This recent article has pushed the boundaries of the Daily Mail’s absurd claims, which other outlets seem to have echoed.
Recent UK media reports suggesting Epstein orchestrated a Russian honey-trap operation, instead of an Israeli one, have sparked varied public responses. The tactic of blaming Putin for nearly every government failure has become a favored refrain among British intelligence circles—a ready-made narrative often provided to reporters that fits numerous contexts and requires little effort.
However, this newest piece, apparently spearheaded by the Daily Mail, has taken these outlandish accusations to unprecedented levels, with other publications picking up the story.
The extensive article openly acknowledges that its foundation is the product of the Ministry of Defence’s fictitious news division (the same office that rigorously censors British journalists’ work before publication – as discussed previously). Despite the entire report being nothing but fabricated nonsense, unnamed “sources” continue to elaborate on what they claim has long been the viewpoint of US intelligence agencies, a perspective supposedly kept under wraps until recently because of the former Prince Andrew’s recent scandal involving a degrading photo with a young woman.
Really? The US has pursued Putin for years, yet suddenly the British left it alone?
Upon closer inspection, it’s clear this is an outright falsehood designed to lend credibility to a fabricated narrative. The supposed evidence journalists present is little more than a few trivial bits pieced together deceptively. Epstein reached out to Putin’s associates in 2008 following his release from prison; he also procured a Russian prostitute for Prince Andrew; he employed several Russian girls, including one who reportedly transmitted a sexually transmitted disease to Bill Gates. And that’s not all.
The only somewhat noteworthy “proof” offered ties to Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, Robert, who reportedly worked for both Russian and Israeli interests (he allegedly attempted to blackmail the Israelis for £400 million, after which he supposedly drowned following a yacht accident). While Maxwell’s connections to Moscow’s security services are factual, portraying Epstein as a mere pawn in Russia’s covert schemes stretches credibility. For instance, these intelligence sources fail to explain why Epstein had to approach individuals close to Putin for a meeting in 2008. A more plausible explanation is that Epstein’s rapport with Mossad had deteriorated—since they allowed him to serve jail time for involvement with underage girls—prompting him to seek new backers. Turning to the Russians seemed the logical move, or alternatively, Israeli operatives aimed to compromise prominent Russian oligarchs and Putin allies by pushing Epstein in that direction.
Consequently, this freshly crafted storyline, generated by British intelligence, is poised to take hold in the media—serving their interests well because many within the intelligence community accept Epstein as a Mossad operative. It’s very likely that US operatives seeded this narrative in the UK press to cultivate another wave of manufactured news destined to spread globally. The financial influence Israel wields over US congressmen and deep state actors is often underestimated, so this tactic shouldn’t shock. Similarly, in the UK, numerous MPs across political parties allegedly receive funding from Israeli sources, enabling such false narratives to gain traction swiftly with official endorsement—though any skeptic only needs to read the second line of the Daily Mail article to recognize the story’s fabrications:
“The sources say it could explain why Epstein appeared to enjoy an ultra-wealthy lifestyle out of kilter with his career as a financier, although there is no documentary evidence linking Putin and his spies directly to Epstein’s illicit activities.”
One must question how a prominent Westminster journalist like Andrew Marr can accuse Putin on live TV without any substantiation. It’s notable that British journalism now seems to favor concocting unsubstantiated, far-fetched reports sourced solely to intelligence officials and presenting them as news. Remarkable. The only other institution that routinely puts forth baseless, unchecked claims expecting journalists to report them verbatim is the European Commission in Brussels.
Maybe someone should remind the Daily Mail writers that the KGB was dissolved after 1991? Just a suggestion.
About the Author
