WND's Other Russia Apologists

It's not just Scott Lively -- other WorldNetDaily columnists are also criticizing Ukraine and giving Russia and Vladimir Putin a pass for their unprovoked invasion.

By Terry Krepel
Posted 6/19/2023

Jack Cashill

WND has long admired Russian leader Vladimir Putin for his persecution of LGBT people and political enemies, and when Russian invaded Ukraine in February 2022, its writers, led by Lively, sought to put Biden-bashing and conspiracy theories over purported biolabs ahead of criticizing the unprovoked invasion. Months later, WND writers are still defending Putin and criticizing Ukraine. Let's look at a few of them.

Jim Darlington

WND columnist Jim Darlington was an apologist for Russia shortly after that country's invasion of Ukraine, and he has continued to be one. He wrote in his Oct. 7 column, justifying the invasion as a response to Ukraine considering joining NATO:

One, Russia wanted Ukraine to be permanently off-limits to membership in NATO ... as a promise made and then denied through decades of Russia's repeated, insistent assertions that keeping just such a promise was critical to their national security.

Two, the U.S., under the Obama-Biden rule, was complicit in the 2014 replacement of one president less hostile to Russia with another that was less hostile to paying off the approved parties, and willing to initiate a low-profile war against its own (mostly Russian) people in the provinces bordering Russia in eastern Ukraine.

Three, any willingness to negotiate on this one issue would have prevented this war. And further negotiations early on could have stopped the war, but agreements on the table were withdrawn by Zelensky at the behest of the then U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, on orders from Biden and Company that the war should continue, to punish and finally to remove Vlad Putin.

Darlington didn't mention that it was Putin's unwillingness to negotiate that directly led him to a completely unprovoked military invasion. Instead, he complained:

In the present production of anti-Russian agit-prop, playing everywhere, every night, we have Vlad Putin, aka Hitlerian Fiend, Destroyer of Democracy. His agents are everywhere clawing at our very foundations. OK, well, that would actually be the Chinese (if we weren't paralyzed with the fear of being called names: racist, xenophobe, whitey, etc.). More reliably (maybe) are reports of bad things happening to Putin's opponents. No doubt, a few here and there, might have wished they'd been better friends. The World News Oligarchs happily report any such suspicions, whether fact or anonymous fantasy, while ignoring China's daily and massive human rights transgressions.

Let's bottom line this. U.S. allies need not be nice, but their allegiance needs to be in line with American interests. Russia should be our friend and most appropriate fellow warrior, against Islamism and Communism. Promises to keep NATO from her doorstep should have been honored.

Darlington whined further in his Oct. 14 column:

Some of us Unpatriotic Putin Apologists have been found committing treasonous thought crimes and have been publicly condemned. (Well ... you know, by a handful of avid commenters.) Never mind the notion of measured and reasonable discourse, or that wholly antiquated innocent-until-proven-guilty thing. Wherever the great finger of the 95% media is pointed, shame and cancellation must follow. Name-calling is so much more fun than critical thought.

All right, so we might be whining a tad, but let's get serious. Some of us, in trying to come to a balanced conclusion, try to see ourselves, as though wearing the shoes of the Other. This was once known as part of the process of "understanding." In the case of the Ukrainian "Special Military Operation," otherwise known as the brutal Russian invasion of its faultless neighbor, we might even be inclined toward some small measure of sympathy for Putin's predicament. There it is. The confession. How right and righteous the finger pointers are proven to be!

But whether Ukraine has been warring against its own enclaves of Russians, since the U.S made them part of the Obama-planned and supported Orange Revolutions, in 2014, or whether the areas Putin wants to annex are overwhelmingly populated by Russian-speaking people, or whether the Ukraine's military point-of-the-spear is actually a cadre of rabid Hitlerian Nazis, waving swastikas and proudly wearing SS insignia, or whether agreement with Putin's position would have averted, and could now immediately end, this atrocious war, rather simply and painlessly, is truly not the real concern of those opposing this war. We, who are apparently post-Soviet Russian assets, prove to be pretty fickle when it comes time to hug the Russian Bear. We love you, Comrade Vlad, sort of, kind of, once in a while, but, whatever sympathies we may be accused of harboring, the terminus of these "affections" is finalized in this: We don't care what's happening over there! We care about what's happening right here in the USA.

He then strayed into well-worn (and discredited) conspiracy theory territory:

Every thinking American knows perfectly well that the 2020 election was a national travesty, corrupted in every available manner, and more than half of us have now stopped lying about that. It's a tough one to look at squarely, especially for those of us who were deniers of the Big Steal, but we must. The usurpers of our democracy demonize any who speak out truthfully, and have made it plain that they are willing to use "any means necessary" to advance their globalist aims.

