Overnight trading in Japan saw a landmark event pass quietly into the history books.

For the first time since 2014, there are no negative-yielding bonds in the world…

From a peak of $18.4 trillion in December 2020 (and over 4000 bonds with a negative yield), the experiment in financial repression is over… for now…

Will we ever see the 2014-2022 era again?

As Deutsche’s Jim Reid notes, before this point most people would have thought negative-yielding debt was an inconceivable concept.

While there is no value in buying negative yielding debt, especially in a fiat world where inflation will always likely be positive, you can’t rule out central banks having to buy large amounts of debt again in the future.

However, for now this looks set to be the welcome end of an era as some value returns to global fixed income.

Via Eurasia Group,

Top Risks is Eurasia Group’s annual forecast of the political risks that are most likely to play out over the course of the year. This year’s report was published on 3 January 2023.

Download the full report here…

OVERVIEW

We’re (mostly) through the pandemic. Russia has no way to win in Ukraine. The European Union is stronger than ever. NATO rediscovered its reason for being. The G7 is strengthening. Renewables are becoming dirt cheap. American hard power remains unrivaled. Midterms in the United States were decidedly normal … and many of the candidates posing the biggest threat to democracy (especially those who would have had authority over elections) lost their races. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is the weakest he has been since he became president, with a large number of Republicans preparing to take him on for the GOP nomination.

There’s got to be a catch.

The big one: A small group of individuals has amassed an extraordinary amount of power, making decisions of profound geopolitical consequence with limited information in opaque environments. On a spectrum of geopolitics with integrated globalization at one extreme, these developments are at the other extreme, and they’re driving a disproportionate amount of the uncertainty in the world today.

Our top risks this year are skewed toward these actors and their impact: Rogue Russia, Maximum Xi, Weapons of mass disruption, and Iran in a corner all come from international actors facing severe structural challenges and strong opposition (internal and/or external) in achieving their desired goals, with neither oversight, adequate expert inputs, nor checks and balances constraining their actions. 

Dictatorships are stumbling at the same time that they’re becoming more consolidated. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is too isolated for its leader to attend the G20 summit, facing serious economic and military decline … while NATO has never looked stronger. Iran, Russia’s most important military ally, faces a deeply hostile geopolitical environment alongside the greatest domestic unrest since the 1979 revolution that brought the Islamic Republic to power. China was thoroughly unprepared for its troubles with zero Covid (our #1 risk last year), leading to unprecedented demonstrations … and a sudden turnaround of President Xi Jinping’s policy, ending restrictions two years after the Americans and Europeans. Their trajectories are, to varying degrees, increasingly unsustainable.

More broadly, progress in human development has been thrown into reverse by a global pandemic, a land war in Europe, a massive inflationary shock, and mounting climate catastrophe. After decades of globalization pushing unprecedented global growth and the emergence of a robust global middle class, we are now seeing a majority of the world’s 8 billion people fare worse, not better, in education levels, life expectancy, economic well-being, and safety and security. The headwinds for human development will grow in 2023.

American leadership is a double-edged sword. One year into Russia’s failed war, the United States has only gained as the world’s sole global military leader. Core allies clearly recognize their reliance on the United States for national security, broadly defined. America’s comparative economic power is stronger coming out of the pandemic and through the Russia war than after the global financial crisis in 2008. Whispering in Europe has gotten louder that the global position of the United States is benefiting from the war, while the Europeans and Japan face deindustrialization and a permanent end to the peace dividend. China, too, faces massive economic challenges, much greater than other major countries. Its economy is still expected to surpass that of the United States in GDP by 2030, but there is a growing chance it never does. And if it does, this does not herald a Chinese century as China’s population halves by 2100. If any major middle-income country is truly outperforming in the coming decades, it’s the world’s soon-to-be third largest economy (and its largest democracy), India.

But in terms of leading by example, it’s a radically different story for the United States. In 1989, the US was the world’s leading exporter of democracy. Today, it is the leading exporter of tools that undermine democracy—the result of algorithms and social media platforms that rip at the fabric of civil society while maximizing profit, creating unprecedented political division, disruption, and dysfunction. That trend is accelerating fast—not driven by governments but by a small collection of individuals with little understanding of the social and political impact of their actions.

