152 - Did USA specify how they will End the Nordstream 2 project in February 2022?

Biden, after negotiations with Scholz,

said that if Russia invades Ukraine,

there will be no Nord Stream 2

Biden said THIS: 

"There will no longer be a Nord Stream 2.

We will bring an end to it.

I promise you we'll be able to do that."

BUT HOW?

 Yes, they did say how exactly

It was a commitment between Germany (Scholz) and USA (Biden).

(source)

See another post describing the event in wider perspective:

Data show Biden has not ordered Nordstream destruction

Just check the January, February politics to learn who said what.

Germans voluntarily agreed that it is not good to support Russia

by approving NS2 with certification so a condition was agreed:

"IF Russia enters Ukraine, the Nordstream 2 will be stalled"

NOTE: This was NEVER about the Nordstream 1 pipeline.

***

IF you remove the Biden´s statement what evidence there is that the USA 

has planned to physically destroy pipelines?

***

Someone else was against ALL RUSSIAN ENERGY EXPORTS

The UK government does not like Nordstream

RELATED POSTS:

155 - Nord Stream 2 AG and INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION European Union

050 - Data show Biden has not ordered Nordstream destruction

***

- INDEX -

***

Uncovering the truth took over two years of self-funded, tireless investigation.

I decided to open it for free, no paywall, despite huge investment.
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.

Every bit helps keep this mission alive!

mortymer001

(retweet and follow)

151 - Nord Stream 2 AG insurers deny policies covered war risks in UK lawsuit

18 April 2024 - Nord Stream 2 AG insurers deny policies covered war risks in UK lawsuit

In their written defence, dated April 8 and first reported by Kommersant daily on Thursday, the insurers said Nord Stream's policy did not cover damage "directly or indirectly" resulting from war, military actions or the detonation of explosives.

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.

[MRT: The conclusion that it was a government who was behind was confirmed by the by the Swedish main investigator here. It was also stated that Russian, US and pro-Ukrainian group have been excluded as suspects in several rounds. The amount of suspects has therefore shrank. See the original post of identifying suspects here and here.] 

[MRT: Note that statements are in sync with Mats Ljungqvuist the head of the SWE investigation team - collection of statements here] 

***

- INDEX -

***

Uncovering the truth took over two years of self-funded, tireless investigation.

I decided to open it for free, no paywall, despite huge investment.
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.

Every bit helps keep this mission alive!

mortymer001

(retweet and follow)

150 - The USS Gerald R. Ford and multi-national #NATO Strike Group after Nordstream affair

USS Gerald R. Ford

Exploring its role in preventing the Russian rightful retaliation
against the NATO member perpetrator

29 Sept 2022: USS Gerald R. Ford safely received more than 100,000 tons of ordnance over three days in preparation for the ship’s deployment this fall.

[MRT: The fast resupply has been done in a haste on the sea and with helicopters]

29 Sept 2022: The US Navy aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford @Warship_78, will deploy next week and operate throughout the North Atlantic during a short deployment surrounded by a multi-national #NATO Strike Group.+

[MRT: One important flag is missing - the UK. The deployment is for unspecified time. It includes unnamed port call.]

29 Sept 2022 Comment by Paul Mc Leary:

"FIVE years after its commission, the Navy's $13.3 billion, much-delayed new aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford will head for Europe next month, but the Navy won't call it a deployment...

The term of art is a “service-retained deployment,” which no one can fully explain, but basically means it's going out with part of an air wing, and will practice with NATO allies in the Atlantic...

The Navy won't say how long it'll be at sea, but does say the ship will remain under 2nd Fleet control, instead of  under a combatant commander...

The Ford will exercise w/ ships from Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden in the N. Atlantic.

It'll make a port call, but the Navy won't say where...

Keep an eye on Norway however, as the Norwegian defense minister just visited the ship at its home port in Virginia last week. 

The Ford will go on its first actual deployment, where it is under the operational control of a combatant commander, some time in 2023, 14 years after construction began and a decade after it was put in the water."

