Tuesday, June 29, 2021

Myocarditis, Pericarditis and mRNA Vaccines - An Association or a Cause?

A recent data release from a presentation at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides COVID-19 vaccine consumers with some rather concerning data, particularly if they are under the age of 30.


Let's start with some background.  Here is a graph from the CDC showing the weekly number of COVID-19 deaths for the age group 15 years to 24 years in brown and 25 years to 34 years in turquoise:


Here is a table showing how many Americans of varying age groups have died from COVID-19, pneumonia or influenza:


Note that only 2,704 Americans under the age of 30 had deaths that "involved COVID-19" or less than 0.46 percent of "COVID-19-involved" deaths for all age groups.

In the latest COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenario from the CDC dated March 19, 2021, we find the following table:


Note that the best estimate infection fatality ratio (IFR) for children between the ages of 0 and 17 years is 0.002 percent (20/1,000,000) and for people between the ages of 18 and 49 years, the best estimate infection fatality ratio is 0.05 percent (500/1,000,000).


Now, let's switch subjects and look at some additional physiological background to help us put this posting into context.  Here are two definitions from the Mayo Clinic:




Overview - Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle (myocardium). Myocarditis can affect your heart muscle and your heart's electrical system, reducing your heart's ability to pump and causing rapid or abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmias).


A viral infection usually causes myocarditis, but it can result from a reaction to a drug or be part of a more general inflammatory condition. Signs and symptoms include chest pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, and arrhythmias.


Severe myocarditis weakens your heart so that the rest of your body doesn't get enough blood. Clots can form in your heart, leading to a stroke or heart attack.


Complications - Severe myocarditis can permanently damage heart muscles and cause the following:


1.) Heart failure. Untreated, myocarditis can damage your heart's muscle so that it can't pump blood effectively. In severe cases, myocarditis-related heart failure may require a ventricular assist device or a heart transplant.

2.) Heart attack or stroke. If your heart's muscle is injured and can't pump blood, the blood that pools in your heart can form clots. If a clot blocks one of your heart's arteries, you can have a heart attack. If a blood clot in your heart travels to an artery leading to your brain before becoming lodged, you can have a stroke.

3.) Rapid or abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmias). Damage to your heart muscle can cause arrhythmias.

Sudden cardiac death. Certain serious arrhythmias can cause your heart to stop beating (sudden cardiac arrest). It's fatal if not treated immediately.

Here is a graphic showing myocarditis:



OverviewPericarditis is swelling and irritation of the thin, saclike tissue surrounding your heart (pericardium). Pericarditis often causes sharp chest pain and sometimes other symptoms. The chest pain occurs when the irritated layers of the pericardium rub against each other.


Pericarditis is usually mild and goes away without treatment. Treatment for more-severe cases may include medications and, rarely, surgery. Early diagnosis and treatment may help reduce the risk of long-term complications from pericarditis.


ComplicationsEarly diagnosis and treatment of pericarditis usually reduces the risk of the long-term complications. Complications of pericarditis include:


1.) Pericardial effusion. Pericarditis is usually associated with fluid around the heart, which can lead to more serious complications.

2.) Chronic constrictive pericarditis. Some people with long-term (chronic) pericarditis develop permanent thickening and scarring of the pericardium, which prevents the heart from filling and emptying properly. This unusual complication often leads to severe swelling of the legs and abdomen and shortness of breath.

3.) Cardiac tamponade. This life-threatening condition can develop when too much fluid collects in the pericardium. Excess fluid puts pressure on the heart and doesn't allow it to fill properly. Less blood leaves the heart, causing a dramatic drop in blood pressure. Cardiac tamponade requires emergency treatment.

Here is a diagram showing pericarditis:


Now, let's look at the recent data release from the CDC from a COVID-19 vaccine safety update presentation on June 23, 2021by the Vaccine Safety Team.  In this presentation, the author is looking at these two issues:

Here is a graph showing the preliminary reports of myocarditis/pericarditis for the mRNA vaccines by age and number of doses of vaccine:


Here are the symptoms experienced by the individuals under the age of 30:


Here is a graphic showing the number of cases of myocarditis/pericarditis following dose 2 of the mRNA vaccines for both males and females for all age groups.  Note that the "expected" column is based on  a U.S. population-based background incidence rate of myocarditis/pericarditis that was used in the safety assessment of the COVID-19 vaccines:


As you can see, among males under the age of 40 who have received the second mRNA vaccination, there is a significantly higher number of cases of myocarditis/pericarditis than expected, particularly among those between the ages of 12 and 24 (inclusive).  The background rate would have predicted between 1 and 12 case of myocarditis/pericarditis for this age group, however, real world reports to the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) observed 347 cases or 28.9 times more cases than predicted.


