Eric Zuesse (blogs at https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/)

This is a succinct factual summary of the situation, as-of 21 March 2024:

https://theduran.com/nord-stream-investigation-sabotaged-dmitry-polyanskiy (without ads)

https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/XwxLdwo75hY (without ads)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwxLdwo75hY (with ads)

[I have cleaned up the auto-generated transcript because of its many successively repeated phrases and its many fillers such as “uh”, which hindered readability.]

0:00

GLENN DIESEN: Welcome to today’s talk. My name is Glenn Diesen and I’m joined by Alexander Mercouris and Dmitry Polyanskiy the First Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations.

0:14

We really wanted to talk to you [Dmitry] today about the recent developments of Nord Stream or lack

0:21

thereof, because for anyone unfamiliar with Nord Stream, I

0:26

guess the quick summary is [that the Nord Stream pipelines from Russia to Germany were] attacked [blown up, destroyed] in September of 2022. This

0:31

was the biggest industrial attack in Europe in its history, plus an environmental

0:38

disaster. The Americans [Biden] had very openly threatened to destroy it, as

0:43

well as [they had already] sanctioned it; and once it was blown up, we remember they did their victory lap

0:49

saying what a great opportunity it was. Radoslaw Sikorski [Poland’s current Foreign Minister] was tweeting [“Thank you, USA.”, which quickly disappeared, which is the way that the U.S. regime censors-out history so as to pump lies].

0:55

And yet I found fascinating then that the politicians and media suddenly began to argue that all evidences were pointing

1:02

towards Russia [as having blown them up], even though there was never put forward any evidence [for that], and [NATO’s chief] Stoltenberg even implied this could have

1:08

been an Article Five attack {meaning that it might justify WW3 against Russia], but this was before the Seymour Hersh article which blamed the US [Biden] for the

1:15

attack. And then, we saw the narrative shift. The United States began to argue that it was a pro-Ukrainian group on a

1:21

sailboat who were behind this attack, and several NATO countries then began

1:27

these investigations which we want to ask about today. Russia {the co-owner of the Nord Stream pipelines along with Germany] was excluded from participating in or providing evidence to the investigation. The Russians put

1:33

forward a resolution at the United Nations to establish an independent investigation. From what I understand the

1:38

Western countries all rejected [the Russian proposal for an independent investigation], and we had a Washington Post article quoting a

1:45

European official who said that we don’t ask too many questions because we will probably not like what we find if we

1:50

keep digging. So, for the rest of us, of course, we were asked to keep quiet, not to

1:56

engage in speculations, while the investigators were allowed to do their job. so yeah Mr Polyanskiy, what is the

2:02

current status of those investigations? DMITRY POLYANSKI: Well, I think Glenn you made an excellent recap of what happened

2:10

before, and actually the

2:15

most recent developments were the decisions of Denmark and Sweden

2:22

to actually abandon their own investigation saying that they can’t proceed further because because they

2:29

really don’t see any any prospects of finding someone who is responsible for this; so, it actually means that for

2:38

one year, exactly one year, they were just beating around the bush, and

2:44

my assessment is that they were just trying not to come to these awkward questions that you mentioned that would

2:50

imply very awkward answers, awkward for them who — for those who listen to

2:56

this — answers [the basic question]. So, we now have technically [a] German investigation which

3:02

is going on, and which is a bit weird frankly, because

3:09

the place of the of this sabotage is in Danish territorial waters;

3:16

so, in my understanding, the most important of these investigations should have been Danish one. Germany is an

3:24

affected country in the same way as Russia is an affected country [since they co-own it], but actually it’s a big question what

3:31

kind of uh actions and conclusions Germany can make in the absence of Investigations from Denmark and Sweden [the countries nearest to the crime] so

3:38

I don’t think it will be a surprise for everybody when Germany will come to more or less the same conclusions. If I

3:46

compare it to to criminal investigation, that would mean that after a

3:52

murder, after a year of investigation then, all of a sudden, the

3:58

investigators come to the conclusion that the person was murdered, and that’s actually the outcome of Danish and

4:05

Swedish investigations, so we wasted one year. It was not

4:11

by chance. I think that it was deliberately to conceal the proofs,

4:19

conceal the facts on the ground. Of course, now it’s it’s much more difficult to conduct investigation. …

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

https://theduran.com/by-now-its-conclusive-that-the-u-s-government-blew-up-the-nord-stream-pipelines-and-blamed-russia/

CONSIDERING THIS, IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE ATTACK IN MOSCOW WAS "DIRECTED" BY AMERICA... SEE:

the ISIS camel....