[MRT: Again not UK flag in the group.]  

19 Oct 2022 - NATO: NATO Partnerships in Action: Allied Officers Serve Aboard Ford

Two officers belonging to NATO nations, Germany and Spain are walking the deck plates of the first-in-class aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) to enhance integration with allies and partners during Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group’s (GRFCSG) deployment. 

23 October 2022 - CARRIER STRIKE GROUP 4 EXERCISE ENHANCES BEGINNING OF GERALD R. FORD INAUGURAL DEPLOYMENT WITH NATO ALLIES

NORFOLK, Va. -- The Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group and ships from three North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries completed a three-week exercise orchestrated by Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 4 called Task Force Exercise (TFEX) 23-2 from Oct. 5 to 23.

24 October 2022 - USA/SPA/GER: GRFCSG and three Nato allied nations conclude Task Force Exercise 23-2

The exercise coincided with GRFCSG’s inaugural deployment with Nato allied nations in the Atlantic.

One ship each from the three Nato countries, including Spain, Canada and Germany, participated in the exercise.

Participating vessels included the Royal Canadian Navy’s Halifax-class frigate HMCS Fredericton (FFH 337), Spanish Navy’s Alvaro De Bazan-class ship ESPS Alvaro De Bazan (F 101) and German Navy’s Sachsen-class ship FGS Hessen (F 221).

[MRT: Again not UK flag in the group.]  

8 Nov 2022 - USA/CAN/GER/FRA/NED/SPA/DK: Navy’s newest aircraft carrier joins allies for exercise Silent Wolverine

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), the U.S. Navy’s newest and most advanced aircraft carrier, joined six NATO allies for exercise Silent Wolverine in the Eastern Atlantic Ocean, Nov. 8, 2022. Exercise participants include Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States. 

[MRT: Again not UK flag in the group.] 

RELATED POSTS:

213 - Collection of NATO related posts in the Nordstream Affair

***

- INDEX -

***

Uncovering the truth took over two years of self-funded, tireless investigation.

I decided to open it for free, no paywall, despite huge investment.
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.

Every bit helps keep this mission alive!

mortymer001

(retweet and follow)

149 - Comments by Polish State Secretary Stanislaw Zaryn

26 Sept 2023: Denying All Involvement

Polish State Secretary Stanislaw Zaryn, who is responsible for the coordination of his country’s intelligence agencies, told the reporting team from ARD, SZ and "Die Zeit": "We have no evidence for this yacht’s participation in the events." The crew, he said, was apparently made up of people "who were looking for fun.

"The voyage had a "purely touristic character." Nobody appeared "to have anything close to military or sabotage-related training."

He did not provide any evidence to back his statements. Zaryn and the Polish government believe it is more likely that Russia was behind the attack. The Russian government has repeatedly denied any involvement.

26 Sept 2023: On the Ukrainian trail of the Nord Stream saboteurs

Polish investigators' persistence in contradicting the main thesis of the other countries investigating the attack (i.e. that the Andromeda is involved) now seems astonishing. Poland's deputy minister coordinator of special services, Stanislaw Zaryn, gave an interview to our German media partners in which he stated with conviction that the Andromeda was not suitable for such an attack.

It has emerged that during its September 2022 journey across the maritime zone that hosts the pipeline, the crew stopped off at a small Polish port, Kolobrzeg, where they were checked by the local authorities. Zaryn claims that no explosives were found, that the yacht's trip was purely recreational, and that any other version merely served Russian propaganda. But this ignores the evidence gleaned from the other investigations carried out by neighbouring European states, which are now openly complaining about Poland's reluctance 

11 June 2023 - Poland slams Nord Stream sabotage claims as 'baseless'

“Poland had no connection with the blowing up of Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2,” Zaryn tweeted.

        

[MRT: Note that the September 2022 was a very busy times in Baltic sea and many naval exercises happened in the area] 

***

- INDEX -

***

Uncovering the truth took over two years of self-funded, tireless investigation.