Let's close this posting with a quote from this recent article found in the British Medical Journal dated June 23, 2021:

"On 23 June the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s safety committee said there was a “likely association” between the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna covid-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis in some young adults. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said there was a higher than expected number of reports of heart inflammation in people aged 16-24 who had received the mRNA vaccines but that the benefits of vaccination still clearly outweighed the risks.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had received 1226 preliminary reports of myocarditis and pericarditis after about 300 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines up to 11 June. The US Food and Drug Administration said it would add a warning about the risk to information sheets for the mRNA covid vaccines. A joint statement signed by the US Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC, and medical organizations such as the American College of Physicians and American Medical Association emphasized that the side effect was “extremely rare” and that most cases were mild.

In the US the confirmed cases have mostly been seen in male adolescents and young adults and occur more often after the second dose than the first. CDC data showed that after 3 625 574 second doses administered to men aged 18-24 there were 233 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis, when two to 25 would have been expected. After 5 237 262 doses administered to women in this age group 27 cases were seen, against an expected two to 18. Vinay Prasad, a haematologist-oncologist and associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco, told The BMJ “There is a clear and large safety signal in young men and a clear but small signal in young women as well.


While the USDA will add a warning to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine information sheets, it is highly unlikely that these sheets will be seen by any of the young Americans being vaccinated.

While this may seem like a small number of cases given the millions of COVID-19 vaccine doses that have been administered to young Americans, the occurrence of myocarditis has the potential to result in a life-changing, negative health situation for an age group that had a negligible risk of dying from COVID-19 in the first place.  For the youngest among the mRNA vaccine recipients, the occurrence of vaccine-related myocarditis could have a very palpable impact on their parents as well.  While it is still unclear whether this serious adverse event is caused by the mRNA vaccines or merely associated with them, the purpose of vaccines is to benefit the person who gets it and not result in "net harm".

Sunday, June 27, 2021

The Medical Profession, Vaccine Dissent and the Cancel Culture

Back in early April 2021, this "Rapid Response" appeared on the website of the British Medical Journal (BMJ):


Should you happen to look at the URL of the article, you will note that it appears on the Archive.is webpage capturing website. It also appears on the Wayback Machine  Thankfully, the internet never forgets anything.


Should you happen to go search for the original article as it appeared on the BNJ website, this is what you'll find:



The original "Rapid Response" was written by Dr. Katya Polyakova-Nelson, the Medical Director of Partnerships in Care, Kent as shown here:

...who was writing a letter to the Editor of The BMJ in response to this article entitled "Do doctors have to have the covid-19 vaccine?" published on March 29 2021:



In the original article, four medical professionals weigh in on whether doctors should be required to be injected with the COVID-19 vaccines as part of a program to reduce risks to their patients.  Here is a brief look at what each "expert" advised:


1.) Vageesh Jain, public health specialty registrar, University College London: 

"As it stands, legally, you don’t have to have a covid vaccine. But ethically, clinically, epidemiologically—whichever way you slice it—I would argue you do.


The ethical case is grounded in the professional duty healthcare workers have to protect their patients: do no harm. Although everyone has the right to decide whether to take a vaccine or not, patients (often elderly or unwell, and therefore vulnerable to covid-19) also have fundamental rights to be protected from avoidable harm. When these principles come into conflict, actions that safeguard the best interests of patients must be favoured.


The evidence on covid-19 vaccines is clear: they are safe and they work. Some are understandably concerned about a lack of long term data, but the importance of this can be overstated. For other vaccines, mild side effects can occur in the first few months but serious and longer term problems are largely theoretical for most." 


2.) Colin Melville, General Medical Council medical director and director of education and standard: 

It’s been an incredibly challenging year with many uncertainties and difficult decisions about patient care, alongside concerns about our own wellbeing and the wellbeing of those around us. The arrival of covid-19 vaccines provides new tools to protect patients, doctors, and their families, and with the progress of the rollout we are, hopefully, starting to see a light at the end of the tunnel.


