Journalist could do simple Criminal Profiling, and create hypothesis.
The state actor had to have serious several objectives and motives, economical, political, security, foreign trade, trade balance, a complex issue of dependencies. Which main goal the cold calculation fulfilled?
I followed similar steps as during normal criminal procedures.
Why has nobody created a list, a pool of possible suspects? Why did nobody try to explain each one motives and alibi so readers could compare?
#2 - Who are the decision-makers, job roles behind, of the "state actor"?
Why has nobody created a list of Prime ministers, foreign, interior ministers, defence ministers, state heads? One of these is the "state actor".
The damage happened in their EEZs (Exclusive Economic Zones).
Why is there investigation in Germany but not in France and Netherlands whose companies are also shareholders of NS1?
SWITZERLAND
#4 - There are investigations in DK + SWE = that is OK.
Both Nordstream AG and Nordstream 2 AG are incorporated in Switzerland. Why is Switzerland not involved in investigation about damages to its companies? Whey is there no investigation in Switzerland?
#5 - There was an attempt for UN investigation, and EU investigation.
The Swiss delegation did not arrive to the UN meeting despite two companies (Nordstream AG and Nordstream 2 AG) are incorporated there. Why? It was an attack against Swiss companies. Why is Switzerland playing ostrich politics? Could it be that the saboteur exploited some legal loop-hole which would mean an exodus of SUI incorporated companies as many international companies choose Swiss neutral grounds?
Also, is it possible that there is no EU level and/or international investigation into Nordstream affair as it could mean more victims are considered and That could change the direction of the investigation, who is victim, like European tax-payers, European energy utility companies and traders?
LEGAL
#6 - What is the definition of the affair? Whey are West and Russian different?
Is it a sabotage, grand sabotage, act of terrorism, act of aggression, an armed attack or a war crime?
#7 - Why was only Ukraine and Russia proposed "act of terrorism"?
Why was EU leadership spearheading that it was the act of sabotage?
What was the basis on which this has been decided and how could one even define such act without knowing the actor and the victim?
#8 - Who is the (real) victim of the Nordstream affair? Russia or EU citizens?
Whom against was the act executed? Why? To limit Russian income, to lower European competitiveness? Who are actually ALL those victims? Who is collateral damage? How could European leaders evaluate that it was a "sabotage" so early without knowing all of this and more? Did they speak with a saboteur who explained them? Who provided legal advise?
#9 - Did Swiss court decision on 8th of September mean anything?
Could it be it triggered blowing Nordstream pipelines? Before that EU highest court decision about "decoupling" was in favour of Nordstream 2. Would it be possible that Nordstream could move its HQ back to Russia and be untouchable? Could someone ask if someone tried to stop this result?
INSURANCE
#10 - Have sanctions against Nordstream Insurers created Catch-22 situation?
#11 - Did sanctions had any reverse unintended impact on European energy security and geopolitical stability?
#12 - Has the state actor researched policies of insurance companies have toward Nord Stream 1 & 2 companies and warned them to withdrew?
#13 - Was the UK The First to impose sanctions affecting NS insurance companies pushing them out of contracts? Or was it US, EU or together? No data yet.
SANCTIONS
#14 - Why is very little written about the 1.5 Trillion Margin Call on EU energy?
#15 - Why is nobody mentioning that the Act of Retorsion allows Russia..
... to legally stop all deliveries as a response to non-UN sanctions?
#16 - Why were attempts To 'Renormalize' Relations With Russia curbed?
BREXIT RELATED
#17 - Going back in time. What "strategic interests" had UK when Novichok case happened?
Real or not, the case was used in pushing Germany to leave the Nordstream 2 project. Was there more in it? The UK seem to have long dislike to NS.
#18 - What role did Brexit play in the roots of Nordstream affair?
The Brexit messed with UK energy security, political influence diminished, the UK was left out of European affairs. Could pushing Russian energy and business influence from European politics be a motive for the sabotage?
The UK was consistently Tackling Russian Income from hydrocarbons.
Is it possible that after leaving EU the only avenue left to cancel Nordstream projects was their physical demolition? After Brexit UK could no more use administrative and legal steps to block Nordstream 2 from going online.
