The Mole In MI6: How A Cambridge Spy Fooled British Intelligence For Decades
New Delhi:
He was the perfect British gentleman - polite, well-spoken, impeccable manners and a knack for charming everyone who came in his orbit. But behind all of that, Harold Adrian Russell "Kim" Philby was living a dangerous double life. A top officer in British intelligence and a loyal agent of the Soviet Union, Philby fooled almost everyone, even his closest friends.
The Perfect Cover
To his colleagues in MI6, Britain's foreign intelligence agency, Kim Philby was a rising star. Calm under pressure, loyal in appearance, and deeply trusted, he was considered one of the best in the business.
But he had a secret.
Long before his career began, Philby had already pledged loyalty, not to Britain, but to the Soviet Union.
Philby was recruited in 1934 by a Soviet agent known as "Otto." It was his first wife, Lizzy, a committed communist, who connected him to the underground Soviet network. From that moment on, he became a double agent, sending British secrets to Moscow for nearly 30 years.
MI5 gave him the codename "PEACH." To the Russians, he was a goldmine.
Philby was part of a group of five Cambridge University students, all of whom turned into Soviet spies after being ideologically drawn to communism in the 1930s.
A Soviet Betrayal
Perhaps Philby's most unforgivable betrayal involved Konstantin Volkov, a Soviet officer.
Volkov approached the British in Istanbul, offering a deal: in exchange for money and asylum, he would reveal the names of several KGB spies working inside the British government. Among the names? Kim Philby himself.
Philby moved quickly. He warned his KGB handlers, delayed the British response, and took over the case. Before Volkov could defect, he and his wife were kidnapped by the KGB. They were never seen again.
Volkov could have exposed Philby and the entire Cambridge spy ring. Instead, because of Philby's interference, British intelligence stayed in the dark for years.
In his report, Philby wrote, "The probable explanation is that Volkov betrayed himself." This lie helped preserve his cover and allowed him to continue feeding secrets to Moscow.
A Web Of Lies
Despite growing suspicions, British intelligence couldn't pin Philby down. In 1951, Philby was called to London. He was questioned harshly but never formally charged. The evidence was thin, and his charm disarmed even seasoned investigators.
One MI5 officer described him as "more of an enigma than ever." Even a confession from Klaus Fuchs, the man who leaked atomic bomb secrets to the Soviets, didn't lead to action against Philby.
And so, he remained free.
The Confession
The end came in 1963, with a quiet conversation in Beirut. By then, Philby was working as a journalist for The Observer. MI6 sent someone he trusted, his old friend Nicholas Elliott, to get a confession.
Elliott admired Philby and considered him a brother.
He secretly recorded their talk. Philby finally admitted he had been spying for the Soviets since 1934. But his confession was peppered with lies - he claimed to have stopped spying after 1946, which wasn't true.
He also revealed no remorse. "If I had my life to lead again," Philby said, "I would probably have behaved in the same way."
The Escape
A few days after the meeting, Philby vanished. He slipped aboard a Russian freighter in Beirut, leaving behind a letter for his third wife, Eleanor, with vague reassurances and some cash hidden in a dictionary.
MI5 later intercepted the letter. One line read, "Don't worry about anything. We will meet again soon." In a postscript, he added, "Please destroy this as soon as you have found the cash."
Philby's escape stunned British intelligence. Despite multiple opportunities to arrest him, the British had let their greatest traitor slip through their fingers.
Kim Philby lived out the rest of his life in the Soviet Union. Though initially treated as a hero, he grew bitter and isolated. He missed England, drank heavily, and remained haunted by what he had done, or perhaps by how little remorse he felt.
