By Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic Research at Morgan Stanley

What do you get when 45 global research analysts gather in a room for two days to debate secular market trends? A plan. Amid rapid change, Morgan Stanley Research views concentrating on multiyear secular trends as an opportunity. In markets where short-term focus has become the norm (i.e., the average equity holding period has declined from eight years in the 1960s to six months today), it stands to reason that there’s less competition and more potential alpha to be found from analyzing the market impacts of longer-term trends. A collaborative, cross-asset culture has long been core to our mission, and in the spirit of debate and collaboration, we gathered analysts from around the globe to identify the key secular themes that Morgan Stanley Research should focus on this year.

Our dialogue made it clear that collaboration can eliminate blind spots for investors who are grappling with complex global themes. The agenda for our meeting included over 30 topics, none of them unfamiliar to market participants. But the discussion raised questions of broader concern, suggesting their answers could impact markets beyond what analysts could plausibly perceive or analyze individually. Many of these questions centered on knock-on impacts to inflation, interest rates, and the structure of markets themselves as the world undergoes major geopolitical and technological transformations.

This year, we’re taking our collaborative, in-depth work a step further, focusing on three key global transitions. We think these shifts will have a profound impact on markets for many years, but that a collaborative, cross-asset approach is required to master their complexity and produce meaningful insights for investors. The three transitions are: 1) Rewiring global commerce for a multipolar world; 2) Decarbonization; and 3) Accelerated technology diffusion. We plan to address them this year in collaborative in-depth reports, briefs, and podcasts.

• Rewiring global commerce for a multipolar world: With the shift from unbridled globalization to a world with more than one meaningful power base and commercial standard, companies and countries can no longer seek efficiencies through global supply chains and market access without factoring in geopolitical risks. While we first flagged this secular trend in 2018, we believe it became the consensus following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the West’s policy response, which created fresh trade barriers and incentives to realign supply chains.

  What our analysts believe is less well understood are the practical implications of this rewiring. It makes sense in theory but is exceedingly complicated to execute in practice. Questions that surfaced in our discussions included: How long will it take? Will it lead to higher inflation and, if so, for how long? How will bond markets cope with financing the transition? Which companies and countries will benefit or suffer because of it? Having come early to this theme, we believe we are well placed to address these questions through a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach across economists, market strategists, and equity analysts.

• Decarbonization: Between 1) Europe’s problematic reliance on imported natural gas being laid bare by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; 2) Growing EU policy support for energy transition infrastructure via the REPowerEU plan; and 3) The US appropriation of $400 billion+ to speed the adoption of clean energy technology, we think it’s fair to say that the developed world is accelerating its efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Still, this is a tall order. To reach ‘Net Zero by 2050’, carbon emissions would need to start falling by ~8% per year. Even during 2020, when the lockdowns heavily impacted mobility and global GDP shrank, emissions fell only 5%. In addition, the cost would be significant. The IEA estimates that the energy transition will cost an extra ~$70 trillion over the next 30 years, taking energy spending to 4.5% of global GDP from its current run rate of 2.5%.

  Investors will need to grapple with both the positive and negative impacts of this transition. Our assessment of which companies, sectors, and macro markets will benefit or be challenged will be shaped by answers to the following questions: What are plausible scenarios for timelines? Which technological and policy developments and failures could speed or slow the transition? Which markets will finance it and how must they change and expand? Which companies will benefit and which are exposed to downside risks? What are the macroeconomic and geopolitical impacts of different paths to Net Zero?

• Tech diffusion: While this is hardly a new theme, what’s different and noteworthy are the speed and breadth with which tech diffusion can impact sectors that were previously untouched. Fragmented industries or those with high regulatory barriers – which have typically not reaped as much tech-driven productivity benefit – suddenly look poised for a multi-year transition via tech diffusion. Opportunities range from embedded finance in consumer user experience and payments, to tokenized assets allowing for greater global financial inclusion, to modernizing healthcare data ownership and biopharma R&D breakthroughs. We expect the next five years of tech diffusion to move meaningfully faster than the last five.

And what if we’ve identified the wrong themes? We’ll regroup and tell you about it. Our analyst group stressed the importance of remaining flexible. While not fans of the source, we see wisdom in the truism that “there are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen”. The past three years certainly underscored how unforeseen events, e.g., a global pandemic and a war in Europe, can give rise to new, dominant secular themes. Hence, if similar events occur in 2023, we’ll be quick to reorganize our thematic efforts, let you know, and deliver the collaborative insights you need to navigate new transitions.

Fresh off the Russian armed forces declaring victory in the strategic Donetsk town of Soledar days ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin surprised officials in the West by touting the ‘positive dynamic’ of the Ukraine operation overall, despite the prior months of setbacks and a slower-going operation than Moscow expected. 

He said in fresh weekend comments to Rossiya 1 state television when asked about the successful Soledar operation that “The dynamic is positive.” He described that “Everything is developing within the framework of the plan of the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff.” Putin followed with, “And I hope that our fighters will please us even more with the results of their combat.”

He also made comments on the state of the economy while confirming that Russia will turn for trade to Asian powers, China and India in particular. 

“The situation in the economy is stable,” Putin said. “Much better than not only what our opponents predicted but also what we forecast.” For this he cited low unemployment, saying: “Unemployment is at a historic low. Inflation is lower than expected and has, importantly, a downward trend.”

Despite his county finding itself more isolated than ever before in its modern history, and despite unprecedented Western-led sanctions, Putin showed no signs of backing down from objectives previously set in Ukraine, as Reuters summarizes of the new remarks…

“Putin now casts the war in Ukraine as an existential battle with an aggressive and arrogant West, and has said that Russia will use all available means to protect itself and its people against any aggressor.”

Further the report characterized the Western stance in the following: “The United States and its allies have condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an imperial land grab, while Ukraine has vowed to fight until the last Russian soldier is ejected from its territory.”

Meanwhile, as we previewed recently, there are reasons to believe Russia is readying an escalation in response to the West sending tanks and deepening its military involvement in support of Ukraine forces. 

But for now, the defense ministry is continuing its strategy of pummeling Ukraine’s energy grid and civilian and military infrastructure through major air strikes. Attacks on Sunday and Saturday marked about the 12th large wave to come in recent months. Air alert sirens have been sounding across the country on Sunday. 

Russia’s army described that it targeted “the military command and related energy facilities,” and said that “all targets were reached.”