#19 - The UK leaving the common energy market has caused UK huge problems.
Leaving the coupling initiative is prohibitive to develop alternative energy as cheap Russian alternative is available. Is the Nordstream wind farms plans a possible motive to stop Russian cheap energy exports?
EARLY WARNINGS?
#20 - Why is UK warning and preparing against future energy hikes and a storm?
Namely Liz Truss gave ultimatum to Germany: "..we cannot have a situation in which Russian aggression is rewarded in any way.."
#22 - Why did UK tried to block normalization relations with Russia?
RUSSIAN MOTIVES?
#23 - Is there actually a sane Russian motive? I have not found a one (yet).
My investigation has not found a single motive, economical, political, legal or else which could benefit somehow Russian state. Is there a RU motive?
#24 - Why would Russia, Nordstream AG, Nordstream 2 AG fight legal battles?
In Summer EU highest court sided with Gazprom in case about "unbundling" separation of exporter and pipeline operator. On 8th of September the Nordstream 2 AG won a court in Switzerland to extend Out-of-Bankruptcy for next 1/2year. Why to blow pipelines then? Why not to let NS 2 AG just fail?
#25 - Why is Russia not blaming Ukraine?
Ukraine attempted two attacks to Russian other pipelines. Nobody mentioned them in connection with the Andromeda story. It would be a very obvious story line, they could even plant some Ukrainian tech or mines which they have in storage. Yet Russia blamed only the UK and asked USA to explain what has Seymour Hersh supposedly exposed.
USA non-MOTIVES & possible alibi
#26 - The USA was strongly against EU being over-reliant on Russia.
The USA has understood that Germany needed some Russian natural gas yet they have never openly demanded closure of Nordstream 1 pipelines, but UK did. The USA only demanded that Germany keeps its deal Angela Merkel made that "The Nordstream 2 will not go online if Russia attacks Ukraine".
Germany has kept is part of the deal. Later Scholz confirmed in a call with V. Putin that this is still the case. US seemed to be happy, why to destroy both pipelines then Nordstream 1 and Nordstream2?
Would USA really break the deal attacking NS1 pipelines needed for Germany´s energy security? Why would USA not first ask Germany officially as they did with Nordstream 1?
#27 - Did the USA learn about the event on 20-21th of September?
Did USA gave another warning to Germany and allies as many ships were on the sea tracing pipeline in pattern which looks like looking for a submarine?
#28 - Why did UK change its top security team on 23rd of September?
It is the same day the when Sulivan and Timmerman meeting happened, the same day US Navy assets left Baltic Sea. Are these events related? Could it really be that USA has learned that UK has installed successfully explosives and the next sequence of events was "irreversible"?
UK NAVY ASSETS RELATED
#29 - Did helicopters with Anti Submarine warfare capability found something?
It looks like a submarine was spotted in Baltics in early September.
#30 - What were doing UK Royal navy Astute class submarines in September?
Namely S-120 Ambush and S-122 Audacious, the first one returned to Faslane/Clyde home naval base in early October the other had a special pre-mission cleaning in Crete in early September. Was Chalfont bay mounted? It would be the best for the missing and one sub seem to had something removed just after it returned to the bay a few days after the event.
#31 - The US Navy offered processing of the sonar signatures in early October.
Why? Is there any result? What data Sweden and/or Denmark have? Where was it taken? Is it possible that Denmark has a sonar signature of a submarine which passed somehow unnoticed through the Danish straights?
NATO & Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) & Northwoods HQs
#32 - Why nobody mentions that NATO has failed to protect the Nordstream?
#33 - Was the Nordstream affair part of the Global Britain strategy?
What was the role of UK led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) in the Nordstream affair?
#34 - NATO & Nordstream. How could NATO sharing lots of data not know?
It is impossible to conduct a naval sabotage type operation against Nordstream pipelines without 3 naval HQs in Northwoods, London knowing about it?
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGES
#35 - Environmental damage to Denmark and Sweden seems to be ignored.
