Nigel Farage wasn’t wrong to say that the West provoked Russia’s invasion of UKraine, Zia Yusuf has said. Reform UK’s chairman also hit back over claims about the party’s close links to the Kremlin.
He said “it is for the birds” to think that the “murderous dictator” Vladimir Putin is making decisions based on what Mr Farage says. His staunch defence came during a furious clash on Sky News the Trevor Phillips Show.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
The pair clashed when Mr Yusuf was also confronted about his party’s alleged links to the Kremlin.
Last month, former Reform UK leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, pleaded guilty to bribery charges relating to statements in favour of Russia in the European Parliament.
Mr Farage has also faced repeated criticism over his comments in 2014 where he said Putin was the current world leader he admired the most, “as an operator, but not as a human being”.
He has also suggested the West “provoked” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by expanding the European Union and Nato military alliance eastwards.
Mr Yusuf said: “We know we are now in a situation where Ukraine’s sovereignty has been violated.
“Vladimir Putin needs to be brought to heel, and that’s what we need to focus but I want to give you the opportunity to be absolutely crystal clear, sure, because if I were watching this in Moscow, I’d already been writing down oh, he supported the phrase we the West provoked the war, and that comes from a leading a leading figure in the party that is leading the polls in the United Kingdom.”
He added: “Nigel has been on the record two weeks ago saying that if he was a prime minister and Russian planes encroached into NATO airspace, he, as prime minister, would suggest that those be shot down.
“I don’t know how much clearer we can be.”
Nigel Farage Is No Friend of Vladimir Putin, Insists Reform UK Chair
Nigel Farage has faced renewed questions over his views on Russia and Vladimir Putin, but Reform UK has repeatedly rejected the suggestion that its leader is sympathetic to the Kremlin.
The issue has become increasingly important for Reform as the party has grown into a significant force in British politics. Farage’s previous comments about Putin, his criticism of NATO and his controversial argument that Western expansion helped provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have all been used by political opponents to question his foreign-policy position.
Reform, however, insists that there is a fundamental difference between analysing the causes of a conflict and supporting the government responsible for it.
The distinction has become particularly important since former Reform UK Wales leader Nathan Gill was jailed for accepting bribes to make pro-Russian statements while he was a Member of the European Parliament.
Gill’s conviction created an obvious political problem for Reform. But the criminal case against Gill involved admitted bribery, while the arguments surrounding Farage concern his publicly expressed political views.
Those are very different matters.
Why Farage’s Russia views have become controversial
The debate surrounding Farage did not begin with the Gill case.
In 2014, Farage was asked by GQ magazine which world leader he most admired. His answer was Vladimir Putin, although he qualified the remark by saying he admired Putin “as an operator, but not as a human being.”
That comment has subsequently been repeatedly cited by his opponents.
More recently, Farage has argued that the expansion of NATO and the European Union contributed to the circumstances surrounding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
In February 2026, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper accused Reform of being “soft on Russia and weak on Nato”. She specifically pointed to Farage’s arguments about NATO expansion and the party’s response to Russia’s threat.
Farage has rejected the accusation that he is soft on Russia.
His position has instead been that Western governments made strategic mistakes in their approach to Russia while still recognising Russia’s responsibility for launching the invasion.
That distinction is at the centre of the dispute.
Reform’s defence of its leader
Reform’s defence is that Farage’s record does not support the description of him as a supporter of Putin.
One of the clearest examples came in October 2025, when Farage explicitly described Putin as “a very bad dude” and said that the Russian president was not rational.
He also said that Russian aircraft entering NATO airspace should be shot down.
Farage supported the use of frozen Russian assets to provide loans for Ukraine and said that, under certain circumstances, British troops could participate in a United Nations peacekeeping force in Ukraine following a ceasefire.
Those statements are difficult to reconcile with the simple claim that Farage supports Putin’s government.
They do not, however, eliminate the controversy surrounding his broader foreign-policy analysis.
A politician can oppose a country’s government while simultaneously arguing that other countries contributed to the conditions that led to a conflict.
That is essentially the position Farage has taken.
The Nathan Gill problem
The issue became much more politically sensitive after Nathan Gill’s conviction.
Gill, who later became Reform UK’s leader in Wales, admitted accepting money in exchange for making statements favourable to Russian interests while serving as an MEP.
He was sentenced to 10 years and six months in prison.
The case involved communications, payments and political statements, rather than simply controversial opinions.
That difference is crucial.
A politician expressing a controversial foreign-policy argument is not automatically committing a criminal offence.
Gill’s case was fundamentally different because he admitted accepting bribes.
Farage has described Gill as a “bad apple” and has denied any involvement in the scheme.
Police investigating the case found no evidence that Farage was involved in Gill’s bribery activities. The investigation therefore should not be presented as evidence against Farage personally.
Nevertheless, the conviction has inevitably intensified questions about Reform’s historical links and attitudes towards Russia.
A parliamentary battle over Reform’s Russia policy
The issue has also entered Westminster debates.
In February 2026, Labour MPs argued that Reform needed to explain its position on Russia more clearly.
During a parliamentary debate on Russian influence in British politics, critics pointed to Gill’s conviction and Farage’s previous comments.
One argument made in the Commons was that Reform should conduct an independent investigation into possible Russian links and cooperate fully with a wider review of Russian influence.
Those were political demands rather than findings that Reform itself had been controlled by Russia.
Reform has rejected the broader accusation.
