This allowed to build a bleak narrative in the former Soviet space, that "look, the West is corrupt as well, so you shouldn't try to fight corruption as it is hopeless". Which, by the way, is a classical FUD passive measure tactic.
This criticism comes up often, but it assumes a conspiracy is necessary for the expected behavior. How many Russian language news stories does your local paper cover? Assange does not need Russian ties to be antisemitic either.
So, I guess you admit that WL has a western bias?
Also, they don’t really have any better options. Just FYI.
If your criticism is that they didn't build a strong enough international team, remember that Assange spent most of their history unable to leave the Ecuadorian embassy. Those years treated as an enemy also likely led to him sympathizing with countries that aren't calling for his head. That isn't why they don't publish Russian leaks though.
I would certainly like it if the published absolutely everything that they had (in fact, I would argue that not publishing them would be unethical unless if they use said information as an insurance in order to make sure that for example Assange gets free) but I would not go as far as to claim that they did any harm.
How much damage it caused is unclear, and it's hard to look at the releases and determine "spreading democracy" is actually a US ambition.
> How much damage it caused is unclear
Its unclear because there is no examples of it. Same as claim that leaks cause deaths, yet no names of fields of dead undercover agents, operatives, informers etc. So who do you trust?