunity for research organizations, allowing them to freely obtain the information necessary for work without the risk of administrative sanctions.
Launch a program for the repatriation of scientists, 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” policy, special access channels to international databases have been created for scientists and researchers through national universities and the academy of sciences. This allows them to maintain contact with global science, even while restricting general access.

What this will provide: Stop the exodus of scientists who leave today not only because of low salaries but also because of the inability to work with up-to-date information. Restore the ability for 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 appeal ridicules 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 replaced by rhetoric about “traditional values.” As a result, graduates do not possess the modern tools (mathematical modeling, programming, big data work) that are necessary in engineering and science.

Specific solution:

Amend the Federal State Educational Standards for engineering and natural sciences, increasing the volume of practical classes, project activities, and work with modern CAD/CAE systems.
Create a network of engineering lyceums at leading universities and research centers (modeled after the specialized educational and research center at Moscow State University and the Phystech Lyceum), where gifted children from grades 8-9 study mathematics, physics, and computer science in depth.
Introduce a mandatory internship for students at real production sites (aircraft construction, nuclear industry, microelectronics) for at least 6 months, with pay and subsequent employment.

Example from practice: The Kapitsa Phystech Lyceum in Dolgoprudny shows outstanding results: its graduates enter the best technical universities in the country and then become leading specialists in knowledge-intensive industries. This model can be scaled to 10-15 regions.

What this will provide: Training of engineers and scientists capable not only of operating but also of creating new technologies, as well as overcoming the gap between academic education and the real needs of industry.

7. BRICS INNO as a Tool for Implementing Solutions: Connecting the Agenda with Real Actions

The first article concluded that Russia today faces two false forks: dependence 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 towards real sovereignty is impossible.

An analysis of the four main blocks of the conference shows that their agenda directly resonates with the problems described in the first article and offers space for their discussion and overcoming. Below is how each block corresponds to one or more solutions from our list.

7.1. “Sketches of the Future” vs. Failed Foresights
Problem from Article 1: For decades, “roadmaps” and foresights have been created that did not lead to real results. Investors invested in trends declared “breakthrough” but often ended up disappointed.
Block Agenda: “Why will many dreams not come true and many goals set by announced trends, on which fabulous money is being spent today, not be achieved? Why are they doomed to failure, and investors to disappointment?”
Connection to Solutions: Such a critical analysis is the first necessary procedure on the path to sovereignty (Solution 1 above – governance reform). Until we learn to distinguish real technological trends from “bubbles,” we will continue to invest resources in projects doomed to failure. This block creates space for honest expertise, which has so often been replaced by ideological loyalty.

7.2. “Paradigmatic Shift of the Digital. Neural Network Fatigue” vs. Institutional Inertia
Problem from Article 1: Incompatibility of performance assessment systems, institutional mismatches, lack of coordination between departments.
Block Agenda: “Traditional management models based on rigid determinism and hierarchical control are increasingly failing when confronted with self-organizing and only partially predictable systems. … In new conditions, a new paradigm is needed.”
Connection to Solutions: This block directly raises the issue of the need for institutional reform (Solution 1 above). Old management methods do not work in an environment where technology is developing exponentially. Discussing a new paradigm is the first step towards creating that very Council for Technological Sovereignty and a unified coordination system.

7.3. “Engineering Kindergarten” vs. Personnel Crisis and Brain Drain
Problem from Article 1: Aging of personnel, exodus of young scientists, gap between academic education and industry.
Block Agenda: “The fundamental problems of industrial and technical development have formed requirements for technologies to reassemble transdisciplinary engineering knowledge. … How to ensure the comprehensive implementation of reverse engineering, refactoring, reengineering; robotization; transfer; recycling; … convergence of global engineering knowledge.”
Connection to Solutions: This block is a direct projection of Solutions 5 and 6 above (personnel policy and educational reform). The term “Engineering Kindergarten” is an acknowledgment that engineering thinking needs to be formed from the early stages of education. Discussing reverse engineering and knowledge transfer are concrete mechanisms that can be implemented through a network of engineering lyceums and mandatory internships in production facilities.

7.4. “Paradoxes of Techno-Sovereignty” vs. Legal Vacuum and Dependence on the East
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. Is it possible to protect scientific developments, innovative ideas, and intellectual property from data leakage or unauthorized access the old way? How financial models of ‘innovation factories’ destroy sovereignty.”
Connection to Solutions: This is the central block of the conference, which fully corresponds to Solutions 3 and 4 above – legal protection of intellectual property and selective international cooperation. It is here that recognition can and should be voiced that “technological exchange” within BRICS is currently asymmetrical, and that achieving sovereignty requires not new committees, but clear legal mechanisms that protect the rights of developers.

7.5. Master Class “Innovations and/or Profanations” vs. The Problem of Distinguishing Real Developments from Imitation
Problem from Article 1: “Innovation fatigue,” when too many projects declared breakthrough turned out to be duds.
Block Agenda: “Where is the objective, independent, and reliable measure of innovation and profanation? Who is responsible for the INVESTORS’ TEARS?”
Connection to Solutions: This block is a tool for implementing Solution 1 above (governance reform). Without a mechanism to distinguish real innovations from profanation, effective distribution of state resources is impossible. The master class involves a “game” – simulating situations where participants can learn to recognize pseudo-technologies. This is precisely what is lacking in the existing system of grants and funds, where expertise is often replaced by lobbying.

8. From Words to Deeds: What BRICS INNO Can Offer

Thus, the BRICS INNO conference, contrary to the skeptical thesis of “yet another committee,” 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 receive concrete formats for implementation.

Solution #	BRICS INNO Block	Work Format	Projection of Solution (from the text)
1	Governance Reform	“Paradigmatic Shift of the Digital” + “Innovations and/or Profanations.” Critical analysis of existing management models, development of evaluation criteria	Transition from “engineering dictate from above” (Zuckerberg) to human-centric management. The product must be tested on its own employees before scaling. Criterion: not “we build it – they will come,” but real demand for scenarios.
2	Restoring Scientific Schools	“Sketches of the Future.” Presentation of real fundamental discoveries working in Russia	Development of applied science of user experience in immersive environments (motion sickness, eye fatigue, ergonomics). Without fundamental usability research, any VR/AR projects are doomed.
3	Legal Protection of IP	“Paradoxes of Techno-Sovereignty.” Discussion of legal mechanisms, protection of authors’ rights	Prohibition of monopoly commissions above 30% (like Meta’s 47.5%). Introduction of a transparent tax on platforms and guarantees that content creators do not lose their worlds when the service is closed.
4	Selective Cooperation	“Paradoxes of Techno-Sovereignty” + dialogue with international speakers. Formation of principles of equal exchange, not purchase of ready-made solutions	Not copying Meta’s VR headsets and platforms, but choosing niches where there is real demand (smart glasses, mobile metaverses, AI assistants). Cooperation on terms of joint development, not “buying someone else’s failure.”
5	Personnel Policy	“Engineering Kindergarten.” Discussion of training formats for engineers, starting from school	Train engineers who use their own products. Introduce mandatory “eat your own dog food” practice into educational programs. Teach not just code, but ergonomics and scenario design.
6	Access to Information	Cross-cutting theme of all blocks (impossibility of working in a “vacuum”). Public recognition of the problem and development of solutions for academic immunity	Open analysis of others’ failures (like Meta’s failure). Prohibition of the “corporate vacuum” where developers do not see real feedback. Academic immunity for publishing negative results so that others do not repeat the same mistakes for $80 billion.

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

Conclusion: From Imitation to Reality – Through Dialogue

The satirical appeal to the President demanding a “white list of laws” is not just a joke. It is a diagnosis: the system is so tired of the imitation of activity (committees, strategies, roadmaps) that the only way to draw attention to the problem is through the grotesque.

“It is necessary to directly admit: merely restricting access to the works of the reactionary scientific school is not enough. As long as the calculations of reactor processes or projectile flight continue to be determined by bourgeois false formulas and models developed outside our scientific tradition, it is premature to speak of genuine sovereignty,” writes the author.

One can agree with him on the main point: sovereignty is indeed premature. But not because we use “false 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 add, because we have not created a system where the creators of technology – scientists and engineers – receive a fair share of the results of their labor.

BRICS INNO, with its program built around critical questions (“why do foresights fail?”, “how to distinguish innovation from profanation?”, “is it possible to protect intellectual property the old way?”), represents an attempt to get out of this impasse. Instead of another committee – a public debate. Instead of reporting on achievements – an honest analysis of the causes of failures. Instead of declarations of sovereignty – a discussion of specific legal and institutional mechanisms.

If these questions receive not rhetorical but practical answers – if the conference results in not another set of “roadmaps,” but real changes in the system of science governance, intellectual property protection, and personnel training – then BRICS INNO will indeed become the very “step on the path to Russian sovereignty” that the author of the appeal spoke of. Only a step not towards ideological purges, but towards real institutional work.

The choice is up to the conference participants and those who will make decisions after it.