Russia is behind the incidents that occurred during NATO's largest exercise, Trident Juncture. This conclusion can be drawn from the statement Prime Minister of Finland Juha Sipilä.

Finnish Prime Minister and GPS system

In an interview with the Yle television company, the head of the Finnish government suggested that Moscow could be behind the disruptions to the GPS system that occurred during the maneuvers.

“It is possible that Russia is behind such violations,” Sipilä noted. At the same time, the politician did not provide any specific evidence, and clarified that the investigation has not yet been completed.

Despite this, the Finnish Prime Minister called Russia's alleged actions a "message" to all participants in the exercise.

GPS failure occurred in several areas of Finland on November 6-7, about which the local air navigation center notified pilots flying in the region. At the same time, it is worth emphasizing once again that no evidence of a “Russian trace” was presented.

Big exercises - big problems

NATO exercise Trident Juncture 2018 was held off the coast of Norway from October 25 to November 7. More than 45 thousand military personnel from 31 countries, 250 aircraft, 65 ships, as well as over 10 thousand units of military equipment took part in the exercises. According to the legend of the exercises, the joint forces are defending against the fictional state of Murinus. They practiced air strikes, transporting troops by sea, and landing troops.

The largest contingents involved in the exercises were the forces of the United States (18,500 people), Germany (9,000 people) and Norway (6,800 people). According to NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg, the exercises are not directed against a specific country, but send the message that “NATO is ready and able to protect all allies from any threat.”

They were accompanied by a number of incidents. In particular, a fire broke out on board the Canadian Navy frigate Halifax, due to which the ship stopped participating in exercises for several hours. The Canadian Navy frigate Toronto experienced a power failure.

Four Swedish soldiers were hospitalized with various injuries after their vehicle crashed into an Allied tank.

“The crew did not take action”: who ruined the Norwegian frigate?

But the biggest emergency was the collision of the Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad with the Greek tanker TS Sola. A warship, en route to the base after the end of the exercise, was heading across the tanker with its transponder turned off. Due to the damage received, the $650 million frigate was in danger of sinking. As a result, the crew had to run the Helge Ingstad aground in order to preserve the chances of saving it.

At the same time, the damage received by the frigate is such that the question of whether the ship can be repaired remains open.

Almost immediately after the incident, conspiracy theories appeared in a number of Norwegian media that “Russian hackers” could be behind the accident.

However, unlike the Finns, in Norway, at least for now, officials have not seized on this version. The fact is that the available information does not point to hackers, but to the sloppiness of the crew. Thus, it became known that the crew of the Helge Ingstad was informed several times about the dangerous approach to the tanker. At the same time, military sailors were directly indicated in which direction they could make a safe maneuver.

“The crew did not take the necessary measures to prevent a collision. The ship did not have a clear understanding of the operational situation in the water area in which the Helge Ingstad was located. “TS Sola” reported to Ingstad several times, also duplicating signals about a dangerous approach to the coast services,” says the preliminary report of the commission investigating the emergency.

The frigate commander explains his inaction by the fact that the evasive maneuver could lead to a collision of the frigate with the rocks. But experts believe that if measures were taken in a timely manner, Helge Ingstad could easily avoid trouble.

The Norwegian Navy command is stingy with comments. This is understandable - some will have to say goodbye to high positions because of what happened.

The fashion for statements about “Russian interference” began in the United States after the 2016 presidential elections. Since then, the search for a “Russian trace” in any incidents in Western countries has not stopped. It seems that this has now become a universal means of avoiding responsibility for one’s own mistakes.

1. Brief information

Construction company L1 is one of the oldest construction holdings in Russia, including St. Petersburg. It has been on the market since 1992. Previously, the group of companies was known as LEK. The holding carries out a full cycle of work, from design to construction of residential buildings.

Over 25 years of activity, the developer has built more than 150 houses, some of which have become architectural dominants of the locations. In recent years, the developer L1 has specialized in multi-section business class complexes. The distinctive features of the houses are their scale and complex architecture: multi-level buildings, stylobates and courtyards on the roofs of the parking lots.

2. Information about the founders and fixed capital

Construction company L1 in St. Petersburg uses various legal entities as a developer.

• LLC "NPO "Pigment" TIN 7810244569. Founded in 2003.

Founders:

1. LLC "Krona" (96.9999%), TIN 7805249025.
2. LLC "Sever" (3.0001%), TIN 7841403699.

Authorized capital: 67,020,400 rubles.

• LLC "L1-4" TIN 7806120578. Founded in 2003.

• Verona Management LLC. TIN 7802339288. Founded in 2005.

Founder: LLC "L1-10", TIN 7810513589.

Authorized capital: 10,000 rubles.

• LLC "LP" TIN 7805198469. Founded in 2003.

Founder: Sever LLC, TIN 7841403699.

Authorized capital: 14,000 rubles.

