The alleged accidental severing of undersea cables in the Baltic Sea, attributed to errant anchors dragged by three separate vessels, has sparked controversy and skepticism. While unnamed intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post claim a growing consensus within Western intelligence agencies points to unintentional damage caused by inexperienced crews on poorly maintained ships, experts like Tony Ingesson, an intelligence analyst at Lund University, find this narrative difficult to reconcile with observable facts. Ingesson highlights several points that cast doubt on the accidental damage theory. Firstly, Finland’s ongoing criminal investigation, including the boarding and detainment of a vessel, suggests a serious suspicion of wrongdoing, far exceeding a response warranted by mere accidents. Secondly, NATO’s deployment of an operation in the Baltic Sea specifically aimed at preventing further cable incidents and monitoring Russian shadow fleet activity signals a high level of concern not typically associated with accidental damage. Such operations are costly and unlikely to be initiated without a strong belief in deliberate sabotage. These actions suggest a deeper, more complex situation than simple maritime mishaps.
Ingesson posits that NATO’s operation serves a dual purpose: projecting a decisive posture and proactively preventing future incidents, possibly based on undisclosed intelligence. He underscores the importance of the Finnish criminal investigation, which, due to the broader powers granted to law enforcement compared to intelligence agencies, likely holds the most accurate information regarding the latest cable incident. This investigation has the authority to seize materials and conduct interrogations, gathering evidence that might not be accessible to all Western intelligence agencies. Furthermore, the context of escalating Russian hybrid warfare activities lends credence to the suspicion of deliberate sabotage, although Ingesson acknowledges the possibility, however remote, of genuine accidents.
The repeated nature of these incidents—three within just over a year—raises significant questions about the plausibility of the accidental damage explanation. While individual instances of anchor dragging might be considered unfortunate occurrences, the recurrence of such events involving different vessels in a strategically sensitive area strains credulity. This pattern, coupled with the heightened geopolitical tensions and the documented increase in Russian hybrid warfare tactics, creates a strong circumstantial case for intentional disruption. Moreover, the involvement of vessels with questionable ownership and flagging adds another layer of complexity and suspicion.
The incidents themselves involve several key events. On Christmas Day, the Estlink 2 power cable in the Gulf of Finland was damaged, leading to the detainment of the Cook Islands-flagged vessel Eagle S, which was carrying Russian fuel. Prior to this, in November 2024, two separate cables, one between Finland and Germany and another between Sweden and Lithuania, were also damaged, with suspicions falling on the Chinese vessel Yi Peng 3. Earlier, in October 2023, the Balticconnector gas pipeline between Finland and Estonia was damaged, allegedly by the Chinese vessel Newnew Polar Bear, although China claimed this was an accident. These incidents, occurring in close temporal proximity and within the same geographical region, create a concerning pattern that warrants deeper investigation.
The conflicting narratives surrounding these incidents highlight the challenges in ascertaining the truth amidst a complex web of geopolitical maneuvering and potential disinformation campaigns. While the unnamed intelligence sources suggest accidental damage, the actions taken by Finland and NATO, coupled with the expert analysis of individuals like Ingesson, strongly suggest deliberate sabotage. The ongoing Finnish investigation, with its access to crucial evidence and investigative powers, is likely to provide the most conclusive answers. However, the release of information from this investigation may be strategically managed to avoid compromising ongoing operations or escalating tensions.
In conclusion, the explanation of accidental anchor dragging as the cause of multiple undersea cable disruptions in the Baltic Sea faces significant challenges. The context of escalating geopolitical tensions, the nature of the damage, the response by Finnish authorities and NATO, and the expert analysis all point towards a higher likelihood of deliberate sabotage. While the unnamed intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post offer an alternative narrative, the weight of evidence and expert opinion suggests a more complex and potentially malicious series of events. Ultimately, the ongoing Finnish investigation holds the key to unraveling the truth behind these incidents and determining whether they were unfortunate accidents or calculated acts of disruption.
