Putin Has Another Favorite Columnist At WND

Richard Blakley serves as an apologist for Russia's Vladimir Putin by laughably portraying him as wanting peace talks with Ukraine even though he started the war there.

Along with Scott Lively, Richard Blakley has been a top apologist for Vladimir Putin at WorldNetDaily since Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine — and as the war continued, he has remained busy on that front. He complained in a July 2023 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 an August 2023 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.:

Fast-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 should negotiate with a terrorist. Still, he pushed Russia’s case again in another August 2023 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 a Sepember 2023 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.

Blakley served up a pro-Putin apologia disguised as an anti-war statement in his Feb. 17 column:

Imagine what our planet would be like if we were not spending trillions of dollars developing weapons to kill each other? Our best minds wouldn’t be making bombs, but instead could be producing food, dispersing resources, housing the needy, irrigating deserts, draining swamps and other monumental tasks for the betterment of humanity.

I fully support the protection of the sovereignty of nations from aggressors, but I also fully support communication with aggressors to understand the reason for their aggression. If you find that special operations are being conducted, which are enraging the so-called aggressors, then those who do such actions should be fired from their position and possibly be taken before a world court to stand trial for their crimes against humanity. There seems to be too many activities carried out by special operations groups trying to destabilize and topple world governments, instead of working with them to achieve peaceful co-existence.

Blakley’s claims about “special operations” linked back to columns he wrote pushing right-wing conspiracy theories about biolabs in Ukraine and alleged CIA involvement in the region.

Blakley then declared that Donald Trump is the only person who can stop Russia’s war in Ukraine:

Already numerous Russians and Ukrainians have died or been wounded, but imbecilic RINOs like Mitt Romney state that it’s a “good deal” for America to fund the Ukrainian war, because we are only killing Russians and Ukrainians. Did you know the composer of the song “Carol of the Bells,” named Mykola Leontovych, was Ukrainian? Did you also know Tchaikovsky, the composer of the “1812 Overture,” was Russian? These are just quick examples of the treasures that have come out of Ukraine and Russia, and also examples of what the world could be losing through all the killing and maiming of this war.

Former President Trump takes an entirely different stance from Mitt Romney, saying, “I want everybody to stop dying” – and Trump says he can stop the war in 24 hours if elected president again. Maybe we need a businessman to run the country again, instead of a warmonger.

The prime minister of Hungary said it best when he responded to the question (10:08 in video), “What would you do if you were in charge of NATO?” Prime Minister Orban said, “Call back Trump. The best foreign policy of the recent several decades belonged to him [Trump]. He did not initiate any new war. He treated nicely the North Koreans, and Russia, even the Chinese. He delivered the policy, which was the best one for Middle East, [the] Abraham Accords. So that was a very good foreign policy. … Facts count. His foreign policy was the best one for the world in the last several decades I have seen.”

Imagine that: a president whose desire would be to keep us out of war.

Blakley won’t mention the possibility that Putin could simply stop waging unjustified war on Ukraine. And Trump’s plan for ending the war involves capitulating to Putin by giving him Crimea and parts of Ukraine — not exactly a good deal for Ukraine.

Blakley then more explicitly took Putin’s side:

If Biden didn’t want the war in Ukraine, why wouldn’t he speak to President Putin when Russia was building up troops on the Ukrainian border for over six months? Wasn’t it obvious what Putin was communicating? Yet, Biden wouldn’t speak to him.

In Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin, you can hear for yourself as the Russian leader voices what the problems were and are, concerning Ukraine. It is fascinating that almost everything Putin stated was reported at WND in January 2023, June 2023 and July 2023.

Blakley didn’t mention the part of Carlson’s softball interview where Putin blamed Poland for Hitler invading it, so maybe his version of history shouldn’t be trusted. He then complained about being called a fearmongerer for insisting that U.S. troops will be involved in Ukraine:

When a September 2023 article questioned, “Are Americans ready to fill the boots in Ukraine?” some considered the question “fear mongering” and that anyone who would say this must be a “Putin asset.” However, in December 2023, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin “warned that failing to back Ukraine could lead to direct U.S. involvement.”

Also, “[Sen.] Chuck Schumer warned that failure to pass the Senate border bill, which includes [an additional] $60 billion in aid for Ukraine, could lead to U.S. troops being sent to fight in eastern Europe within a few years.” Are Austin and Schumer also “fear mongers” and “Putin assets”?

That “article” Blakley is reference is actually a column he wrote. And he’s deliberately misinterpreting what Austin and Schumer said, portraying their warning about not funding Ukraine as a threat to bring in U.S. troops — after all, if Putin wins in Ukraine, there’s really nothing to stop him from trying to invade other former Soviet countries as well.

Blakley concluded: “With the fallen state of mankind, peace on earth will not be possible without men submitting their will to the will of God. Our best and ‘blessed hope’ is the Second Coming of the LORD Jesus.” Blakley would never bring that issue up with Putin, who has shown no interest so far in submitting their will to God.

Blakley 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 again pushing the conspiracy theory that the CIA was behind a regime change that ousted Yanukovych (whom Blakley wants you to know was “duly elected”). Blakley 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.