Undersea Intrigue: An Examination of the Baltic Cable Disruption – MPI

Undersea Intrigue: An Examination of the Baltic Cable Disruption

Sabotage or accident? The cutting of critical undersea cables has resulted in a disagreement between American and European officials.

Advertisements

European officials assert that the disruption was the result of sabotage, while US officials suggest that it was likely an accident. Investigators are currently working to unravel the enigma of how two undersea internet cables in the Baltic Sea were severed within hours of each other.

European leaders promptly expressed their apprehensions. Boris Pistorius, the Defense Minister of Germany, stated that “no one believes that these cables were accidentally severed.”

In a joint statement, the foreign ministers of Finland and Germany expressed their “serious concern” regarding the incident and suggested that it may have been a component of a “hybrid warfare” campaign, with a specific reference to Russia.

Their evaluation was not derived from thin air. After a series of suspicious incidents, arson attacks, explosions, and other acts of sabotage in numerous European countries, Moscow has been accused of perpetrating a hybrid war against Europe.

The cables were disrupted just weeks after the United States issued a warning that Moscow was likely to target critical undersea infrastructure. This occurred subsequent to the substantial expansion of a Russian clandestine marine unit that was responsible for surveying the seabed and months of dubious Russian vessel movements in European waters.

However, CNN was informed on Tuesday by two US officials who were familiar with the initial assessment of the incident that the damage was not believed to be the result of deliberate activity by Russia or any other nation.

Rather, the two officials informed CNN that they believed it was most likely caused by an anchor drag from a passing vessel. Although such incidents have occurred in the past, they have not occurred in such a rapid succession as the two that occurred on Sunday and Monday.

On Wednesday, the Kremlin refuted the “laughable” allegations that it was involved, stating that it was “absurd to continue blaming Russia for anything without any grounds.”

However, law enforcement agencies in Finland and Sweden have expressed their conviction that the damage was intentional.

A preliminary investigation into a suspected sabotage was initiated by the Swedish Prosecuting Administration on Tuesday. The Finnish National Bureau of Investigation subsequently announced on Wednesday that it would initiate a criminal investigation into the suspected crimes of aggravated criminal misconduct and aggravated interference with communications.

Authorities and online investigators have developed an interest in a single vessel in particular.

The Chinese-flagged ship Yi Peng 3 crossed both cables at approximately the same moment, according to vessel tracking data from Kpler. The Lithuanian Armed Forces reported that the BCS EastWest was cut at approximately 10 a.m. local time on Sunday, while the C-Lion 1 was cut at approximately 4 a.m. local time on Monday, according to Finnish telecom provider Cinia.

The bulk carrier was departing from a Russian port and had been moored for a period of time.

The Danish Armed Forces declared their presence in the vicinity of Yi Peng 3 on Wednesday; however, they did not specify whether they pursued the vessel.

The Yi Peng 3 was identified as the most probable vessel implicated in the incident by both a US official and a Western intelligence official. Nevertheless, sources have indicated that the United States has not yet identified any connections between this vessel and states or entities that would authorize such activity.

Cinia revised its estimate of the location of the cut on Wednesday, indicating that it occurred 50 miles further west than previously believed. This location corresponded with the Yi Peng 3’s trajectory. Approximately six hours after the second cable was severed, the Chinese vessel halted for approximately thirty minutes before continuing its journey.

The vessel is presently anchored in international waters in the Kattegat, approximately 30 miles from the coasts of Sweden and Denmark.

The Yi Pen 3 was departing the Baltic Sea following a halt at the port of Vistino, Russia. The ship’s tracking data indicates that it traversed additional undersea infrastructure in the Baltic, such as four gas and hydrocarbon pipelines, a power line, and an additional telecommunications cable that is currently under construction.

Lin Jian, the spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry, stated that he was “not aware of the situation” when questioned about the vessel during a press briefing on Wednesday.

He stated that China has consistently fulfilled its flag state obligations and mandates that Chinese ships adhere to pertinent laws and regulations.

“We also prioritize the safety of undersea infrastructure and collaborate with the international community to actively encourage the construction and protection of submarine cables and other global information infrastructure,” he stated.

The Yi Peng 3 is registered as the property of Ningbo YiPeng Shipping Co Ltd. and is associated with Win Enterprise Ship Management, according to Dimitris Ampatzidis, an analyst at Kpler.

“Neither the vessel nor these entities are listed on published sanction lists as of November 20, 2024.” Nevertheless, Ampatzidis stated that the ship has transported Russian thermal coal and coal from Murmansk and Nakhodka on at least seven occasions, as indicated by historical trade data.

In conclusion, the cutting of critical undersea cables in the Baltic Sea has sparked a heated debate between American and European officials. While European leaders are quick to point fingers at potential sabotage and hybrid warfare tactics, US officials remain cautious, suggesting that the damage may have been caused by an accidental anchor drag from a passing vessel. As investigators work tirelessly to uncover the truth behind this mysterious incident, all eyes are on the Chinese-flagged ship Yi Peng 3, which crossed both cables at the time of their severance, raising questions and suspicions about its potential involvement. The international community waits anxiously for further developments in this complex and escalating situation, hoping for clarity and resolution in the days to come.

Danielle Berry
Danielle Berry

an editor at MPI since 2023.

DISCLAIMER:

You will never be asked to make a payment to access any kind of product, including credit cards, loans, or other offers. If this happens, please contact us immediately. Always read the terms and conditions of the service provider you are contacting. We earn revenue through advertising and referrals for some, but not all, products displayed on this website. Everything published here is based on quantitative and qualitative research, and our team strives to be as fair as possible in comparing competing options.

ADVERTISER DISCLOSURE:

We are an independent, objective, and advertising-supported editorial site. To support our ability to provide free content to our users, recommendations appearing on our site may come from companies from which we receive compensation as affiliates. This compensation may affect the manner, location, and order in which offers appear on our site. Other factors, such as our own proprietary algorithms and first-party data, may also affect how and where products/offers are placed. We do not include on our website all financial or credit offers currently available in the market.

EDITORIAL NOTE:

The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent any bank, credit card issuer, hotel, airline, or other entity. This content has not been reviewed, approved, or endorsed by any of the entities mentioned in the message. That said, the compensation we receive from our affiliate partners does not influence the recommendations or advice that our team of writers provides in our articles, nor does it in any way affect the content of this website. Although we work hard to provide accurate and up-to-date information that we believe our users will find relevant, we cannot guarantee that all provided information is complete and make no statement or warranty regarding its accuracy or applicability.