Zia Yusuf, the party’s head of policy, argued that it was “obviously not true” that Farage was soft on Russia. He pointed to Farage’s willingness to say that Russian aircraft entering NATO airspace should be shot down.
This illustrates the fundamental disagreement.
Critics focus on Farage’s historical comments and his interpretation of the origins of the war.
Reform focuses on his stated willingness to confront Russia militarily under certain circumstances.
Both sets of evidence form part of the public record.
The question of Ukraine
Farage’s position on Ukraine is particularly complicated.
He has supported Ukraine’s right to defend itself and has accepted that Russia is responsible for the invasion.
At the same time, he has argued that Western policy helped create the strategic environment in which the invasion occurred.
In February 2026, he repeated his view that NATO and EU expansion had helped provoke Russia.
That position has attracted considerable criticism because opponents argue that it risks shifting responsibility away from Moscow.
Farage has rejected that interpretation.
His argument is essentially that explaining why a war occurred is not the same thing as justifying the decision to start it.
This distinction is central to understanding his foreign-policy position.
What Reform’s critics argue
Critics of Farage say that the problem is not simply whether he supports Putin personally.
They argue that some of his statements can reinforce narratives that are useful to the Kremlin, particularly arguments portraying NATO expansion as the principal cause of the war.
Yvette Cooper made precisely this criticism when she accused Reform of failing to take the Russian threat seriously.
Other Labour politicians have made similar arguments.
The concern is therefore about the political consequences of Farage’s analysis rather than a claim that he secretly works for Russia.
That distinction matters.
There is no need to establish a secret relationship in order to debate whether a politician’s public arguments are helpful or harmful to a particular foreign government.
At the same time, criticism of Farage’s arguments should not automatically be converted into an allegation of Russian control.
Farage’s own response
Farage has been unusually direct when responding to the accusation that he is pro-Putin.
In October 2025, he said that describing him as soft on Russia was “nonsense”.
He explicitly called Putin a “very bad dude” and backed military action against Russian aircraft that entered NATO airspace.
He also supported using frozen Russian assets to assist Ukraine.
These are significant statements because they demonstrate that Farage’s position is not simply one of accommodation with Moscow.
However, they coexist with his long-standing criticism of Western foreign policy.
That combination is precisely why the debate has remained unresolved.
Why the issue matters for Reform
Foreign policy is increasingly important for Reform because the party is no longer simply campaigning on domestic issues.
As its parliamentary presence and national profile have grown, voters and political opponents have increasingly asked what Reform would do on defence, NATO, Ukraine and Britain’s wider relationship with the United States and Europe.
That creates a different standard of scrutiny.
A party seeking influence over national government has to explain not only its domestic policies but also its approach to international security.
Farage’s supporters can point to his commitment to NATO and his willingness to confront Russian military activity.
His critics can point to his previous praise of Putin’s political effectiveness and his repeated argument about NATO expansion.
The public record contains both elements.
The wider question of Russian influence
The debate over Farage also forms part of a much broader British concern about foreign interference.
The UK government and Parliament have investigated Russian influence for years, including questions surrounding political donations, lobbying, espionage and attempts to influence public opinion.
The Gill conviction has added a particularly serious example to that debate.
But one individual’s criminal conduct should not automatically be treated as proof that an entire political party or its leader has been directed by a foreign government.
Each claim requires its own evidence.
That principle is especially important when discussing allegations involving national security.
Farage’s political challenge
For Farage, the Russia controversy presents a difficult communications problem.
He wants to maintain his argument that Western foreign policy contributed to the crisis while simultaneously demonstrating that Reform takes the Russian military threat seriously.
His public statements show an attempt to do both.
He criticises NATO and Western policy in historical terms while supporting NATO’s collective defence and advocating military action if Russian aircraft violate allied airspace.
Whether voters find those positions consistent is ultimately a political question.
But describing Farage simply as a friend of Putin leaves out important parts of his documented position.
Equally, describing all criticism of him as politically motivated would ignore the genuine controversy created by his previous statements.
A distinction that matters
The strongest factual distinction is between support for Putin, criticism of Western policy and criminal cooperation with Russian interests.
Those are not interchangeable.
Farage has made comments that have been interpreted by opponents as sympathetic to Russian arguments.
He has also publicly condemned Putin, supported NATO’s defence obligations and backed measures against Russian interests.
Nathan Gill, by contrast, admitted accepting money for pro-Russian statements. That was a criminal case involving bribery and is fundamentally different from expressing an unpopular foreign-policy opinion.
Reform’s defence of Farage therefore rests on a real distinction between his public political arguments and Gill’s criminal conduct.
The continuing controversy
The question of whether Farage is “soft on Russia” is unlikely to disappear.
His past remarks will continue to be cited by opponents, while Reform will continue pointing to his more recent statements about NATO, Ukraine and Russian military threats.
The evidence does not support reducing the entire debate to a simple label.
Farage has expressed views that sharply criticise Western foreign policy and has previously spoken positively about Putin’s effectiveness as a political operator.
At the same time, he has explicitly condemned Putin, backed NATO’s collective defence and supported measures against Russia.
Those positions can be examined and debated without assuming that they amount to personal friendship with the Russian president.
For Reform UK, the task is therefore not simply to insist that Farage is “no friend of Vladimir Putin”.
It is to explain clearly what his foreign-policy position actually means in practice.
For critics, the task is equally important: distinguish documented statements from allegations of hidden allegiance.
In a debate as consequential as Britain’s relationship with Russia, evidence matters more than slogans.