Accidents, Not Sabotage, Likely Damaged Baltic Undersea Cables, Say US and European Intelligence Officials (stripes.com) 42
The Washington Post reports:
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.
The determination reflects an emerging consensus among U.S. and European security services, according to senior officials from three countries involved in ongoing investigations of a string of incidents in which critical seabed energy and communications lines have been severed... [S]o far, officials said, investigations involving the United States and a half-dozen European security services have turned up no indication that commercial ships suspected of dragging anchors across seabed systems did so intentionally or at the direction of Moscow. Instead, U.S. and European officials said that the evidence gathered to date — including intercepted communications and other classified intelligence — points to accidents caused by inexperienced crews serving aboard poorly maintained vessels.
U.S. officials cited "clear explanations" that have come to light in each case indicating a likelihood that the damage was accidental, and a lack of evidence suggesting Russian culpability. Officials with two European intelligence services said that they concurred with U.S. assessments. Despite initial suspicions that Russia was involved, one European official said there is "counter evidence" suggesting otherwise. The U.S. and European officials declined to elaborate and spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of ongoing investigations...
A Nordic official briefed on the investigation said conditions on the tanker were abysmal. "We've always gone out with the assumption that shadow fleet vessels are in bad shape," the official said. "But this was even worse than we thought...." European security officials said that Finland's main intelligence service is in agreement with Western counterparts that the Dec. 25 incident appears to have been an accident, though they cautioned that it may be impossible to rule out a Russian role.
The article points out another reason Russia might not want to draw attention to the waterways around NATO countries. Doing so "could endanger oil smuggling operations Russia has relied on to finance the war in Ukraine, and possibly provoke more aggressive efforts by Western governments to choke off Russia's route to the North Atlantic."
The determination reflects an emerging consensus among U.S. and European security services, according to senior officials from three countries involved in ongoing investigations of a string of incidents in which critical seabed energy and communications lines have been severed... [S]o far, officials said, investigations involving the United States and a half-dozen European security services have turned up no indication that commercial ships suspected of dragging anchors across seabed systems did so intentionally or at the direction of Moscow. Instead, U.S. and European officials said that the evidence gathered to date — including intercepted communications and other classified intelligence — points to accidents caused by inexperienced crews serving aboard poorly maintained vessels.
U.S. officials cited "clear explanations" that have come to light in each case indicating a likelihood that the damage was accidental, and a lack of evidence suggesting Russian culpability. Officials with two European intelligence services said that they concurred with U.S. assessments. Despite initial suspicions that Russia was involved, one European official said there is "counter evidence" suggesting otherwise. The U.S. and European officials declined to elaborate and spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of ongoing investigations...
A Nordic official briefed on the investigation said conditions on the tanker were abysmal. "We've always gone out with the assumption that shadow fleet vessels are in bad shape," the official said. "But this was even worse than we thought...." European security officials said that Finland's main intelligence service is in agreement with Western counterparts that the Dec. 25 incident appears to have been an accident, though they cautioned that it may be impossible to rule out a Russian role.
The article points out another reason Russia might not want to draw attention to the waterways around NATO countries. Doing so "could endanger oil smuggling operations Russia has relied on to finance the war in Ukraine, and possibly provoke more aggressive efforts by Western governments to choke off Russia's route to the North Atlantic."
Hanlon's Razor, sort of (Score:5, Insightful)
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, Mr. not ruling out invading Panama, Greenland and maybe Canada is "toning down all the war mongering"? You're serious?
Re:Hanlon's Razor, sort of (Score:4, Informative)
It doesn't take malice. But given previous stunts of tapping undersea cables, it could have been a failed tap attempt. See:
https://www.theatlantic.com/in... [theatlantic.com]
Re:Hanlon's Razor, sort of (Score:5, Interesting)
What happened to the stories of a shadow fleet of "soviet" tankers, and the one that dragged anchor and broke the cables, that was boarded and seized by Finland, was chock full of spy electronics in a dedicated deck staffed by Russian technos?
I think I have whiplash.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if you've been lied to about Russia! A lot!
Re:Hanlon's Razor, sort of (Score:4, Informative)
The "shadow fleet" is well known, [wikipedia.org] , of course Russia has ships to get around western sanctions. What did we think would happen?
And severing or damage to undersea cables by ships is a common event, perhaps hundreds of incidents per year. So when you see a cluster, maybe it is a conspiracy, or maybe apply Hanlon's Razor.
The spy equipment on the Eagle S is little more than a rumour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You might as well ask what happened to the UFO fleet that was terrorising the US a couple of months ago. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts as well. But I subscribe to a modified Hanlon's razor: "Sometimes attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."
Wait, what? (Score:1)
It wasn't 4 Ukrainians and a sailboat?
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
some common sense for a change (Score:1)
Re:some common sense for a change (Score:4, Insightful)
surprised they have actually come to an intelligent conclusion rather than the usual conspiracy garbage.
They already got the propaganda mileage from the conspiracy theory, it no longer serves much purpose. And the conspiracy theory will continue to have legs as you can tell by the people here who refuse to believe it wasn't deliberate.
