
DOMINIC LAWSON: Why Putin has been denied a propaganda ‘triumph' by the Mail's gripping revelations about the brilliant new boss of MI6
When Sir John Sawers was appointed in 2009, The Mail on Sunday immediately found that his wife Shelley had put up various snaps of the nation's new spy chief on a family Facebook page, including one of Sir John on holiday wearing Speedos – and also details of where the family lived.
The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Ed Davey – then as now, a dedicated headline-grabber – declared this might have 'breached the security of the incoming head of MI6 too seriously to allow him to take up the post'.
And when Sir Richard Moore was appointed as C in 2020, the Sun revealed that our new intelligence chief's grandfather, Jack Buckley, had been a volunteer in the Irish Republican Army, later given a medal by the IRA's political wing, Sinn Fein, for his service in the war against the British.
But none of these have anything like the impact of the Mail's revelation last week about the family background of the newly appointed head of MI6 – the first female C, 47-year-old Blaise Metreweli.
Through rapid research in archives held in Ukraine and Germany, the Mail produced proof that her paternal grandfather was Constantine Dobrowolski, a notorious Ukrainian collaborator with the invading Nazis in the 1940s.
He had defected from the Red Army to serve in an SS unit and later boasted, according to the records: 'I oversaw captured Russian vehicles and personally took part in front-line action near Kyiv and in the extermination of Jews.'
I have spoken to former MI6 colleagues of Metreweli about this. Their take is it was most unlikely that its vetting processes would not have uncovered this fact about her family when she applied to join in 1999. They also thought someone of her intensely curious nature would have found out for herself, anyway.
But they added that not only would the heinous actions of a grandparent (who died long before she was born) be no reason for rejecting her, she was also far and away the best candidate for the top job.
Nevertheless, this is catnip for the Kremlin. Putin's regime, since it launched its mass-murdering campaign to destroy Ukraine as an independent nation, has incessantly described President Zelensky's government as 'Nazi', in an effort to depict the conflict as a replay of the 'Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945' in which the Soviet Union ultimately triumphed over the invading Wehrmacht of a genocidal Adolf Hitler.
So how convenient for Moscow's propagandists that the new chief of a Western intelligence service committed to the defence of Ukraine can be graphically linked – through bloodline – to this legend; one which, alas, is widely believed by the Russian people. But for the same reason, it was much in our interests that the Mail broke the full story, and with as much factual detail as possible. Whiffs of it were already emerging on pro-Moscow social media accounts.
Indeed, a few days before the Mail story broke, a former MI6 man alerted me to an account on Telegram (much used by Russian bloggers) which alleged that the grandfather of the new head of MI6 'by late 1942 was already working at the Special Preliminary Camp in the city of Auschwitz, where Caucasian-origin Nazi collaborators were trained'.
This was garbled stuff, but it could only have been highly damaging to this country's reputation if the whole story was, in a sense, owned by Russian propagandists. Or as another ex-MI6 officer, and no particular admirer of the British press, said when I made this point: 'I agree that the Mail was right about denying the Russians the triumph of breaking the story.'
Still, the Russian foreign ministry's long-standing spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, has clicked into gear. Tass, the state news agency, ran a story in its English language outlet under the headline 'Nazi descendants promoted to leading posts in West purposefully'.
It quoted Zakharova: 'The trend is obviously neo-Nazi. Friedrich Merz, Annalena Baerbock... Now the head of MI6, Blaise Metreweli, can be added to the list. Someone purposefully and consciously puts descendants of the Nazis in leadership positions in the countries of the collective West.'
It's hardly surprising that leading German politicians, such as its current Chancellor (Merz) or the Foreign Affairs minister in the previous administration (Baerbock) would have grandfathers who not only fought against the Soviet Union in 1941-1945, but were actually Nazi party members.
But Zakharova went on to assert, despite clear historical documentation to the contrary, that Blaise Metreweli's grandfather must have been present at the massacre of an estimated 34,000 Jewish men, women and children by Nazis, aided and abetted by Ukrainian nationalists, at Babyn Yar. What she doesn't say, of course, is that the Holocaust Memorial at Babyn Yar, a sacred site for Ukraine's Jews, was attacked by missiles sent by her government in March 2022. Indeed, the Ukrainian president, whose government the Kremlin disgustingly describes as 'a genocidal Ukrainian Nazi regime', is himself Jewish, and Zelensky's family – which had members exterminated in the Holocaust – fought for the Red Army against the Germans.
If one adopts the modern parlance of describing far-right ultra-nationalists as 'neo-Nazis', then it is Putin's Russia, not Zelensky's Ukraine, which gives them succour and support – and derives the same in return.
When Putin invaded Crimea in 2014, it organised a so-called 'anti-fascist' conference of Western politicians supportive of his action. The British delegate was the then leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, and similar figures from the European nationalist far-right also showed up to support Putin – and were paid for by the Kremlin. This was Orwellian: fascists against fascism.