Is the tech centibillionaire a bigger threat to global instability than Putin or Xi? It’s unclear but the right question to ask and a critical challenge for the world’s democracies, highlighting the vulnerability of representative political institutions and the growing allure of state control and surveillance. As we showed with the J Curve back in 2006, open societies were the most stable, in part because technology strengthened them and weakened authoritarian regimes. In 2023, less than two decades later, the opposite is true.

It’s not the end of democracy (nor of NATO or the West). But we remain in the depths of a geopolitical recession, with the risks this year the most dangerous we’ve encountered in the 25 years since we started Eurasia Group. 

And now, our top risks.

1. ROGUE RUSSIA

A humiliated Russia will turn from global player into the world’s most dangerous rogue state, posing a serious security threat to Europe, the United States, and beyond.

READ THE RISK

2. MAXIMUM XI

Xi Jinping emerged from China’s 20th Party Congress in October 2022 with a grip on power unrivaled since Mao Zedong.

READ THE RISK

3. WEAPONS OF MASS DISRUPTION

New technologies will be a gift to autocrats bent on undermining democracy abroad and stifling dissent at home.

READ THE RISK

4. INFLATION SHOCKWAVES

Rising interest rates and global recession will raise the risk of emerging-market crises.

READ THE RISK

5. IRAN IN A CORNER

The chance of regime collapse is low, but it’s higher than at any point in the past four decades.

READ THE RISK

6. ENERGY CRUNCH

Higher oil prices will also increase frictions between OPEC+ and the United States.

READ THE RISK

7. ARRESTED GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT

Women and girls will suffer the most, losing hard-earned rights, opportunities, and security.

READ THE RISK

8. DIVIDED STATES OF AMERICA

There is a continuing risk of political violence in the US, even as some who participated in the Capitol riots go to prison.

READ THE RISK

9. TIK TOK BOOM

Gen Z has both the ability and the motivation to organize online to reshape corporate and public policy, making life harder for multinationals everywhere and disrupting politics with the click of a button.

READ THE RISK

10. WATER STRESS

This year, water stress will become a global and systemic challenge…while governments will still treat it as a temporary crisis.

READ THE RISK

RED HERRINGS

Cracks in support for Ukraine. EU political dysfunction. Taiwan crisis. Tech tit-for-tat. 2023 Red Herrings.

READ THE RED HERRINGS

CONCLUSION

We try not to think too hard about writing a report on where the world is going (put it that way, and it feels like a daunting task). But it’s not about prediction. You start with where the world is, really is, and to the extent that you get that assessment right, it constrains more outcomes than any crystal ball ever could. In many ways, Top Risks is about the art of what’s not possible.

We learn as much about ourselves as the world in the process. What biases are we holding on to that need to be challenged? What are the things we think we know that aren’t really so? And what would make us wrong?

We hope we’ve addressed these issues—we’ve certainly tried! As always, we’ll be keeping the Top Risks on our homepage all year, so we can keep ourselves honest … and then come back in December and see how we’ve done.

In the meantime, a heartfelt thanks for your support for the 25 years since we started Eurasia Group. It’s a milestone that makes us stop for a moment. Yes, we’re older, if not wiser (though it helps that we were children when we founded this thing). We’re definitely more grateful.

Our very best wishes for our year ahead.

The price of critical material for solar panels plunged this week as supply has caught up with demand, according to BloombergNEF. 

The average cost of the highest grade of polysilicon slid another 20% this week due to oversupplied conditions. This also led to a 1% drop in solar panel prices to the lowest nominal value since May 2021. 

According to the China Silicon Industry Association, polysilicon produced in China increased to 96,700 metric tons in December 2022, 7.5% more than in the previous month. New polysilicon manufacturing capacity in China boosted domestic production in 2022 by 66%. 

BNEF analysis shows polysilicon prices are in freefall. Now at $24 per kilogram. 

The good news is that polysilicon is at the heart of manufacturing solar panels. This could mean panel prices are set to decline further. 

Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

The war in Ukraine remains the most important story in the world today.

Don’t believe the incessant U.S. government and media propaganda about Ukraine. Ukraine is not winning the war; they are losing badly.

But wait, hasn’t the news been talking up Ukrainian gains in recent months, while Russia is retreating and being badly beaten? That’s the mainstream, pro-Ukrainian narrative. Here’s the reality:

Most of the Ukrainian gains were against lightly defended positions that the Russians quickly abandoned because they were not worth fighting to defend.

