Ship's Crew Suspected of Deliberately Dragging Anchor for 100 Miles To Cut Baltic Cables (msn.com) 167
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.
Not likely (Score:3)
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, Informative)
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:2)
sure, ships can pull against it and move them - at that point it's more like a plow in a field. My point about 'grab' is it's not likely to 'bounce' over a cable.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be consistent with cameras on the anchor, and reeling it in to not be on the sea floor, but *close* to the sea floor.
Then when the desired cable appears, dropping to the sea bed.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if the have underwater speakers playing Mission Impossible theme song.
I'm going with "Not how it happened for $200 Alex"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
absolutely. Hell, if they're clearly under speed for the known conditions, I'd imagine a phone call being made from the ship mgmt company to the ship asking what's wrong - in a normal situation anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
a) we do not know what happened (yet)
True, a lot of critical info is yet to be revealed.
b) no captain is so incompetent to not realize: oh, we only make X knots - in this weather - with this machine power ..... when it should be 3 knots more.
The weather was quite poor, so they could be thinking it's due to a strong headwind or current. 3 knots is about how fast the Gulf Stream flows. It's also possible that the captain wasn't even on the bridge at the time and someone might slack off when crossing huge expanses of water where they have very little to do. Finally, we can surmise that the suspicious stoppage afterwards was them pulling the anchor up. That means someone did eventually notice.
c) an anchor has no 200m chain.
Appar
Re: (Score:2)
The friction of the chain laying against the sea floor is what keeps the ship stationary.
Actually, that's not correct. The weight of the chain between the motionless anchor and the ship is what keeps the ship from moving far from the anchor. The further the ship drifts, the more the chain pulls up off the sea floor and the more gravity and tension induce a force pulling the ship back towards the anchor.
Once the ship is under enough power to overcome gravity's impact on the chain, friction from the anchor dragging only slows it a little.
Re: (Score:2)
Friction is entirely how anchors work. And weight/mass/force is a significant part of frictional equations.
If the weight of the chain and anchor are what kept it in position....you could 'anchor' in water deeper than the chain, which is obviously ridiculous.
The anchor is a pin point but most ships this big do rely on the chain being laid along the bottom for a good way. The chains weigh more than the anchors...by a good margin I believe.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is about warships, but they reference civilian ship data for comparison. It's just the first link I found. I'm sure you can Google for other sources. It's not a contentious topic.
Re: Not likely (Score:2)
The Swedish coast guard and Danish navy have gotten close enough to take pictures of the ship and publish them. There is obvious damage to the anchor visible.
Re: (Score:2)
The water there is deeper than you'd normally anchor in. Anchors are designed to hold when they're pulled laterally across the bottom. They do not hold at all well when they're pulled at an angle, which many a boater who thought anchoring was just a matter of chucking the thing overboard learns the hard way.
Re: Not likely (Score:2)
Depends on the anchor and bottom.
Re: Not likely (Score:2)
Anchors are designed to
Because all anchors are designed the same way and for the same exact purpose, amirite? Not as if anybody ever needed to hold position in a surge. /facepalm
But what do I know? I'm just a diver, not like I've ever seen an anchor before. And you pride yourself on having a bottom that is always rocky, even though your anchor always comes back soiled. I still think you should wipe when you dry dock anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a case of bouncing a few times perfectly but landing a couple of times perfectly. A ships anchor is shaped in a way that it will only actually grab something when it is completely loose and extended preventing a ship from being pulled *sideways*. When they say here "drag" they don't mean let the anchor all the way down and go full steam ahead, they mean don't extend it all the way and let the anchor sit directly under the ship, at which point it absolutely bounces around the seabed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did I say they *always* do? no. I said that's their entire point. Are you claiming the point of an anchor isn't to, ahem, hold a ship by contact with the bottom?
And pray tell, how many 30 ton anchors have you dealt with?
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.
It's the length of very heavy chain laying on the sea floor that mainly keeps large vessels in place, the anchor is just the initial grab point.
If I had to guess why it got one cable but not others - they probably had the anchor lowered just enough so it was skimming along the seabed. Unspool the chain until you notice extra drag on the ship, then hold it there. If the seafloor goes up or down a few meters you might lose contact with the seabed, but not for long enough to realize and lower the anchor more
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:Not likely (Score:5, Interesting)
>"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 that ship, and way too much coincidence.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a *LOT* of suspect behavior shown by that ship, and way too much coincidence.
Indeed there is. They may also have had very precise coordinated on those cables.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. An anchor is not a dainty thing, dragging on a 500+ foot chain...just pretty extreme to think it was controlled enough to only hit one thing when there were multiple cables directly in the path within under a mile.
Re:Not likely (Score:5, Interesting)
You are assuming that they aimed to cut only the middle cable. What if they just tried to cause random damage (more likely in my opinion), and just happened to have luck only with the middle cable? It could also be that the sea is not exactly flat. There might be bumps in it and the cables that are relatively free to move around could be located near to a bump and the anchor would just jump over them because of the bump.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, lots of 'technically possible" scenarios. But dragging over a dozen cables AND pipelines and only hitting 2 makes the odds of it randomly happening pretty low.
This is the 2nd cable cut, which also has really unlikely probability of happening.
https://youtu.be/a7cS1aVGwUE?t... [youtu.be] 4 crossings, including pipelines, in quick succession and it manages to only clip the last one.
Coincidences don't keep happening.
Re: (Score:2)
According to news articles in Finland, the telecom cable between Finland and Germany was installed and covered at the depth of 1 meter (about 3 feet) under the seabed. It was not just free to move around. Also that means it takes considerable effort to cut it, as something must be disturbing things at that depth.
Re: (Score:2)
So the anchor only caught on one of them? What does that (dis)prove?
Re: (Score:2)
The most likely explanation is that some of these cables became more buried than they intended them to be.
Re: (Score:2)
It says the odds of that happening using a 30 ton anchor on a 500 ft chain made of hundreds of 1 ton links is bordering on winning the lotto.
Occams razor is this isn't an anchor dragging incident. It's *possible* the sea floor geography just happened to facilitate it but highly unlikely
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to apply Occams razor, you should also state the 'simplest explanation' for two undersea cable cuts perfectly timed with a specific ship passing over each.
It's more likely they let out just enough chain to reach the seafloor with the anchor but not leave a long tail to drag ... and variations in depth meant the anchor was not always in contact with the the seafloor. But hey, even if I'm wrong, I'm not misusing Occam's razor.
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)
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:3)
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: Not likely (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... a cheapskate/crook who didnâ(TM)t bury it properly.
Undersea cables are not buried except very close to the shore. Why would they be? It is not normal for ships to drag a anchor or grapnel along the bottom in the middle of the sea.
Re: (Score:2)
False. Undersea cables are buried at depths of less than 2km as standard, and all cables in the Baltic sea including the C-Lion 1 are buried. The issue is burial is a strong word for putting something 1m below the surface of the ocean floor. That's barely deeper than you're required to bury a cable you run to your garden shed. It gives the cable a bit of luck against accidental damage but does nothing to stop a targeted attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation most definitely needed. Utter BS dude.
Re: (Score:3)
ciTaTiOn NeEdEd - or in otherwords you cant be bother to conduct a 5 second google search
Submarine cables have been laid on the seabed since the 1850's. In most cases, recently installed cables are buried beneath the seabed to a target depth of 1 metre, unfortunately there remains a percentage of cable unburied. Cables can be scoured out by tides and currents or moved by anchors and fishing gear.
https://kis-orca.org/subsea-cables/cable-burial/
like, you didn't even try bruh
Re: (Score:3)
No. Burying the cable doesn't solve this issue. Typically buried cables are only burred to a depth of less than 1m to prevent accidental impact. A targeted attack with an anchor will still damage them.
The cable in this case, C-Lion1, is in fact a buried cable, and wasn't installed by some crook, but rather installed by Alcatel Submarine Networks, the second largest supplier and installer of undersea networks in the world.
I guarantee you they didn't give a fuck about "using lots of fuel".
Re: (Score:2)
Almost no under sea cables are buried. The ability and expense would be fairly astronomical.
They are likewise not encased in pipe or concrete for the same reason. These are massive rubber cables spooled out from a giant wheel simply laying on the bottom.
Lastly, anchors don't tend to 'bounce' much. These are 10-30 ton weights with fins to 'grab' bottom.
I'm sure the specific topography could make it miss *some* things and not others, but it crossed dozens of other cables between the two cuts. The coincid
Re: (Score:2)
Almost no under sea cables are buried.
Not intentionally. I suspect it's very hard to try and keep mud and silt from burying it anyways after a few years. We can find kilometers thick geological deposits on ancient seabeds.
Re: (Score:2)
And the rates at which those sediments build up are measured in millimeters per year at best. And currents will also remove sediment depending on conditions.
Supposedly continental shelf bottoms can receive upwards of a meter per year, but given this is in 500 feet of water that has been navigated for well over a 1000 years, it's safe to say this isn't accumulating consistently at anywhere near that rate.
And I'd full expect a 30 ton anchor to push through a meter of soft sediment mud like the proverbial ho
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure which scenario you think is most obvious, but I think there are 5 alternatives of what could have happened:
1. There was a submarine, that is not detected by underwater surveillance that was going under the Chinese ship and cut the cables on the way. I find this pretty unlikely as I am pretty sure there are several countries who look for submarines in this area and because the sea is not that deep.
2. There were two submarines that cut the cables when the Chinese ship was on top of them.
3. Two ca
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, the submarine theory to me seems the most plausible from a technical standpoint - though the political one is far less likely.
We've long known and used the ability of subs to place a device over a cable and 'read' transmissions passively. (back in the days before significant encryption and digital).
Not at all infeasible to have cutter devices in place ahead of time and execute as the ship passes and then have the subs remove the devices. Or even ROV type devices self moving though perhaps the h
Re: (Score:2)
Lowering is easy if imprecise. Raising? not so much. Heavy duty winches take significant time to move a hundred ton chain and anchor.
Reactiin time (Score:2, Troll)
Interesting to see how reaction times shrink when facebook becomes slower for some finns yet when half the continent has to pay higher gas prices on the orders of biden - nothing!
Re: Reactiin time (Score:2)
Re: Reactiin time (Score:2)
Fun part is that for the first time, there is doubt in their eyes. No more scape goats. It will no longer be the Democrat's fault. But no worries. They will find something else to blame soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun part is that for the first time, there is doubt in their eyes.
They haven't had to practice doublethink for a few years. They're just a little rusty.
They will find something else to blame soon.
They're already blaming "RINOs".
No more scape goats. It will no longer be the Democrat's fault.
I expect them to start blaming Democrats soon. They've never let reality stop them before, why would they start now?
Re: Reactiin time (Score:2)
Seize the ship and lock up the crew (Score:2)
Justice in international waters? (Score:2)
No competent ship captain is going to drag an anchor for 100 miles. If this was not intentional, it was incompetent.
Denmark should prosecute the ship's officers. Denmark should also seize the ship and it's content, and hold them against payment for the repairs, ancillary costs, and a hefty penalty. Either the company can pay, or China can pay (since the ship is licensed from China). No payment? Then ship and contents get auctioned off.
Re: (Score:3)
No payment? Then ship and contents get auctioned off.
That's peanuts for a penalty to China. And no fertilizer hauler can find a sea cable.
Re: Justice in international waters? (Score:2)
Dear ignorant person, Denmark is a part of EU. Also, the cutting of the cable affected more than just person.
Kindly go educate yourself off.
Re: (Score:2)
Kindly go educate yourself off.
That's pretty rich for someone who clearly didn't understand my comment.
I get it, English is not your first language. Good for you. But you're still not equipped to argue in it.
Why is the Yi Peng already several days anchored? (Score:3)
It is surrounded by Danish, German and Swedish military and coastguard craft.
I mean, when a Chinese ship of this size does something unusual, like the anchoring, be sure Beijing knows about it.
There is also the rumour about a Russian on board, it might mean nothing but typically the Chinese handle everything themself.
Can it be the captain thought he'd do something for the Russians but at the time did not tell his handlers in the Chinese government who are now considering the options.
Take the gloves off already on Moscow. (Score:2)
New species of fish (Score:2)
Close the Gulf of Finland to Russian Traffic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The alternative is to allow every act of sabotage when there is plausible deniability ... which will likely lead to more sabotage.