Why? If West tried to find reasons to framing Russia as a terrorist state along UN definition, then it could help to confiscate Russian frozen assets. This could also help to impose Naval Blockade against Russia. Why is West not pursuing this venue?
#36 - Why are environmental organizations not demanding court case? (No data)
USA RELATED
#37 - Whom did the USA send the June strategic warning?
It was about a future threat to Nordstream pipelines. We know Germany and allies were warned, which allies? Is it possible that shareholders of Nordstream all knew about the threat? Does this mean that also Russia through its share in Gazprom learned about this threat already in June?
#38 - The USS Kaersarge at BALTOPS was unlikely planting anything.
There was a yearly internal/external check-up of pipelines, this could expose any mingling with pipelines and/or expose planted explosives. Is it even possible to plant during check-up? Kaersarge returned later to Baltic Sea and its path is visible.
#39 - What happened on on 20th and 21st of September meetings?
Until 20th before Cleverly-Sulivan, Truss-Sulivan, and Truss-Biden meeting the UK-USA "special relationship" was rather unshackled, something happened during these two days. Could that be related to US finding out about UK planting explosives on Nordstream pipelines?
#40 - Did US navy leave Baltic Sea on 23rd of September and ended its forward
projection presence after learning that UK mined Nordstream pipelines? The Kaersarge was not in Baltics yet it was sending there intel planes and helicopters what looks like to see Russian response to have own data in case things get out of the hand. Is this version possible?
LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION
#41 - Why is nobody reporting about Bornholm deep which is the deepest?
The Bornholm Deep basin is the deepest area in the whole Baltic Sea, it is ideal for submarine operation yet nobody is examining which countries could have sent there submarine to execute underwater operation, why?
#42 - Why nobody mentions the shipping lane traffic and Baltic cod fisheries?
The northern spot is near frequented shipping lines so there could be a danger of being spotted if the planting happened from a surface boat.
#43 - What would be the importance of Christiansø Island if a sub was used?
Would a rescue team for divers on some sail-boat be a good backup B-plan if the planting was done from submarine which could be disturbed? Could a sailboat be a backup to pickup divers if the mother sub needed to leave?
#44 - There is ships movements data which many new spin theories ignore.
#45 - Did RU radars from RU enclave in Kaliningrad seen anything?
The location of the attack is furthest from Kaliningrad and closest to the exist from the Baltic Sea. It gives to the attacker advantage to execute planting and escape easier than in other areas.
#46 - Was the proximity to the Danish Territorial Zone (TZ) relevant?
If the attacks was concluded by the submarine then the sub could hide in the Danish territorial zone which Russian naval forces and planes could not enter. It is possible that in such case only a small mini-submarine or similar "last mile delivery" submersible was used. Russia can not patrol in DK TZ.
#47 - The Denmark said in spring it has a blind spot under the surface.
The Denmark admitted that they could not monitor what is going under in their Territorial waters. The Russia has several times entered the DK TZ, latest in June after the Baltops exercise. Was was the reason?
THE DEMOLITION TEAM
#48 - USA and UK demolitions teams had long training in February 2022.
On 8 Feb 2022 - EXU-1, FBI Host Maritime Post-Blast Investigation Course at NAS Key West. What were they discussing? What were they training for?
#49 - The Nordstram was a military naval act executed by a state actor.
The largest Naval force in Europe is the UK. Was this capability used?
#50 - Boris Johnson and Liz Truss made several visits to UK naval bases in 2022.
Which units did they met there? How often? Did they, by any chance, visit Special Boat Services team which was accused by Russia?
#51 - Russia officially accused UK Special Boat Services for Nordstream hit.
How so that a few days after the announcement UK parliamentary investigation was blocked by UK navy?
UK NORDSTREAM RELATED STATEMENTS
#52 - Why is nobody mentioning the long list of UK officials statements?
The UK and its officials were the biggest opponents of the Nordtsream 1 project and lost most influence, their energy exports became less competitive vis-a-vis Russian cheaper piped natural gas.
#53 - Was UK preparing to protect its economy and companies in advance?
#54 - Was UK openly giving advance warning about attacking Nordstream?