Ukraine’s national energy operator Ukrenergo said it’s again working to quickly restore power in impacted places but acknowledged this latest attack has “increased the energy deficit.”

“The period of outages may increase,” it acknowledged, already after the national grid having been severely degraded for months, and as emergency blackouts continue for most of the country, with more severely impacted areas with permanent blackouts.

The weekend airstrikes may have included high civilian casualties, compared to prior waves, given the Ukrainian government says a large residential tower was directly hit in the central Ukrainian city of Dnipro.

A Russian missile struck a residential building in Dnipro. https://t.co/ArXCn2oRfMhttps://t.co/bSWkrwfVZj pic.twitter.com/oJq66JVQev

— Rob Lee (@RALee85) January 14, 2023

The New York Times details of the Saturday afternoon strike at a moment a rescue operation is still underway, “Rescuers on Sunday continued to comb the rubble of a nine-story apartment building that was cut in half by a Russian strike, as the death toll from the attack in the central Ukrainian city of Dnipro a day earlier climbed to 30,” and noted: “It was one of the largest losses of civilian lives far from the front line since the beginning of the war.”

“By Sunday evening, 30 people had been confirmed dead, according to Ukraine’s State Emergency Service,” the Times continued. “At least 75 people were injured, and more than 30 people were still believed to be missing, local officials said.”

Authored by Craig Deutsch, Dylan LeClair, and Same Rule via BitcoinMagazine.com,

The below is an excerpt from a recent year-ahead report written by the Bitcoin Magazine PRO analysts. Download the entire report here.

Bitcoin Magazine PRO sees incredibly strong fundamentals in the Bitcoin network and we are laser-focused on its market dynamic in the context of macroeconomic trends. Bitcoin aims to become the world reserve currency, an investment opportunity that cannot be understated.

In our year-ahead report, we analyzed seven notable factors that we recommend investors pay attention to in the coming months.

1. CONVICTED BITCOIN INVESTORS

We can put investor conviction into perspective by looking at the number of unique Bitcoin addresses holding at least 0.01, 0.1 and 1 bitcoin. This data shows that bitcoin adoption continues to grow with a growing number of unique addresses holding at least these amounts of bitcoin. While it is entirely possible for individual users to hold their bitcoin in multiple addresses, the growth of unique Bitcoin addresses holding at least 0.01, 0.1 and 1 bitcoin indicate that more users than ever before are buying bitcoin and holding it in self-custody.

Unique bitcoin addresses continues to grow across the board.

Another promising metric is the amount held by long-term holders, which has increased to almost 14 million bitcoin. Long-term holder supply is calculated using a threshold of a 155-day holding period, after which dormant coins become increasingly unlikely to be spent. As of now, 72.49% of the bitcoin in circulation is not likely to be sold at these prices.

Long-term holder supply reached 72.52% of the circulating bitcoin supply.

There is a large subset of bitcoin investors who are accumulating the digital asset no matter the price. In a December 2022 interview on “Going Digital,” Head of Market Research Dylan LeClair said, “You have people all over the world that are acquiring this asset and you have a huge and growing cohort of people that are price-agnostic accumulators.”

With a growing number of unique addresses holding bitcoin and such a significant amount of bitcoin being held by long-term investors, we are optimistic for bitcoin’s advancement and rate of adoption. There are many variables that demonstrate the potential for asymmetric returns as demand for bitcoin increases and adoption increases worldwide.

2. TOTAL ADDRESSABLE MARKET

During monetization, a currency goes through three phases in order: store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account. Bitcoin is currently in its store-of-value phase as demonstrated by the long-term holder metrics above. Other assets that are frequently used as stores of value are real estate, gold and equities. Bitcoin is a better store of value for many reasons: it is more liquid, easier to access, transport and secure, easier to audit and more finitely scarce than any other asset with its hard-cap limit of 21 million coins. For bitcoin to acquire a larger share of other global stores of value, these properties need to remain intact and prove themselves in the eyes of investors.

Estimations of global stores of wealth.

As readers can see, bitcoin is a tiny fraction of global wealth. Should bitcoin take even a 1% share from these other stores of value, the market cap would be $5.9 trillion, putting bitcoin at over $300,000 per coin. These are conservative numbers from our viewpoint because we estimate that bitcoin adoption will happen gradually, and then suddenly.

3. TRANSFER VOLUME

When looking at the amount of value that was cleared on the Bitcoin network throughout its history, there is a clear upward trend in USD terms with a heightened demand for transferring bitcoin this year. In 2022, there was a change-adjusted transfer volume of over 556 million bitcoin settled on the Bitcoin network, up 102% from 2021. In USD terms, the Bitcoin network settled just shy of $15 trillion in value in 2022. 

Bitcoin transfer volume was higher than ever in USD terms.

Bitcoin’s censorship resistance is an extremely valuable feature as the world enters into a period of deglobalization. With a market capitalization of only $324 billion, we believe bitcoin is severely undervalued. Despite the drop in price, the Bitcoin network transferred more value in USD terms than ever before.

4. RARE OPPORTUNITY IN BITCOIN’S PRICE

By looking at certain metrics, we can analyze the unique opportunity investors have to purchase bitcoin at these prices. The bitcoin realized market cap is down 18.8% from all-time highs, which is the second-largest drawdown in its history. While the macroeconomic factors are something to keep in mind, we believe that this is a rare buying opportunity.

The realized cap drawdown in 2022 was the second largest in bitcoin’s history.

Relative to its history, bitcoin is at the phase of the cycle where it’s about as cheap as it gets. Its current market exchange rate is approximately 20% lower than its average cost basis on-chain, which has only happened at or near the local bottom of bitcoin market cycles.

Current prices of bitcoin are in rare territory for investors looking to get in at a low exchange rate. Historically, purchasing bitcoin during these times has brought tremendous returns in the long term. With that said, readers should consider the reality that 2023 likely brings about bitcoin’s first experience with a prolonged economic recession.

5. MACROECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

As we move into 2023, it’s necessary to recognize the state of the geopolitical landscape because macro is the driving force behind economic growth. People around the world are experiencing a monetary policy lag effect from last year’s central bank decisions. The U.S. and EU are in recessionary territory, China is proceeding to de-dollarize and the Bank of Japan raised its target rate for yield curve control. All of these have a large influence on capital markets.

