European officials increasingly certain Baltic Sea cable breaks are accidental, not sabotage

A series of recent submarine cable breaks in the Baltic Sea has alarmed onlookers who fear the incidents are part of a Russian sabotage campaign.

But officials from several European countries on the North Sea and Baltic Sea told Recorded Future News there is increasing confidence among their governments that the incidents were accidental and not directed by the Kremlin.

That confidence, which aligns with a report published by The Washington Post earlier this year, is supported by investigations into specific cable incidents, as well as intelligence agency assessments and data on the number of ships transiting the Baltic Sea.

Although the officials, who were granted anonymity as they did not have permission to comment publicly, declined to share the figures this view was based on, they said they had been briefed there was no spike in the number of cable faults proportional to an increase in maritime traffic in the region.

More ships are traveling through the Baltic Sea because of sanctions against Russia, which is using its “shadow fleet” — a collection of up to 1,000 decrepit vessels with opaque ownership structures that sail under flags of convenience — to export sanctioned Russian goods, particularly oil, to fund its war in Ukraine.

One such shadow fleet ship, the Eagle S, sparked the recent sabotage concerns when it dragged its anchor for almost 62 miles along the seafloor on Christmas Day, severing a number of cables and prompting authorities in Finland to send armed officers to board the vessel via helicopter.

Finnish officials, who suspected the damage was done intentionally, seized the ship to secure interviews with the crew and collect evidence from the ship itself.

It was eventually released earlier this month, with the Finnish customs agency stating that some upkeep issues affecting the decrepit vessel had been addressed and that its sanctioned cargo was free to continue on its journey as it was heading outside of the EU.

However three of the ship’s crew members remained in Finland under investigation and detained under travel bans. Finnish authorities are continuing to investigate these individuals on suspicion of aggravated criminal mischief and aggravated interference with communications. It is not clear whether these crimes require premeditation or if they can be committed recklessly under Finland’s Criminal Code, as they can in other jurisdictions.

A spokesperson for the Finnish government told Recorded Future News that the country’s authorities were continuing their investigations and that “for the moment it is premature to assess their conclusions.”

“Our approach is based on facts, and we will not take part in speculation. Overall, we are very concerned by these incidents and we are making efforts to ensure that our critical undersea infrastructure is well protected against any harmful acts, be they intentional or not,” the spokesperson added.

The Russian government has dismissed claims it is behind the incidents as “completely groundless” and accused NATO of creating “the preconditions for the introduction of arbitrary restrictions on international shipping in the Baltic Sea.” No such restrictions have been publicly proposed by NATO.

Another cable-breaking incident in January saw Swedish authorities seize a cargo ship called the Vezhen which had been suspected of sabotaging a communications link running between the Latvian city of Ventspils and the Swedish island of Gotland.

That ship was released just a week after the incident, with prosecutors stating: “The investigation now clearly shows that it is not a case of sabotage. It has been established that a combination of weather conditions and deficiencies in equipment and seamanship contributed to the cable break.”

The position that the recent cable-breaks were likely accidental has prompted criticism from some maritime experts and researchers who said the nature of the incidents and their repeat occurrence indicated a pattern of behaviour, particularly given Russia’s ongoing subversion and sabotage activities in Europe, which have been acknowledged and condemned by both the European Union and NATO.

Some critics expressed concern that the intelligence assessments of the incidents as likely accidents may have been based on inaccurate assumptions about seamanship, and potentially influenced by political fears about accelerating conflict with Russia.

Among the criticisms of the assessment of the Eagle S incident in particular was an argument that it is not feasible to accidentally drag a ship’s anchor for more than 100 kilometers. A German Navy captain argued the anchor and chain of a ship like the Eagle S weigh over 100 metric tons, something that “requires considerable power from the engine” and “makes a lot of noise and clatter” to drag along the seafloor.

One of the European officials told Recorded Future News that this wasn’t always the case, explaining they had been briefed that sometimes incompetent ship-masters simply don’t want to go through the bother of arguing with the crew to trek out to the bow of the vessel in inclement weather to hoist the anchor.

Poor seamanship is a significant concern. Earlier this month, the Russian captain of a ship involved in a crash in the North Sea — which damaged an oil tanker carrying jet fuel for the U.S. military — was charged with gross negligence manslaughter. The nationality of that captain and the cargo of the impacted ship prompted speculation about whether the incident was intentional, although British officials have suggested it was not. The ship, the Solong, had previously failed equipment safety inspections in Ireland.

A European official noted to Recorded Future News that in the public domain, a viewpoint paper published in February by the International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC) — a British-based non-profit — found that incidents of cable damage are much more common that news reporting would suggest, and are often caused by bad seamanship and poorly maintained equipment.

The paper noted that while rare considering the volume of global marine traffic, accidental anchor deployments also do occur — sometimes due to anchors not being fully secured using the multiple securing mechanisms used on large ships, or because of poor upkeep of equipment.

“On large vessels, particularly those with the bridge located far aft, an anchor dropping into deep water may not be immediately detected, as it might not impact vessel steering or performance,” the ICPC paper stated.

These anchors are not designed to simply “hold fast on the seabed,” explained the ICPC, which notes that in rough weather the vessel will move with the anchor. Dragged anchors account for approximately 30% of the incidents in which submarine cables are damaged annually, and the ICPC cited seven egregious examples including one in 2008 when a ship dragged its anchor for around 180 miles, damaging six submarine cables.

While there is growing confidence that the recent incidents were legitimate accidents, Russian sabotage and subversion activity is designed to be deniable — although investigators and intelligence agencies have been able to identify links to the Kremlin in several cases involving arson at facilities in Europe.

Announcing military activity to protect Baltic Sea infrastructure in January, NATO allies hedged on the cause of the Baltic Sea incidents: “We are deeply concerned by actions, be they negligent or malicious, which cause damage to or threaten the functioning of critical undersea infrastructure. We strongly condemn acts of sabotage to critical undersea infrastructure.”

Officials and industry experts say that the response to these incidents is the same whether they are intentional or not. In its viewpoint paper, the ICPC called on countries to enforce stricter operational standards to reduce the risk of damage to subsea infrastructure.