Finland Seizes Ship Suspected of Severing Undersea Cable To Estonia

Finnish authorities on Wednesday seized a vessel suspected of severing an undersea telecommunications cable that connects Helsinki to Tallinn by dragging its anchor across the Gulf of Finland, the latest in a string of infrastructure incidents that have put Baltic Sea nations on edge since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Police are investigating the case as aggravated criminal damage and have not disclosed the ship's name, nationality or details about its crew. The cable belongs to Finnish telecoms group Elisa. Estonia's justice ministry reported that a second telecoms cable connecting the two countries -- owned by Sweden's Arelion -- also went down on Wednesday. This follows Finland's December 2024 boarding of the Russian-linked oil tanker Eagle S, which investigators said damaged a power cable and multiple telecoms links using the same anchor-dragging method. A Finnish court in October dismissed criminal charges against the Eagle S crew after prosecutors failed to prove intent.

They should use the Hegseth Defense

[haruchai]

Sink 1st, investigate later

Re:

[Luckyo]

1. Boat way too big.
2. We grabbed a few of these boats in the past. Every single time, they got released because there was no evidence of it being intentional. Grab mainly facilitates insurance claim being processed.

Re: They should use the Hegseth Defense

[Lobotomy656]

So put them in jail for a decade and see if others are willing to join them. If we keep releasing criminals like this we will always be susceptible to sabotage. Call it what it is a hybrid war and treat those as war crimes. It's ridiculous that they are dragging anchors like this is something normal at sea and get away with it. They aren't dragging it from the port because they'd get stuck on something and had to cut it off, so they must drop it later near the cable. How is that for intent?

Re:

[Luckyo]

Put who in jail and based on what?

It is in fact normal for ships to have failures. The problem is that the area is shallow, has incredible amount of cables and a lot of traffic. Anchor failures aren't even close to being the worst in terms of misrepair in which most of the large cargo ships going around the world are. Just look at MV Dali.

Re: They should use the Hegseth Defense

[willy_me]

The problem is that the area is shallow, has incredible amount of cables and a lot of traffic.

I think it is safe to say that anchors being pulled along the bottom are the real problem. The physical situation might make this more likely, but the problem is still the anchors.

Anchor failures aren't even close to being the worst in terms of misrepair

You could be correct, but it doesn't have to be this way. Add monitoring to ensure an anchor is where it is supposed to be. Add additional safety measures. Fix the problem so it can not happen in the first place. The only reason why they have not is because failures don't cost much. But this can change.

If you want to stop the cables from breaking due to "failed" anchors -- make it so such events are treated more severely. No reason why Finland could not seize the ship and cargo until which time the ship owner pays for the damage. And until the ship owner pays the damage, no more sailing through Finish waters with any of their ships. Make it so expensive that "failed" anchors no longer occur.

Re:

[Luckyo]

It's worth noting that story itself is clickbait nonsense. There have been 4-5 damaged or broken cables in last few days in the region (depending on definition of damage you want to use). Because there's a lot of cables, and a lot of shipping in the area, and there's also been a pretty significant storm.

You only heard about this one, because it can generate clickbait about "Russians doing evil things". Others can't, so you don't hear about them.

And yes, "anchors damaging cables" is a problem. But there's a

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

The ship owner would just abandon it and maybe make an insurance claim.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence.
Any more is deliberate action.

These need to be made an example of, pour encourager les autres.

Re:

[Luckyo]

Then you'll have to make example of basically everyone. Because everyone's ships are in disrepair.

Again, remember MV Dali? Remember the NTSB report on its failures?

Now consider that this isn't really a ship that's in unusually bad shape. It passed many inspections.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Again for those who are slow on the uptake, you make an example of this captain to serve as a warning to others not drag anchor.
It doesn't matter if the cause was poor seamanship, insufficient maintenance, or deliberate sabotage; if the penalty was certain prison and ship confiscation, few would risk it.

Re:

[Luckyo]

Again, you cannot do that easily, because what will happen is insurance clubs raising rates massively for all YOUR traffic to compensate as you get classified as "elevated risk area" much greater than normal anchor damage.

Doing this would effectively screw over all traffic to relevant region's nations by making it much more expensive. And everyone in the region is dependent on sea traffic remaining cheap for core functionality of their national economies.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. So you filter out all the bad guys as their insurance gets too high. Competent or good guy shipowners don't have this problem. profits.

Re:

[africanrhino]

Jail? Nah , give them a Guinness.

Re:

[zeiche]

not a firm believer of due process, eh? perhaps ask chatgpt why it is so important, even when you ~know~ they’re guilty.

Re:

[haruchai]

nope not for everyone, especially intentional saboteurs of any kind.
this is effectively an act of undeclared war.
if they want due process at sea they should issue a prompt distress call to the closest country.
otherwise they can appeal to the pirates & the sharks for due process

Re:

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

It's happening in Finland, not in trumpistan.

Re:

[Hentes]

Even the US is boarding oil tankers instead of sinking them, that would be an ecological disaster.

Re:

[Slayer]

Ukraine has severely damaged some Russian shadow fleet tankers. If they are not loaded, it doesn't seem to be much of an "ecological disaster". If, however, a NATO member country overtly sinks a Russian ship, the resulting effects may be much, much worse than some local oil spill.