You, who are participants in the government-mandated boosterism of a war that drains us to the point of real and deadly vulnerability (as such Democrat-initiated involvements have in the past) may want to reconsider exactly who the useful idiots really are.

Darlington apparently really hates to have his Putin-loving side called out, because he started his Nov. 8 column this way:

It's shocking! But it's everywhere! So many people discovered to be "Russian Assets"!

One might hope, briefly, that for all of us called "racists" and "xenophobes" and "homophobes" and "fascists" and "evil white supremacists," etc., that all the previously popular denominations of slander might now be simplified to fall under the single sobriquet of "Russian Assets," but no such luck. The left can't get tired of adding to their arsenal of verbal slings and arrows, any more than they can limit their ever-growing list of important newly discovered genders.

But for those of us who don't hate everyone who's different, and have no secret urge to be other than a good ol' binary man or woman God made us to be, and who even care about the United States of America … well, becoming a Russian Asset may turn out to be a real temptation.

It got weirder from there:

No! Ukraine was not the world's most corrupt government and breeding ground of corporate graft. No! Obama's CIA had nothing to do with the 2014 overthrow of a government that was getting along with Vlad. No! There wasn't a huge majority of Russian-speaking people in the Crimea. There had been no "quiet war" against the Russian provinces since 2014. The Ukrainian shelling of Donetsk and Luhansk did not increase exponentially, each day, in the week prior to the Russian aggression.

Strange, indeed, how many of us who were enlightened by Miss Information, and steadfastly viewed the torch she held high as one and the same as that held up by the Statue of Lady Liberty, have now been seduced by what's maybe "the best trick yet" of the globalist warmongers.

All you patriots demanding an immediate negotiated end to the Ukrainian-Russian war have been taken down a notch. The left suddenly flips, and now you must join them in cheering for war. And, if not, you have taken the first steps in becoming a real, honest to goodness Russian Asset.

Blaming Ukraine for instigating military conflict against Russia is actual Russian propaganda. So it seems we should believe Darlington when he tells us who he says he is.

Richard Blakley

Richard Blakley spent his Jan. 6 column repeating claims that Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky is too close to a Ukrainian oligarch, Ihor Kolomoisky, using that as an excuse to oppose more U.S. aid to Ukraine. Blakley didn't mention, however, that Zelensky is cracking down on corruption in addition to defending his country against Russia and that Kolomoisky has not been immune; a few weeks after Blakley's column appeared, Ukraninan authorities raided Kolomoisky's home following the seizure of two oil companies following the alleged discovery of corruption.

For his Jan. 13 column, Blakley sought to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine by repeating discredited Russian propaganda about biolabs in Ukraine:

It is amazing to look at the history of Russia and Ukraine. They have a rich, tangled history that connects them together going back "more than 1,000 years with to a time when Kyiv, now Ukraine's capital, was at the center of the first Slavic state, Kyivan Rus, the birthplace of both Ukraine and Russia." Who would bomb your own birthplace? Why would Russia attack Ukraine?

It is interesting that Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, but prior to this invasion, dating back as far as 2018, Russia had made claims that there were U.S. financed bio-labs in Ukraine making "biological weapons that would be spread by specially trained migratory birds and diseased bats." Russia has also raised the concerns of the use of "unmanned aerial vehicles [UAV] for the aerial release of ... infected mosquitos" where the spread of these "highly contagious" agents "could wipe out 100 percent of the enemy['s] troops." Some of the dangerous pathogens being studied are plague, anthrax, tularemia, cholera, leptospirosis, brucellosis, coronavirus, filoviruses and other deadly diseases.

[...]

The Russian Defense Ministry stated that the bio-labs in Ukraine have been urgently destroying samples of deadly pathogens since the Russian military operation began. It was also stated that "Ukraine was close to building a plutonium-based dirty bomb nuclear weapon."

So why would Russia attack Ukraine? President Putin is quoted as saying that a "network of Western bioweapons labs" constituted one of the justifications for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Since Dec. 25, Putin has twice extended the opportunity for peace, only to be rejected by Ukraine. After all, if peace occurs, Ukraine would have to give back the $45 billion the U.S. Congress voted to given them as part of the omnibus spending bill, which Biden signed into law Dec. 29 – and then how would "the big guy" get his 10%?