Re: (Score:1)
More like the propaganda no longer works. Nobody cared. You can only get caught telling so many lies before people stop believing.
Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Three cables, all mysteriously severed within a month, by ships dragging their anchors for miles and miles.
One of the ships was loaded with spy equipment.
Just coincidence.
Re: (Score:3)
yeah you have to wonder if this is some kind of 4D chess, but what gambit would involve playing like they don't realize it was sabotage? As TFA alludes, attention in the Baltic is beneficial to NATO so I'd almost expect the opposite - pretend they do believe it was sabotage if they don't.
I guess this is why I'm not a politician/diplomat/spy
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
but what gambit would involve playing like they don't realize it was sabotage?
The obvious one that Western governments have been playing for years now. The one where, no matter how many provocations Russia enacts, they ignore them to avoid needing to go to war against Russia. So Russia can meddle in elections, spread disinformation, sabotage equipment, commit all manner of state-sponsored computer crimes, flaunt sanctions, cause massive ecological disasters while flaunting sanctions, plant bombs in packages bound for Western aircraft, threaten nuclear war, literally declare war on th
Re:Right (Score:5, Interesting)
They're de-escalating. It's a convenient lie like "resigning for personal reasons". They don't want the populace to be angrier or more in panic than already. Yesterday we got the news they're deploying unmanned vessels and some AI thing to monitor vessels and cables. If they though these were accidents and coincidences, which historical records have shown to be extremely rare, it would not be economically rational to invest millions continuously for monitoring. The fact they're investing tens of millions into continuous monitoring is evidence they think it can happen again in the short term.
Re: Right (Score:2)
Regardless of whether it's accidental, these drones will make it possible to hold people accountable for damaging these cables. I'm not saying it's a guarantee of accountability, but the first step of getting there is determining how it happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Yesterday we got the news they're deploying unmanned vessels and some AI thing to monitor vessels and cables.
Whether it's sabotage or incompetence / carelessness - deploying monitoring with the goal of reducing the frequency of cable cuts makes sense.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
If you want to de-escalate you can have their shadow fleet of oil tankers mysteriously lose power when their engines explode. Since the ships aren't theirs they can't complain when their revenue plunges.
Re: (Score:2)
The real coincidence is that it's suddenly not Russia's fault on the eve of Trump's inauguration.
Re: (Score:3)
The delicious irony of Russiagate: calling everyone else conspiracy theorists while you make up new ones yourself every day on the fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes - I read those stories too. Finland boarded and seized at least one of those shadow fleet tankers suspected of purposefully dragging anchor to break cables.
i mean, was it real or not? I feel like a dog being walked, being lead to whatever info Im supposed to see today.
Re: (Score:2)
Oil smuggling? (Score:3)
The article points out another reason Russia might not want to draw attention to the waterways around NATO countries. Doing so "could endanger oil smuggling operations Russia has relied on to finance the war in Ukraine, and possibly provoke more aggressive efforts by Western governments to choke off Russia's route to the North Atlantic."
Oil tankers are lumbering beasts. How difficult could it be to track them from space and inspect them to make sure they're legit?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>it is difficult to distinguish intent from incompetence.
Most legal systems, if not all, have a principle of "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
A ship's captain - and anyone on the vessel with authority - ought to know there are cables around to be damaged and that they will be held responsible if they damage them. We hold airline pilots responsible for knowing their aircraft and current flying conditions including where they shouldn't be flying at all, we can have similar standards for people with au
Re: Oil smuggling? (Score:2)
You'd need a starlink style constellation, and each bird would need to be equipped with some powerful ground facing optics. Starlink has no such equipment.
The 1998 movie Enemy of the State is purely fiction. We did not and still do not have satellites capable of doing that. Starlink is the first that *possibly* could, but it's ill-equipped. To spy on anything with a satellite otherwise, have to have a good idea of where it will be months in advance.
Re: (Score:3)
Or it was another possible Ukrainian-linked op... (Score:1)
... like the sabotaging of the Nord Stream Pipeline [wsj.com], and the western intelligence agencies are coming up with 'explanations' to cover for Ukraine so public opinion in the countries impacted doesn't turn against Ukraine.
What better way to choke Russia's income stream than by incriminating their 'shadow fleet' and exposing it to the world?
Either way, I have a hard time believing these were all 'accidents'.
Source? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It looks like it was originally in the Washington Post, then reprinted in Stars and Stripes (stripes.com).
The byline lists three Post reporters.
Re: Source? (Score:1)
WaPo gaslighting with anonymous sources (Score:2)
But even those didn't say what the /. summary purports.
The article stated that it is difficult to prove intent.
The Fins on the other hand seem to be quite confident that they can.
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:1)
The Finns don't agree, even if WaPo says they do. (Score:4, Informative)
https://yle.fi/a/74-20137924 [yle.fi]
And the Finns should have the most informatoin
Does it really matter? (Score:2)
It seems like a Russian ship is the most likely source of the damage, the only question is whether it was intentional or accidental. But does that really matter? Either way, the damage is identical. I'd quote a variation on Clarke's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice."