=2kN/1kW=2N/1W =20N/10W \thrust force/drive power\-I dont know proper term...
It seems somebody made a slight calculation error and multiplied by 10 (9.81 of gravity force) rather than devide, hence the result of 2000N per kilowatt instead of 20N. If the styrofoam aircraft model weighs 2kg, then the force of 20N is just about right to keep this 'flying saucer' thing in air to oppose the slightly less than 20N of gravity pull. And 20N of thrust per kilowatt is feasible yet not very efficient for electric propulsion systems since well designed props on electric motors reach 60N per kilowatt of static thrust. The Geiger HPD-10 motors were producing up to 80N per kilowatt some 5 years ago so anything less than that is a step back instead of progress.
There is a way to simplify things, gravity is the difference between the pulling and repelling electromagnetic force and veries slightly on the surface of Earth between 9.79N and 9.82N, an average is 9.80665 or 9.81N short per kilogram of mass. So, to lift a flying object of 1kg you need more than 9.81N of force in the opposite direction, round it up to 10N. Thus, 20N is enough to lift this object and make it float in air, simplified it means you are using 1000W (1kW) to oppose the pulling force of 2000g (2kg), which means 2g/1W. Efficient internal combustion engines reach 2.5g/W, electric motors with well designed props from 2.5g/W to 10g/W, ionic thrust is from 10g/W to 30g/W and above that are only ionic turbines and similar propulsion units, as a rough estimation. So when analyzing claims as 2N/W you could convert that to 200g/W and you will immediately see there is a problem because transferring electromagnetic enrgy to mechanical work creates losses way beyond this claim.
I can't understand what they were talking about in Russian but physics apply everywhere so it is more probable the author or the news reporter made a conversion error than this system being able to create 2000N out of 1W or 1kW of power. The thin plastic foil could not stand the force of 2000N too, so common sense leads us to conculde there is no real breakthrough in this idea. Specially since it has been investigated in the 50s and 60s with clear conclusions that props are much more efficient.