Those Russian troops (really Donbas militias) were ordered to retreat to fortified Russian lines while Ukrainian forces rushing to fill the void were slaughtered by Russian artillery bombardments.

Most people think of war in terms of territory. If you lose territory, it must mean you’re losing the war. But it’s not always that simple.

The Russian Strategy

The Russians will willingly cede territory in order to fight again at a later time under more favorable circumstances. They’ll simply retake it when the terms favor them. They’re not primarily concerned about the territory per se. The primary Russian objective is to grind down and destroy the Ukrainian armed forces.

And if the Ukrainians want to keep hurling themselves against Russian positions in order to recapture land and score a propaganda coup, that’s fine with the Russians. They’ll just grind the attacking forces down with heavy artillery fire (artillery kills far more people in war than bullets or bombs).

And despite Ukrainian government claims, the best intelligence says Russia is presently enjoying an 8–10:1 casualty rate. In other words, Russia is inflicting eight–10 casualties on Ukraine for every casualty it’s suffering.

That kind of ratio isn’t sustainable for Ukraine.

Russia Prepares to Lower the Boom on Ukraine

Meanwhile, Russia has reinforced its positions with 300,000 or more fresh troops (about 30 divisions) who are rested and resupplied. That’s in addition to the number of troops already in Ukraine.

Evidence indicates they’re backed by at least 1,500 tanks, 5,000 armored fighting vehicles, 1,000 rocket artillery systems, hundreds of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters plus thousands of tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones.

At the same time, all indications are that Russia is changing its strategy.

The initial Russian invasion was ill-conceived and took place in a piecemeal fashion. Contrary to mainstream opinion, Putin never intended to conquer Kyiv and occupy Ukraine. The invasion force was far too small to accomplish those objectives.

Also contrary to mainstream opinion, Putin didn’t target Ukraine’s civilian population. He wanted to avoid civilian casualties to the greatest possible extent. Of course some civilian targets were hit, but that’s going to happen in war.

Putin instead believed that the “special military operation” would tell Kyiv and Washington that Russia was serious about enforcing its red lines in Ukraine, that it was willing to use force.

But he thought his show of force would bring them to the negotiating table.

He badly miscalculated.

Rather than bring Kyiv and Washington to the negotiating table, they resolved to aggressively defend Ukraine.

Russia’s ill-prepared forces were pushed back and routed in many instances.

“Russia Means Business This Time”

But now Russia is taking the gloves off. It’s already launched heavy, sustained attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, including the power grid and energy nodes. Its army is also regrouping and preparing for massive counteroffensives.

It won’t make the same mistakes it made during last February’s ill-planned attacks. Russia means business this time.

It’s not interested in bringing Ukraine to the negotiating table anymore. It’s focused instead on destroying Ukraine’s military forces and imposing a settlement on Kyiv.

A major winter offensive will begin soon, likely when the ground in southern Ukraine is fully frozen (muddy ground will bog down Russian forces). A successful counteroffensive will consolidate Russian control of Donbas (the heartland of Ukrainian industry and natural resources), give Russia control of Zaporizhzhya (the largest nuclear power plant in Europe) and possibly include the conquest of Odessa, the most important Ukrainian Black Sea port.

The cost on the rest of Ukraine from Kyiv to Lviv will be horrendous, including the near-complete degradation of its power-generating capacity, transportation lines and food supplies. U.S. and U.K. weapons supplies won’t mean much because they are too little, too late and the Ukrainians are scarcely trained to use them.

But these prospects make no impact at all on the anti-Russian warhawks, both Democrat and Republican, who are determined to prolong the war at all costs — even if it means fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian.

A Great Deal for the Military-Industrial Complex

It seems that every week or so the U.S. announces a new multibillion-dollar package of aid for Ukraine. These aid packages fall into two categories: Some are simple financial transfers to keep the oligarchs in Ukraine supplied with funds to keep their government going.

Others consist of weapons including drones, anti-missile batteries like the Patriot, long-range artillery and most recently an announcement that the U.S. may supply Ukraine with Bradley Fighting Vehicles, or BFVs.

The total of such Ukraine aid, including the $1.7 trillion budget boondoggle passed by the U.S. Congress two weeks ago, is now approaching $100 billion.

When it comes to weapons, there’s a lot less than meets the eye in terms of helping Ukraine. It appears that Ukraine is getting billions of dollars in equipment, but in fact, Ukraine is getting castoffs from U.S. inventories.