Most, if not all, doctors should now have been offered one of the vaccines. And, for most, the benefits are clear. But some may be hesitant, and we’ve received queries from doctors asking what our guidance says about being vaccinated.


“Our advice, set out in our guidance on the professional standards expected of all doctors, says, ‘doctors should be immunised against common serious communicable diseases, unless this is contraindicated.’


“So, while there is no absolute duty to be vaccinated, you must consider the risk of spreading coronavirus to patients, particularly those who are clinically vulnerable." 


3.) Rob Hendry, medical director at the Medical Protection Society:

"While the vaccination is recommended, it’s not currently mandatory and there are no contractual obligations, so healthcare workers cannot be forced to have it.


They should, however, be mindful of the GMC’s Good Medical Practice, which states that ‘doctors should be immunised against common serious communicable diseases, unless this is contraindicated.’ Its covid-19 guidance also states that ‘there is a potential risk of inadvertently spreading coronavirus to vulnerable patients. This weighs in favour of doctors being vaccinated unless there are good reasons why it isn’t appropriate in your individual circumstances.’


Medical staff who refuse the vaccine should therefore be prepared to justify their decision and, where possible, mitigate any risks. We would encourage healthcare workers who are reluctant or refuse the vaccine to explore their increased risk of repeated exposure to the virus, the benefits of the vaccination to colleagues, patients, and family, and the wider benefits of reducing the transmission of covid-19 with their supervisor and occupational health."


4.) Sarah Ali, consultant in diabetes and endocrinology, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust: 

Working as a patient facing doctor and looking after people who are considered to be clinically vulnerable meant that taking the vaccine was an easy decision for me.

Based on the premise that vaccines are effective at reducing the transmission of covid-19, I saw it as protecting not only myself but also the community, especially those at high risk of morbidity and mortality from covid-19 and those who are unable to have the vaccine.


Additionally, I consider the vaccine to be our strongest tool to exit the pandemic in a timely manner, and minimise the significant economic, societal, and psychological impact the pandemic is continuing to have."


You will note that in all four cases the experts claim that the vaccines will prevent transmission of the virus to patients.  This is interesting given that the vaccine manufacturers clearly stated that the ability of their COVID-19 vaccines to prevent the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is an unknown quantity.  In one case, the expert even describes the possibility of long-term side effects and serious adverse reactions as "theoretical" which is interesting given that Phase 3 trials are not scheduled to end until 2022 - 2023.

Let's take a brief look at the key paragraphs in Dr. Katya Polyakova's response which has been censored by the BMJ which shows the downside of the vaccines and their side effects with bolds being mine:


"...what I am currently struggling with is the failure to report the reality of the morbidity caused by our current vaccination program within the health service and staff population. The levels of sickness after vaccination is unprecedented and staff are getting very sick and some with neurological symptoms which is having a huge impact on the health service function. Even the young and healthy are off for days, some for weeks, and some requiring medical treatment. Whole teams are being taken out as they went to get vaccinated together.

Mandatory vaccination in this instance is stupid, unethical and irresponsible when it comes to protecting our staff and public health. We are in the voluntary phase of vaccination, and encouraging staff to take an unlicensed product that is impacting on their immediate health, and I have direct experience of staff contracting Covid AFTER vaccination and probably transmitting it. In fact, it is clearly stated that these vaccine products do not offer immunity or stop transmission. In which case why are we doing it? There is no longitudinal safety data (a couple of months of trial data at best) available and these products are only under emergency licensing. What is to say that there are no longitudinal adverse effects that we may face that may put the entire health sector at risk?


What has happened to “my body my choice?” What has happened to scientific and open debate? If I don’t prescribe an antibiotic to a patient who doesn’t need it as they are healthy, am I anti-antibiotics? Or an antibiotic-denier? Is it not time that people truly thought about what is happening to us and where all of this is taking us?


The cancel culture is alive and well during the age of COVID-19 and is, apparently, thriving in the global medical community.

Friday, June 25, 2021

Who Funds the World Economic Forum?

Since the beginning of the global pandemic, the World Economic Forum has taken on a new life, appearing as the non-governmental group that will solve all of the world's problems.  In this posting, I want to explore how the WEF is funded and its key partners who provide the funding necessary to keep Klaus Schwab's vision for the world alive.


