Video: Johnson embarrasses again – or is Russia just not very good at assassination?

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has inflicted a series of embarrassments on himself and on this country – as well as being caught lying about that the toxin in the Salisbury poisoning incident having been positively identified as Russian in origin.

Now he has committed another huge gaffe, by lamenting the murder of a Russian journalist, with a clear implication that it was a Russian attack on freedom of speech, just before said journalist turned up alive and well at a press conference:


Babchenko’s sudden healthy appearance was captured by cameras to the consternation of the BBC:

Johnson’s finger of blame was already pointing at Russia for the shooting to death of Mr Babchenko, abetted by the BBC – which continues to stream anti-Russian propaganda unabated in spite of Babchenko’s embarrassing appearance. The Ukrainians had also pointed at Russia but then claimed that Babchenko’s death was ‘staged’ to capture assassins.

Russia’s initial denials of any part in Babchenko’s death were notably similar to their refusal to accept responsibility for the poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury – and Johnson’s haste to apportion blame has a familiar ring to it.

With both Sergei and Yulia Skripal now out of hospital after exposure to one of the most deadly nerve toxins in existence and Mr Babchenko turning up without a scratch, if the Russians are in the carrying out political assassinations in other countries, one can only conclude they’re not very good at it.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. Like many I have a pretty low opinion of Boris but to be fair he was by no means the only one taken in by this.

    1. Couldn’t agree more.
      In order to “not be taken in” one would need to know that Mr. Babchenko was in fact alive.
      I missed the initial report but would have had no reason to doubt it.
      This would hardly even make the “BloJo Bloopers” outtakes reel.

    1. Are you saying you weren’t?

      It’s very easy to be smug and condescending with the benefit of hindsight.

      1. Allan – Perhaps you also can explain why you weren’t taken in by the initial reports that Babchenko had been murdered.

        Did The Sun carry the story in Wednesday’s edition, I don’t know, do you? I’ve just looked online and there doesn’t appear to be anything about the initial reports, however they’ve got quite a good write up on the current situation

      2. Well tbh I didn’t hear about the episode until AFTER he came back to life, but even if I hadn’t, I would have been 100% sceptical that it was Putin/Russia wot done it.

      3. Allan – Did you have the same degree of blind faith in Putin regarding the death of Alexander Litvinenko?

      4. And I suppose you believe there were WMD in Iraq.

        As for Litvinenko, here’s an interesting article/assessment of the case. And here’s a little tidbit – which may sound familiar – just to whet your appetite:

        ‘Part of the media disinformation at the time following Litvinenko’s death was that polonium was exceedingly rare and produced only in Russia. This is simply untrue.’


      5. Why the rather silly distraction regarding Iraq?

        Thanks for taking the time to reply but unfortunately you’ve neglected to actually answer my question

        Allan – Did you have the same degree of blind faith in Putin regarding the death of Alexander Litvinenko?

      6. (Soz this is late. Been away from computerland…)

        I’m saying, Steve (if you’re still there), that anti-Putin horror stories are coming at us now on a virtually daily basis, none of which are supported by any hard evidence AT ALL!

        So, yes, I automatically treat all such stories with extreme scepticism, till proven with, y’know, solid facts…

      7. Thanks for your much more measured and informative follow-up. Obviously to a lesser extent than yourself but I also have a degree of scepticism regarding some anti Putin propaganda but I also recognise that Putin has some very considerable shortcomings.

      8. There are lots of leaders who can be criticised but it’s essential to be aware of western corporate media manipulation. Eg Saudi beheadings, religious fanaticism, misogyny and war atrocities in Yemeni don’t attract the same criticism as govts that resist US interference. USA is a much more dangerous threat to world peace than ANY other country on the planet so don’t get distracted!!!

      9. Thanks for the advice, but strangely enough I find it quite easy to recognise that both Trump and Putin are narcissistic arseholes.

      10. I was just researching something, and although I know that next to no-one is ever going to see this comment now, more than two years later (apart from Steve H himself, that is, who I am Replying to), I’m going to post it just for the record anyway.

        So in the exchange between Steve H and myself he, in one post says: ‘Allan – Did you have the same degree of blind faith in Putin regarding the death of Alexander Litvinenko?’, and sometime later I responded, and included a link to an article that was highly dubious about the official story of ‘Russia’ being responsible, and I quoted a short segment from it, and for the obvious reason given the PTB et al were saying the same about Novichok. Anyone who read the piece I linked to will have learnt that there are serious doubts about the official narrative – and the Inquiry – as set out by a barrister, James O’Neill, which Steve H obviously read, but in his reponse later on (he obviously wasn’t doing the nightshift at this point in time!), he pretends that I hadn’t, in effect, posted any evidence to that effect and, as such, just repeats what he said earlier:

        Thanks for taking the time to reply but unfortunately you’ve neglected to actually answer my question

        Allan – Did you have the same degree of blind faith in Putin regarding the death of Alexander Litvinenko?

        Steve’s ‘response’ was aimed at those who didn’t read the piece I linked to so as to lead them to think and believe there was nothing to the piece I linked to AND that I HADN’T answered his question, but the piece I linked to was of course my ‘answer’. And Steve knows it, and is just being totally disingenuous, as such, AND trying to deceive readers of skwawkbox. But then that’s what shills get paid to do!

      11. Allan – Are we supposed to be able to understand this convoluted diatribe.

        You clearly had an irresistible compulsion to counter my criticisms from 2 years ago.

        Are you really that insecure?

  2. ‘Unable to carry out the simplest murder plot without cocking the whole thing up’. Ring any bells?

  3. Breaking: Putin brings journalist, Arkady Babchenko, back to life.

    Shame the anti Kiev regime journalists who have really been murdered in Ukraine don’t get any comment in western MSM.

    Johnson is an embarrassment full stop and clearly willing to believe any old Russia is evil narrative. Trolled twice in one week must be a record even for him… together with his side kick Williamson we see the quality of May cabinet in foreign affairs. God help us all.

    1. It’s not that he believes it Maria, it’s just anti-Russian propaganda falsehoods for the masses that he’s disseminating, in the same sort of vein that the Nazis used to do all the time about whatever. And there really isn’t much difference between them (or the fascist controlled media that acts as their medium)!

      1. Did I give the impression I think Johnson believes his/this Russophobic campaign? Who knows, or cares, what he believes, it’s what he does and says as Foreign Secretary that matters .

  4. So is Hugh Grant been contracted to play Babchenko- the movie? A very Russian coup?

  5. If Boris is related to the queen and the queen was related to the Russian royal family then perhaps Boris’s anti-Russian stance might be explained. Could it be that he still holds a grudge for against the Russians because the Bolsheviks assassinated the Russian royal family? Just a thought.

  6. Whilst we are on about Russia, have we been told specifically why Mr. Abramovich has been ‘banned’ – to exaggerate for effect – from UK? Could it be because he hasn’t donated enough to the Tory Party coffers? Could it be because he is deemed too close to Putin? Or is it a Tory version of Anti-Semitism? Because it definitely could not be the case of lack of explanation of where he got his pile of cash, as I guess is the case of with all these oligarchs in exile in UK and donating generously to the Tories.

Leave a Reply