Insurers suspect government sabotage in Nord Stream pipeline, claims Kommersant : Analysis

Lloyd’s of London and Arch Insurance have reportedly declined to pay compensation for the destroyed Nord Stream gas pipelines. Insurance policies do not cover damage resulting from military hostilities according to a claim filed at the High Court in London by Nord Stream AG, the pipeline’s operator. Insurers deny coverage due to war-related damages and costs estimated at €1.2 billion. The sabotage left three of the four pipelines inoperable, causing a major methane leak. Accusations point to the US as potentially benefiting from the attack. Denmark, Sweden, and Germany conducted separate investigations with inconclusive results. US journalist Seymour Hersh implicated Washington, yet Ukrainian involvement was later alleged. Gas supplies were disrupted, and Nord Stream 2 remained inactive due to EU regulatory obstacles.

Analysis:
The article presents information on Lloyd’s of London and Arch Insurance denying compensation for the destroyed Nord Stream gas pipelines, citing that insurance policies do not cover damage resulting from military hostilities. The claim filed at the High Court in London by Nord Stream AG, the pipeline’s operator, states that insurers deny coverage due to war-related damages, with costs estimated at €1.2 billion. The article highlights accusations of US involvement in the attack, although investigations by Denmark, Sweden, and Germany yielded inconclusive results. US journalist Seymour Hersh implicated Washington, while Ukrainian involvement was later alleged.

In terms of credibility, the article lacks specific sources for some of the information provided, such as the accusations and investigations, making it difficult to assess the reliability of the claims. The mention of Seymour Hersh, a known investigative journalist, lends some credibility to the allegations, but without further corroboration, it remains speculative.

The potential biases in the article include the implication of US involvement without concrete evidence, which could sway the reader’s perception based on pre-existing beliefs or geopolitical biases. The article’s emphasis on war-related damages and insurance coverage could also lead to a particular interpretation of the events, influencing the reader’s understanding of the incident.

Overall, the article raises questions about the reliability of the sources and the potential impact of biased narratives on the portrayal of the attack on the Nord Stream gas pipelines. Given the current political landscape and the prevalence of fake news, the public’s perception of the information provided may be influenced by existing biases or geopolitical tensions, highlighting the importance of verifying sources and seeking a nuanced understanding of the topic to avoid misinformation.

Source: RT news: Insurers claim ‘government’ could have sabotaged Nord Stream – Kommersant