He died in Moscow in 1988, still convinced he had done the right thing. In 2010, Russia honoured him with a plaque at the foreign intelligence headquarters.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
24 minutes ago
- The Hindu
R.P.G.V. Govindan Chettiyar, the unsung freedom fighter from Erode
Tamil Nadu's contribution to the freedom struggle is a captivating chapter in the history of India's fight for independence. Many unsung heroes, who devoted their lives to the nation, remain largely unknown. One such hero is R.P.G.V. Govindan Chettiyar, born on July 27,1910 to Venkatachalam Chettiyar and Guruvayammal, at Chithode, a village in Erode Taluk, which was then part of the composite Coimbatore district. From an early age, he was deeply influenced by Gandhian principles. A passionate freedom fighter and dedicated Congressman, he played a crucial role in India's struggle for independence. Even as a school student, he participated in the Non-Cooperation Movement of 1920–21. On February 28, 1941, as a member of the erstwhile Coimbatore Zilla Congress Committee, he led a Satyagraha near the Chithode Mariamman Temple, demonstrating his unwavering commitment to the nation's freedom. Govindan Chettiyar was an ardent advocate of Gandhian principles. He strongly promoted the use of Khadi, believing that self-reliance in clothing would weaken the economic grip of the British. He also championed the cause of prohibition, considering liquor a social evil that hindered national progress. A staunch opponent of untouchability, he worked tirelessly for social harmony and uplift of the downtrodden. His efforts extended to promoting cottage industries, particularly in rural areas, to enhance self-sufficiency and economic independence among the poor. Govindan Chettiyar's patriotism was not confined to mere ideology; he took to the streets, mobilising people against British colonial rule. Between February 2, 1941 and March 9, 1941, he undertook a padayatra (march on foot) alongside K. S. Ramasamy of Gobichettipalayam (who later became the Deputy Minister for Home Affairs in the Union Cabinet), traveling through several towns and villages, including Perundurai, Kanchikoil, Chennimalai, Kunnathur, Thingalur, and Chithode, accompanied by Congress volunteers. These processions were not just demonstrations but platforms for public discourse, where he and his associates delivered powerful speeches on anti-war propaganda and the pressing need for Indian independence. His activism reached its peak in 1941 when he actively took part in the Individual Satyagraha movement, launched in then Madras under Mahatma Gandhi's guidance. As a result, he was arrested and sentenced to six months of imprisonment in the Madras prison. Even after his release, his spirit remained unbroken. During the Quit India Movement of 1942, when the British intensified their crackdown on nationalists, he went underground to continue his efforts against colonial rule. After independence, he served as a member of the advisory committee for the Erode National Expansion Scheme. He organised a team of volunteers to assist those affected by the devastating Bhavani flood. In his later years, he was compelled to sell his six acres of land due to financial family, consisting of nine members, including his wife Renganayaki, four sons, and three daughters, faced hardships due to a low income. Suffering from eye problems, he was unable to afford the necessary medical treatment. He had repeatedly requested the government to honor its earlier promise of providing 10 acres of free land (for freedom fighters). Additionally, he appealed to the government to retain the revolver that had been confiscated from his father under the National Security Act in 1932 due to his involvement in the Civil Disobedience Movement. Govindan maintained close political ties with prominent leaders and Congress stalwarts C. Subramaniam and K. Kamaraj. This association was evident from the letters preserved by his descendants, which highlight his active involvement in the political landscape of his time. Despite his contributions, he faced numerous personal and financial hardships in his later years. On August 2, 1993, Govindan passed, leaving behind a legacy of dedication and service. His sacrifices and relentless efforts serve as a testament to the courage and determination of Tamil Nadu's unsung heroes in the freedom struggle. Though his name may not feature prominently in mainstream history, his contributions remain invaluable in shaping India's journey to independence. Even after 78 years of independence, we are still to include in mainstream history several heroes of the freedom movement like Govindan. (The author is Head, Department of History, Chikkaiah Government Arts and Science College, Erode)
Indian Express
44 minutes ago
- Indian Express
What Ukraine's drone attack on Russia means for peace talks