Re: (Score:2)
If no one on the ship decides to have their family get polonium tea for breakfast by confessing, what's the alternative then?
Re: (Score:2)
For stuff like this Americans created military commissions ... Europe usually lets the Americans handle that for them, but that doesn't seem to be an option here.
Re: (Score:2)
A "senior european investigator" could be anyone.
So could you comrade.
Re:That's not a very good anchor (Score:5, Interesting)
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 doesn't pay for them, auction the boat and contents off.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like how my truck's engine can overpower the brakes.
Wait, are you sure about that? Brakes are by necessity of stopping a huge weight in a short period of time designed to counter an incredible amount of force, far more than that of acceleration. This has also been tested empirically back a few years ago when we had the whole "unintended acceleration" issue from Toyota. Some magazines put various cars to the test and found that even souped up V8 Mustangs can with their brakes bring the car to a stop even under full acceleration, even starting from an already
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I have actually tested this. It is purely my truck, I haven't tested others, and requires that it be in low gear. 5th gear? My brakes will slow it down and stall it out quickly.
A V8 mustang intended for racing will have huge brakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I have actually tested this. It is purely my truck, I haven't tested others, and requires that it be in low gear. 5th gear? My brakes will slow it down and stall it out quickly.
A V8 mustang intended for racing will have huge brakes.
I've upgraded brakes on my trucks, Bendix ambulance grade. If I push hard on the brake I can't normally overpower them. But put it in 4 low and it'll walk off. It's all about gearing.
Re: (Score:2)
This is indeed the trick. 4-low. Trick, max rpm is hit at like 10 mph.
Re: (Score:2)
If your engine can overpower your brakes: then there is something seriously wrong with your brakes.
Go and fix them.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, not a Cybertruck owner I see...
I'm just kidding. The Cybertruck's breaks don't work.
Re: (Score:2)
They should have liability insurance that will pay for it. The issue is that if they are charged with a crime, the insurance won't pay out.
Re: (Score:2)
Leave it to the Chinese to design an anchor that doesn't actually work for stopping a boat.
Anchors don't stop boats/ships. They just hold them in place after they're stopped.
If you think about the physics and the requirements, this is pretty obvious. An anchor is intended to hold the ship in place against the force of wind and waves. Any wind/wave force that the anchor would need to hold against, the ship's engines also need to be able to accelerate against, and not just enough to hold position but to make headway. This means that the engines must be able to deliver more force than the ancho
Re: (Score:2)
Any wind/wave force that the anchor would need to hold against, the ship's engines also need to be able to accelerate against, and not just enough to hold position but to make headway.
It's worth mentioning that this isn't entirely true for small vessels, in some circumstances. Some boaters carry "hurricane anchors", which are massively oversized anchors intended to be able to hold the boat in hurricane-force winds in a semi-protected anchorage (so the waves aren't too bad). It's possible that the engines, especially on sailboats, might not have enough power to hold position against such winds.
Large ocean-going vessels, of course, are generally capable of weathering hurricanes and pre
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of assumptions. What if the forces of wind and water are "x" and the anchor is designed to resist a force of "5x" while the engine is designed to provide "4x"?
Re: (Score:3)
That's a lot of assumptions. What if the forces of wind and water are "x" and the anchor is designed to resist a force of "5x" while the engine is designed to provide "4x"?
Then someone spent way too much on their anchor. Spend some time shopping for good anchors, even for recreational boats above 30 feet, and you'll see there is ample motivation to size your anchor appropriately for your boat. And cost does not scale linearly with size, more like the square or maybe third power of size, especially since a bigger anchor requires a bigger chain, a bigger windlass, and a stronger attachment point -- which likely requires reinforcing the hull structure.
In addition, a bigger a
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)
Violent cave-men, like the one you answered to, are not sophisticated and do not understand that actions have consequences. They just want to apply violence.
Re:"Accidentally" let the ship (Score:4, Insightful)
An example needs to be made or more of these "accidents" will happen
Making an example will not stop more of this from happening.
I think even woke Men may think sinking the ship is a valid point.
Yeah, sink a ship full of fertilizer to accomplish nothing, what a great plan.