Let's start by looking at some background about the World Economic Forum and its goals to help us put the importance of its funding partners into context.  This organization, founded in 1971 by Klaus Schwab (then known as the much less grand European Management Forum), seeks to create a new global economic reality known as the Great Reset, a merging of corporate and government bodies to create stakeholder capitalism which the WEF claims will benefit the global population.  Here is what the WEF has to say about stakeholder capitalism as written by the group's founder and Executive Chairman in January 2021:



Here is a quote from Schwab's musings:


"The stakeholder concept goes a long way back: more than 50 years. I first wrote about it in 1971, when I was a young business academic. But its roots go even further. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was quite natural for a company and its CEO to consider not just shareholders, but everyone who as a “stake” in the success of a firm. 


That is the core of stakeholder capitalism: it is a form of capitalism in which companies do not only optimize short-term profits for shareholders, but seek long term value creation, by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large."


According to Schwab, the biggest challenges in the world can be best met through "private-public cooperation".


Here are the key stakeholders in Schwab's vision:


1.) governments of countries, states, and local communities 


2.) civil society from unions to NGOs, from schools and universities to action groups


3.) companies constituting the private sector, whether freelancers or large multinational companies)


4.) the international community consisting of international organizations such as the UN as well as regional organizations such as the European Union or ASEAN (and we might add the World Economic Forum, of course)


Here is Schwab's global stakeholder model:


You will notice that companies form a key part of Schwab's vision of a global stakeholder model.


Keeping the importance of companies to the "new global reality" (aka the Great Reset) in mind, we need to know who are the stakeholders in the World Economic Forum since the organization exists for the global elite (i.e. you and I are most definitely not welcome to attend their Davos meetings).  While it is little-discussed, one might ask who is funding the World Economic Forum?  The WEF is an International Institute under Swiss law, a not-for-profit, politically neutral organization.  Here is a webpage from the WEF's website answering "Who pays for Davos?":


Note that funding is sourced from membership fees paid by the world's most significant corporations who join the Forum as members and partners.  There are different levels of memberships and partners as shown here:


...with fees varying from CHF60,000 to CHF600,000 (1 Swiss franc (CHF) = $1.11 US) depending on the level of participation by the partner/member.  Included with most memberships/partnerships is the opportunity to participate int he WEF's annual meeting in Davos for the CEO of the company, however, additional fees over the cost of membership or partnership fees are incurred.


It is also noted on the funding page that the forum works with government agencies and in certain cases, these government agencies provide funding to the WEF.


From the WEF's 2019-2020 Annual Report, we find the following balance sheet (all figures are denominated in thousands of Swiss francs (CHF)):


Total revenues of CHF367.004 million in fiscal 2019 - 2020 is up CHF161.246 million Swiss francs or 78.37 percent over the five year period from fiscal 2014 - 2015.  By far, the largest growth in revenue came from partnership revenue which grew from CHF114.896 million in 2014 - 2015 to CHF262.278 million in 2019 - 2020, an increase of 128.3 percent.  The WEF is also has substantial assets of CHF596.385 million with CHF107.338 million in cash and equivalents.


Since the World Economic Forum is mainly funded through fees charged to its partners. let's take a look at a few of the key members:


1.) Big Pharma/Medical:


Abbot Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, Mayo Clinic, Merck, Moderna, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceutical Industry, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Teladoc Health, Thermo Fisher Scientific, 



2.) Resource:


Anglo American, Baker Hughes, bp, Chevron, Hess Corporation, Hunt Consolidated Energy, Occidental, Royal Dutch Shell, Saudi Aramco, Schlumberger, Sinochem Group, Teck Resources 


3.) Big Tech:


Adobe Systems, Alibaba Group, Amazon Web Services, Apple, Dell Technologies, Ericsson, Facebook, Google, Fujitsu, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Hitachi, Honeywell, Huawei Technologies, IBM, Infosys, Intel, Ipsos, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Mozilla, NEC, Nokia, PayPal, Qualcomm, Siemens, Sony, Tencent Holdings, Verizon Communications, Zoom, Zurich Insurance Group


4.) Finance and Insurance:


AIG, Allianze, Allied Bank, Bank of America, Barclays, BMO Financial Group, Brookfield Asset Management, Citi, Caisse de depot de placement du Quebec, CPP Investments, Deutsche Bank, Equifax, European Investment Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, ING Group, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Kaiser Permanente, Manulife, Mastercard, Morgan Stanley, Nasdaq, NCB Universal, Nikkei, NYSE, OMERS, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, Prudential, Qatar Development Bank, Qatar National Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Sberbank, Standard Bank Group, Standard Chartered Bank, State Bank of India, SWIFT, UBS, UPS, Visa, VTB Bank, 