How can the Ukrainian attack on Russian air assets affect the negotiations? What will Russia be looking for as it investigates the drone strikes? What does the attack mean for President Putin? Alind Chauhan put these questions to one of India's foremost experts on Russia. Ukraine's massive drone attack on Russia on Sunday came a day before the second round of peace talks between the two sides in Istanbul. The talks ended within an hour — the two sides agreed to swap thousands of dead and wounded soldiers, but there was no progress towards ending the war. The first round of talks in mid-May had also ended without a consensus on a ceasefire agreement. This was the first time that such large numbers of Ukrainian drones attacked Russian airfields. At least five of them were attacked, and some of them are located very deep inside Russian territory, including in the Far East. If the attacked sites have facilities that contain nuclear-related equipment such as strategic bombers and nuclear weapons, then the Russians will take a serious view. So far in the war, the Ukrainians have not needed to target Russia's nuclear weapons facilities as the Russians will not use nuclear weapons as long as the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) does not get involved. That's why the Russians would be concerned if their nuclear facilities were targeted. They would be investigating if the attack was just an adventure by Ukraine — an attempt by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to get President Donald Trump on his side somehow and get him involved in the war — or if someone in NATO put the Ukrainians to it, trying to achieve some greater goals. The Russians would be investigating the second angle because drones typically do not fly by themselves and need navigation, which Ukraine cannot do without the help of United States satellites. No. Over the past month, both sides have been attacking each other quite heavily with drones. Ukrainian drones attempted to attack Moscow during Russia's Victory Day parade on May 9. More than 20 leaders from various countries had gone to attend the parade. It was the depth at which the Ukrainians hit Russia which was unexpected. They attacked airfields in the Irkutsk region, which is deep in Siberia, and far from where the military action has been taking place. The method of launching the drones was also unusual. The Ukrainians launched drones from trucks that are used to haul loads over long distances. It is unusual for the Russians to realise that they can be hit so deep. But they are too far gone in the war against Ukraine. And the support for Putin is way too solid for this attack to make any significant difference. So from a military and a strategic perspective, the Russians may be worried. However, from a political perspective, Putin will not be concerned too much. Currently, both countries are looking at some technicalities as they have not been able to square the fundamental disagreement. The Ukrainians are saying that before any negotiations start, the Russians should agree to a month-long ceasefire. The West, except the US, has supported this demand. The Russians are saying that they are not opposed to a ceasefire, provided there is a roadmap to the ultimate resolution. That's because the Russians have got initiative on the ground. Although they are advancing slowly, they are advancing — and the Ukrainians are just trying to hold on to territory. The Ukrainians are also exhausted and running out of material for the war. The Russians do not want to give up this advantage and allow the Ukrainians a whole month to regroup and replenish their stocks. Also, the Russians have said there are certain reasons why the war began — such as the question of Ukraine's neutrality and the protection of the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine. Unless there is a possibility of an agreement on these issues, the Russians say, there is no point in a ceasefire. The Russians also do not want to give up territory that they have captured. That's why the Russians had earlier suggested that the two sides come up with plans or outlines of how they visualise peace, and meet on June 2 to compare notes. The negotiations are still at a very preliminary stage and involve second-level officials. Both Russia and Ukraine are under pressure from the US which wants to see a peace deal soon. However, both sides have red lines on what they want to talk about. The Russian delegation is led by Vladimir Medinsky, a former Cultural Minister, and includes some officials from the security services and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Ukrainian delegation is led by the country's Defence Minister Rustem Umerov. However, these delegations do not have the authority to make the final decision. They are just trying to narrow down the differences and come to a document that is acceptable to both sides, which will be presented to Putin and Zelenskyy for a decision. Nandan Unnikrishnan is Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation.