On the actual battlefield, the Wagner group, which was the leading supplier of mercenary troops to Putin's war on Ukraine, had been founded and commanded by Dmitry Utkin, a man covered in Nazi tattoos (and do you wonder why he named his group after the anti-Semitic German composer most beloved by the late Fuhrer?).
Utkin had been awarded the honour of Hero of the Russian Federation and photographed with Putin when receiving it. (In 2023, Putin had him bumped off in a plane 'accident', along with other leaders of the Wagner group, just as Hitler had ordered the murder of leaders of the Sturmabteilung, when he believed they were planning a coup against his leadership).
And there is still the ultra-nationalist Rusich Brigade, fighting alongside the regular Russian army in Ukraine, led by the sadistic Aleksei Milchakov, a man who when asked about his political views, said: 'I'll tell you straight up, I'm a Nazi.'
Go back to Putin's claims when he launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine, with the assertion that Kyiv was and always must be a Russian city and that the frontier between Russia and Ukraine should be dissolved; it is eerily similar to what Hitler said when he invaded Poland in 1939: 'Danzig was and is a German city . . . I am resolved to remove from German frontiers the element of uncertainty.'
Also note, because Russian propaganda obliterates the fact, that this was part of a Nazi-Soviet carve-up of Poland, under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. There was even a joint Nazi/Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk to celebrate Poland's evisceration.
So when the Kremlin tries to paint this country as connected with the depravities of the Nazis and their collaborators, remember all that.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
You can't demand seats in the Lords and still be an establishment rebel, Mr Farage
As soon as Nigel Farage wrote to Keir Starmer demanding that the prime minister allow him to make some nominations to the House of Lords, I reached for my well-thumbed copy of Reform's 'contract' with the voters at the last election. In its first 100 days, the document says, a Reform government would start to ' replace the crony-filled House of Lords with a much smaller, more democratic second chamber'. It is easy to mock, so let us enjoy the contrast between Farage's high-minded manifesto promises and his demand that some of his cronies should join all the other cronies in the upper house. Let us, in particular, enjoy the next two sentences in Reform's manifesto. Readers wanting to know how this 'more democratic' chamber might be constituted are dismissed briskly: 'Structure to be debated.' The structure of a more democratic second chamber has been debated for more than 100 years; it seems unlikely that anything will be decided in 100 days. Then there is this gem: 'Immediate end of political appointees.' As St Augustine didn't quite say, Lord make it immediate, but not yet. Before the arrival of a Reform government and the immediate end of political appointees, Farage would like the prime minister to ennoble some political appointees on his behalf. It is not fair, the Reform leader says in his letter, that 'the Greens, DUP, Plaid Cymru and UUP have 13 peers between them, but Reform UK has none'. The Scottish National Party also has none, but that is because it disagrees with the House of Lords and means it. Reform, on the other hand, disagrees with the House of Lords but thinks it is a 'democratic disparity' – not that Britain has an appointed upper house but that Reform isn't in it. It is not as if Farage's parties have never had representatives in the Lords. Malcolm Pearson, a former leader of the UK Independence Party, is still a member, sitting as a non-affiliated peer. David Stevens, former chair of United Newspapers when it owned the Daily Express, was also Ukip and is now non-affiliated. Claire Fox, the former Brexit Party MEP, is also a non-affiliated peer. Pearson and Stevens were originally Conservative peers but switched, whereas Fox was nominated by Boris Johnson as a way of mischievously celebrating Britain's departure from the EU. But Farage hasn't been able to hold onto any of them and now wants to put some of his current allies in the Lords. The Times lists Ann Widdecombe, Nick Candy and Zia Yusuf as possible candidates. It is not going to happen. 'This is the same Nigel Farage that called for the abolition of the House of Lords and now wants to fill it with his cronies,' said John Healey, the defence secretary, this morning. 'I'm not sure that parliament is going to be benefiting from more Putin apologists like Nigel Farage.' The constitutional position is simple: nominations to the Lords are a matter for the Crown, as advised by the prime minister. The monarch is a cypher; Keir Starmer is the sole decision-maker. He may choose to invite other party leaders to make nominations, but that is entirely up to him. David Cameron and Boris Johnson, when they were going through green phases, even allowed the Green Party of England and Wales to nominate – Jenny Jones in 2013 and Natalie Bennett in 2019. But it is up to the prime minister, who usually allows him or herself to be fettered by the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission – although Johnson overruled it when it advised against making Peter Cruddas, the Tory former treasurer, a peer. It might be tempting for Starmer to agree to Farage's request. It would make it harder for Farage to present himself as the doughty outsider, locked out of the Establishment. It would mean that Reform had more public representatives and therefore more chances that one or more of them would embarrass the party. And it would be the responsible thing to do, given that there is a real chance that Farage might soon be prime minister: he ought then to have some back-up in the House of Lords. But it is not going to happen, and Farage knows it is not going to happen. His letter is a classic August news story, designed to get attention and to drive home the point that Reform, the most popular party in the country, is treated as unrespectable by the establishment parties. At a time when anti-government and anti-establishment feeling is running high, Farage's status as an outsider is a priceless asset to him.