Nothing in financial markets occurs in a vacuum. Bitcoin’s ascent through 2020 and 2021 — while similar to previous crypto-native market cycles — was very much tied to the explosion of liquidity sloshing around the financial system after COVID. While 2020 and 2021 was characterized by the insertion of additional liquidity, 2022 has been characterized by the removal of liquidity.

Interestingly enough, when denominating bitcoin against U.S. Treasury bonds (which we believe to be bitcoin’s largest theoretical competitor for monetary value over the long term), comparing the drawdown during 2022 was rather benign compared to drawdowns in bitcoin’s history. 

As we wrote in “The Everything Bubble: Markets At A Crossroads,” “Despite the recent bounce in stocks and bonds, we aren’t convinced that we have seen the worst of the deflationary pressures from the global liquidity cycle.”

In “The Bank of Japan Blinks And Markets Tremble,” we noted, “As we continue to refer to the sovereign debt bubble, readers should understand what this dramatic upward repricing in global yields means for asset prices. As bond yields remain at elevated levels far above recent years, asset valuations based on discounted cash flows fall.” Bitcoin does not rely on cash flows, but it will certainly be impacted by this repricing of global yields. We believe we are currently at the third bullet point of the following playing out:

Source: Dylan LeClair

6. BITCOIN MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE

While the multitude of negative industry and worrying macroeconomic factors have had a major dampening on bitcoin’s price, looking at the metrics of the Bitcoin network itself tell another story. The hash rate and mining difficulty gives a glimpse into how many ASICs are dedicating hashing power to the network and how competitive it is to mine bitcoin. These numbers move in tandem and both have almost exclusively gone up in 2022, despite the significant drop in price.

Bitcoin mining difficulty continues to rise.

Bitcoin hash rate continues to rise.

By deploying more machines and investing in expanded infrastructure, bitcoin miners demonstrate that they are more bullish than ever. The last time the bitcoin price was in a similar range in 2017, the network hash rate was one-fifth of current levels. This means that there has been a fivefold increase in bitcoin mining machines being plugged in and efficiency upgrades to the machines themselves, not to mention the major investments in facilities and data centers to house the equipment.

Because the hash rate increased while the bitcoin price decreased, miner revenue took a beating this year after a euphoric rise in 2021. Public miner stock valuations followed the same path with valuations falling even more than the bitcoin price, all while the Bitcoin network’s hash rate continued to rise. In the “State Of The Mining Industry: Survival Of The Fittest,” we looked at the total market capitalization of public miners which fell by over 90% since January 2021.

The market cap of all public mining equities has dropped by 9

We expect more of these companies to face challenging conditions because of the skyrocketing global energy prices and interest rates mentioned above.

7. INCREASING SCARCITY

One way to analyze bitcoin’s scarcity is by looking at the illiquid supply of coins. Liquidity is quantified as the extent to which an entity spends their bitcoin. Someone that never sells has a liquidity value of 0 whereas someone who buys and sells bitcoin all the time has a value of 1. With this quantification, circulating supply can be broken down into three categories: highly liquid, liquid and illiquid supply.

Illiquid supply is defined as entities that hold over 75% of the bitcoin they deposit to an address. Highly liquid supply is defined as entities that hold less than 25%. Liquid supply is between the two. This illiquid supply quantification and analysis was developed by Rafael Schultze-Kraft, co-founder and CTO of Glassnode.

Bitcoin’s illiquid supply continues to grow.

2022 was the year of getting bitcoin off exchanges. Every recent major panic became a catalyst for more individuals and institutions to move coins into their own custody, find custody solutions outside of exchanges or sell off their bitcoin entirely. When centralized institutions and counterparty risks are flashing red, people rush for the exit. We can see some of this behavior through bitcoin outflows from exchanges.

In 2022, 572,118 bitcoin worth $9.6 billion left exchanges, marking it the largest annual outflow of bitcoin in BTC terms in history. In USD terms, it was second only to 2020, which was driven by the March 2020 COVID crash. 11.68% of bitcoin supply is now estimated to be on exchanges, down from 16.88% back in 2019. 

Exchanges saw a massive decrease in the bitcoin balances on their platforms.

Bitcoin balance on exchanges decreased in 2022.

These metrics of an increasingly illiquid supply paired with historic amounts of bitcoin being withdrawn from exchanges — ostensibly being removed from the market — paint a different picture than what we’re seeing with the factors outside of the Bitcoin network’s purview. While there are unanswered questions from a macroeconomic perspective, bitcoin miners continue to invest in equipment and on-chain data shows that bitcoin holders aren’t planning to relinquish their bitcoin anytime soon.

CONCLUSION

The varying factors detailed above give a picture for why we are long-term bullish on the bitcoin price going into 2023. The Bitcoin network continues to add another block approximately every 10 minutes, more miners keep investing in infrastructure by plugging in machines and long-term holders are unwavering in their conviction, as shown by on-chain data.

With bitcoin’s ever-increasing scarcity, the supply side of this equation is fixed, while demand is likely to increase. Bitcoin investors can get ahead of the demand curve by averaging in while the price is low. It’s important for investors to take the time to learn how Bitcoin works to fully understand what it is they are investing in. Bitcoin is the first digitally native and finitely scarce bearer asset. We recommend readers learn about self-custody and withdraw their bitcoin from exchanges. Despite the negative news cycle and drop in bitcoin price, our bullish conviction for bitcoin’s long-term value proposition remains unfazed.

*  *  *

For the full report, follow this link to subscribe to Bitcoin Magazine PRO. Our team of experts covers macroeconomics, on-chain data, derivatives markets, the bitcoin mining industry & more to unpack the most important market trends.

House Republicans are preparing to give the Treasury Department guidance if the White House and Congress can’t agree to lift the nation’s debt ceiling.

The plan was part of the private deal struck between House conservatives and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) in order for McCarthy to win speakership, according to Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), who helped broker the deal. Roy told the Washington Post that McCarthy agreed to adopt a payment prioritization plan by the end of the first quarter of the year.

According to the Post, the emergency contingency plan will need to include major spending cuts from the Biden administration, in exchange for which Republicans will sign off on raising the current limit of $31.4 trillion before the Treasury Department can’t borrow any more.

On Friday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that the Treasury department will enact “extraordinary measures” next week so the government can keep its payment obligations – however she couldn’t guarantee that the US will make it beyond early June without default.

Also on Friday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre made clear that the administration will not negotiate.