#55 - Why was Liz Truss missing over the critical period from Friday 23rd?
Is it possible that due to the threat of Russia finding out and/or the plot of being exposed she would be in danger? She was missing after the disastrous mini-budget for several days.
#56 - Was the April´s invitation to the UK-GER meeting from London?
The topic discussed was how too wean Europe from Russian energy.
#57 - Boris Johnson´s 2021 statement "Stop guzzling Russian gas" ...
...and many others through years were against all Russian energy. He was the biggest voice against Russian Gas. Did this consistency and perhaps European unwillingness lead to decision to change words into actions?
#58 - Was the UK giving a pre warning after plans to attack were ready?
"We hope that our friends may recognise that a choice is shortly coming between mainlining ever more Russian hydrocarbons in giant new pipelines and sticking up for Ukraine and championing the cause of peace and stability, let me put it that way."
#59 - Even before the war UK, Boris Johnson was demanding that Europe change
Johnson says this "must include" ending reliance on Russian oil and gas - hails Germany's suspension of Nord Stream 2.
LIZ TRUSS STRANGE STATEMENTS
#60 - IN December 2021 Liz Truss made statement, but was it followed up?
“The EU (European Union) relies on Russia for over 40% of its gas, and with some countries Russia has a complete monopoly of supply. If Russia gets its way, Europe will be increasingly hooked on its gas,” Truss told the Chatham House think tank. and later “We have to end this strategic dependency”
#61 - Why is in UK´s "EU energy security: Implications for the UK" this:
"...there is insufficient LNG import capacity within the EU, but spare capacity in the UK as well as capacity on the pipelines from the UK to mainland Europe..." Did UK try to blow pipeline to become energy hub for US LNG shipments to EU?
#62 - In March 2022 the UK has proclaimed a strong message:
"Diplomatically, politically, economically – and eventually, militarily Putin must fail in his invasion of Ukraine."
#63 - In April 2022 the UK identified Russia as their largest threat.
And Liz Truss stated that "we are ready to try and beat global aggressors at their own game". The UK was studying the Russian income and stated that "They could go further still – with a ban on imports of oil and gas; hydrocarbons make up a third of the Russian economy."
Could this mean that UK tried to de
#64 - Liz Truss wanted to remove West dependency on Russian hydrocarbons.
It was on 20th of September just a week before the 26th when it happened.
#65 - Why did Liz Truss say this
Quote: ‘I am confident that together we can ride out the storm.’
LIZ TRUSS SUPER STRANGE STATEMENT AT UN
#66 - Why did Liz Truss say this at the UN meeting?
... just few days before it was blown up? Was she making official pre-meditated announcement which could help later to explain that the UK has been transparent about their actions?
Quote: "...We are cutting off the toxic power and pipelines from authoritarian regimes and strengthening our energy resilience..."
Was she trying to be a responsible actor and give advance warning to its biggest ally the USA? Truss topic was USA LNG energy deliveries to Europe. Was this to substitute with knowledge that the Nordstream would be taken out forewer?
FRANCE
#67 - French company is a shareholder of the Nordstream AG.
France had a navy asset in the area in September. Was it guarding the Northern past of the pipeline with Finnish navy? Was the original CIA strategic warning against future threats to Nordstream from June meant for mis September?
#68 - Why was Liz Truss considering Marcon/France to be "friend or an enemy"?
Was it really because of the mentioned official reason or could it be that UK was not sure about the French reaction if it blew Nordstream AG two pipelines? How interesting that during the Prague summit about the European energy the issue is suddenly settled. Settled cover-up?
BELGIUM
#69 - Why did Belgium block export of nuclear defence tech to UK?
Could it be that the nuclear powered sub may is a prime suspect in the Nordstream attack?
DENMARK
#70- Why did Mette Frederiksen state this?
"Metter Frederiksen "Things can happen that we have not had the imagination to imagine"
NORWAY
#71 - What would be Norwegian motives?
They actually wanted to reduce exports to Europe as their domestic market had some serious dislocations. Then they were already at max production.
#72 - Norway is part of NATO but does not have a nuclear deterrence itself.