So is Biden's continued throwing of money at Ukraine a good decision for America? I think Obama's former defense secretary Robert Gates answered this question best. Gates stated, Biden has "been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades."

Blakley didn't explain why anyone should believe what Russian propagandists have to say.

Blakley used his Jan. 26 column to blame President Biden for Russia's invasion of Ukraine for [checks notes] calling out Russian interference in U.S. presidential elections:

So, let's see, Biden orchestrated numerous disastrous economic initiatives in January of 2021. In February of 2021 Biden's plans are already causing bleak prospects for the American economy. So what happened in March of 2021? Biden was busy stating that Russian Leader Vladimir Putin was "a killer with no soul." Putin had been peaceful for four years. Biden was railing and ranting concerning the 2020 elections, stating if it were found that Putin boosted the reelection chances of President Trump, the Russian leader would "pay the price."

Whether the 2020 election was clean or not, could someone tell Joe that the final numbers indicate he obtained more votes than any candidate in U.S. history, making him the winner, and remind Joe that he was sworn in as president on Jan. 20, 2021? Why would Biden be calling another world leader "a killer with no soul" and threaten him that he would "pay the price" concerning an election Biden won? Biden's words caused Russia to recall its Washington ambassador, and the U.S. recalled its Russian ambassador too. Great job on world peace, Joe, after being in office for only two months.

Um, doesn't Russia's invasion of Ukraine amply prove Biden's contention that Putin is "a killer with no soul"? Blakley also repeated the pro-Russia talking point that Ukraine wanting to join NATO was a legitimate excuse for Russia to invade Ukraine:

So let's see what happened just in the first three months of Biden's administration. 1) Ukraine appealed for membership in NATO, 2) Biden executes doomed economic policies, and 3) Biden calls Putin "a killer with no soul," promising that Putin would "pay the price" for an election Joe won, causing the recall of U.S. and Russian ambassadors.

What do you think Putin would do next with a perceived threat on his doorstep? He is going to flex his muscles.

[...]

Well, February was filled with tit for tat between NATO and Russia until Feb. 24 when Putin authorized a "special military operation" and the war in Ukraine commenced.

Pope Francis commented concerning the Russia-Ukraine war, saying, "We do not see the whole drama unfolding behind this war, which was, perhaps, somehow either provoked or not prevented." The pope recalled a conversation with a head of state who expressed concerns about NATO. When asked why, this head of state said, "They are barking at the gates of Russia. They don't understand that the Russians are imperial and can't have any foreign power getting close to them."

On March 18, 2022, Chinese President Xi and Biden had a conference, and Xi stated that "conflict and confrontation are not in anyone's interest." The next day, March 19, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Le Yucheng blamed NATO for the war.

Neither Blakley nor Putin seem to understand that NATO is a defensive alliance that, unlike Russia, does not invade other countries.

Jack Cashill

Jack Cashill has a long history of being on the wrong side of history on numerous things, and now we can add the Russian war on Ukraine to that list. He began his Feb. 8 column complaining that Ukraine is made to look good in the media and the aggressor, Russia, is made to look bad:

Approaching the first anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has his hands full dealing with the aftermath of a major corruption scandal.

On Tuesday, Zelensky called for an end to "rumors or any other pseudo-information" that could weaken the nation's resolve in its war against Russia.

The problem is that, from the beginning, the reporting on this war has been nothing but rumors and pseudo-information. A year in, I confess to having no idea who is winning or how the war can continue on Ukrainian soil given all the victories or pseudo-victories Ukraine has purportedly won.

[...]

A year in to the Russian-Ukraine war, I confess to not having seen any real battle footage at all. What I have seen are grim photos of alleged Russian strikes on apartment buildings, schools, hospitals and the like.

On watching this footage, I have asked myself, "Why are the Russians targeting apartment buildings and hospitals?" The answer is they are not.

The Russians could flatten Ukraine tomorrow if they chose. These buildings were likely collateral damage. I wasn't watching news, I realized. What I was watching was war propaganda.

Just because Russia isn't obliterating all civilian targets doesn't mean they're not targeting civilians -- all you have to do is hit the occasional hospital or apartment building to put the fear in civilians. Cashill conveniently ignored that many observers believe Russia is, in fact, targeting civilians and that it's more than just "collateral damage."

Cashill then basically complained that Ukrainians are better at war propaganda than Russia is:

In the later coverage of Vietnam, as well as in much of the coverage of the war in Iraq, our media were running propaganda for our enemies.

American viewers heard all they needed to hear about My Lai or Abu Ghraib. There is no Ukrainian equivalent.