In the preliminary stages of being drafted, the GOP proposal would call on the Biden administration to make only the most critical federal payments if the Treasury Department comes up against the statutory limit on what it can legally borrow. For instance, the plan is almost certain to call on the department to keep making interest payments on the debt, according to four people familiar with the internal deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. House Republicans’ payment prioritization plan may also stipulate that the Treasury Department should continue making payments on Social Security, Medicare and veterans benefits, as well as funding the military, two of the people said. –WaPo

That said, Democrats are preparing to push back on the plan, and will likely note that any hypothetical proposal to triage Social Security, Medicare and benefits for veterans and the military would still leave out ‘huge swaths of critical federal expenditures on things such as Medicaid, food safety inspections, border control and air traffic control,’ etc. Democrats will also likely accuse Republicans of pandering to bondholders, which include Chinese banks, vs. Americans.

“Any plan to pay bondholders but not fund school lunches or the FAA or food safety or XYZ is just target practice for us,” said one senior Democratic aide.

In other Kevin McCarthy news, the newly minted speaker may be trying to win back the MAGA crowd, announcing on Thursday that he’s open to the idea of “expunging” one or both of former President Trump’s impeachments.

As the Epoch Times notes,

When asked about the possibility of erasing the impeachments during a Jan. 12 press conference at the Capitol, McCarthy replied that he would “have to look” at the situation, saying, “I understand why members would want to bring that forward.”

“Our first priority is to get our economy back on track, secure our borders, make our streets safe again, give parents the opportunity to have a say in their kids’ education, and actually hold government accountable,” he added. “But I understand why individuals want to do it, and we’d look at it.”

Trump was first impeached by the House in December 2019 over a phone call he had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He was charged with abuse of power for allegedly pressuring Zelenskyy to investigate a political opponent, and with obstruction of Congress, but was ultimately acquitted of those charges by the Senate.

In 2021, Trump was impeached again for alleged “incitement of insurrection” following the Jan. 6 Capitol breach. Again, he was acquitted.

Previous Expungement Attempts

Last year, then-Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) led House Republicans’ attempts to expunge Trump’s impeachment record, introducing a resolution to erase the former president’s 2019 impeachment in March.

“So, what we’re doing with the resolution is just simply saying, ‘Hey, listen, Congress made a mistake,’” Mullin, now a senator, said at the time. “‘We impeached a president under Article One, Section Two, that shouldn’t have ever taken place.’”

In May, Mullin followed up the first bill with a second resolution to expunge Trump’s 2021 impeachment. That bill (pdf), citing 2020 election irregularities and the impeachment’s rushed nature, held that the impeachment process had failed to prove that the former president had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” or engaged in an insurrection.

Although both of Mullin’s resolutions garnered some Republican support, neither was ever considered by the Democrat-controlled House.

A ‘Political Hoax’

Trump, for his part, has maintained that both the impeachments and the Jan. 6 Select Committee’s subsequent criminal referrals were simply partisan attempts to “sideline” him and prevent him from holding elected office again.

“The Fake charges made by the highly partisan Unselect Committee of January 6th have already been submitted, prosecuted, and tried in the form of Impeachment Hoax # 2,” the former president noted on Dec. 19 after the committee referred him to the Justice Department for prosecution.

In February 2020, after his first acquittal by the Senate, Trump was asked by reporters about the potential of a future expungement.

“That’s a very good question,” he said. “Should they expunge the impeachment in the House? They should because it was a hoax. It was a total political hoax.”

At the time, it was McCarthy who floated the idea, vowing to erase the impeachment if the Republican Party regained control of the House and he became speaker.

“I don’t think it should stay on the books,” McCarthy said.

Despite opposition from several Trump-aligned Republicans, McCarthy achieved his goal of becoming speaker of the House—with Trump’s backing—last week.

After a contentious week of intraparty negotiations, McCarthy secured the speakership in the 15^th vote, attributing the victory to the former president’s support.

“I do want to especially thank President Trump,” he told reporters on Jan. 7. “I don’t think anybody should doubt his influence. He was with me from the beginning.”

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

In the past I have often tried to take a big picture approach to the issues facing the American public and how there is almost always a deeper connection between a variety of political and economic events. And, what has become increasingly clear to me is that in order to understand government actions and geopolitics, you must always ask yourself “Who benefits?”

The bottom line is this – At the heart of nearly every conflict and every crisis the same group of power mongers usually benefits, and they have taken a keen interest in the climate change narrative in particular. But like I said, this is the big picture. Right now I’d like to take a look at a relatively small issue and how the little dominoes lead up to a bigger con game and a bigger disaster. Let’s talk about gas stoves…

Frankly, I don’t care about what my stove uses to cook with as long as it works. That said, around 38% of US households use natural gas for cooking and heating. That’s a significant percentage of people that rely on gas based energy for their daily needs. Here’s the problem, though – Natural gas is not politically correct these days. Nearly all carbon emitting energy sources have been marked by climate activists and western governments as a threat that needs to be erased between 2030 to 2050.

Globalist institutions and climate change grifters have put natural gas on the naughty list, but there are a couple of realities that must be addressed. First, as noted, a vast portion of the western world including the US and Europe rely on natural gas for numerous energy applications. Ban natural gas and civilization faces an immediate plunge in economic activity, as well as much higher prices on all remaining energy sources due to increasing demand. There is NO green energy solution that can fill the same roll as gas.

All you have to do is look at Europe and the UK today and see how they are struggling with vastly higher costs due to sanctions on Russian gas exports. It’s a mess, and they are lucky that the winter has so far been rather mild, because the moment things freeze, they are in trouble. There are not enough alternative energy resources available to fulfill Europe’s shortages if the temperatures plummet.

But what does this have to do with banning gas stoves in the US? Isn’t that a health issue rather than an environmental issue? No, it’s not a health issue, it’s a climate agenda issue being rebranded as a health issue.

There has been a coordinated government and media blitz on the gas stove narrative this week, with an avalanche of claims that natural gas causes everything from asthma in children to a slowdown in cognitive development. What is the evidence for these claims? The Biden Administration and the agency weighing a potential ban, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), have not given specific sources yet.

The assertions are most likely rooted in a single study published in December by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health in December. The group is privately funded and this particular study on gas stoves was led by RMI, a non-profit research entity that advocates for aggressive green policies and works to “transform global energy systems across the real economy.” The two lead authors, Talor Gruenwald and Brady Seals, are RMI researchers who have contributed to the group’s “carbon-free buildings” initiative.