What’s really going on is the U.S. is dumping old or obsolete systems on Ukraine (the original BFV was built in 1981, over forty40 years ago) and then using the appropriations to order new weapons for itself.

Meanwhile, the U.S. will likely send Ukraine an older version of the Patriot air defense system — and only one battery at that, consisting of eight missile launchers. It’s not the game-changer many seem to think it is. The Russians will simply overwhelm the system with numbers, and then take it out. It probably won’t last long whenever it’s deployed, which could be several months from now.

The real winners of these weapons transfers will be U.S. defense contractors like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, who are getting the money to build new advanced systems for the U.S.

The real losers will be the Ukrainian people, who will continue to die needlessly in the absence of a negotiated settlement that recognizes the reality on the ground.

How Much Western Military Aid Actually Makes It Into the Field?

To make this racket even more absurd, much of the equipment that does make it to Ukraine is quickly blown up by Russia.

Russia has very good intelligence on the whereabouts of these weapons systems once they reach Ukraine. Using global satellite imaging, laser guidance and a blend of drones and cruise missiles, Putin has had success preventing these weapons from reaching the battlefield or destroying them if they do.

But the U.S. has already spent so much money on Ukraine and committed itself so strongly to a complete Russian defeat, a Russian victory would represent another strategic defeat for the U.S., still smarting from the debacle in Afghanistan.

What remains of U.S. credibility is on the line.

Brinksmanship

What happens if Russia brings Ukraine to the verge of defeat? Will Biden and his strongly anti-Russian administration simply throw up their hands and concede victory to Russia? Based on their maximalist rhetoric and commitment to Ukrainian victory, that appears unlikely.

Biden has shown no signs of relenting and recently said he will supply Ukraine with weapons as long as it takes. On the other hand, Putin will also not back down and seems determined to secure the entire seacoast of Ukraine, including the critical port of Odessa.

The great danger could arise if the U.S. foolishly continues escalation to the bitter end in order to stave off a Ukrainian defeat. I’m not predicting it’ll happen, but things could escalate to the point where tactical nuclear weapons are employed out of desperation. From that point, it’s a short step toward the broader use of strategic nuclear weapons.

Again, I’m not specifically predicting that will happen. But it is a realistic possibility based on the logic of escalation, and we seem to be sleepwalking into a nuclear confrontation unless we wake up.

Will we?

Turkish media is confirming a major incident between a Turkish coast guard vessel and a Greek coast guard patrol boat on Thursday, describing that the Greek patrol was harassing Turkish fishing boats before Turkish coast guard authorities intervened. But Athens has countered that it was the Turkish side harassing Greek vessels.

Both sides are saying warning shots were fired and are attributing acts of aggression to the other side: “A Greek coast guard patrol boat’s crew fired warning shots early Thursday to deter a Turkish coast guard vessel that was trying to ram them in the eastern Aegean Sea, authorities in Athens said, as tensions between the two neighbors remain high,” the Associated Press reports.

The Greek coast guard statement continued by saying “the crew fired warning shots in a secure sector and the Turkish coast guard vessel withdrew” toward the Turkey’s coast line, indicating the shots were not fired directly toward the opposing vessel, but in the air.

It further said the Turkish side “carried out dangerous maneuvers with the intention of ramming” the Greek vessel. Greece is saying the encounter occurred just off the Greek islet of Farmakonissi, describing that it was 1.5 nautical miles (or 1.7 miles) inside Greece’s territorial waters.

These types of ramming incidents have become more frequent over the past years, despite there being relative quiet throughout much of 2022 in comparison with past years.

However, there’s been persisting threats coming out of both sides, with speculation in Greek media that Erdogan could be planning war, and to take control of Greek territorial waters especially in the Aegean. Cyprus has also condemned frequent incursions into its waters as illegal.

Both Cyprus and Greece have long condemned what they say is Turkish fishing – as well as oil and gas exploration – inside their Exclusive Economic Zones. Both countries have repeatedly complained to the EU, with France in particular having offered military assistance to better monitor air and maritime incursions by Turkey’s military.

Authored by Chris Summers via The Epoch Times,

Freedom of expression is under threat in Scotland because the police are increasingly recording non-crimes as “hate incidents,” the watchdog Index on Censorship has warned.

