In two reports, The Telegraph newspaper revealed leaked information contained in a special intelligence file prepared in 2022 by the former officer in the British Foreign Intelligence Service (MI6), Christopher Steele, and it included exciting details related to the extent of the Russian intelligence services’ penetration into British politics and their close monitoring of a number of its most prominent leaders over the past four decades.
The newspaper confirms in the two reports prepared by political editor Camilla Turner that the intelligence file, called “Project Fish,” claims that the Russian intelligence services conducted an assessment through its agents to determine the possibility of wooing or influencing a number of the most prominent British politicians, within the framework of what the file’s author described as Moscow’s attempts to build a wide network to understand the centers of influence within the United Kingdom.
Read also
list of 2 itemsend of list
Turner points out that British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who previously headed the British Foreign Intelligence Service, prepared the secret file in the fall of 2022, after leaving government work and within the framework of his private consulting activity.
It also indicates that the leaked document is based on multiple intelligence sources, but adds that people familiar with the file questioned the reliability of some of those sources and the extent of verification of the information contained therein.
The British newspaper clarifies that the file does not accuse the political figures included in it of working for Russia or of leaking information to it, but rather presents – according to what it attributes to the Russian intelligence services – how Moscow evaluates these figures and their potential importance to its interests.
The file claims that the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service kept a detailed file on Mandelson’s relationship with the late American businessman Jeffrey Epstein, considering that this relationship may have represented a potential means of exerting pressure on him.
Personalities targeted by Russian intelligence
Peter Mandelson – who held several positions in the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – is at the forefront of what is mentioned in the file, as he claims that he was viewed within the Russian intelligence services as a “distinguished contact,” and that it represents one of the most prominent successes achieved by Moscow in understanding the British political scene over the past three decades. However, the newspaper confirms at the same time that the file does not provide any evidence that Mandelson spied or transferred information to Russia.
The newspaper quoted sources close to Mandelson who categorically rejected these allegations, stressing that “he did not pass any information to Russia and did not commit any violation,” noting that his political record included public positions opposing the Kremlin’s policies.
The file also claims that the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service kept a detailed file on Mandelson’s relationship with the late American businessman Jeffrey Epstein, considering that this relationship may have represented a potential means of exerting pressure on him.
According to the newspaper, these allegations re-raise questions about the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Mandelson as ambassador to the United States in 2025, and whether the British official authorities had seen this information before making the appointment decision, something the British government declined to comment on.
The intelligence file is not limited to Mandelson, as it deals with a number of other prominent British political figures across various party trends.
According to what was published by the newspaper, the document claims that Soviet intelligence, and later Russian intelligence, opened a file on former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson since his years of study at Oxford University, after seeing in him a candidate to play an influential political role in the future.
The Telegraph attributes to the document a description of Johnson as a politician with a great deal of intelligence and presence, but he is “popular and untrustworthy,” and that his behavior is sometimes characterized by instability, noting that he may be susceptible to being influenced. However, the Russian assessment, according to the file, concluded that Johnson is not suitable for building a stable, long-term intelligence relationship with him because of his volatile personality.
According to the newspaper, Johnson commented on these allegations with sarcasm, saying that he found it difficult to believe that the Soviet intelligence service (KGB) was allocating files to Oxford University students in the 1980s, adding that this might explain the Soviet Union’s loss of the Cold War.
The file also addresses Johnson’s former advisor Dominic Cummings, who spent several years in Russia during the 1990s. According to the newspaper, the Russian intelligence services paid attention to his movements, but they suspected that there might be a connection between him and British intelligence, which made them deal with him with caution.
In previous statements, Cummings had denied any connection to the security services, stressing that his contact with some intelligence personnel during his stay in Moscow was a normal matter at that stage.
Regarding the current leader of the United Kingdom Reform Party, Nigel Farage, Turner reports in her two reports that the file speaks of a division within the Russian security institutions regarding the feasibility of political investment in it. Some officials believed that it might serve Russian interests in the future, while others considered that betting on it entailed a great risk and did not justify investing the necessary resources.
The document indicates, according to the newspaper, that Russian interest in it later declined before the British exit referendum from the European Union, known as (Brexit).
As for Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labor Party, the file attributes him to adopting positions that Moscow saw as intersecting with some of its political narratives, especially in the files of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Syria, and the case of the poisoning of former Russian agent Sergei Skripal.
However, the newspaper confirms that the document itself states that there is no indication that Corbyn had direct contacts with the Russian intelligence services or that he acted as an agent for them.
The Telegraph reports that the document also addresses a number of members of the House of Lords and businessmen, considering that some circles of the British political and economic elite may be more vulnerable to attempts at external influence due to the nature of their financial relationships or prevailing disclosure rules.
However, a number of those named denied the validity of the allegations, and some of them described the information received as not based on any basis.
The importance of the intelligence file does not lie in providing legal evidence of Russian penetration of the British political elite, but rather in shedding light on the methods that Russian intelligence is believed to have followed in studying public figures.
Criticism of the leaked document
The newspaper warned that the controversy surrounding the file is also influenced by the personality of its author, Christopher Steele, who gained international fame after preparing the controversial file regarding the alleged relations between US President Donald Trump and Russia during the 2016 elections.
That file was widely criticized, while subsequent American investigations concluded that a number of its most prominent allegations had not been verified, which prompts observers to deal with caution with any intelligence documents issued by Steele, despite his previously affirming his confidence in a large portion of the information he collected.
The newspaper concludes that the importance of the “Project Fish” intelligence file does not lie in providing legal evidence of a Russian penetration of the British political elite, but rather in shedding light on the methods that the Russian intelligence services are believed to have followed in studying public figures, collecting information about them, and building long-term assessments about the possibility of influencing or benefiting from them.
While doubts persist about the accuracy of some of the information contained in the file, its publication brings back to the forefront the debate within Britain about tools of foreign influence, and the extent of the security institutions’ ability to monitor and confront them in light of the escalating intelligence competition between Moscow and the West.
