NATO boosts patrols as Baltic Sea cable damage stirs intrigue
"Ruptures of undersea cables that have rattled European security officials in recent months were likely the result of maritime accidents rather than Russian sabotage, according to several U.S. and European intelligence officials," reports the "Washington Post". These events are attributed to inexperienced ship crews who accidentally damaged the infrastructure.
In the past 18 months, there have been three major incidents. The first involved the tanker Eagle S, which dragged its anchor across 100 kilometres of the Baltic seabed, severing the EstLink 2 cable connecting Finland and Estonia. Finland indicated that this ship belongs to Russia's shadow fleet, which helps Moscow circumvent international sanctions.
Other cases include the actions of the container ship Newnew Polar Bear, which ruptured a gas pipeline in the Gulf of Finland in October 2023, and the Chinese ship Yi Peng 3, which cut two cables in Swedish waters last November.
In response to these events, NATO has decided to increase patrol operations in the Baltic. These actions aim to strengthen the security of the underwater infrastructure. Although Russia denies its involvement, its statements have been met with significant scepticism.
Investigations and conclusions
Despite suspicions that Russia might have been involved in these incidents, investigations have found no evidence of its participation.
U.S. officials cited "clear explanations" that have emerged in each of the investigated incidents, suggesting the likelihood that the damage was accidental and the lack of evidence implicating Russia. Officials from two European intelligence agencies stated that they agree with the U.S. assessments.
Pekka Toveri, former head of military intelligence in Finland, however, believes that the incidents may be part of a hybrid operation conducted by Russia. "The most important thing in any hybrid operation is deniability," he assessed. Toveri suggested that while Russia’s security services might have avoided leaving any evidence that could stand up in court, dismissing the incidents as mere accidents is entirely unfounded.