Guidance from the College of Policing, the professional body for officers in England and Wales, suggests officers should log a non-crime hate incident if it is “perceived to be” motivated by hatred or prejudice, even if the speaker insists it was a joke or an innocent remark.

The college updated its guidance in July 2022 after judges said, in 2020, they were having a “chilling effect on public debate.”

But The Times of London reported that in 2021 Police Scotland logged 928 incidents of “malice and ill will” where no criminal offence had been committed, twice the number in 2017.

Police Scotland also logged 625 non-crime hate incidents in the first half of 2022.

In a statement to The Times of London, Police Scotland denied it “had introduced a culture whereby ‘jokes’ or freedom of speech were curtailed.”

But the Chief Executive of Index on Censorship, Ruth Smeeth, said: “There is a clear danger that the police involvement in the reporting and recording of speech that falls below legal thresholds can have a damaging impact on freedom of expression and robust debate. These figures, obtained through freedom of information, show a concerning and rapid upward trend in incidents.”

Smeeth, a former Labour MP, said, “The growing use risks the creation of a legal grey area where certain topics are avoided due to likelihood of police involvement, or their vexatious use by some to invite formal investigation and action against those exercising freedom of expression.”

Police Scotland’s Clyde Gateway headquarters at Dalmarnock, Glasgow, on Jan. 5, 2020. (PA)

The warning comes only days after the co-founder of a comedy club in London, Andy Shaw, said people were in danger of self-censoring in the workplace because of the danger of being reported for telling offensive jokes.

Shaw said “sarcasm” and “dark humour” helped people get through tough jobs in the emergency services or on hospital wards.

Shaw told NTD’s “British Thought Leaders” programme: “In certain areas, it is harder, if you’ve got one person who seeks to take offence and they know that they have the power to bring you down. There are people who can sense that power and it does attract bad actors.”

Shaw said the so-called “safe space environment” was being used by some to shut down any off-colour jokes or humour.

‘It’s More Risky to Be Funny’

He said, “It’s more risky to be funny, or to try and be funny, because the consequence of getting it wrong—or somebody accidentally misunderstanding what you’re saying or willfully misunderstanding what you’re saying and then reporting it to a higher authority—can have pretty disastrous consequences at work.”

In August last year Scottish comedian Jerry Sadowitz had a gig at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled by a venue which claimed the content of a previous show was “extreme in its racism, sexism, homophobia and misogyny.”

Sadowitz, 60, responded, writing in a statement on Twitter: “I ask nobody to agree with anything I say or do on stage… God forbid they should ever one day end up like me… And I have never ONCE courted a mainstream audience to come to my shows because, guess what??? In real life I really DON’T don’t want to upset anyone…”

It is not clear if the jokes made by Sadowitz were logged by Police Scotland as a non-crime hate incident.

The College of Policing’s guidelines were updated to remove “trivial or irrational” complaints and reports about incidents which were not “motivated by hostility.”

The guidance says, “Individuals who are commenting in a legitimate debate—for example, on political or social issues—should not be stigmatised because someone is offended.”

The guidance was issued after a retired police officer, Harry Miller, 57, took the College of Policing to court after a Humberside Police officer called him at his work to “check [his] thinking” after he wrote his opinion about transgender women on Twitter in 2019.

The Court of Appeal ruled the College of Policing guidance had breached Miller’s human rights.

The Assistant Chief Constable of Police Scotland, Gary Ritchie, told The Times of London, “A hate incident is any incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated, wholly or in part, by malice, ill will and prejudice, towards a person or group but which does not constitute a criminal offence.”

Ritchie said, “We are aware that hate-related incidents are one of the most under-reported forms of crime in the country and in recent years we have actively encouraged the reporting of hate crimes and hate incidents so it is not unexpected that there has been a rise in reports.”

He added, “If a hate incident is established as a non-crime then it is unlikely to be investigated further.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to Police Scotland for comment.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness (emphasis ours),

Did someone or something seize control of the United States?

What happened to the U.S. border? Where did it go? Who erased it? Why and how did 5 million people enter our country illegally? Did Congress secretly repeal our immigration laws? Did Joe Biden issue an executive order allowing foreign nationals to walk across the border and reside in the United States as they pleased?

Since when did money not have to be paid back? Who insisted that the more dollars the federal government printed, the more prosperity would follow? When did America embrace zero interest? Why do we believe $30 trillion in debt is no big deal?

