Along with Scott Lively, Richard Blakley has been one of WorldNetDaily’s leading apologists for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and his war of aggression in Ukraine. He began his May 30 column by rehashing a film Oliver Stone made in 2016 about Ukraine that most observers dismissed as a Kremlin-friendly retelling of political unrest in Ukraine in the early 2010s, as well as pushing the conspiracy theory that the CIA was behind a regime change that ousted the Kremlin-friendly leader Viktor Yanukovych (whom Blakley wants you to know was “duly elected”). Blakey then tried to justify Putin’s actions in the years that followed:
Biden and the CIA’s bad chess move in toppling the Ukrainian government forced Putin to respond because Russia had an agreement with the former Ukrainian government to use Crimea as a warm-water port. With the toppling of Ukraine’s government, obviously Putin felt Russia’s national security was threatened, since Russia’s only warm-water ports are Tartus in Syria and Sevastopol in Crimea. Thus, Russian military annexed Crimea without a shot being fired.
Blakley followed that with more conspiratorial rantings about Biden and the CIA:
So, if Biden cuts the oil industry, which causes job losses, and people leave to find employment, plus Biden opens the border to illegal immigrants … well, what do you know, regime change 101 – except this time it is applied to states.
President Trump is flipping states from Democrat to Republican by promising good policies to help the American people, by putting America first.
Having only lousy policies that put financial burdens on Americans, Biden must employ whatever strategies needed to hang on to his power. So, he is trying to flip states using regime change 101. Furthermore, Biden is paying for votes by paying student loans, and attempting to sure up his northeast states’ support through reducing their gas prices by draining the strategic oil reserve. Biden even uses the CIA to stop investigations on son Hunter.
Joe Biden will do anything to maintain power. Even Oliver Stone regrets voting for Biden in 2020.
Blakley spent his June 10 column — which was presented as a “news” article — insisting that Biden is the real aggressor and that Putin is the victim:
Many people believe Biden has been provoking Vladimir Putin ever since becoming president, especially by provoking the Russian invasion of Ukraine and then doing nothing but escalate the situation – with a variety of people now talking about U.S. “boots on the ground” in Ukraine.
Biden’s latest and greatest debacle in escalating warfare is to tell Ukraine it can use U.S. armaments to attack sites inside Russia. Germany followed suit. In response, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said, “the United States could face ‘fatal consequences’ for allowing Ukraine to use American weapons to strike targets on Russian soil.” Furthermore, he stated, “I would like to warn American leaders against miscalculations that could have fatal consequences. For unknown reasons, they underestimate the seriousness of the rebuff they may receive.” Ryabkov added, “I am urging these officials who seemingly are not bothered by anything to take some time away from playing computer games, which is apparently what they are doing, given their light-hearted approach to serious issues, and take a closer look at what Putin said, particularly at a press conference following talks in Tashkent.”
So, what did Putin say? “This constant escalation,” Putin warned, “can lead to serious consequences. … If these serious consequences occur in Europe, how will the United States behave, bearing in mind our parity in the field of strategic weapons? It is hard to say: Do they want a global conflict? … Representatives of countries that are NATO members, particularly in Europe, should be aware of what they are playing with.”
“‘Countries with small territory and dense populations’ should be particularly careful,” Putin warned.
Blakley somehow forgot to mention that Putin is the one who massively escalated things with his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Instead, he repeated Russian propaganda:
Indeed, in a TASS news agency report published last week, Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev stated that Russia can supply weapons to any U.S. enemy, the same way Washington does with Ukraine. “This marks quite a significant change in our foreign policy. This is what the Yankees and their drooling European dogs think: We have the right to send any weapons to Ukraine – the enemy of our country [Russia] – but no country can help Russia. … Now let the U.S. and its allies feel the direct impact of the use of Russian weapons by third parties. … If the U.S. is their enemy, then they are our friends.”
To whom would Putin give arms? Iran? Cuba? Would these countries hit America with a nuclear device? What if Iran hit Washington, D.C. with a nuclear device, or New York, or both? Would the U.S. respond by striking Iran? Would the U.S. strike Russia? These are real concerns.
Blakley’s June 14 column uncritically repeated Putin’s bogus justification that Ukraine’s desire to join NATO — a defensive alliance, not an aggressive one — is why Russia invaded Ukraine:
In January 2021 with Biden in office, Ukraine began asking for NATO membership.
