Boris Johnson hits out at Nigel Farage over Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine (Image: YOUTUBE)
Boris Johnson has blasted Nigel Farage as a threat to national security. The former Tory prime minister claimed the Reform UK leader is “extremely dangerous” on Russia, adding that he has “serious anxieties” over the insurgent party’s Ukraine stance.
He told the Harry Cole Saves the West YouTube show: “My concerns, as I say, and they’re serious concerns, are about the approach to the economy, of the Reform Party, and the approach on our national security. And I think both of those will be severely tested in the years ahead, and people will actually want serious answers, and I think that the answers are going to be Conservative answers.”
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
He added: “I think there are two real priorities for us now, the number one is the economy and making sure that we shrink the size of state spending.
“The second is defence, national security and the threat of Russia and on both of those, I have very serious anxieties.”
Pressed on if Mr Farage is a threat to national security, Mr Johnson went on: “Look at what’s happening in Moldova, right? Look at what’s happening in Estonia, in Poland, even in Denmark today, right?
“And ask yourself, do you want the UK either to be led by Labour who have a huge number of their grassroots, who are still basically pro-Moscow, Corbynista, right?
“Or do you want this Reform gang who are on record as saying that NATO provoked Putin’s aggression.
“I think what the world wants to save the West, what the world needs is UK leadership on this, and they need the UK to be strong and determined, and not to sound equivocal, morally equivocal, about transparent evil like invading Ukraine.”
Nigel Farage criticised Boris Johnson over migration at a press conference on Monday (Image: Getty)
He added: “We are going to need a Conservative government that is strong on defence and doesn’t believe to take a position at random, that the problem in Ukraine was that NATO provoked Putin. I think that’s extremely dangerous.”
Mr Johnson’s comments come after Mr Farage took aim at Mr Johnson in a press conference earlier this week over hundreds of thousands of migrants that came to the UK under more relaxed post-Brexit rules introduced by his Tory government, as part of what Reform is branding the “Boriswave”.
A Reform spokesman hit back: “The Boriswave was the biggest betrayal in modern political history. No wonder he wants to attack us after we exposed his terrible record in office. Reform UK will clean up Boris Johnson‘s mess.
“He is in denial about his own record and desperately out of touch.”
Boris Johnson takes ‘extremely dangerous’ swipe at Nigel Farage after migration clash
Boris Johnson has launched a sharp attack on Nigel Farage and Reform UK, describing the party’s position on the war in Ukraine as “extremely dangerous” while also defending his own record on immigration.
The clash reflects a widening dispute between two politicians who have both occupied prominent positions on the British political right but now take different approaches to questions including migration, welfare, defence and Britain’s relationship with its allies.
Johnson’s comments came as Farage and Reform continued to criticise the former Conservative government’s record on immigration. Farage has repeatedly used the term “Boriswave” to describe the rise in legal migration during the period following Brexit, arguing that the Conservatives failed to deliver the tighter immigration system that many Brexit supporters expected.
Johnson, meanwhile, has rejected the idea that his government simply opened Britain’s borders. He has argued that the political debate needs to distinguish between illegal migration and legal migration, while defending measures his government introduced to tackle Channel crossings.
The former prime minister’s latest intervention therefore combined a defence of his own record with criticism of Farage’s political programme.
Johnson’s “extremely dangerous” warning
The most serious part of Johnson’s intervention concerned foreign policy rather than immigration.
Speaking to the Harry Cole Saves The West show, Johnson said he had “serious anxieties” about Reform UK’s approach to national security and the economy.
He particularly objected to Farage’s previous comments about the causes of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Johnson argued that Britain needed a Conservative government that was strong on defence and rejected the argument that NATO had provoked Vladimir Putin’s invasion.
“I think that’s extremely dangerous,” Johnson said.
The comments referred to a position Farage expressed during the 2024 general election campaign, when he said the West had “provoked” Russia’s invasion by expanding NATO and the European Union eastwards.
Farage has nevertheless also said that he does not support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
The disagreement is therefore partly about how the origins of the war should be understood and what that interpretation means for British foreign policy.
Farage’s migration attack on Johnson
While Johnson focused heavily on Ukraine and defence, the immediate political backdrop also involved immigration.
Farage has made the immigration record of successive Conservative governments a central part of his criticism of the party.
Under Johnson’s premiership, legal migration increased substantially, while the government also faced growing numbers of people crossing the English Channel in small boats.
Farage has argued that this record helped create the conditions for Reform’s subsequent growth.
In June 2026, Farage directly challenged Johnson over what he described as the “Boriswave” of migration, with the discussion focusing on whether Conservative policies had contributed to Reform’s emergence as a major political force.
Johnson has pushed back against the characterisation.
In a September 2025 interview, he said illegal migration was an issue that concerned the public deeply and defended his government’s attempt to address the problem.
He also criticised the decision by Labour to abandon the Rwanda deportation scheme introduced under his government.
The argument illustrates an important distinction between the two politicians.
Farage has criticised both legal and illegal migration, while Johnson’s defence has concentrated more heavily on the distinction between legal migration and irregular Channel crossings.
The numbers behind the argument
The immigration debate is complicated by the fact that several different measures are frequently discussed together.
Legal migration, net migration, asylum applications and small-boat crossings are separate categories.
During the years following Brexit, the UK experienced a substantial increase in immigration, with particularly large numbers of people arriving through work, study and other legal routes.
At the same time, the number of small boats crossing the Channel increased sharply.
Government statistics have recorded tens of thousands of small-boat arrivals in some recent years, although the pattern has varied from year to year.