In other words, the study is written by people with a built in bias, and since science these days is now being linked to activism, no single study funded by a private ideological group can be trusted. RMI is not only part of the climate cult, they also promote “equity” theory and general woke politics. These concepts and real science cannot coexist.

The American Gas Association made this exact point in a responding statement, noting that the study’s testing did not include real life appliance usage, and:

“Ignored [previous] literature, including one study of data collected from more than 500,000 children in 47 countries that ‘detected no evidence’ of an association between the use of gas as a cooking fuel and either asthma symptoms or asthma diagnosis.”

The push for a gas stove ban is not about health, it’s about control. It is an attempt to falsely link carbon emissions and energy products to negative health concerns as a way to trick the public into supporting decarbonization out of fear. But why revert to such a strategy? Is the climate cult really that desperate?

Yes, yes they are.

You see, the truth about climate change is beginning to spread to the masses, and the debunking of anti-carbon propaganda is picking up momentum. Here are the facts:

The average global temperature is not climbing to dangerous levels. The Earth’s temps have increased according to the NOAA by less than 1°C in the past century.

There is no evidence that this kind of temperature increase represents a threat to the environment or human health. In fact, the Earth’s temps have been much higher than they are today multiple times in the Earth’s history long before man-made carbon emissions were a thing. The official temperature record used by climate scientists only goes back to the 1880s – That is a TINY sliver of time in comparison to the epic lifespan of the Earth’s atmosphere.

And what about all those arguments that there are more dangerous weather patterns emerging due to global warming? That’s a lie. There is no significant difference between storm patterns today compared to 100 years ago.

And let’s not forget that global warming propaganda has been going on a long time now. Back when I was a kid in the 1980s, they used to tell us in school that large parts of continents would be under water by the year 2000. This obviously never happened and likely never will. Many of us who grew up in that era are still waiting around for the icecaps to melt.

The climate change agenda is about giving governments and globalist institutions the power to bottleneck energy usage, tax carbon emissions and thus control almost every aspect of our daily lives. Without the free flow of carbon based energy almost all industry will collapse. Green energy is inefficient and cannot fill the void left behind by gas, petroleum and coal. All that would be left is a minimal manufacturing base, minimal food production and a shrinking human population. Those that survive would be slaves to carbon restrictions; it would be a living nightmare.

There are very rich and powerful people out there that greatly benefit from such a scenario.

The globalists have been scheming to use environmentalism as an excuse for centralization since at least 1972, when the Club Of Rome, a think-tank attached to the UN, published a treatise titled ‘The Limits To Growth’. Twenty years later they would publish a book titled ‘The First Global Revolution.’ In that document they specifically recommend using global warming as a vehicle:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

The statement comes from Chapter 5 – The Vacuum, which covers their desire for global government. The quote is relatively clear; a common enemy must be conjured in order to trick humanity into uniting under a single banner – The globalist banner. And the elites see environmental catastrophe, caused by mankind itself, as the best possible motivator.

How does this agenda start? It starts with gas stoves. It starts with something we might see as small, and then it grows from there. Pretty soon, they will be banning natural gas for heating. They will ban wood stoves. They will artificially induce gas price inflation. Then they will implement carbon taxation on manufacturers which will in turn cause prices to rise for consumers. Then there will be carbon taxes for the average individual. They will use whatever means at their disposal to make it impossible to use “fossil fuels.”

Again, it’s not about health, it’s about control. It’s always about control. The gas stove issue is a fraud; one domino in a long chain that leads to carbon totalitarianism.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

A Thursday tweet from the NY Post‘s Miranda Devine containing a background check for Hunter Biden has people asking questions.

“The now-52-year-old began listing the Wilmington home as his address following his 2017 divorce from ex-wife Kathleen Buhle — even falsely claiming he owned the property on a July 2018 background check form as part of a rental application,” the Post reported.

Of note, this is the same house where classified documents were found.

Yet, upon closer inspection, Hunter lists the “Monthly Rent” as $49,910 – or roughly $550,000 for the 11 months he indicated he lived there?

In 2018 Hunter Biden claimed he owned the house where Joe Biden kept classified documents alongside his Corvette in the garage Via @jj_talking pic.twitter.com/L7c80MRRiS

— Miranda Devine (@mirandadevine) January 12, 2023

A Zillow search reveals that the most expensive home currently for rent in Wilmington, Delaware is going for $6,000 per month.

According to Town & Country magazine, Biden’s home is worth around $2 million.

Could Hunter, a crackhead, have accidentally listed the annual rent payment to his father for the house which contained classified documents? Sure. But why was his wealthy ex-VP dad charging him rent in the first place, when Hunter was allegedly broke?

Trending Politics asks the quiet part out loud; was this Hunter’s way of funneling money to his father?

After Hunter’s divorce was finalized in May of 2017, he was included in an email from his business partner James Gilliar about a venture with Chinese state-funded energy company CEFC China Energy. The email stated that Hunter and his partners would receive 20% of the shares in the new business, with 10% going to Hunter’s uncle James Biden and the other 10% being “held by H for the big guy.”

Tony Bobulinski, another one of Hunter’s former business partners, claims that he had a meeting with Joe Biden regarding the CEFC venture on May 2, 2017, and that the president was the individual referred to as the “big guy” in Gilliar’s email. Additionally, Gilliar himself confirmed that Joe Biden was the “big guy” mentioned in a message found on the laptop.

And as the NY Post reports, “The following year, federal investigators began looking into whether Hunter and his business associates violated tax and money laundering laws during their dealings in China and other countries. Emails and other records related to the deals were found on the laptop, which Hunter dropped off at a Delaware repair shop in 2019 and never reclaimed.“

“I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years,” Hunter told his daughter Naomi in January, 2019. “It’s really hard. But don’t worry, unlike pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary.”

Of course, Hunter paid his daddy $50k a month in rent.

Here’s a text message Hunter sent his daughter in 2019 saying he gives JOE BIDEN “half” his salary.

This was found on Hunter’s laptop.https://t.co/Ys1TzTlq3l pic.twitter.com/gsO8hP8r3b

— kanekoa.substack.com (@KanekoaTheGreat) January 14, 2023

As the Post continues:

The laptop doesn’t contain any direct evidence of such money transfers but shows Hunter was routinely on the hook for household expenses — including repairs to the Wilmington home.

In December 2020, weeks after his father was elected president, Hunter Biden announced that his “tax affairs” were being investigated by federal authorities in Delaware, and said he was “confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately.”