I decided to open it for free, no paywall, despite huge investment.
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.

Every bit helps keep this mission alive!

mortymer001

(retweet and follow)

148 - "NATO's Article 5 dog that didn't bark

NATO Collective defence and Article 5

• The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
  
  
• Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.
  
  
• NATO invoked Article 5 for the first and only time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.

Article 5

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

This article is complemented by Article 6, which stipulates:

Article 6

“For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;

• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”

Invocation of Article 5

The 9/11 terrorist attacks

On the evening of 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, the Allies invoked the principle of Article 5. Then NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance's decision.

Ownership and jurisdiction:

• Based on maritime law pipelines are under the flag of the state who owns them. In case of Nordstream AG it is 51% Gazprom and 49% EU companies fro Germany, Austria, France and Netherlands. The ownership of Nordstream 2 AG is fully under Gazprom which is a publicly listed company in which the Russian state has majority stake of 51%.
  
  

Political and strategic motives - the definition of the event:

• The determination of whether the action constitutes sabotage, a terrorist act, or an armed attack would depend on legal analysis and interpretation, as well as diplomatic negotiations between the affected parties.
  
  
• Sabotage: Sabotage generally refers to the deliberate destruction or disruption of property, machinery, or equipment to hinder or damage operations. If the attack on Nord Stream AG and Nord Stream 2 AG involves damaging infrastructure, facilities, or equipment with the intent to disrupt their operations, it could be classified as sabotage.
  
  
• Terrorist Act: A terrorist act typically involves violence or intimidation carried out with political or ideological motives to instill fear or achieve certain objectives. While the term "terrorism" often connotes non-state actors, state-sponsored terrorism is also recognized. If the covert operation is conducted with the aim of causing fear or intimidating the population or the government of the target country (Russia or Germany, in this case), it could potentially be classified as a terrorist act.
  
  
• Armed Attack: Under international law, an armed attack typically refers to the use of force by one state against another state, which may trigger the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Whether the covert operation against Nord Stream AG and Nord Stream 2 AG would rise to the level of an armed attack would depend on the scale, nature, and consequences of the operation. If the attack results in significant damage or casualties and is conducted with military force, it could be considered an armed attack.

An attack against whom?

1. Attack on a Swiss Company:

• Both Nordstream AG and Nordstream 2 AG are enlisted in Switzerland hence attack against these is de jure an attack against two of its companies.  An attack on the company itself could be viewed as an attack on a Swiss entity. In this scenario, Swiss laws and international conventions related to the protection of businesses and property could apply.

2. Attack on Shareholder Companies:

• If the attack were specifically targeting the interests of the shareholder companies (such as Gazprom, Wintershall Dea, Uniper SE, OMV, Engie, or Royal Dutch Shell), the legal implications would involve the laws and jurisdictions of those respective countries. It could potentially be considered an attack on the economic interests of those countries.

3. Attack on the State:

• Whether an attack on Nord Stream AG or its shareholder companies would be considered an attack on a state would depend on the circumstances and the interpretation of international law.
  If the attack were deemed to have political or geopolitical motives, it could be perceived as an attack on the interests of the states where the shareholder companies are based. However, determining whether it constitutes an attack on the state itself would likely involve complex legal and diplomatic considerations.

The NATO dog that did not bark

• IF the attack would have been done by Russia then the NATO Article 5 could have been theoretically triggered despite legal the ownership under assumption that the attack was against EU citizens to worsen their economical well-being in order to press their politicians from supporting Ukraine and making a deal with Russia. 
  
  
• IF Russia attacked its own pipeline then the insurance payment is void (No payment occurs in two instances: self-sabotage clause and a war clause). IF Russia attacked its own pipelines with the intent and motive to impose economical burden against European countries and its citizens, then Russia could be framed as a state supporting terrorism and its frozen sovereign assets could be used for healing damages of EU citizens and states.
  