By 2026, the government was reporting that small-boat arrivals were lower than during the same period of the previous year. ITV reported a provisional 2026 total of 14,819 by early August, 43% below the corresponding point in 2025 and 16% below the same period in 2024.
That does not settle the wider argument over immigration policy, but it demonstrates why individual figures need to be placed in the correct category and time period.
Johnson defends his Conservative record
Johnson also used the confrontation to defend the Conservative Party.
He argued that the Conservatives could return to political relevance and rejected the suggestion that Reform’s polling performance meant the party’s future was already determined.
He also ruled out a political alliance with Farage, saying that the answers to Britain’s problems would come from Conservative policies.
Johnson’s comments came after a series of Conservative figures moved towards Reform, increasing speculation about the relationship between the two parties.
The former prime minister nevertheless maintained that the Conservatives remained capable of rebuilding their support.
His intervention therefore had two audiences: Farage and Reform on one side, and Conservative supporters on the other.
Reform’s response
Reform did not accept Johnson’s criticisms without challenge.
Zia Yusuf, one of the party’s senior figures, responded to Johnson’s comments on social media, while Reform supporters have continued to highlight the former prime minister’s immigration record.
The party’s argument is that the Conservative governments that promised to reduce immigration instead presided over historically high levels of migration.
Reform has consequently attempted to position itself as a break from the Conservative record rather than simply another version of it.
That is particularly relevant because many Reform supporters previously voted Conservative.
The dispute between Johnson and Farage is therefore not simply an argument between two political personalities. It also reflects a broader struggle over what the political right in Britain should stand for after Brexit.
Ukraine divides the two sides
The disagreement over Ukraine is especially important because Johnson has made support for Kyiv a major part of his political legacy.
As prime minister, Johnson became one of the most prominent European supporters of Ukraine following Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.
He has continued to argue that Britain should maintain strong military and political support for Kyiv.
Farage’s position has been different.
Although he has condemned the Russian invasion, his explanation of how the conflict developed has placed greater emphasis on NATO expansion and Western foreign policy.
That distinction has led to repeated criticism from Johnson and other supporters of a strongly pro-Ukraine British foreign policy.
Johnson’s latest comments show that he considers the issue important enough to challenge Reform directly.
Welfare is another dividing line
Johnson also criticised Reform’s proposal to abolish the two-child benefit limit.
He argued that increased welfare spending would create difficulties for a government attempting to control public expenditure.
Farage and Reform have taken a different approach, arguing that changes to welfare policy are necessary to address poverty and provide greater support to families.
This is another example of the differences between the two political projects.
Reform has attempted to combine stricter immigration policies with selected increases in public spending, while Johnson has emphasised fiscal restraint and lower government expenditure.
The disagreement demonstrates why describing Reform simply as a continuation of the Conservative Party does not capture all of the policy differences between them.
The significance for the Conservatives
Johnson’s intervention also highlights the difficult position facing the Conservative Party.
Several former Conservative politicians have moved towards Reform, while Reform has attempted to attract voters who previously supported the Conservatives.
At the same time, Conservative politicians continue to argue that the party can recover by presenting itself as a credible alternative.
Johnson’s refusal to endorse an alliance with Farage is therefore politically significant, even though it does not establish what future relationships between the parties might look like.
He has made clear that he does not regard Reform’s current political direction as a substitute for the Conservative approach.
Farage’s challenge to the old Conservative record
For Farage, attacking Johnson’s immigration record serves another purpose.
The Reform leader can argue that the Conservatives had many years in government to change immigration policy but failed to produce the reductions they had promised.
That argument is central to Reform’s attempt to distinguish itself from the Conservatives.
Farage has also linked immigration to wider questions about housing, public services, wages and Britain’s population growth.
Critics of Reform argue that these issues have multiple causes and that immigration statistics should not automatically be treated as evidence that migration is responsible for every pressure on public services.
The debate therefore extends beyond the personalities involved.
Two different political arguments
The Johnson-Farage dispute ultimately brings together two separate disagreements.
The first concerns immigration and the Conservative record after Brexit.
Farage argues that high migration demonstrated the failure of the established parties to deliver the changes promised to voters. Johnson disputes aspects of that interpretation and points to measures taken against illegal migration.
The second concerns foreign policy.
Johnson believes Farage’s interpretation of NATO’s role in the Ukraine war is dangerous for British national security. Farage’s supporters, meanwhile, argue that questioning Western policy does not amount to supporting Russia.
These disagreements cannot be reduced to a single dispute over personalities.
They reflect different views about Britain’s immigration system, welfare spending, defence policy and relationship with international allies.
A continuing battle on the right
The confrontation is likely to remain relevant as Reform continues to compete for voters who once formed an important part of the Conservative electorate.
Johnson remains outside Parliament, while Farage leads Reform in the Commons. Their political positions have nevertheless become increasingly intertwined because both are addressing many of the same voters.
The former prime minister’s “extremely dangerous” warning represents a particularly sharp rejection of Farage’s approach to Ukraine.
But the broader argument is also about the legacy of the Conservative years after Brexit and whether Reform represents a departure from that record or a continuation of some of its themes.
For voters, the dispute provides a clear illustration of the differences between the two sides on migration, welfare and foreign policy.
The evidence shows that Johnson and Farage are not simply competing over personalities. They are offering different interpretations of Britain’s recent political history and different approaches to the country’s future direction.
Their arguments over immigration and Ukraine therefore form part of a much wider contest over the political identity of Britain’s right — one that continues to develop as the next general election approaches.