142 - UK´s impasse in the case of Nordstream affair?

Impasse or Stockholm syndrome?

(the UK is the main suspect)

"For Europe, Russia’s attack means that we strengthen the European pillar of NATO. Our ability to deter and defend must always be credible. We are therefore deepening our cooperation with the United Kingdom. Thank you,

@RishiSunak

!"

post here

If the UK was indeed the perpetrator as the investigation shows

does this impasse statement by Sunak mean anything about the Nordstream affair responsibility?

post here

And connect it with this one:

Jens Stoltenberg´s Freudian slip in Nordstream case?

141 - Jens Stoltenberg´s Freudian slip in Nordstream case?

NATO SG Jens Stoltenberg asked about Ukrainian colonel Roman Chervinsky.

video here

(credit to Freddie Ponton @LFCNewsMedia)

JS: Who is this? Journalist: The Ukrainian intelligence officer who may be involved in the attack on Nord Stream. Roman Chervinsky, when did you first hear his name? JS: There is an ongoing negoc... investigation, I can't comment It was a very good question, shame Stoltenberg can't remember who the man was and when he first heard of him. If you were to ask Jens Stoltenberg who Zaluzhnyi is, he probably wouldn't remember either.

[MRT: Yes, the research has confirmed that the identity of the perpetrator is well known (the UK) and that there are negotiations on how the situation will be handled. He states that there are national investigations (plural) and that he will not comment on them. There is only 1 known active NATO member remaining investigation and that is by Germany, Sweden and Denmark stopped their investigations.]

Note next post:

142 - UK´s impasse in the case of Nordstream affair?

 

140 - Nordstream AG and the insurance case - update

The insurers of Nord Stream have rebuffed claims in their written defense filed at London's High Court, asserting that their policies do not cover damages incurred by gas pipelines due to explosions in 2022, citing the cause as war-related.  Insurers said Nord Stream's policy did not cover damage "directly or indirectly" resulting from war, military actions or the detonation of explosives. 

[Mrt: This is exactly my point - the war for the definition of the event started straight after the event happened, and could have been actually even started before as data point that some people may have known before it happened.]

Nord Stream is pursuing compensation exceeding 400 million euros ($427 million) from its insurers for the explosions that inflicted damage on pipelines intended for the transportation of Russian gas to Germany.

The insurers also stated that the policy does not cover any damage which happened "under the order of any government".

"The defendants will rely on ... the fact that the explosion damage could only have – or, at least, was more likely than not to have – been inflicted by or under the order of a government," the insurers' lawyer said.

Gazprom, which built the pipelines, and Nord Stream AG did not reply to requests for comment.

link via ErkPerk - here