In Ukraine, virtually all the video coverage has been propaganda on behalf of Ukraine. To test my thesis, I entered "Ukraine War video footage" in YouTube.

Of the 32 stories that appeared on the first page, 31 had Ukraine beating the Russians and not just beating them, but destroying, crushing, encircling, ambushing, shocking them.

Consider this recent headline from US News: "Horrible Footage! Ukrainian elite troops eradicate Wagner Groups troop like rats in a Bakhmut trench." Yikes!

Finally, Cashill complained that Democrats were making Russia look bad to get Donald Trump:

What is surprising is America's tag-teaming with Ukraine. In 2014, when pro-Russians nationalists seized the region, and Russia seized the Crimea, the Obama-Biden administration did nothing.

At the time, the administration was courting Russian help to seal the Iranian deal. Their hands were tied.

It was not until 2016, when the Democrats chose to frame Donald Trump, that they realized they had to frame Russia to make the conceit work.

If Russia were not evil, Russia collusion would be no big deal. So, with the media's mindless assistance, the Democrats turned Russia into our main enemy.

Russia was restrained during the four years of the Trump presidency. But President Biden, even if he were cognizant, could no more have negotiated a settlement with Vladimir Putin than he could have reconciled with Trump. His base would not allow him.

The result was a war Ukraine could never win in any meaningful way, and Russia could not allow itself to lose.

It was not hard to "frame" Trump when his campaign and its officials met dozens of times with Russian operatives and that Russia clearly interfered with U.S. elections to benefit Trump (which also involved hacking Democratic National Committee emails, which Cashill still falsely wants you to think was done by Seth Rich). And Cashill offers no evidence that anything Biden might have done would have stopped Putin from invading Ukraine, so desperate was he to have a show of force in the reason. It appears that Cashill is joining Putin in being mad that Ukraine fought back to try and preserve their country.

By siding with an aggressor like Putin and being mad at Ukraine for fighting back to the point that Putin is losing simply by not having the decisive victory he was presumably expecting, Cashill is yet again on the wrong side of history.

Joseph Farah

Even WND editor Joseph Farah turned himself into a Putin apologist, declaring in his Dec. 8 column:

I was fooled about Volodymyr Zelensky.

Yes, even I. When I'm wrong, I like to admit it. And I was horribly wrong.

How wrong was I and about the entire war in Ukraine?

Last March, I called Zelensky a courageous "Hebrew warrior." How's that? Worse yet, I jumped to conclusions about his war.

I apologize.

I even compared him to biblical heroes from the book of Judges. Sheesh! Was I ever wrong about him.

I was too quick to believe the media – something I rarely do. My whole career trained me against it.

But today, seeing is believing.

So what has he done wrong? It's legion. Zelensky has banned opposition parties. He's shut down critical media by force. He's arrested his political opponents. He has sent soldiers into churches. Zelensky's secret police have raided monasteries across Ukraine, even a convent full of nuns, and arrested dozens of priests for no justifiable reason whatsoever and in clear violation of the Ukrainian constitution, which apparently no longer matters. And in the face of this, the Biden administration has said nothing.

Last week, he announced his plan to ban an entire religion, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – more than a thousand years old – and to seize its property, all for being insufficiently loyal to his regime. A free country does not ban a major religion.

Nor is it permissible in time of war to place soldiers in churches. It's wrong to arrest dozens of priests. It's a war crime. And he's doing it to a Ukrainian church!

Joe Biden remains silent about all this – of course.

But rather than tell his readers the truth, Farah decided it was more important to fearmonger about "the Deep State – and the Uni-Party" and portray support for Zelensky as somehow evil:

You know what Big Tech and the U.S. media are like. Ukraine is worse. The Zelensky government bans all opposition voices and parties. Priests are arrested. Is that freedom?

I repent of my once-enthusiastic support of Zelensky and the immoral war in Ukraine. Not another dime for the U.S. war machine in Ukraine. Not now. Not ever. We were sold a bill of goods.

I regret my support for this quagmire – just one more permanent war for the war party.

It was never the right call – especially when we are at real risk of nuclear war.

But Farah never stated the obvious: Because he has reneged his support for Ukraine, that means he has become an ally of the warmongering Vladimir Putin and Russia. If anyone has created that "real risk of nuclear war" he purports to abhor, it's Putin, not Zelensky; Farah seems to be mad at Zelensky for fighting back and refusing to let his country be taken over by a hostile neighbor.

Farah's pro-Putin line puts him in league with WND columnists like Lively, Darlington and Blakley.