WND’s Blakley Ratchets Up Putin Apologist Mode

It’s been a while since we last checked in on how WorldNetDaily has been taking Russia’s side in its war against Ukraine (though we have noted Joseph Farah spreading Russian propaganda and Scott Lively misleading people). Richard Blakey — a top WND Putln apologist — has been very busy on that front. He complained in a July 18 column that Ukraine (and, by extension, the U.S.) didn’t want to negotiate with Russia over a war that Russia unilaterally started:

It seems that with the olive branch extended last Christmas someone would want to talk with Putin and ask questions. For example, what are your “national interests?” What are “the interests of your citizens?” And how do you explain your view that the West is trying to “destroy Russia?”

Perhaps Putin’s interests include eliminating U.S. funded Ukrainian bio-labs, or immoral stances the West has taken on marriage and gender. Who knows what his points are, if you refuse to talk with him.

Instead of speaking with Putin, CIA Director William Burns stated that while most conflicts end in negotiation, Russia was not serious about real talks. An adviser to Zelensky stated Putin needed to return to reality and acknowledge it was Russia that did not want talks.

So, by Dec. 25, 2022, Putin said he wanted to talk, but the West and Ukraine said Putin does not want to have peace talks. It seems like if you can stop the killing, everyone would jump at the idea.

Blakley didn’t mention that if Russia wanted peace, it could simply withdraw from Ukraine. Instead, he weirdly chose to blame Democrats because “the 2024 elections are fast approaching, and the Democrats will need more funds – for their political coffers.” He also didn’t explain why, if Putin is so concerned with “immoral stances,” he’s waging war on a neighboring country, killing thousands of people for no reason.

Blakley continued being a Putin apologist in his Aug. 1 column, in which he blamed unrest in the region on the CIA (and not, you know Russia), then justified Russia’s taking of Crimea because the toppling of corrupt Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 was purportedly engineered by the U.S.:

ast-forward to February 2014. Joe Biden, Obama’s point man in Ukrainian affairs, was in Kyiv and “watched anti-government protesters fill the streets in what became known as the Maidan revolution.” “Masked militants” demanded a change in government and constitution. Duly elected Ukrainian President Yanukovych was accused of being pro-Russian and anti-European with his policies, because he refused to sign an EU agreement. He had been elected “in balloting that international observers considered reasonably free and fair.” According to filmmaker Oliver Stone’s four-hour interview with Yanukovych, a deal that Yanukovych had agreed to was tossed aside “when well-armed, neo-Nazi radicals forced him to flee the country with repeated assassination attempts.” The next day, “a new pro-Western government was established and immediately recognized by the U.S. (as in the Chavez 2002 coup).”

Prior to this, Russian intelligence intercepted a telephone call between Victoria Nuland, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Geoffrey Pyatt, U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. This call detailed their selection of Yatsenyuk as prime minister once Yanukovych was ousted. The telephone call was leaked to the international media.

Unfortunately, in this Maiden revolution, protesters and police officers lost their lives. The slain activists are known as “the Heavenly Hundred.” Stone stated it “seemed clear that the so-called ‘shooters’ who killed 14 police men, wounded some 85, and killed 45 protesting civilians, were outside third-party agitators.”

“Many witnesses, including Yanukovych and police officials, believe these foreign elements were introduced by pro-Western factions – with CIA fingerprints on it.” Stone compared this overthrow to the 2002 and 2014 Venezuela protests. He stated the plan is to “create enough chaos, as the CIA did in Iran ’53, Chile ’73, and countless other coups, and the legitimate government can be toppled.” Continuing, Stone stated, “It’s America’s soft power technique called ‘Regime Change 101.'”

This toppling of the Ukrainian government forced Putin to respond. While Crimea was part of Ukraine, Russia had an agreement with the former Ukrainian government to use Crimea as a warm-water port. With the toppling of the government, Russian military annexed Crimea. Putin felt Russia’s national security was threatened, because Russia’s two main warm-water ports are Tartus in Syria and Sevastopol in Crimea.

Blakley again claimed that Putin — who, again, unilaterally started the war against Ukraine — really wants to be a peacemaker:

On Dec. 25, 2022, and again, on Jan. 6, 2023, Putin offered peace talks, but instead of speaking with Putin, Biden-appointed CIA Director William Burns stated that while most conflicts end in negotiation, Russia was not serious about real talks.

July 10, 2023, Biden said that Ukraine is not ready to join NATO. This is very odd since Biden had been pushing Ukrainian membership in NATO since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Even stranger, while this is what Putin wanted to address with Biden before the war began, Biden refused to talk with Putin, stating that Ukrainian NATO membership concerns were a non-starter for negotiations.

With this overreaching CIA and bumbling Biden administration mess, what’s the objective now?

Blakley didn’t explain why the U.S. and Ukraine shouid negotiate with a terrorist. Still, he pushed Russia’s case again in his Aug. 28 column:

Recently, I learned that Russia feels betrayed that NATO is involved in Ukraine, for Moscow views this is in violation of promises made at the negotiations for the reunification of Germany. Apparently, Feb. 9, 1990, Secretary of State James Baker, under President George H.W. Bush, told Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev that “if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east.”

