Ship's Crew Suspected of Deliberately Dragging Anchor for 100 Miles To Cut Baltic Cables (msn.com) 27
SpzToid writes: A Chinese commercial vessel that has been surrounded by European warships in international waters for a week is central to an investigation of suspected sabotage that threatens to test the limits of maritime law -- and heighten tensions between Beijing and European capitals.
Investigators suspect that the crew of the Yi Peng 3 bulk carrier -- 225 meters long, 32 meters wide and loaded with Russian fertilizer -- deliberately severed two critical data cables last week as its anchor was dragged along the Baltic seabed for over 100 miles.
Their probe now centers on whether the captain of the Chinese-owned ship, which departed the Russian Baltic port of Ust-Luga on Nov. 15, was induced by Russian intelligence to carry out the sabotage. It would be the latest in a series of attacks on Europe's critical infrastructure that law-enforcement and intelligence officials say have been orchestrated by Russia.
Investigators suspect that the crew of the Yi Peng 3 bulk carrier -- 225 meters long, 32 meters wide and loaded with Russian fertilizer -- deliberately severed two critical data cables last week as its anchor was dragged along the Baltic seabed for over 100 miles.
Their probe now centers on whether the captain of the Chinese-owned ship, which departed the Russian Baltic port of Ust-Luga on Nov. 15, was induced by Russian intelligence to carry out the sabotage. It would be the latest in a series of attacks on Europe's critical infrastructure that law-enforcement and intelligence officials say have been orchestrated by Russia.
me chinese me play joke me pee into your data cabl (Score:1)
me chinese me play joke me pee into your data cable!
Not likely (Score:2)
they crossed numerous other cables, some within less than a mile...that magically weren't cut?
if everything from pt A to pt B was disrupted, the anchor theory is plausible. But if dozens of other cables are crossed and not cut, it gets less plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
this video shows the ship passing over 3 different cables within maybe a mile. And somehow it only cuts the middle one?
https://youtu.be/a7cS1aVGwUE?t... [youtu.be]
Re: Not likely (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but the same argument is it's a big heavy anchor...it's entire point is to grab bottom and hold on.
The odds it happened to 'bounce' a few times just perfectly aren't great.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Sure but the same argument is it's a big heavy anchor...it's entire point is to grab bottom and hold on."
But not designed to stop a ship that is intentionally using its engines against it. The ship dropped speed from 11 to 7 knots during the two cuts and stopped and went back to 11 knots after....
I know little about maritime/ships, but I thought anchors were only to keep ships from drifting and that they won't "dig in" unless deployed strategically and at very slow speed.
Re: (Score:1)
Lets say it like this: ..... when it should be 3 knots more.
a) we do not know what happened (yet)
b) no captain is so incompetent to not realize: oh, we only make X knots - in this weather - with this machine power
c) an anchor has no 200m chain.
So, if they cut it: it was not an accident. If they cut it, they likely had a special tool for it. Like an "undersea cutter" on a "nylon rope" - and not a simple anchor.
A ship of that size going slower than 10knots, that is extremely unusual. In the video posted above
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for posting the video. Last time this was up I asked if there were reasons to believe the vessel couldn't have cut the two cables by dropping anchor once and then drifting? The video answers that as they were doing 6ish knots against the wind.
Re: (Score:3)
>"this video shows the ship passing over 3 different cables within maybe a mile. And somehow it only cuts the middle one?"
Informative video....
But the video also shows that the ship mysteriously lowers speed from 11 to 7 knots right before the first cut cable, stays that speed, then stops soon after the second cable is cut and then returns to 11 knots. Very consistent with dragging an anchor. Maybe even dropping something or picking up something afterward.
There is a *LOT* of suspect behavior shown by t
Re: (Score:2)
Oh the cables cut themselves and the ship dragging its anchor for 100 miles was a coincidence?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the GP's point is valid. I've been looking for large ship anchor characteristics (weight, shape, etc) for the past 20 minutes and fail to see how an anchor that's dragging at the bottom of the seabed wouldn't grab any cable that came in its path. The only plausible explanation I have come up with is that it wasn't dragging on the seabed, but being dragged in water close to the seabed, and maybe the cable it caught on was at a higher elevation of the seabed than the other ones surrounding it.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it was raised and lowered slightly/strategically. Or it had something on the end which happened to or was designed only to cut in a certain direction or on command. Or other explanations.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't referring to nefarious activities, but just responding to how it may have broken one cable only of several under accidental circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
they crossed numerous other cables, some within less than a mile...that magically weren't cut?
if everything from pt A to pt B was disrupted, the anchor theory is plausible. But if dozens of other cables are crossed and not cut, it gets less plausible.
I'm guessing any particular cable being cut is kinda random.
But, if Russian intelligence was involved, the instructions might have simply been "drag the anchor in this area, and whatever happens happens!" I'm sure some of those other cables were important as well (this also might not have been the first ship they had try this).
Of course, the more likely explanation is incompetence, but you can't ignore the possibility that Russia was involved.
Re: (Score:1)
It depends how deep the cables are under the sea bed. Or if they are in a metal or concrete pipe and and and. The anchor might be tumbling on the sea floor, and not grab every cable. Or the course was not perpendicular enough. And so on ...
"Accidentally" let the ship (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Also known as tying up loose ends⦠youâ(TM)d be doing russia and china a favour. You donâ(TM)t think Putin or Xi care about the human lives do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Blink twice if you’re scared of falling out a window.
Re: (Score:3)
The alternative is to allow every act of sabotage when there is plausible deniability ... which will likely lead to more sabotage.
That's not a very good anchor (Score:2)
Leave it to the Chinese to design an anchor that doesn't actually work for stopping a boat. They must've at least used the good Chinesium for it to hold up for 100 miles of dragging without breaking apart, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Boat anchors aren't designed to keep ships completely immobile; they're mostly to just stop or slow down drifting. Making an anchor that will actually stop a ship would require it be a lot bigger and heavier, making it more expensive and cost more cargo capacity. It's like how my truck's engine can overpower the brakes.
It being the type that ends up bouncing around at speed to explain it apparently only having a 33% success rate.
My thought: Confiscate the boat to pay for repairs. If the Chinese company d
Maritime law? (Score:2)
The UN needs to make itself scarce, it has already failed. The west pretending to be completely bound by legalism, like muh two ship in Unclos, would just cause escalation.
This is the time for games of chicken, deter Russia and China from acts of war with credible threats of violence and try to make them accept to limit themselves to the proxy/trade wars.
The alternative to bending the rules a little is overt war.