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

British insurers are arguing that they have no obligation to honor their coverage of the Nord Stream pipelines, which were blown up in September 2022, because the unprecedented act of industrial sabotage was likely carried out by a national government.

The insurers’ filing contradicts reports the Washington Post and other legacy media publications asserting that a private Ukrainian team was responsible for the massive act of industrial sabotage.

A legal brief filed on behalf of UK-based firms Lloyd’s Insurance Company and Arch Insurance states that the “defendants will rely on, inter alia, the fact that tiger 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.”

As a result, they argue, “the Explosion Damage was “directly or indirectly occasioned by, happening through, or in consequence of” the conflict between Russia and Ukraine” and falls under an exclusion relating to military conflicts.

The brief comes a month after Switzerland-based Nord Stream AG filed a lawsuit against the insurers for their refusal to compensate the company. Nord Stream, which estimated the cost incurred by the attack at between €1.2 billion and €1.35 billion, is seeking to recoup over €400 million in damages.

Swedish engineer Erik Andersson, who led the first private investigative expedition to the blast sites of the Nord Stream pipelines, describes the insurers’ legal strategy as a desperate attempt to find an excuse to avoid honoring their indemnity obligations.

“If it’s an act of war and ordered by a government, that’s the only way they can escape their responsibility to pay,” Andersson told The Grayzone.

Following a report by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh which alleged that the US government was responsible for the Nord Stream explosion, Western governments quickly spun out a narrative placing blame on a team of rogue Ukrainian operatives. Given the lack of conclusive evidence, however, proving that the explosions were “inflicted by or under the order of a government” would be a major challenge for defense lawyers.

Even if the plaintiffs in the case are able to wrest back the funds in court, they are likely to face other serious hurdles. Later in the brief, lawyers for Lloyd’s and Arch suggest that even if they were required to pay up, anti-Russian sanctions would leave their hands tied.

“In the event that the Defendants are found to be liable to pay an indemnity and/or damages to the Claimant,” the brief states, “the Defendants reserve their position as to whether any such payment would be prohibited by any applicable economic sanctions that may be in force at the time any such payment is required to be made.”

After they were threatened with sanctions by the US government, in 2021 Lloyd’s and Arch both withdrew from their agreement to cover damages to the second of the pipelines, Nord Stream 2. But though they remain on the hook for damages to the first line, the language used by the insurers’ lawyers seems to be alluding to a possible future sanctions package that would release them from their financial obligations. “Nord Stream 1 was not affected by those sanctions, but apparently sanctions might work retroactively to the benefit of insurers,” observes Andersson.

The plaintiffs may face an uphill battle at the British High Court in London, the city where Lloyd’s has been headquartered since its creation in 1689. As former State Department cybersecurity official Mike Benz observed, “Lloyd’s of London is the prize of the London banking establishment,” and “London is the driving force behind the transatlantic side of the Blob’s “Seize Eurasia” designs on Russia.”

But if their arguments are enough to convince a court in London, a decision in favor of the insurers would likely be a double-edged sword. Following Lloyd’s submission to US sanctions and its refusal to insure ships carrying Iranian oil, Western insurance underwriters (like their colleagues in the banking sector) are increasingly in danger of losing their global reputation for relative independence from the state. Should the West ultimately lose its grip on the global insurance market — or its reputation as a safe haven for foreign assets — €400 million will be unlikely to buy it back.

https://thegrayzone.com/2024/04/17/uk-insurers-refuse-pay-nord-stream/

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....