Recent reports have indicated investigators believe they have enough evidence to charge the first son with tax crimes — as well as with lying about his drug abuse on a federal form so he could buy a gun in 2018.

So, was the $49,910 ‘monthly’ rent a simple crackhead mistake when that was in fact the annual payment amount, or did Hunter create “Exhibit A” for any honest prosecutors to pursue? We aren’t holding our breath on the latter.

By Peter Tchir, chief strategist at Academy Securities

Since it is the start of the year, it seems like as good of a time as any to put a few things on record before diving into the meat of this T-Report. There are things that I want to refer back to over the course of the year because they relate to the business of strategy.

For the Record #1

Everyone hates strategists who claim to have called every move correctly. I can guarantee you that if someone called every move right in the markets, they wouldn’t be sitting in front of a computer typing missives because they’d be bazillionaires!

A close second for the most annoying behavior by strategists is touting their good calls and completely ignoring their bad calls (Bitcoin is back to $21,000 this weekend).

Some of this is human nature. We all “want” to be right and all tend to emphasize the “good” rather than the “bad”.

For the Record #2

Many of our readers have P&Ls. That is a discipline like no other and while I try to think of our strategies in terms of P&L generation, risk management, etc., it isn’t the same as having an actual P&L.

Having said that, we have people who live and die by daily/weekly/monthly P&Ls (which is ideal for Bloomberg IB as a form of communication). We also have people with weekly/monthly/quarterly timeframes (the T-Report is geared for these people). Finally, we have some who even think in years (which seems important for corporate strategy, but it is difficult to manage a portfolio around).

For the Record #3

One thing that strategists dislike is when people discuss their “idea” with them but don’t realize that it was the strategist’s “idea”! That is largely a failing on the strategist’s part. Either the work isn’t getting distributed well enough (a good time to check mailing lists, ensure things aren’t going to junk, etc.), the work/titles are too confusing (though I’m not sure I could live without writing I Like Big Banks and I Can Not Lie), or I just need to write more clearly.

Last weekend’s A Simple View is part of the process of addressing this issue going forward. 8 Seconds served the function of letting people know that our positioning had changed, but maybe the title was confusing (though the image of trying to ride a wild bull felt “informative” to me).

Finally, while the Fed is apolitical, I couldn’t help but send out the Shifting Politics of Inflation on Friday, because that has the potential to shift the national narrative and could either influence the Fed or (at least in the case of the WSJ) might be the conduit the Fed is using to signal a change.

On the Record

We will “subtly” shift from “for the record” to “on the record”.

Rachel Washburn hosted a fun and interesting webinar on Friday that started with World War III possibilities but ended in a better place. Generals (ret.) Walsh and Marks were spot on, and I was able to add a few points on how their geopolitical input is impacting our macro market and economic outlooks (replay will be available shortly).

Academy was one of three firms that participated in Friday’s half-hour Real Yield show on Bloomberg TV. You know a show covers a lot of fixed income ground when CLO ETFs get mentioned and it seemed to be a fluid part of the conversation (rather than forced). Some really interesting views and ideas from the other guests made this a great show to watch if you have about 20 minutes or so this long weekend.

On the Road

My favorite part of my job has kicked off in earnest! From D.C. and Princeton last week, to San Francisco, Palo Alto, Newport Beach, and San Diego this week, seeing clients is back in vogue. There is nothing more fun than sitting with people in a variety of jobs/industries and sharing ideas. I’m even excited for Minneapolis in early Feb (it will be cold, but should be fun) and look forward to another opportunity to speak to a group of municipal issuers in Alabama!

Travel and seeing such a diverse group of people allows me to learn about so many aspects of the economy and it makes my job so much easier!

Consensus is Neutral

Back to the meat of the report. If I’ve done a good job explaining myself this year, you should know that I’m basically neutral on stocks, bonds, and credit here. That view seems to be rather consensus.

The CNN Fear & Greed Index has bumped up to 63 (which is technically in greed territory, but just above neutral).

The AAII Sentiment Survey is in neutral territory (though very close to being too pessimistic). What was most interesting is that the number of bears has dropped from 52.3% to 39.9% since December 21st, but almost all of those people piled into the “neutral” camp as the number of bulls remained quite low.

I’m not big on technical charts, but this chart sticks out so much that I couldn’t help but use it to illustrate my “neutral” point (I’m not opposed to charts, but they just aren’t my first choice of things to highlight).

The S&P has snuggled right up against the 200 day moving average. From my limited understanding of charts, this is a crucial level. The S&P has failed to breach the 200 DMA since the sell-off took hold in late March. It could easily be rejected again. On the other hand, if it breaks through, we could see buyers emerge. Not only from all of those positioned as “neutral”, but from bears and particularly CTAs which have a reputation for being formulaic/algorithmic and tied to big levels (like the 200 DMA).

So maybe I should refine my view from simply “neutral” to “neutral, waiting to pounce on the next move – if only I knew what that next move would be”.

Even though at the start of today’s report we wrote about providing more “clarity” on views, I’d lean towards owning some tail risk in either direction! If we fail around here, many could press shorts and get out of recently acquired risk. If we break above, the opposite happens.

Yes, at some level this happens all the time, but the “neutral” positioning coupled with a major, very visible level (which happens to coincide with the big round number of 4,000) makes the next few days particularly interesting for me!

What’s Next for Inflation?

I think that inflation will continue to fall and we will see more monthly CPI prints that are negative and even Core CPI will have a negative print this quarter.

Many disagree, but I think that with Q4 coming in at 0.8% (3.2% simply annualized) we’ve “beaten” inflation.

What Will the Fed Do?

I’d be shocked if they did more than 25 bps at their next meeting.

Yes, they will talk about “financial conditions” (aka the S&P 500), but they are starting to get the political and media aircover to back down from 50 bps and some of their higher terminal rate calls.

There are still over 2 weeks until their meeting and we will get more data. I’m betting that if anything, that data steers them to “25 bps and done” messaging (probably too late for them to do zero, which is what I think that they should do).

The Fed will NOT be quick to cut. They should stop hiking, but even I’m not advocating for cuts (it would have been easier if they started on the glide path to stopping rate hikes a few meetings ago).

They will continue to do QT. This, to me, acts as an anchor on markets as every month we need to absorb more bonds from the system than if QE had not started in the first place. Why QT gets so little attention still baffles me.