5.) Defence:


BAE Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin 


6.) Foundations:


Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Swarovski Foundation 


7.) Food/Agricultural:


Cargill, Nestle, Pepsico, The Coca-Cola Company, Tyson Foods, Wellcome Trust

8.) Other:


Airbus, Dow, Fluor, Honda Motor, Hyundai Motors, McKinsey & Company,  Mitsubishi Corporation, Proctologist's & Gamble, Ralph Lauren, SNC-Lavalin, Stanley Black & Decker, TIME, Toyota Motor Corporation, The LEGO Brand Group, Unilever, Volkswagen Group, Volvo Group, Walmart, Western Union, YMCA of the US


This is far from a complete listing of "who's who" among the World Economic Forum's partners.  If you are interested in the entire listing, please click here for a searchable list.


It is an interesting exercise to see who is providing the financial backing for one of the world's most powerful non-governmental organizations.  One has to wonder if the leaders of these companies aren't expecting to get special favours from the World Economic Forum as the Great Reset is implemented, particularly those in the finance/insurance and technology sectors given Schwab's penchant for digital currencies as quoted here:


Digital currency, a cross-cutting topic that requires input across sectors, functions, and geographies, is a key area of interest for the Forum,” said Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum. “Building on our long history of public-private cooperation, we hope that hosting this consortium will catalyse the conversations necessary to inform a robust framework of governance for global digital currencies.


....and his obsession with all things technological as he promotes his transhumanistic vision as shown here:


After all, it is a rule of thumb that companies do whatever they can to maximize profits, sweaty masses/useless eaters be damned, no matter how Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum try to convince us otherwise.

Thursday, June 24, 2021

Vladimir Putin on Russia's Relationship With Europe

A missive written by Russia's President Vladimir Putin entitled "Being Open, Despite the Past" was written to coincide with the 80th anniversary of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War better known to the West as the Second World War.   Let's look at some of the more interesting comments from Putin, particularly as they pertain to Russia's relationship with Europe.


As background, Germany launched a surprise attack against the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 with the operation being codenamed "Operation Barbarossa", the largest military operation by Germany during the Second World War with Germany and its allies assembling over 3.65 million troops.  There were three main goals of the invasion:


1.) the seizure of land within the USSR that would become part of the "living space" or "lebensraum" needed by Germany to ensure its survival.  Given Germany's close geographic proximity to the eastern parts of the USSR, the move to conquer this living space began with the invasion of Poland in September 1939 and continued as Nazi troops pushed eastward into Russia.


2.) the destruction of the Soviet Union whose citizens were regarded as "untermenchen" or subhuman and racially inferior by the Aryan leadership of the Nazi Party.


3.) the permanent elimination of the Communist threat to Germany.


Operation Barbarosa involved 134 divisions along the front lines with an additional 73 divisions being emplaced for deployment behind the front.  Three army groups consisting of more than 3 million German troops and 650,000 troops from Germany's allies Finland and Romania.  During the first six weeks of the invasion, Soviet troops suffered catastrophic military losses; nonetheless, the Soviet Union failed to collapse as was expected.


Here is a map from the United States Military Academy showing how Operation Barbarossa proceeded from June 22, 1941 to August 25, 1941 


Let's now take a brief look at the casualties suffered by the Soviet Union and other nations during the Second World War:


Let's compare:


United States - population 132 million, 16.4 million military personnel 


- 292,000 military personnel killed or missing in action


- 675,000 military personnel injured


- less than 10 civilians killed or missing


TOTAL - 967,010 American military and civilians killed or injured


U.S.S.R.: population 193 million, 20 million military personnel


- 13.6 million military personnel killed or missing in action


- 5 million military personnel injured


- 7.7 million civilians killed or missing


TOTAL - 26.3 million Soviet military and civilians killed or injured


For every American killed or injured during the Second World War, the Soviet Union had suffered the loss or injury of 27 of its citizens.


With this background, let's look at some excerpts from President Putin's that we can now put into historical context, particularly given the massive loss of humanity in the Soviet Union.  Here are excerpts from the first two paragraphs:


"On June 22, 1941, exactly 80 years ago, the Nazis, having conquered practically the whole of Europe, attacked the USSR. For the Soviet people the Great Patriotic War – the bloodiest one in the history of our country – began. Tens of millions of people lost their lives, the economic potential of the country and its cultural property were severely damaged."