Blakley didn’t explain why Russia has any reason to be threatened by a defensive alliance like NATO. He went on to assert that “there are many reason [sic] that Russia invaded Ukraine” and once again complain that nobody wants to try and make peace with a warmonger like Putin, blaming the U.S. for trying to make money off the war:

July 30, Putin stated Russia is ready for peace with Ukraine, but in mere hours after he spoke, there was a drone attack on Moscow damaging two office blocks. Does this sound like an escalation or de-escalation of the war?

As noted, a few weeks ago, Saudia Arabia held a peace conference without Russia in attendance. Real peace talks involve the warring countries. What could these talks have been about? U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told reporters, “We are not looking at these talks as generating any concrete deliverables,” but instead, it is “‘a chance for a number of countries around the world’ to hear directly from Ukraine ‘about the horrors their country has suffered at the hands of Russian aggression.'” So these “peace negotiation” were not “peace negotiations” at all. What could they have been for?

Let’s see, in November of 2022 Ukraine was told to act like they wanted peace, so they could get more money, and seven days later Biden asked for money for Ukraine. Well, what do you know, six days after the Russia-uninvited “peace negotiations,” on Aug. 11, 2023, Biden called for another $24 billion for Ukraine.

Then on Aug. 18, Biden approved F-16s for Ukraine. Does this sound like an escalation or de-escalation of the war?

Is Ukraine really looking for peace, or is Ukraine and U.S. operatives looking for more money they can channel to who knows where?

At no point does Blakley postulate that since Russia started the war, it’s Russia’s responsibility to de-escalate its war.

For his Sept. 7 column, Blakley called on a couple fellow Putin apologists to help make his pro-Russia case:

Recently, Tucker Carlson spoke in Budapest, Hungry, noting that Russia has a population of 143 million, while Ukraine has a population of 43 million, meaning, in a war, Ukraine is probably going to run out of people first. Having a modern military with sophisticated weaponry, Russia is also a nuclear power, while Ukraine is not. So, will Russia allow itself to lose this war? Is Ukrainian membership in NATO worth world annihilation? If Vladimir Putin is evil, should he begin to lose, just what might he do?

Carlson also interviewed Col. Douglas MacGregor. Counter to fake-news coverage, the colonel stated Ukraine is losing the war. He said 400,000 Ukrainians have died and only 50,000 Russians. MacGregor believes the Ukrainians are running out of men, and when Zelensky loses his last soldier, he will retire to one of his resort homes purchased from siphoning off U.S. money.

On that basis, Blakley fearmongered that U.S. troops will soon be drawn into fighting in Ukraine:

When Zelensky runs out of soldiers, who do you think is going to fill the boots? If it is United Nations peacekeeping forces, the soldiers will largely be U.S. troops. Fake-news-swayed popular opinion has resulted in an August 2023 Newsweek poll in which 47% of age 18-26 (Gen Z) support sending U.S. troops to Ukraine. They are the ones who would go. Will they be adept at dodging the cluster bombs?

President Biden has already sent more U.S. troops to Europe. The prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, stated that Western boots on the ground in Ukraine means World War III has begun, and Hungary’s people realize how very dangerous this situation is.

[…]

America will have to decide what it wants. Are we callus enough that it doesn’t matter who’s dying as long as they are not Americans? Are we ready to continue ratcheting up this war to start World War III? Are we ready for missile strikes on America? Are we all lost in the maze of the Ukrainian war and not observing what China is doing in the meantime? Is Ukrainian NATO membership worth U.S. boots on the ground in Ukraine?

Again, Blakley offered no reason why Russia should not end a war it chose to start.

Blakley spent his Sept. 20 column complaining that every single penny of the U.S. money going to Ukraine hasn’t been completely accounted for:

Sept. 4, 2023, the New York Times asked, “Where is the money?” concerning Ukrainian funds. Wow! What a surprise. Money is missing! Giving billions to a known corrupt money-siphoning group of people ended up with money going missing. Where was the New Times when Reuters reported $37 billion missing in Ukraine in 2014? Well, it could have been worse. It only took the New York Times nine years to wake up to reality.

In a February USA Today article, John Sopko, special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, said, “When you spend so much money so quickly, with so little oversight, you’re going to have fraud, waste and abuse.” In fact, concerning this he said there would be “massive amounts.” Ukraine only scored 33 out of 100 in the annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), which is near the worst third of 180 countries.

Of course, the Pentagon has said it made an accounting error and the missing $6.2 billion the Times cited is simply due to the Defense Department overpriced the value of military equipment sent to Ukraine. So, the Pentagon does not know how much equipment costs, so it is overpriced by billions? Boy, doesn’t that make you want to pay taxes? If they can’t get the price right now, what makes you think they ever got the price right? Remember that this is your taxpayer money that funds the Pentagon “budget.”

[…]

Maybe we should spend less on Ukraine and more on problems killing Americans. Even a CNN poll stated the American people oppose more aid for Ukraine.

Blakley weirdly didn’t mention Russia at all in his column, let alone the fact that one sure way to stop sending U.S. money to Ukraine is for Russia to stop waging a vicious, destructive war against it.