What do you think would happen if Mexico suddenly wanted to join league with a country hostile to the United States? History shows in January 1917, the German foreign secretary sent a telegram to the German minister in Mexico, known as the “Zimmermann Telegram.” It revealed a plan for Germany to form an alliance with Mexico, promising Mexico her lost territories of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. This threat at our doorstep was one of the factors leading the U.S. to declare war against Germany five weeks later.
Likewise, it is a fact that Russia views Ukrainian NATO membership as a threat to their country. With Ukraine asking for NATO membership, in 2021 Putin requested talks with Biden, but Biden refused if Ukraine’s NATO membership was one of the topics. So, Putin communicated with Biden in the spring of 2021 by massing Russian troops near Ukraine’s borders for “training exercises.” By November 2021, satellite images showed around 100,000 Russian troops near Ukraine’s border. On Dec. 17, 2021, Russia presented security demands, including NATO pull back troops and weapons from Eastern Europe and bar Ukraine from ever joining NATO. Dec. 30, 2021 Putin reached out and requested a call with Biden. During the call Putin asked for “legally binding guarantees” that “the 30-member NATO alliance” would “not expand further eastwards and that certain offensive weapons would not be deployed to Ukraine or other neighboring countries.” It was stated, “Washington regards many of his [Putin’s] demands, including restrictions on NATO expansion, as non-starters.” So, in February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine.
Blakley censored the fact that NATO is a defensive alliance that does not wage offensive war. Still, he insisted that Russia is acting rationally by threatening to arm other countries:
Now Putin says he is going to give armaments to U.S. enemies. Moscow is communicating with Washington, D.C., stating they feel Russia’s back is against the wall. U.S. leaders, considering this an idle threat, are expressing their lack of concern about the American people who will die, while Washington politicians hide in U.S.-taxpayer-built nuclear bunkers. It’s only mutually assured destruction for the masses, not the ones causing the problems.
Now with America distracted with Hunter Biden trials, Russian warships are conducting Zircon hypersonic missile drills off the East Coat of America as they travel to Cuba. “The U.S. East Coast will be within Zircon range … and the missiles can … be used to strike ground targets,” Cuban authorities say. “None of the warships are nuclear-armed.” “The White House does not view it as a threat, it is symbolic.”
Symbolic? Moscow is communicating with Washington, just like when they positioned 100,000 troops on the border of Ukraine. Were 100,000 troops symbolic?
Does Blakley view Ukraine fighting back against a foreign enemy who invaded its country to be symbolic? Or is he demanding that the world give into Russia’s blackmail and let Putin’s dictatorship spread across the planet?
Blakley kept up the Putin apologia in his June 21 column, relying again on Russian propaganda:
June 14, 2024, TASS reported Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered “another real peace proposal to Kiev.” He stated, “These parameters were generally agreed upon by everyone back during the Istanbul talks in 2022.” It looks like Putin is knocking at the door of peace, yet again, as he did on Dec. 25, 2022, and Jan. 6, 2023. In fact, if you trace it all the back to January 2021, the beginning of the Biden administration, prior to the war, Putin requested guarantees that Ukraine would not be allowed into NATO. President Biden refused these guarantees, which led to the invasion into Ukraine. Of course, following normal Democrat strategies of duplicity, on July 9, 2023, Biden announced Ukraine is “not ready” to join NATO.
While Putin offered peace once again, a two-day Ukrainian peace summit in Switzerland concluded June 16, 2024, an event to which Russia was not invited. It seems that somebody could open the door and let them in, and do the world a favor, but that was not the case. Numerous countries followed the U.S lead and signed a “communiqué” stating their commitment to “principles of sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity …including Ukraine, within their internationally recognized borders.” However, India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil and others did not sign the communiqué, and “China declined to attend,” the Epoch Times reports.
[…]Regardless of Biden’s reasons for not pushing for peace in Ukraine, it’s simply a demographic fact that Ukraine will run out of manpower long before Russia does. As long as this war lasts, people will continue dying, and more people will die in the future from unexploded cluster bombs and unexploded ordnance.
If Putin was really serious about peace, he would cease his aggression and withdraw from Ukraine. Funny that Blakley refuses to discuss that.