When did clean-burning, cheap, and abundant natural gas become the equivalent to dirty coal? How did prized natural gas that had granted America’s wishes of energy self-sufficiency, reduced pollution, and inexpensive electricity become almost overnight a pariah fuel whose extraction was a war against nature? Which lawmakers, which laws, which votes of the people declared natural gas development and pipelines near criminal? 

Was it not against federal law to swarm the homes of Supreme Court justices, to picket and to intimidate their households in efforts to affect their rulings? How then with impunity did bullies surround the homes of Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas—furious over a court decision on abortion? How could these mobs so easily throng our justices’ homes, with placards declaring “Off with their d—s”?

Since when did Americans create a government Ministry of Truth? And on whose orders did the FBI contract private news organizations to censor stories it did not like and writers whom it feared? 

How did we wake up one morning to new customs of impeaching a president over a phone call? Of the speaker of the House tearing up the State of the Union address on national television? Of barring congressional members from serving on their assigned congressional committees? 

When did we assume the FBI had the right to subvert the campaign of a candidate it disliked? Was it legal suddenly for one presidential candidate to hire a foreign ex-spy to subvert the campaign of her rival?

Was some state or federal law passed that allowed biological males to compete in female sports? Did Congress enact such a law? Did the Supreme Court guarantee that biological male students could shower in gym locker rooms with biological women? Were women ever asked to redefine the very sports they had championed?

When did the government pass a law depriving Americans of their freedom during a pandemic? In America can health officials simply cancel rental contracts or declare loan payments in suspension? How could it become illegal for mom-and-pop stores to sell flowers or shoes during a quarantine but not so for Walmart or Target?

Since when did the people decide that 70 percent of voters would not cast their ballots on Election Day? Was this revolutionary change the subject of a national debate, a heated congressional session, or the votes of dozens of state legislatures? 

What happened to Election Night returns? Did the fact that Americans created more electronic ballots and computerized tallies make it take so much longer to tabulate the votes?  

When did the nation abruptly decide that theft is not a crime, assault not a felony? How can thieves walk out with bags of stolen goods, without the wrath of angry shoppers, much less fear of the law?

Was there ever a national debate about the terrified flight from Afghanistan?  Who planned it and why?

What happened to the once trusted FBI? Why almost overnight did its directors decide to mislead Congress, to deceive judges with concocted tales from fake dossiers and with doctored writs? Did Congress pass a law that our federal leaders in the FBI or CIA could lie with impunity under oath?

Who redefined our military and with whose consent? Who proclaimed that our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could call his Chinese Communist counterpart to warn him that America’s president was supposedly unstable? Was it always true that retired generals routinely libeled their commander-in-chief as a near Nazi, a Mussolini, an adherent of the tools of Auschwitz?

Were Americans ever asked whether their universities could discriminate against their sons and daughters based on their race? How did it become physically dangerous to speak the truth on a campus? Whose idea was it to reboot racial segregation and bias as “theme houses,” “safe spaces,” and “diversity”? How did that happen in America?

How did a virus cancel the Constitution? Did the lockdowns rob of us of our sanity? Or was it the woke hysteria that ignited our collective madness?

We are beginning to wake up from a nightmare to a country we no longer recognize, and from a coup we never knew.

American aerospace manufacturer Pratt & Whitney suspended deliveries of new engines used in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II while military officials investigated what went wrong when a stealth jet crashed on a Texas runway last month. 

Defense News received an email from the F-35 Joint Program Office explaining all F135 afterburning turbofan engine deliveries were halted on Dec. 27 by Pratt & Whitney to Lockheed.

JPO, the Defense Contract Management Agency, pointed to the Dec. 15 mishap involving an F-35B that crashed at the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth. 

“The F-35 Joint Program Office and Pratt & Whitney have agreed to delay scheduled delivery and acceptance of F135 engines until further information from the investigation is known and safety of flight can be ensured,” the JPO said. 

A Pratt & Whitney executive told Defense News that F135 deliveries were not formally suspended. And the aerospace manufacturer didn’t release a statement to clarify its statement. 

“There has been no formal suspension of F135 deliveries and we are working closely with the Joint Program Office on all aspects of the ongoing investigation and timing of deliveries.

 “The F135 has more than 600,000 flight hours. Safety for the warfighter is and will continue to be our number one priority,” said Jen Latka, vice president of F135 programs at Pratt & Whitney.

Here’s a video of the $100 million stealth fighter jet experiencing an embarrassing mishap.