Try thinking, it always helps.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard of a thing called "due process"? Probably not. A primitive like you would not even understand.
Re: Skip the bullshit (Score:2)
Yea clearly you're not familiar with history.
Governments that get used to summary executions "a couple of times" don't stop.
Re: (Score:2)
That is too humane. Just hold the ship there. Meanwhile, you mobilize and employ the Flatulent Airbourne Reaction Teams [youtu.be].
You prepare dozens of three man FART squads composed of overweight NFL fans, preferably affiliated Giants and Jets fans. But this is a serious crisis, so we might have to extend it to Bills and Eagles fans as well. We have to get going as soon as possible. This is war; you can't be choosy. And I'm also thinking about getting some of those big, fat cocksuckers who root for the teams in the
Re: (Score:3)
Legal procedures can still have a place, even when they are unenforceable. We can see this in the south China Sea arbitration tribunal with the Philippines. You can tell that it affects the thinking of one party of the arbitration because they still make a statement every month or so explaining why they don't agree w
Re: (Score:2)
If you ignore the "2 ship" part in UNCLOS, which shouldn't be in there in the first place, this could simply be filed under piracy.
International law is just a gentlemen's agreement, when the other side only pays lip service you have to respond in kind. You can still keep up appearances in the hope it stops some escalations, but you can't afford to pay it much more attention than your opponents. Then it simply becomes a weapon for your enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maritime law? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Oh, stop drama-queening. I seriously doubt the Chinese government orchestrated this. Normally when you do something like this you want 'plausible deniability' and this ain't it. They just don't stand to gain anything from this incident. China is in the middle of a deflation, they want to fix that by increasing trade ties with the EU and this is not helping. If the Russians are behind this stunt then they are literally trying to sabotage China's current trade and foreign and policies and that might begin to lead China to finally start considering the notion that Russia as an ally is a bigger liability than they can afford. From a European point of view that would not necessarily be so bad. Cables can be fixed, this further isolates Russia if they are behind it and might even bring China and the EU closer on trade which is not necessarily a bad thing now that that Trump wants to end the old European/US alliances, the Trump Tariff walls are going up and the US is retreating into full blown 'my way, or the highway' isolationism.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's all too easy for them to break the cables with a time delay. No political reason for China to do it anyways. Russia, maybe. But I see no reason the FSB to overcomplicate the plan by involving the Chinese intelligence agency.
Also China and Russia are not such great friends that they'd help each other out in such a dumb and useless covert op. If China really wanted to help Russia, they can easily send over millions of military drones or tens of millions of artillery shells (even North Korea managed
Re: (Score:2)
China and Russia are not such great friends that they'd help each other out in such a dumb and useless covert op.
China is turning Russia into a dependent. Russia has nowhere else to go for large scale trade. Everyone but China fears reprisal if they trade with Russia, but China knows that for the time being they have the world by the balls when it comes to manufacturing. Everyone buys a lot from them, no one more than us but others are close. China also definitely has sold military supplies to Russia, remember those tires that got them stuck in the mud? heh heh
Re: (Score:2)
The EU play pretend harder than anyone in the world. The US is generally the most honest by simply not signing on. While China cargo cults a bit, but ultimately hardly even pretends.
Which is only natural, Europe invented them as ritual games meant to be played between European countries while deciding to throw down or not.
Re: me chinese me play joke me pee into your data (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sink the ship (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sink the ship (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We came so close, but they got us this time. TCF will do everything in his power to restore mother Russia to her former glory.
Re: (Score:2)
Russkies are out of control. Nord Stream first, now this? It is time they pay for their crimes.
There was the Balticconnector case a year ago as well. A chinese ship controlled by russkies was involved in that one as well: https://yle.fi/a/74-20099656 [yle.fi]
Re: (Score:2)
The US is the only country saying it doesn't think it was done on purpose by the ship.
It's everyone else that has looked at the records of the incident... from the purposeful unexplained slow down just before the first cable cut, then return to normal speed after cutting the 2nd cable... to the turning off of their navigation tracking while cutting the 2nd cable... to them saying they didn't know they had dropped an anchor 500 feet... and were dragging it for several hours... If you've ever seen an anchor d