We are proud of the courage and steadfastness of the heroes of the Red Army and home front workers who not only defended the independence and dignity of our homeland, but also saved Europe and the world from enslavement. Despite attempts to rewrite the pages of the past that are being made today, the truth is that Soviet soldiers came to Germany not to take revenge on the Germans, but with a noble and great mission of liberation. We hold sacred the memory of the heroes who fought against Nazism."


Putin goes on to remind the world of the German resistance fighters and anti-fascists who also played a role in defeating the Nazis, giving credit where credit is due.


Putin then looks at the significant economic co-operation that has developed between the two nations over the decades since the end of the Second World War including the "deal of the century":


"In 1970, the USSR and the Federal Republic of Germany concluded a ”deal of the century“ on long-term natural gas supplies to Europe that laid the foundation for constructive interdependence and initiated many future grand projects, including the construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline.


With this history in mind, Putin goes on to clearly outline where the problems for a united Europe lie (my bolds):


"We hoped that the end of the Cold War would be a common victory for Europe. It seemed that just a little more effort was needed to make Charles de Gaulle's dream of a single continent – not even geographically ”from the Atlantic to the Urals“, but culturally and civilizationally ”from Lisbon to Vladivostok“ – become a reality.


It is exactly with this logic in mind – the logic of building a Greater Europe united by common values and interests – that Russia has sought to develop its relations with the Europeans. Both Russia and the EU have done a lot on this path.


But a different approach has prevailed. It was based on the expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance which was itself a relic of the Cold War. After all, it was specifically created for the confrontation of that era.


It was the bloc's movement eastwards – which, by the way, began when the Soviet leadership was actually persuaded to accept the united Germany's accession to NATO – that turned into the main reason for the rapid increase in mutual mistrust in Europe. Verbal promises made in that time such as ”this is not directed against you“ or ”the bloc's borders will not get closer to you“ were quickly forgotten. But a precedent was set.


And since 1999, five more “waves” of NATO expansion have followed. Fourteen new countries, including the former Soviet Union republics, joined the organization, effectively dashing hopes for a continent without dividing lines..."


Here are three maps showing how NATO has expanded since its origins in 1949:


Putin continues by stating that the Ukrainian coup crisis of 2014 placed countries in a position where they either had to be with the West or with Russia and asks this question of his readers:


"Why did the USA organize the coup and the European countries weak-heartedly support it, provoking a split within Ukraine and the withdrawal of Crimea?"


Putin then offers words of caution:


"The whole system of European security has now degraded significantly. Tensions are rising and the risks of a new arms race are becoming real. We are missing out on the tremendous opportunities that cooperation offers – all the more important now that we are all facing common challenges, such as the pandemic and its dire social and economic consequences."


....followed by words of advice:


"We are open to honest and constructive interaction. This is confirmed by our idea of creating a common space of cooperation and security from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean which would comprise various integration formats, including the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union.


I reiterate that Russia is in favour of restoring a comprehensive partnership with Europe. We have many topics of mutual interest. These include security and strategic stability, healthcare and education, digitalization, energy, culture, science and technology, resolution of climate and environmental issues."


Putin concludes with these thoughts:


"The world is a dynamic place, facing new challenges and threats. We simply cannot afford to carry the burden of past misunderstandings, hard feelings, conflicts, and mistakes. It is a burden that will prevent us from concentrating on the challenges at hand. We are convinced that we all should recognize these mistakes and correct them. Our common and indisputable goal is to ensure security on the continent without dividing lines, a common space for equitable cooperation and inclusive development for the prosperity of Europe and the world as a whole."


It seems that Vladimir Putin is more than willing to put his nation's troubled and very costly past with Germany to rest in an effort to create a mutually beneficial relationship that includes the rest of Europe.  Unfortunately, the expanded membership of NATO, led by Washington's global agenda, is more than willing to maintain the Cold War mentality that has existed since the mid-1940s. Russians paid an extremely heavy price for their geography proximity to Germany during the Second World War, a price that is seared into the psyche of Russians who still commemorate the loss of tens of millions of their family members.  If there is any nation that understands the high cost of war and why it must be avoided at all costs, it is Russia.  Surely, if Russia can forgive Germany, Washington can put its Cold War mentality with the Soviet Union behind it.