The operator of the Nord Stream pipeline, majority-owned by Gazprom, is insisting in court that the 2022 explosions may have been carried out by individuals unconnected to any government. This position was presented during a trial at the High Court in London, where the Swiss-based Nord Stream AG is seeking an insurance payout of €580 million, according to the Financial Times.
The Legal Conflict:
- Nord Stream AG’s Position: Lawyers for the company argue that the sabotage was carried out by “non-state actors”—a small group of just four divers who manually placed magnets and explosives. By framing it as a “terrorist act” or “malicious damage” rather than an act of war, they seek to trigger the insurance coverage.
- Insurers’ Position (Lloyd’s and Arch Insurance): The defendants refuse to pay, arguing that the blast was sponsored by a state (be it Ukraine, Russia, or the US). If the sabotage is ruled a consequence of war or a state-backed operation, it falls under an exclusion clause in the contract, exempting the insurers from liability.
This creates a paradox where Gazprom’s legal team is effectively downplaying the geopolitical narrative of “state terrorism” promoted by the Kremlin to secure the funds.
Analytical Summary:
The London trial of Nord Stream AG is a striking example of how corporate financial interests can clash with state propaganda. For years, Moscow has accused Western intelligence or Ukrainian special forces of “international state terrorism” regarding the pipeline sabotage.
However, in a British courtroom, such rhetoric is a direct path to losing half a billion euros. Therefore, Gazprom’s lawyers are forced to “downgrade” the scale of the disaster to the level of four freelance divers. This places the Russian side in an ambiguous position: either the narrative of a global conspiracy was an exaggeration for domestic TV, or the company is willing to sacrifice its “geopolitical truth” for hard currency. Conversely, Western insurers find themselves in the ironic position of trying to prove state involvement—potentially by Ukraine or the US—simply to avoid paying out.