In case there would be some speculation or evidence that Norway did it or made a major contribution to the Nordstream Affair then NATO article of defence would not be triggered and Russia would be able to retaliate in kind.
#73 - Norway started to protect their key infrastructure in EEZ after the attack.
Was Norway worried that Russia would retaliate in kind? Their main customer is UK. The protection of NOR pipelines turned into UK-NOR coverage shortly after.
#74 - In spring 2023 Norway announced nationalization of its infrastructure.
These outside the TZ in EEZ are more vulnerable and if the Nordstream precedent that it is just a "sabotage" if it is owned by a company then nationalization would mean that any attack against it would be considered armed attack against a state hence state ownership offers better protection. Why is nobody looking into why the act was defined as "sabotage"?
If a state actor plans in advance to attack energy infrastructure of Europe Would it not want to profit from it and position itself to protect own companies?
Is it possible that it was warning its companies and citizens about what is going to happen?
WAS MILITARY AND NAVY READY?
#78 - The Uk was leading the JEF forces and were on alert around 26th. Why?
#79 - How much did Zelenski know about the future blow on 4th of September?
He stated that: "Russia is preparing a "decisive blow" against European states in the field of energy"
UK MOTIVES & similar
#80 - Would UK foreign policy suffice to be a reason to blow Nordstream?
#81 - The UK succeeded in in becoming net energy exporter. Did it warn itc companies that a change is coming in energy markets?
#82 -
#83 -
#84 -
#85 - Why has nobody looked into UK´s underwater demolition capability yet?
#86 - If the Royal Navy HMS S-120 Ambush was used then...
... what is the chain of command?
#87 -
#88 - After Brexit the UK was facing energy insecurity.
Cutting off the Russian energy has enabled it to swing after 44 years back into net energy exporter. Without high energy price and removal of a competition of natural gas the UK alt. energy would be not sellable.
#89 -
COVER UP
#90 - Did Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel knew about who has done it?
Why did Ursula met with Jens Stoltenberg on the day of the event and why did he requested the meeting just three days on 23rd of September?
It was between Sulivan and Timmerman about US energy security and helping if there would be a need in short term. Was this about letting the sabotage to happen?
#92 - Was it Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel first defining the affair?
They both defined it as a sabotage, on what basis? Is it possible that they knew back then about who has done it because it is very difficult without knowing who and why to legally define the event as "sabotage"?
#93 - Were there disagreements in EU about handling the case?
Joseph Borrell was insisting that it is a "deliberate act" still on 28th.
#94 - Was the Prague informal summit of European heads of state related?
Was it informal as there is no legal need to write what was discussed there? Could this be a plain cover-up of the saboteur? The UK, which is a main suspect was present. There were many meetings with the UK representatives happened behind closed doors.
#95 -
COVER UP
...it is 1 AM TO CONTINUE SOON... SO MUCH UNCOVERED YET SO MUCH TO PRESENT TO WORLD.
THERE IS A LOT OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL, DOCUMENTARY, ONLINE, VIDEO, CHARACTER, HISTORICAL AND OTHER TYPES OF EVIDENCE - ALL FROM VERIFIABLE PUBLIC OFFICIAL SOURCES, MOST BY STATE ACTORS, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS... PLEASE HELP IN THE INVESTIGATION BY ASKING QUESTIOS! I MAY BE WRONG, I MAY BE RIGHT SOME 0%-99.9% BUT WITHOUT INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST THE PUBLIC IS KEPT IN THE DARK. PLEASE HELP. WRITE, INVESIGATE, ASK POLITICIANS WHAT HAPPENED, DEMAND ANSWERS.
...few more days... this post takes longer,... will continue on other posts and return,...
#96 -
#97 -
#98 -
#99 -
#100 - Is there enough evidence for considering the UK was involved?
....or do you see some other possible explanation of events I documented?
THE LAST QUESTION:
#101 - Will you PLESE write about the case?
I do not need you to believe what I concluded,
I want you to be curious,
do read those all public official sources I found,
do check data, verify and investigate...
No comments:
Post a Comment