  
• IF the attack would have been done by Ukraine then the NATO Article 5 could have been theoretically also triggered as an attack on member states by a non-nato state.
  
  
• IF the attack was done by a non-state entity it would be very likely defined as a terrorist act.

Inverse considerations

• When the 9/11 happened the NATO had immediately a meeting and the very next day the Article 5 was invoked.

NATO meetings in news from 26 September 2022 when Nordstream pipelines were attacked onward:

• No NATO meeting on 27-09-2022 
• No NATO meeting on 28-09-2022
• No NATO meeting on 29-09-2022

NATO statement about Nordstream

NATO said on 29th Sept 2022 that a series of leaks on the Nord Stream pipelines between Russia and Europe were the result of sabotage and that attacks on its members’ infrastructure would be met with a collective response from the military alliance.

Here is a list of known official statements by Prime ministers, Presidents, Foreign ministers and other high level politicians from the time of the event. It is important to look at who was pushing forward the claim that it was a sabotage and who was hesitant.

Conclusion:

Article 5 has NOT been triggered, which means that Russian involvement has been ruled out from day one. This also means that Ukrainian involvement was ruled out from the outset. The definition of the event as a "sabotage" by NATO and other politicians means that a terrorist act by a non-state entity has been also excluded.

It is safe to conclude that the identity, motives and purpose of the event were known to top level officials from early on. 

The joint statement by NATO members on 29 September that any (retaliatory, further) attack by Russia on its infrastructure would be met with the triggering of Article 5. This is in direct contradiction to the definition of the event as "sabotage". Would sabotage of another European pipeline with similar ownership be met with a different response?

Additional info added on 27-08-2024

1 Oct 2022 - Nord Stream Sabotage: The “Hybrid War” Has Well and Truly Begun,

"... The North Atlantic Council issued a statement on September 29 stating that any deliberate attack on the alliance's critical infrastructure will require a united and determined response. But NATO faces a major problem: the burden of proof. If we want to respond to a deliberate attack, we must demonstrate who is behind it..."

SUMMARY: 

The NATO basically publicly states that one of their member has attacked Nordstream pipelines and is warning against retaliatory actions.

RELATED POSTS:

213 - Collection of NATO related posts in the Nordstream Affair

***

- INDEX -

***

Uncovering the truth took over two years of self-funded, tireless investigation.

I decided to open it for free, no paywall, despite huge investment.
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.

Every bit helps keep this mission alive!

mortymer001

(retweet and follow)

147 - The UK´s helps Ukraine to purchase more gas before the Nordstream is blown-up

20 Sept 2022 - Denys Shmyhal and Liz Truss discussed strengthening the strategic partnership between Ukraine and Great Britain

Prime Minister of Ukraine Denys Shmyhal and Prime Minister of Great Britain Liz Truss during the meeting on September 20 in New York (USA) discussed the development of bilateral cooperation, preparation for the heating season and the recovery of Ukraine.

Denys Shmyhal thanked Great Britain for comprehensive political support and practical help: "First of all, we are grateful for the weapons. This is our absolute priority today."

The parties touched on the issue of intensifying the supply of weapons for the defense of Ukraine and strengthening sanctions against Russian oil and gas. In the context of diversification of energy supply sources and preparation for the heating season, the Prime Ministers of Ukraine and Great Britain discussed the need to increase their own gas production, in particular in Ukraine.

"We appreciate Great Britain's willingness to provide our state with the next tranche of $500 million through the World Bank for gas purchases. We are also interested in involving British business in the development of gas production in Ukraine. We expect that the Government of Great Britain will make the necessary decisions to insure British business in Ukraine against military risks," said Denys Shmyhal.