#Breaking New much clearer video, courtesy Kitt Wilder, of STOL variant F35 B model landing JRB Fort Worth, and pilot ejects. Condition of pilot still unknown. @CBSDFW pic.twitter.com/BeERIeyhtO

— Doug Dunbar (@cbs11doug) December 15, 2022

“This had the effect of also halting deliveries for the last two weeks of the year, which meant Lockheed delivered 141 F-35s in 2022, fewer than the contractually required 148,” Defense News noted. 

Authored by Siyamak Khorrami via The Epoch Times,

A new California law, allowing men who identify as female to be housed in women’s prisons, is wreaking havoc within the women’s prison system and creating an environment of fear and “total chaos emotionally,” according to Amie Ichikawa, a plaintiff in a lawsuit which seeks to overturn it.

“It’s the worst human science project I’ve ever seen,” she said during a recent episode of EpochTV’s California Insider.

“This is very callous and brazen psychological warfare that is occurring right in our own state being fully funded by taxpayers’ dollars.”

Ichikawa, at 24, was incarcerated at the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla for five years. She recently founded the nonprofit Woman II Woman, which provides resources, education, and support for currently incarcerated women.

She said since 2020 when California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill—named The Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act and authored by California State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco)—she has received more phone calls, emails, and letters than she can count from incarcerated women in fear of their safety, post-traumatic disorder triggers, pregnancy, and STDs.

“How could they do this to us?” she said, was their theme.

California women’s cells now house eight inmates each, she said—extremely close living quarters of about 6-feet per inmate, leading to concerns by some female prisoners they may end up housed with a man—who now identifies as female—who has raped, for example, or who has “predatory intentions.”

“That’s a very tight space to share with anyone,” she said.

“But even more so with someone who has a history of violence against women.”

Ichikawa, now 40, said she realizes there is no privacy in prison, but with the new law, “there is no dignity either,” as some transfers are and will be full-bodied males, sharing what was once single-sex space.

The law allows an inmate who identifies as transgender, non-binary, or intersex to be housed, at their choice, with either male or female prisoners. By all accounts, it was written to help the transgender community feel more comfortable if incarcerated.

But according to Ichikawa, it has not benefited anyone.

“It has really created a toxic, diabolical situation of … the prison of the mind,” she said.

“People are afraid. Women are afraid to say anything. It’s crippling.”

She said there have been 40 such cases of men being transferred to women’s prisons since the law went into effect in January of 2021 and there are currently nearly 300 more applications in the pipeline, with more than one-third from inmates who are registered sex offenders.

According to Ichikawa, typically about 17 percent of California’s incarcerated are registered as such.

“That’s a big jump,” she said.

Some, she said, are men capitalizing on the law to move from typically more dangerous lockdowns because it’s easy to do so, with few requirements for a transfer other than self-identification.

“This is open season for anyone who wants to get out of the men’s prisons,” she said.

“There are very few reasons why someone would not want to take advantage,” of this.

In the 30-minute interview, she said there is no evidence of any women, so far, becoming harmed in the new arrangement.

But, she said, some female inmates have lodged complaints and then were retaliated against for doing so by prison authorities, who called such “harassment.”

Ichikawa additionally said currently incarcerated women were given little preparation for the change, but said she learned from some that a poster was introduced in one woman’s prison detailing options in the event of pregnancy. Condoms, she said, are also now dispensed.

“Those were never available before in women’s prisons,” she said.

She said she was also shocked to learn only nine California lawmakers voted against the bill, and that the California Women’s Legislative Caucus, composed of dozens of female Senators and Assemblymembers, backed it.

“It took my breath away to learn how much support was behind this,” she said.

“I didn’t know so many elected officials hated women so much.”

And, she said, she doesn’t think it’s stopping in California.

“This has got to be a nationwide, even a global movement to erase women,” Ichikawa said.

She said lawmakers who passed the bill didn’t fully understand its ramifications.

“Any adult breathing and with a pulse can see it will create a huge problem when you take a whole population and handpick a little part of it and give them all these privileges. It’s going to be dangerous,” she said.

She said she believed politicians got caught up in today’s ideological culture wars and were “fooled by pretty language, inclusive words.”

Ichikawa’s lawsuit, filed in November of 2021 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Fresno, alleges the law violates the federal and state rights of women currently incarcerated in California’s prisons.