The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
UK supermarket offers new £1 incentive to shoppers
Supermarket chain Iceland is introducing a scheme to reward customers £1 for actively spotting and reporting shoplifters in their stores. Customers who alert staff to shoplifting incidents will receive the payment directly to their membership card. The initiative comes as Iceland faces an estimated £20 million annual loss due to shoplifting, which limits the company's ability to lower prices and pay staff. Richard Walker, Iceland's executive chairman, stated that shoplifting is not a victimless crime and impacts business costs. The move follows official figures showing that shoplifting offences recorded by police in England and Wales reached a record high of 530,643 in the year to March 2025.


The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
Minister ‘hugely disappointed' as talks to agree UN plastics treaty fail
Environment minister Emma Hardy has said she is 'hugely disappointed' that negotiations for the world's first treaty to combat plastic pollution ended once again in failure. Delegates were seeking to complete a legally binding international agreement on Thursday after 10 days of what was meant to be the final round of UN talks in Geneva, Switzerland. But the gavel came down in overtime on Friday morning with no deal reached after negotiators struggled to break a deadlock over key issues. The biggest sticking point has been whether the treaty should impose caps on producing new plastic or focus instead on things such as better design, recycling and reuse. In a statement later on Friday, Ms Hardy said: 'I'm hugely disappointed that an agreement wasn't reached, but am extremely proud of the way the UK worked tirelessly until the end to seek an ambitious and effective treaty. 'Plastic pollution is a global crisis that no country can solve alone, and the UK is committed to working with others at home and abroad to protect the environment and pave the way to a circular economy.' The UK was part of the 'high ambition coalition' which was calling for binding obligations on reducing production and consumption, sustainable product design, environmentally sound management of plastic waste, and clean-up of pollution. But a smaller number of powerful oil and gas producing nations including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait oppose production limits, which they consider outside the scope of the treaty. Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), said the talks had been a 'hard-fought 10 days' against the backdrop of geopolitical complexities, economic challenges, and multilateral strains. 'However, one thing remains clear: despite these complexities, all countries clearly want to remain at the table,' he said. 'While we did not land the treaty text we hoped for, we at UNEP will continue the work against plastic pollution – pollution that is in our groundwater, in our soil, in our rivers, in our oceans and, yes, in our bodies.' Over the past few days, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, chairman of the negotiating committee, gathered views from the representatives of 184 countries before writing two drafts of treaty text. But countries ultimately rejected both as the basis for negotiations after they failed to bridge the major rifts between different groups of nations. Mr Vayas Valdivieso said: 'Failing to reach the goal we set for ourselves may bring sadness, even frustration. 'Yet it should not lead to discouragement. On the contrary, it should spur us to regain our energy, renew our commitments, and unite our aspirations.' Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tonnes of new plastic, and that could grow by about 70% by 2040 without policy changes. About 100 countries want to limit production. Many have said it is also essential to address toxic chemicals used to make plastics. Once in the environment, plastic waste can entangle, choke or be eaten by wildlife and livestock, clog up waterways and litter beaches, while bigger items break down into microplastics, entering food chains. Producing plastic, primarily from fossil fuel oil, also has a climate impact, with the World in Data and OECD saying 3.3% of global emissions is down to the production and management of global plastics. Since talks began in 2022, countries have taken part in several rounds of negotiations to reach consensus on tackling the issue. The Geneva talks were arranged after what was originally meant to be the final round of talks in Busan, South Korea, similarly ended without a deal in November. It is understood another round of negotiations could be organised when the location and money for it is found. Environment campaigners, politicians and a coalition of businesses praised the high ambition countries for holding the line for a strong deal and said no treaty was better than a weak one, but they warned of the urgency to tackle the growing crisis. Graham Forbes, Greenpeace's head of delegation at the talks, said: 'The inability to reach an agreement in Geneva must be a wake-up call for the world: ending plastic pollution means confronting fossil fuel interests head-on. 'We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result. The time for hesitation is over.' UK Green Party peer Natalie Bennett said: 'The draft treaty was the product of intense lobbying by the chemical and plastics industries backed by key petroleum states. These vested interests should never have been allowed near the talks in the first place. 'An ambitious treaty, which leads to decisive action to cut plastic production, is absolutely essential and the UK Government must lead the way in closing the door on oil-producing states and fossil fuel and chemical corporations from future talks.' The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, which represents 200 companies including Nestle, PepsiCo Walmart, Tetra Pak and Unilever, said it was 'disappointed' by the lack of an agreement, but said there is 'cause for optimism'. Rebecca Marmot, chief sustainability and corporate affairs officer at Unilever, said: 'The strong alignment among governments, business and civil society groups calling for a treaty with harmonised regulations across the full lifecycle of plastics is encouraging.'