Re:

[unixisc]

Right, b'cos the marine life all know whether the damage was done by the lovely Ukrainians or evil Americans, and respond accordingly

Re:

[Slayer]

Could it be, that an empty oil tanker doesn't hold much oil and is therefore not such a big issue?

Re:

[unixisc]

Right, b'cos at a time of war, Ukrainians or other NATO determine whether a tanker is empty or not, before deciding whether or not to sink it?

Re:

[GameboyRMH]

Actually yes, Ukraine intentionally attacks shadow fleet tankers when they're empty to avoid environmental disasters.

Intent?

[Dan East]

A Finnish court in October dismissed criminal charges against the Eagle S crew after prosecutors failed to prove intent.

Intent should only determine the severity of the punishment, not whether they were guilty. If I accidentally run my car into the side of a building, catch the building on fire, and burn it down, I am still responsible for the damages caused, even if I did not intend to do it. Hopefully my insurance will cover it, but I am responsible.

Even if they did not INTEND to damage the undersea cable, the crew, owners, etc of that ship should still be completely responsible for the cost of the damages. If they are uninsured (shadow fleet type thing) or will not pay, then the ship should be seized to recoup the costs, which takes it out of commission as a future tool to cause damage, and at least someone should be held until the matter has been settled.

Re:

[Trip Ericson]

Right, but that's handled through civil court, not criminal court. You don't have to be guilty of a crime to be liable for damages.

Re:

[Dan East]

Correct, but civil is in ADDITION to criminal. If I run my car accidentally into a building, that is still reckless driving, failure to maintain control, etc, whether or not I intended to damage the building.

Re:

[Trip Ericson]

It's only criminal if a crime is committed. Is there a law that makes accidental damage to a cable illegal, or is intent required? The article on the case [reuters.com] makes it sound like the latter is covered by domestic Finnish law, and that the former are covered by a treaty and out of Finnish jurisdiction.

Re:

[test321]

It is not necessarily reckless driving. It could be a mechanical failure, a software upgrade that went bad, or it could be you threw yourself into the building wall to avoid a loose baby carriage. You're still civilly liable for the damage to the building (then your insurance company will claim the money back from the person or company at the origin of the problem but that's not your business).

Re:

[angel'o'sphere]

Depends on the accident.

There can be accidents without reckless driving.

The word "accident" actually implies that it was out of control of the involved parties. Does not mean it was not preventable, but at the time and point it happened, it was not preventable.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

There can be accidents without reckless driving.

Yes, but only caused by equipment failure, road failure, etc.

The word "accident" actually implies that it was out of control of the involved parties. Does not mean it was not preventable, but at the time and point it happened, it was not preventable.

The events leading up to the accident remain relevant, so that's irrelevant.

Re:

[Pascoea]

Intent is what defines the line between criminal or not. To take your car example further, there's a distinct difference between Careless Driving and Reckless Driving, and it's all about the circumstance. Did you know, or should you have known, that the way you're driving could cause harm? Or were you just driving a little too much like an asshole?

Speeding 10mph over in dry conditions and you pile into building? Probably going to net you a careless driving ticket, some nice fines, and a trip to civil cou

Re: Intent?

[jabuzz]

That's factual wrong. Manslaughter does not require intent, expect to spend a lengthy period of time behind bars if found guilty. It is common to hold people criminally responsible for the outcome of their actions even if there was no intent if the behaviour was reckless in nature. Dragging an anchor falls into that category IMHO

Re:

[Pascoea]

Of course killing someone is a different ballgame. I should have constrained my comment to the scope of property damage. Apologies.

I would tend to think intentionally dragging an anchor would fall under the "known or should have known it would cause harm" category, but I'm not an expert in maritime laws and practices, so I leave that analysis to those that are.

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

Welcome to maritime law which is intentionally convoluted so no one could ever be at fault. The ship is owned by one country, flies the flag of another, operated by a company in yet another country, and finally manned by a crew from who knows where. Who do you punish?

Re:

[angel'o'sphere]

The captain and the owner.

Does not matter what flags or crews etc.

Re: Intent?

[jabuzz]

No it does not. Manslaughter does not require intent but is still punished. In fact the difference between murder and manslaughter is intent you twit.

Re:

[angel'o'sphere]

Dismissing criminal charges does not mean they are not guilty or do not get punished, and/or do not pay for the damage.

Re:

[snarfaliptic]

Here in the US, not all criminal actions require mens rea for guilt to be found. No idea on Finnish law.

Re: Intent?

[jabuzz]

Manslaughter does not require intent you moron.

Re:

[Dozy Lizard]

A Finnish court in October dismissed criminal charges against the Eagle S crew after prosecutors failed to prove intent.

Intent should only determine the severity of the punishment, not whether they were guilty.

They were charged with crimes and intent is usually required (see Mens Rea [wikipedia.org]) to constitute a crime (although strict liability [wikipedia.org] offenses do exist). I know nothing about Finnish law but apparently what ever the crimes they were charged with did require intent.

Re:

[phantomfive]

Intent is taken into account or very important, depending how a particular law is written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

have not disclosed the ship's name, nationality

[QuietLagoon]

https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com] The seized cargo vessel "Fitburg" was en route from the Russian port of St Petersburg to Israel at the time of the incident, Finland's Border Guard authority told a press conference in Helsinki.

Chumps

[bradley13]

The problem is: the ship's crew are just chumps, doing something they were paid to do. Russia is almost certainly behind this, but...WTF can you do about it?