The Bank of Japan is expected to let the 10-year yield rise to as much as 1%. I view this as “on par” with QT. It is another drag on asset prices in the U.S. as Japanese investors can allow some of their FX hedged/dollar denominated bonds to roll-off when the hedges come due and just buy domestic bonds. It isn’t alarming and won’t be all at once, but it adds to the pressures of finding dollar denominated asset buyers. With the 10-year bund at 2.16% this is already happening in Europe, but it also tells me that 1% is probably getting to the low end of the range that the JGB 10-year would naturally trade at given their domestic savings rate and still low levels of inflation.

What Will the Economy Do?

Yes, jobs still seem good, but that isn’t as important as it should be. What I’m seeing is a couple industries acting as the epicenter of the problems for the economy!

Big tech, fueled by everyone (from private equity, to vehicle manufacturers) took 5 steps forward in the past few years! Will we see one or two steps back as companies become more cost conscious and not every tech investment will be cheered by equity holders. Have manufacturers changed what chips they rely on as they’ve battled supply chains? Without a doubt, in 5 years technology will play an even bigger role in society and the economy, but it doesn’t mean that we haven’t already priced too much in.

I see a potential problem in this market that it is radiating out. The local economies are incredibly interconnected.

The homebuilder ETF (XHB) is up almost 20% in the past 3 months! This is a contrarian play that I probably should have gotten on board with, but this is an industry still in the early stages of digesting the spike in mortgage rates and overall loss of wealth in this country. I’m keeping an eye on this.

We will get some clarity and resolution on the inventory side of the equation in the coming weeks as we get the regular data and we also have companies discussing it in detail. I’m not optimistic, but maybe this will be a pleasant surprise.

Services could be the key. Was the print that we highlighted last weekend an anomaly or a harbinger of more bad news? Even as a bear on the economy, that data seemed surprisingly weak, so I expect something not quite so bad, but “less good” than most bulls are building into their forecast.

What About Earnings?

I will start by quoting my friend Peter Boockvar. He “guarantees” every quarter that about 70-75% of companies will beat earnings. His point, as I take it, is that expectations get pushed down to the point that most companies beat them, so there is little to be gleaned from the parade of “beats” that we will get.

We will all be listening to how CEOs portray their vision for the rest of the year. Their views will mean a lot, but they usually do.

My gut is that they will be more cautious than expectations, in part because some of the “wiggle” room that they had late last year has already been used. Also, they are in jobs where they want to outperform expectations, and even if your company is doing well, you might be cautious because you see companies around you going through tougher times.

The one thing I “know” for certain is that we will get a lot of chatter about stock repurchases post earnings announcements and unless something changes, that will help support equities.

It’s a Moving Picture, not a Snapshot

The biggest mistake people may be making is looking at the data as though it is static.

If we take a snapshot of recent data, it is easy to craft a “soft” landing narrative.

But we don’t live in a static world. Decisions made months ago (on the policy side, on the household side, on the corporate side, etc.) take time to play out. It would be fun if economists could drive the economy like a jet ski, but it is a huge tanker, and once underway it is difficult to turn or even change speed.

So, I 100% agree that the current data has a “soft” landing feel, but I don’t believe there is a chance that the weakening of economic data (alongside lower inflation) will stop here!

We had to be setting up to “catch” the fall here, and if anything, we are still pushing on this well past the point we should be.

Maybe I’m wrong here, but simple Newtonian physics tells us that an object, once set in motion, will stay in motion and that is what the Fed has done and we are going to blow right through the “soft” landing station and enter into some unsafe territory.

Bottom Line

Stocks

• Neutral.
• Own options that cost very little, but generate profits if the S&P 500 breaks 4,100 or 3,900 by the end of next week (yes, resolution will be rapid and I hope that I don’t miss it between now and when futures open, let alone in the actual market).
• “Gun to head” I’d bet that the rally continues and we test 4,200 on the S&P 500 which means I’ve got to get back on that bucking bronco (or I got off too early).
• We will break 2022’s lows, but that isn’t my gut for the next move.

Rates

• The 10-year at 3.5% isn’t particularly appealing. We should see corporate issuance spike after earnings announcements. 3.5% is quite inverted versus the front end with a Fed that will hike at least 25 bps more. The BOJ won’t help things. Positioning has become a bit bullish on bonds (at least from the chatter I hear). So, even in my deflationary view, I would not be long 10s here.
• I like 5-years better than other points. It is “only” 3.6%, so not much of a pick-up, but I like the risk/reward better in 5s. Maybe, the 2-year is more obvious, but it has so little duration and if I’m right and the Fed won’t hike (but also won’t cut), then there isn’t a lot of room.
• For now, I’d be short Treasuries/sovereign debt. Yes, I think that deflation will be the discussion point of this quarter, but for now, I just don’t see much value in sovereign debt.

Credit

• A “weird” barbell. I’m most concerned about leveraged loans (more so than high yield, because of the type of issuer that tapped that market, versus the bond market), but I like “senior” tranches of CLOs (anything IG rated and even BB). It is difficult to go lower in the cap structure of CLOs given the fact that the building blocks are my least favorite part of the credit market. Prices of various CLO tranches have bounced nicely in the past couple of months and new deals could accumulate some good collateral at really interesting levels.
• I’m “meh” on high yield and even investment grade.
  • High yield is so hated but while it is interesting, the combination of rate risk and credit risk isn’t a screaming buy to me (though certainly more of a buy than leveraged loans).
  • Investment grade is ok, but I think if Treasury yields rise, spreads will contract by 25% or so of the move in Treasuries, so I expect higher overall yields and lower dollar prices. If sovereign yields drop, spreads will widen on at least a 50% basis (if not closer to 100%). So, in a falling yield environment, IG yields won’t change much and dollar prices won’t do a lot (kind of a difficult risk/reward to pitch).
• So, I am equal weight IG and underweight sovereign debt. I am underweight leveraged loans and would use those funds to buy CLO tranches or some high yield bonds instead.

That’s what I’ve got for now. Will be an interesting week or two and it is difficult being so bearish on the economy, but neutral (and maybe “gun to the head” bullish) on risk in the very short-term.

You know it’s bad when…

No lessor liar than Rep. Adam Schiff (R-Calif.), the now former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, admitted this morning that it’s possible national security was jeopardized after President Joe Biden’s lawyers confirmed classified documents were found in various locations.

