Somewhere inside the imposing 20-storey Y-shaped skyscraper that dominates Kolpachny Street in Moscow, the home of the Russian foreign intelligence service (the SVR), sits a file.
And in that file, typed in neat eastern Cyrillic, is the following name: ‘Peter Mandelson.’
The EU, British and US security sources I’ve been speaking to over the past week differ slightly in their recollections of what their contacts have told them, and what intelligence they have collated first-hand. But the overall picture is consistent.
‘He was very greedy,’ a senior Russian official said about Mandelson. ‘He was always looking for money.’
As we report today, Peter Mandelson was targeted by Russian intelligence services as far back as 2004, while serving as EU trade commissioner.
He initially came to their attention as a result of his friendship with Oleg Deripaska, the Russian business mogul with close ties to Vladimir Putin.
But soon Russian agents monitoring him began to detail another burgeoning – and toxic – relationship. This time with notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
According to intelligence sources, the SVR quickly built up a body of incriminating ‘Kompromat’ on Mandelson. Though they were never required to use it.
Russian agents monitoring Peter Mandelson (right) began to detail a burgeoning – and toxic – relationship with notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein
Last week, Keir Starmer claimed to the nation he had been cruelly duped by Mandelson into appointing him ambassador to Washington
As another Russian official recalled: ‘Our relationship with [Mandelson] was very close, and was working well on a commission basis. There was no need to push him.’
This reference to a ‘commission basis’ reflects how the Russians were able to channel money to Mandelson via seemingly legitimate means, such as the company boards he served on, and the consultancy services he sold.
There is no evidence Britain’s former US ambassador was aware he was being targeted in this way. Although, as we also report, he was directly warned by EU and UK intelligence officers over the risks of his ongoing relationship with Deripaska.
But Peter Mandelson thrived on risk. And didn’t really care about the consequences for his government or his country. Consequences that have now landed with a vengeance. Not least inside No 10 Downing Street.
Last week, Keir Starmer claimed to the nation he had been cruelly duped by Mandelson into appointing him ambassador to Washington.
Despite the fact Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein was a matter of public record, Starmer insisted he had ‘no reason to disbelieve him’ when he told him he had ‘barely known’ the serial abuser.
As we can now see, the Prime Minister’s insistence he had no reason to question Mandelson’s honesty and probity simply does not withstand scrutiny. The man he had selected for the most important and sensitive overseas posting in the British diplomatic service had been completely and utterly compromised by a hostile foreign state.
There is now clear evidence Epstein himself was closely linked to Russian – and potentially other – intelligence agencies. Indeed some are even suggesting his entire, sickening paedophile operation was a giant sting designed to entrap senior politicians, business leaders and celebrities.
Mandelson was successfully targeted by Russian intelligence services while serving as EU trade commissioner. He initially came to their attention as a result of his friendship with Oleg Deripaska (right), the Russian business mogul with close ties to Vladimir Putin
That may be a conspiracy theory too far. But what is not open for debate is the extent Russian
intelligence had their hooks embedded into one of the Prime Minister’s closest political confidants. Or that this fact had been common knowledge for years throughout the British, US and European security services.
‘I didn’t know,’ has been the Prime Minister’s increasingly forlorn refrain since the Mandelson scandal broke. But how can he possibly not have known?
I suspect the answer relates to a conversation I had last week with a senior Whitehall security source.
Reflecting anger within the Civil Service machine at Starmer’s attempts to blame vetting failures for the ongoing crisis, he pointed to the Prime Minister’s decision to despatch Morgan McSweeney – his chief of staff and a close personal friend of Mandelson’s – to question the prospective ambassador about his links to Jeffrey Epstein.
‘If Starmer really wanted the full story, why didn’t he send an independent, experienced member of the Propriety and Ethics Team to interview Mandelson? Why specifically choose one of Mandelson’s best mates?’ he queried.
When Keir Starmer claims he didn’t know the full extent Mandelson had been compromised – via both his links with Epstein and his connections to Russian security service assets – he’s dissembling.
In reality he knew, or suspected, everything. But Starmer’s priority wasn’t the truth. It was ensuring the truth could be managed and manipulated in a way that enabled Mandelson’s appointment to proceed.
The sequence surrounding these murky events is now becoming clearer. Peter Mandelson, through his friendship with McSweeney, quietly embedded himself at the heart of the Starmer operation. This pre-dated Starmer’s election, and continued into office.
The Prime Minister despatched Morgan McSweeney (pictured at No10 in June last year) – his chief of staff and a close personal friend of Mandelson’s – to question the prospective ambassador about his links to Jeffrey Epstein
Ministers have told me Mandelson was effectively acting as Starmer’s deputy chief of staff, advising McSweeney and the Prime Minister on a day-to-day basis, including advice on who to select for his Cabinet.
Then, when the vacancy arose, the Washington ambassadorship was proffered as his reward for services rendered. Because as we have seen, Peter Mandelson never provided those services for free.
When the initial vetting threw up serious questions about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, McSweeney was despatched to manage them.
Yet not, as the Prime Minister has claimed, primarily to ascertain their veracity. But instead to try to craft responses that would enable Starmer to give Mandelson the green light, while claiming – as he did when the first damaging revelations emerged last year – due diligence had been followed.
As a Whitehall source told me: ‘I don’t think Morgan ever questioned Peter in the sense of interrogating him. I think he sat down with him and said, “This is a problem. What do we say?”
And Peter and him then came up with a form of words that would satisfy Starmer, and let him move forward.’
At the same time, it was made clear to officials that additional obstacles placed in the way of Mandelson’s appointment would not be welcomed.
The fact is everyone knew the truth about Mandelson and Epstein. The Russians knew. The Americans knew. Our own security services knew. The Civil Service knew.
The Prime Minister’s claim that he, and he alone, was kept in the dark over the whole squalid saga is utterly preposterous.
And, as will be demonstrated when the relevant files are released, politically fatal.
I’m not entirely sure what the mood was inside that imposing building on Kolpachny when they first received word Starmer had appointed Mandelson as his Washington ambassador. Or several months later, when they sat watching the Prime Minister desperately insisting to the House of Commons ‘Mandelson betrayed our country, our parliament and my party’.
But I think I can hazard a guess.