Summary:

There are no coincidences. The UK was preparing itself for the increase price of energy - see post here. Surprisingly the UK became after 44 years a new energy exporter on 29th of September, mere  days after Nordstream was destroyed - post here. The UK warned about an energy storm coming - post here and was actively preparing for increased energy prices. The UK was lagging after Brexit, its participation in an EU joint energy market ended but then suddenly the EU needed more energy and UK´s idling LNG import facilities were utilized - post here. the UK also aggressively pushed its companies to withdrew from Russian markets - post here. Liz Truss as a PM - post here. 

RELATED POSTS:

042 - The UK warns about the energy storm coming before Nordstream is blown up

057 - Ukraine and Nordstream Affair

107 - About Liz Truss and ending the EU´s strategic dependency on Russian hydrocarbon

054 - Liz Truss as a UK PM & Nordstream affair

OTHER UK RELATED POSTS

most of the research about UK´s role, motives has been conducted in 2023

The summary is here:

121 - Hersh´s claim vs Hard data - and - Mortymer´s Nordstream hypothesis recap

***

- INDEX -

***

Uncovering the truth took over two years of self-funded, tireless investigation.

I decided to open it for free, no paywall, despite huge investment.
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.

Every bit helps keep this mission alive!

mortymer001

(retweet and follow)

146 - German fleet tracker wk37 and wk38 in Baltic sea

wk37 - 12 ships in Baltic sea

FGS Alster

FGS Bad Bevensen

FGS Baltrum

FGS Baumholder

FGS Fulda

FGS Juist

FGS Mittelgrund

FGS Munster

FGS Pultos

FGS Rottweil

FGS Sachsen

FGS Sleswig-Holstein

wk38 - 17 ships in Baltic sea

FGS Alster

FGS Bad Bevensen

FGS Baltrum

FGS Baumholder

FGS Fulda

FGS Juist

FGS Mittelgrund

FGS Munster

FGS Pultos

FGS Rottweil

FGS Sachsen

FGS Sleswig-Holstein

+

FGS Seehund 01

FGS Dillingen

FGS Gorch Fock

FGS Oldenburg

FGS Oste

Was something there already earlier?

14 Sept 2022 - two German ships near Bornholm

14 Sept 2022 - German navy ships are still hanging around there too

• M1063 Bad Bevensen - minehunter

• FGS F216 Schleswig-Holstein - frigate

• A52 Oste - ELINT

15 Sept 2022 -  FGS Alster in Stockholm’s port

16 Sept 2022 - German Navy Sachsen-class frigate FGS Sachsen (F219) leaving Kiel, Germany  

21 Sept 2022 - German Navy Sachsen-class frigate FGS Sachsen (F219) coming into Kiel, Germany

22 Sept 2022 - FGS Oldenburg inbound to Devonport this morning

24 Sept 2022 - German Navy Baden-Wurttemberg-class frigate FGS Sachsen-Anhalt (F224) southbound under the Storebaelt Bridge in Denmark - September 24, 2022 #fgssachsenanhalt #f224

26 Sept 2022 - FGS Gork Fock, FGS Spessart (#A1442), FGS Sachsen(#F219) at Kiel at dawn.

26 Sept 2022 - German Navy Frankenthal-class minehunters FGS Bad Bevensen (M1063) and FGS Fulda (M 1058) leaving Kiel, Germany

26 Sept 2022 - German Navy Sachsen-class frigate FGS Sachsen (F219) leaving Kiel, Germany

 

29 Sept 2022 - German Navy Frankenthal-class minehunter FGS Rottweil (M1061) in the Kiel Canal at the Kiel Locks

1 Oct 2022 - German Navy Oste-class electronic surveillance vessel FGS Alster (A50) coming into Helsinki

Summary:

It does not look like the 13-14/09 was the time when divers from Andromeda planted explosives. 

22, 23, 24, 25 September - SWE newspapers Dagens Nyheter report that Swedish navy was in the area a few days before the sabotage.

***

- INDEX -

***

Uncovering the truth took over two years of self-funded, tireless investigation.

I decided to open it for free, no paywall, despite huge investment.
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.

Every bit helps keep this mission alive!

mortymer001

(retweet and follow)