Indian Express
44 minutes ago
- Indian Express
What Trump America needs to understand: A country is not a corporation
Several years ago, Nobel-Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote an insightful article, 'A Country is not a Company', in which he argued that business leaders need to understand the difference between economic policy on the national and international scale and business strategy on the organisational scale. In other words, and to put it bluntly, CEOs who do not understand economic policy are ill-suited for the role. Little did many realise, including perhaps Krugman himself, that an article written in 1996 would command such resonance almost three decades on. After all, CEOs of firms that have enjoyed unbridled monopoly power — especially after the emergence of the modern corporation around the turn of the last century — have shown more than a passing tendency to use that market power to their advantage. Examples abound from Standard Oil, Exxon Corporation, IBM, Microsoft, and, more recently, big-tech companies to name a few. Firms engaged in market-based competition play a 'zero-sum game' — one gains at the expense of the other. Disciplining errant firms has been accomplished by a combination of market creativity and intervention of anti-trust authorities, but it has been a hard task. Do nations jostle for competitive advantage on the global stage the same way that firms do locally? Krugman thinks not. International trade, significantly, is not a zero-sum game. According to him, 'If the European economy does well, it need not be at US expense; indeed, if anything a successful European economy is likely to help the US economy by providing it with larger markets and selling it goods of superior quality at lower prices.' Historically, that has been the case for all economic development, and most recently in East Asia. Global interdependence and the emergence of deeply integrated value chains are proof that trade increases the size of the global economic pie. The whole point of modern trade is not to impoverish either partner(s), it is to enrich both; or else why trade at all? Colonists engaged in coercive trade; today's trade is entirely voluntary. A popular phrase attributed to George Mallory, a British mountaineer of the 1920s, captures the core motivation behind mountaineering. Why do people climb mountains? 'Because they are there,' he is famously believed to have retorted. Monopolies exploit their power because it's there; CEOs have the clout along with the capacity to get away with it. Doing the same as a country — that is, flexing muscles on the global economic stage because you have power — is entirely different. Because modern trade is a matter of choice, no one holds a gun to and forces nations to trade. Blaming 'unfair' foreign competition, therefore, for trade deficits as Donald Trump has been relentlessly doing, is politically expedient but economically disingenuous. Are trade deficits the right measure of a country's competitiveness? Krugman ponders that competitiveness cannot simply be measured by staring at trade balances and their changes. If you do that, the implications are quite dangerous — they lead to harmful steps like trade wars to promote so-called competitiveness. Trade wars often make the situation worse. Evidence of the recent madness emanating from the US in the form of tariff impositions on countries that it runs a deficit with shows that contrary to expectations, the tariffs actually weakened the US dollar. It lost nearly 10 per cent of its value since January, with over half the decline in April. The tariffs also disrupted the bond market by triggering a sell-off in the US treasuries, spiking yields and challenging its safe-haven status. This volatility forced a temporary tariff pause, highlighting the bond market's power. Interestingly, on May 28, the US Court of International Trade struck down Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, ruling that they exceeded presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. According to the verdict, these tariffs involved significant economic and political issues, requiring explicit congressional authorisation, which was absent. Poignantly, on the same day, Elon Musk officially quit his advisory role in the US administration, concluding his tenure at the Department of Government Efficiency. Even so, looming on the US horizon are inflation, recession and policy unpredictability. The Trump administration has already appealed the decision (it has been stayed by the appellate court) and the case may progress to the US Supreme Court, by which time data on the impact on the US trade deficit will be available. Economists refer to this lag as 'the J-curve effect', reflecting a nuance where financial markets adjust almost instantaneously to shocks, while goods markets adjust with a lag. In all likelihood, with the tariff retaliations we have witnessed from China, Canada, and Mexico among others, the US trade deficit could become worse. Own goal, anyone? Besides, the Triffin thesis suggests that the US must run trade deficits to provide the necessary dollars for global liquidity. So, if the US wishes to remain the hegemon and continue to enjoy the exorbitant privilege of printing dollars and importing goods and services for a song, it will need to run deficits. In fact, since 1971 when the US dollar was brusquely decoupled from gold by President Richard Nixon (the so-called 'Nixon shock'), effectively ending the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system, the US dollar has continued to meet the bulk of the global demand for liquidity. In only two years since 1973 has the US trade balance been positive. In this half-century, the US has been a most productive nation, innovation-intensive, 'competitive' and creative, enterprising and illustrious, all achieved in the presence of growing trade deficits. Blaming trade deficits for unemployment and low wages is therefore ineffective and, in many cases, unequivocally wrong, especially when they are caused by domestic factors. The US is a services-based economy — education, insurance, healthcare, banking, real estate, information technology, among other sectors contributing almost 80 per cent of GDP. Getting manufacturing back by erecting tariff walls is a futile scheme, destined to fail. The CEO of a country running economic policy must, therefore, distinguish between politically expedient rhetoric and the harms of making policy decisions based on careless arithmetic. The existence of trade deficits (or surpluses) reflects a complex interaction of many factors, especially for a country that provides global liquidity. These need to be understood clearly. Krugman's warning and the embedded advice, therefore, must be taken seriously, above all by the country that nurtured his clarity of thought. (The writer is dean, School of Humanities and Social Sciences at Shiv Nadar University, and professor of Economics. Views are personal)