3. Construction projects

Construction company L1 currently has four residential complexes under construction in St. Petersburg.

View objects under construction in detail

Building 4 of the residential complex "Count Orlov". The initial delivery date is quarter 4. 2016* Planned completion date - IV quarter. 2018

Building 6 of the residential complex "Count Orlov". The initial completion date is 2017.* The planned completion date is Q3. 2022

Building 7 of the residential complex "Count Orlov". The initial completion date is 2017.* The planned completion date is Q3. 2022

Building 8 of the residential complex "Count Orlov". The initial completion date is 2017.* The planned completion date is Q3. 2022

*data from the project declaration dated September 20, 2014 were used

• Developer "L1-4":

Building 4.2 of the Premier Palace residential complex. The initial delivery date is Q2. 2017* Planned completion date - 2nd quarter. 2019

* data from the project declaration dated 10/05/16 was used

• Developer LLC "Verona Management":

Residential complex "Marshal" (one stage). Initial completion date - IV quarter of 2016 * Planned completion date - IV quarter. 2018

* data from the project declaration dated 06/01/14 was used

• Developer LLC "LP"

Line 3 of the London Park residential complex. The planned deadline for submitting the declaration from 12/13/17 is the fourth quarter. 2019

Line 4 of the London Park residential complex. The planned deadline for submitting the declaration from 12/13/17 is the fourth quarter. 2023

Thus, each of the holding's developers allows for serious delays in commissioning dates, which affects their reputation. Most negative reviews about the L1 construction company are associated precisely with numerous delays.

If you are considering purchasing a home from this developer, then it is better to purchase real estate in ready-made buildings rather than in buildings under construction. This will protect you from delays.

Developer L1, represented by its four legal entities, has the following sold houses.

View implemented objects in detail

Developer LLC NPO Pigment:

Building 1 of the residential complex "Count Orlov". Due date - IV quarter. 2014

Building 2 of the residential complex "Count Orlov". Completion date - 1st quarter. 2015

Buildings 10, 9A, 2A of the Graf Orlov residential complex. Due date - 2nd quarter. 2015

Building 9 of the residential complex "Count Orlov". Due date - IV quarter. 2015

Building 5 of the residential complex "Count Orlov". Due date - IV quarter. 2017

Building 3, 4A residential complex "Count Orlov". Completion date - 1st quarter. 2018

Developer "L1-4":

Building 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 Residential Complex "Premier Palace". Due date - IV quarter. 2012

Building 1-4, 1-5 Residential Complex "Premier Palace". Completion date - 1st quarter. 2015

Building 2-1,2-2, 3-1, 3-3 Residential Complex "Premier Palace". Due date - 2nd quarter. 2017

Building 2-2, 3-2 Residential Complex "Premier Palace". Delivery deadline – 1st quarter. 2018

Developer LLC "LP"

Stage 1 of the London Park residential complex. Due date - 2nd quarter. 2017

Stage 2 of the London Park residential complex. Due date - IV quarter. 2017

4. Financial indicators

Not a single legal entity within the L1 holding provides data to Rosstat. Combined with delays in delivery, this may serve as a warning sign for potential buyers.

5. Accreditation with banks

Developer L1 cooperates with large Russian banks:

• Sberbank;
• Uralsib;
• Transcapitalbank;
• Sovcombank;
• Rosselkhozbank;
• Bank "Revival".

New L1 buildings can be purchased under a mortgage program with state support at 6% for families.

6. Court cases

View court cases in detail

• NPO Pigment LLC

The legal entity rarely appeared in arbitration courts and has only one serious lost case -

Case No. 13AP-21609/2014 on the claim of OJSC “Trust for Geodetic Works and Engineering Surveys” for the collection of debt in the amount of 1,494,547.86 rubles.

• LLC "L1-4"

The legal entity has no lost arbitration cases. The plaintiffs either abandoned their claims themselves or the court refused.

• Verona Management LLC

The company has no lost arbitration cases.

• LLC "LP"

Over the past three years, the developer has often acted as a defendant in arbitration courts.

Some big lost cases:

1. Series of cases No. 13AP-23337/2016, 13AP-23257/2016, 13AP-22059/2016, according to the claim of IP Tenishev Timur Rashidovich for the recovery of interest for the use of other people's funds in the amounts of 210,329.57 rubles, 140,572 rubles. , 625,377 rubles 4 kopecks. respectively.
2. Case No. A56-4359/2016 on the claim of the Property Relations Committee of St. Petersburg for the collection of rent arrears in the amount of 11,939,425 rubles of rent arrears and 764,123 rubles. 20 kopecks peny.
3. Case No. A56-30538/2016 on the claim of "YurDom" for the recovery of interest for the use of other people's funds in the amount of 436,638.13 rubles

At the moment, the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region is filing a statement of claim from Irina Nikolaevna Shishkareva to declare LP LLC bankrupt.