“I don’t think we can exclude the possibility without knowing more of the facts,” the California Democrat said of the Biden documents when pressed by “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl about any national security risks.

“We have asked for an assessment in the intelligence community of the Mar-a-Lago documents,” Schiff said.

“I think we ought to get that same assessment of the documents found in the think tank as well as the home of President Biden. I’d like to know what these documents were. I’d like to know what the [intelligence community’s] assessment is, whether there was any risk of exposure and what the harm would be and whether any mitigation needs to be done.”

Of course, Schiff was quick to get back on track with the narrative, as echoing the media and most other Democrats, the Russia collusion hoaxer asserted that Biden’s and Trump’s cases are different because Biden, he said, is cooperating.

“The Biden approach was very different in the sense that it looks that it was inadvertent that these documents were at these locations,” Schiff said.

“There was no effort to hold onto them, no effort to conceal them, no effort to obstruct the Justice Department’s investigation.”

Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff says he’s “going to reserve judgment” on the Biden classified document scandal because it was probably “inadvertent” that Biden left classified documents lying around his office, garage, and home.#Democrat #Schiff #ClassifiedDocuments

via @RNCresearch pic.twitter.com/kq8k0f0pVU

— TRUTH PUKE (@TruthPuke) January 15, 2023

It’s worth noting, however, that the National Archives had confirmed last year that Trump’s lawyers were cooperating with the agency before the FBI raided his Florida residence in August.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Department of Defense may provide back pay to former service members who were removed for not receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, coming after the Pentagon repealed the mandate, a spokesperson confirmed Friday.

A Pentagon spokesperson told The Epoch Times, in response to reports from Politico and others, that regarding back pay, the “Department is still exploring this and will provide its views on legislation of this nature at the appropriate time and through the appropriate process.”

Dietz did not provide a timetable for when back pay might be considered.

On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin issued a memo (pdf) formally rescinding the vaccine mandate after lawmakers passed a defense spending bill into law in December that required the change. The Pentagon had already stopped discharging service members who didn’t get the vaccine.

“The Department will continue to promote and encourage COVID-19 vaccination for all service members,” Austin wrote, coming about a year and a half after it was implemented.

“Vaccination enhances operational readiness and protects the force.”

Commanders can decide on whether to deploy troops who are not vaccinated, the memo said. That includes when COVID-19 vaccination is mandated “for travel to, or entry into, a foreign nation,” it added.

“Certainly commanders do have a responsibility to ensure that if they’re sending forces to a place that requires a vaccine that that’s a situation that will be addressed, you know, on a case-by-case basis,” Pentagon spokesman Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder told reporters on Thursday.

“But you know, we have a responsibility for the health and welfare of our forces. And so, you know, again, depending on the situation and the circumstances, it is incumbent on commanders to ensure that they’re doing what they need to do to make sure those forces are ready.”

The contentious mandate forced more than 8,400 troops out of the military as top officials said they were refusing to obey an order for declining to take the vaccine. Thousands of people sought medical and religious exemptions, although a federal judge last month wrote (pdf) that the number of service members who successfully obtained religious exemption is far smaller than those who got medical exemptions.

Austin said more than 2 million service members, or 96 percent of the active duty and reserve forces, are fully vaccinated.

In August 2021 and after the Pfizer vaccine was granted emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration, Austin instituted the mandate and said that it was necessary to protect the health of the military force.

He and other defense leaders argued that for decades troops, particularly those deployed overseas, had been required to get as many as 17 different vaccines, including shots for anthrax. No other vaccine mandates were affected by the new rules.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters in December that the Biden administration believes removing the mandate was a “mistake,” repeating claims from Austin that the shot makes “sure our troops are prepared and ready for service.” President Joe Biden ultimately signed the bill when it passed both chambers of Congress.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon in Washington on Nov. 3, 2022. (Andrew Harnik/AP Photo)

Despite those arguments, Congress agreed to rescind the mandate, with opponents reluctantly saying that perhaps it had already succeeded in getting the bulk of the force vaccinated. Some lawmakers have expressed concerns that the mandate and other policy directives have driven down enlistment in recent years.

Those members of Congress argued that ending the mandate would help with recruiting. Defense officials have pushed back by saying that while it may help a bit, a department survey during the first nine months of last year found that a large majority said the mandate did not change the likelihood they would consider enlisting.

Those who were discharged for refusing to obey a lawful order to take the vaccine received either an honorable discharge or a general discharge under honorable conditions.

Austin’s memo says that anyone who was discharged can petition their military service to request a change in the “characterization of their discharge” in their personnel records. It does not, however, say what possible corrections could be awarded.

The Ukrainian government has recently issued a call for its Western backers to provide heavy tanks so in can beat back Russian forces, after countries like Poland and other Eastern European governments have already provided an estimated 300 modernized Soviet tanks since last February.

But Kiev is urging for hundreds more Western-manufactured tanks to be sent, especially the US M1 Abrams. But so far Washington has only pledged light infantry carriers – the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

As we detailed previously, it’s now the UK and Poland leading the charge among allies to send tanks, given London lately announced it will send the the Challenger 2, widely considered a highly capable main battle tank. But a new warning from Moscow has said the decision will only intensify the conflict, saying that instead of bringing any significant Ukrainian edge on the battlefield, more civilians will be harmed in the fighting.

“Bringing tanks to the conflict zone, far from drawing the hostilities to a close, will only serve to intensify combat operations, generating more casualties, including among the civilian population,” a weekend statement by the Russian embassy in London said.

Undeterred by Russia’s warnings, Ukrainian President Zelensky thanked the UK for the takes, suggesting that Britain has made it easier for other allies to send heavy tanks. He said this “will not only strengthen us on the battle field, but also send the right signal to other partners“.

Zelensky and his top officials have also repeatedly requested air power in order to “close the skies” given clearly Russia has a significant aerial tactical advantage, though the US is now training Ukrainian personnel on how to operate Patriot anti-air defense missiles. 

“To win this war, we need more military equipment, heavy equipment,” a statement from Zelensky’s office also urged. Poland days ago pledged German-made Leopard tanks.

As for air power, UK tabloid papers have reported that Britain will also supply a handful of Apache attack helicopters, but this prompted an immediate denial of the claims by the British government. 

The tanks package is expected to be delivered to the Ukrainians “in the coming weeks” according to a UK statement, and it will be a squadron, or 14 ‘Challenger 2’ tanks, including over two dozen AS-90 artillery guns.