For this writer there is something truly sickening about the blasé anti-Russia propaganda produced by British liberals. Here we have 3 Guardian journalists showcasing the genre; Rob Davies, Simon Goodley and Anna Isaac.
The piece is based on an interview with former Russian oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Khodorkovsky, a former oil tycon, jailed for fraud and subsequently amnestied by Putin, is a leading player in anti Kremlin manouevres. He contributes, [1] for example, to (roll about laughing), what is typically called “independent Russian media”, and quite often makes anti-Russian public interventions.
My readers might not believe me, but when I write posts of this nature, I am not so much motivated by a feeling I should ‘defend Russians’, though that might be a part of it, but, mainly because I am just offended by these fabricated narratives being presented as objective journalism.
Let’s consider a few points.
Putin likely to stage another Salisbury-style attack, exiled oil tycoon says
This is the headline. That should grab your attention. But; there is no evidence that Putin ordered the Salisbury poisoning attempt on former spy Skripal. There simply isn’t. I think there is plenty of plausible evidence that it was a plot by the GRU – a Russian intelligence organ. But, it is completely possible that Putin was not informed in advance. (There is some anecdotal evidence to support this possibility; Putin at one point seemed surprised and displeased – though, I accept that could have been acting). But, the main point is; no specific evidence that Putin ordered it. At the time I noticed a slew of former Russian officials appearing in the liberal press claiming that “nothing happens in Russia without Putin’s say so”, and this line was, I believe, even used at the absurd British judge led “inquiry” into this episode which “found” that Putin had ordered the assassination attempt. [2] But, the reality is, that in Russia, agencies, and even individuals, often act without direction from the centre, on their own initiative, if they think they are acting as the state would wish them. (Rather live bees in a hive, perhaps). At any event, it appears that Khodorkovsky’s claim is based on an unestablished premise.
Vladimir Putin is likely to stage another Salisbury-style attack on UK soil unless the government adopts more aggressive tactics against the Kremlin, the exiled Russian billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky has said.
Khodorkovsky is essentially trying to steer the British government into “more aggressive actions against Russia”. Strangely, extremely strangely in fact, given they claim to be journalists, the Guardian trio get through their piece without mentioning that former shareholders in Khodorkovsky’s former company Yukos continue to be involved in high-stakes attempts to claim billions from the Russian state. [3] I don’t know about Khodorkovsky’s personal interest in that, and it seems, as far as I can tell, that he is not directly litigating, [4], but it surely gives him at least a strong personal interest in seeing the long dreamed for “regime change” in Russia, not to mention any personal animosity he might feel towards Putin. But, this is the “playbook”. The liberal regime changers find any “exile” they can, look away from his past, and amplify his anti-regime statments.
Talking of Khodorkovsky’s past, the Guardian “journalists” seem to be having another lacuna. This is from a Harvard scholar writing in a book published by Oxford University Press, (hardly RT):
For example, Mikhail Khodorkovskii’s bank Menatep acquired Yukos oil (valued at 7 to 10 billion dollars) for a mere 159 million dollars, paving the way for Khodorkovskii to amass fabulous wealth and become the richest man in Russia. All sixteen ‘auctions’ followed the same insider pattern. Yeltsin’s government portrayed the transactions as legitimate ‘privatization’ (privatizatsiia), but observers aptly described it as ‘grabization’ (prikhvatizatsiia). The giveaways enriched the insider but not the state; this ‘fire sale of the century’ failed to generate the vast revenues that it had anticipated. [5]
or
Not surprisingly, all the major beneficiaries of the privatization process were shown to be corrupt, among them Berezovskii, Khodorkovskii, and Abramovich. The course of privatization – the stealing of state property – undermined the faith of the Russian people in Western-style capitalism…..
Khodorkovskii was justly accused of tax evasion when he made the “mistake” of showing political ambitions;..
By the end of the decade Khodorkovskii had acquired dominant influence in the company. His methods of doing so were as shady and as disreputable as those of the other oligarchs. He did not hesitate to rob the shareholders of his company. [6]
This in a book on Russia and the USSR by Kenez, Peter a US Professor published by Cambridge Unversity Press.
To be fair to Khodorkovsky, Kenez does suggest that he had become something of a reformed character:
We must accept that Khodorkovskii, who had achieved his wildest ambitions to become the richest man in the country, genuinely assumed a degree of social responsibility. We must accept that he intended to run his enormous company on a Western model of transparency. [6]
Nonetheless, it is striking that the Guardian journalists are so ready to air Khodorkovsky’s apparent promotion of the idea that the British secret services should be engaging in “aggressive” actions against Putin without mentioning, even in a throw-away line, quite why Khodorkovsky might be promoting that idea. (I can’t help seeing an anology with how Israel has dragged the US into its war of destruction on Iran).
Finally,
Putin had “chosen as his main enemy the UK”, Khodorkovsky added.
You have to laugh. Does Khodorkovsky seriously expect anyone to take that at face value? Well; maybe he does – certainly the Guardian journalists seem to have done so. Anyone paying attention to reality, (as I would guess Khodorkovsky is), will be aware of Britain’s role in the Ukraine debacle; apparently playing a role sabotaging the Istanbul talks, according to Professor Mearsheimer [7] based in part on an apparent admission by Ukrainian negotiator, David Arakhamia, and always striving to be at the forefront of expelling diplomats, arming the nationalist regime in Kiev, and, in general, making anti-Russia statements. It is hardly that Russia has chosen the UK to be an enemy; the UK makes a point of occupying poll position.
And so it goes, on, pseudo journalism, anti-Russia propaganda. platforms given to “dissidents” who, with respect to Khodorkovsky’s possible rehabilitation are, at any event, not simply saints moved to save their country and nothing else.
Notes
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/23/russian-journalists-meduza-project-latvia-kremlin-crackdown
- “I have concluded that the operation to assassinate Sergei Skripal must have been authorised at the highest level, by President Putin,” Hughes said in his report. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-report-womans-death-after-2018-novichok-poisoning-ex-russian-spy-2025-12-04/
- https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2026/03/02/british-court-allows-yukos-shareholders-to-pursue-russian-assets-in-65bln-dispute-a92094
- https://gmllimited.com/about/
- Freeze, Gregory L.. Russia: A History (p. 473). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition. (Freeze is absolutely not some kind of “Putin apologist”).
- Kenez, Peter. A History of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to Its Legacy (p. 317). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
- https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/the-myth-that-putin-was-bent-on-conquering?utm_source=publication-search