7 ms·

How are there suddenly lots of these kind of accidents out of nowhere? I understand pro-Russian outlets want people to believe that, but I find it very hard to

by mcv 2y ago

How are there suddenly lots of these kind of accidents out of nowhere? I understand pro-Russian outlets want people to believe that, but I find it very hard to believe that intelligence agencies would honestly believe that. Personally I think nations on the Baltic should simply ban Russian or Russian-originating ships from their waters. And if they really want to pretend these "accidents" are caused by a sudden use of inexperienced crews, set some standards for crew training and expertise for ships sailing through their waters. Require them to hire experienced crew that know these waters well. Inspect them at the very least. Just allowing the sabotage to continue is a bad idea.

BrandoElFollito 2y ago
The national waters are a few hundred nautical miles wide, they do not cover all of the sea. I guess international waters is where the incidents happen.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  The territorial sea is 12nmi (22km) from the coast. Even where this covers the whole distance (e.g. Denmark and Sweden) foreign ships still have the right to pass through. You are thinking of the EEZ, exclusive economic zone, but that's only the rights for fishing and mining and so on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
- mcv 2y ago
  Yeah, but ships can't get to the center of the Baltic without passing through the national waters of Denmark, Finland or Estonia. Current treaties allow all ships through those waters, but if that access is abused for sabotage, maybe it's time to revisit the treaties.
  - cocodill 2y ago
    Be careful what you wish for. Blocking the waterways would provide Russia with a legitimate reason for war or at least lead to a resolution of the blockade with force. That is insane. Nobody even considered that during the Cold War. If the damage to the cables wasn't an accident, the damage was pretty minor. This is in no way comparable to the blowing up of the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which was certainly not an accident.
    - jajko 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - cocodill 2y ago
        It's a common misconception that they don't care about legitimacy. I believe this is what is delaying any negotiations to end the conflict. Just as ridiculous is the story of the conquest, the one my teachers used to scare me with in school, and my parents their teachers, and probably my grandparents their teachers too.
    - Hamuko 2y ago
      What legitimate reason they had in Ukraine?
    - wasmitnetzen 2y ago
      The Cold War was, well, cold. The war in Ukraine isn't.
      - cocodill 2y ago
        May be, but Ukraine does not control the straits, is not a member of the European Union, and is not yet the 51st US state. Other European countries are unfortunately or fortunately only in a state of cold war for the time being.
        rightbyte 2y ago
        I don't think we could comment on HN if that was not the case.
    - mcv 2y ago
      I'm not sure legitimacy matters here. Their war in Ukraine is not legitimate, but that's not stopping them. And a legitimate reason to attack a NATO country does not mean they will. Keep in mind that Russia has also blocked sea traffic to and from Ukraine. And it is kinda weird to sanction a country because of its illegitimate war, while still letting their ships through your waters. And it's not like Russia has no other access to the sea.
- belorn 2y ago
  The rights that UN provide for international waters is under the condition that nations, for which the ship flags under, protects undersea cables (among other things). International waters are not a free-for-all space where anything goes.
  - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
    Would you know if, when the conditions are not respected, the owner of the cables could actively counter the activities? It would be a ship of a country vs a ship of another country on international waters. (I am wondering about that in the context of the international law.)
    - nradov 2y ago
      Well that's more of a political question. Nothing in the treaty explicitly states what a nation can do if another nation's merchant vessel appears to be intentionally damaging property. So then it becomes a matter of whether they want to escalate the situation, or pursue an international legal case, or retaliate clandestinely, or some other option.
biomene 2y ago
The reason for these accidents to happen more frequently is explained in the WaPo article linked by the parent: Russia is smuggling oil out via the Baltic to fund the war, and it's hard to find experienced crews for these smuggling operations: > 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.” The last thing Russia wants is to draw attention to the boats it's using to keep its economy afloat. These seamen really didn't know what they were doing.
- nradov 2y ago
  That is not a plausible explanation. Even inexperienced crews don't accidentally drop anchor. This requires a specific set of actions by a crewman on the bow. It's not like just pushing a button.
  - ahahahahah 2y ago
    > This requires a specific set of actions by a crewman on the bow. That's not true. While well maintained equipment would require a specific action, it is not uncommon for accidental anchor drops to happen, typically due to poorly or improperly maintained equipment. It's also common that ship is unaware that it has dropped the anchor (depending on the depth of the water, the anchor may not even have much effect, but even if it does it's not always identified). For example, here's a report from a US based ship accidentally dragging anchor for a couple days: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MAB1912.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...
  - mcv 2y ago
    I thought so too, but apparently anchors are a significant cause of cable damage, and were so well before the war in Ukraine. I don't know why anchors are such a problem, but apparently they are.
    - willvarfar 2y ago
      Near anchorages there are lots of signs showing where cables land so boats can avoid dropping their anchors on them. Yet still it happens. Anchors are something you drop when stationary or nearly stationary in order to stay stationary. They aren't something you drop accidentally as you are going along. So legitimate accidental anchor damage is generally close shore.
ANewFormation 2y ago
It turns out that these incidents are actually incredibly common [1], about once every 3 days. But 'undersea line disrupted temporarily in mundane way' wasn't exactly international news until it could be tied into geopolitics. [1] - https://blog.telegeography.com/what-happens-when-submarine-cables-break https://blog.telegeography.com/what-happens-when-submarine-c... (telecoms intel service/site)
- Sabinus 2y ago
  25 a year due to 'Anchorage' according to the image in your source. That's once every 14.6 days, worldwide.
  - ANewFormation 2y ago
    Yeah I was considering all issues rather than just anchor. Another source [1] gives 100-200 incidents per year with 16% as anchorage, so 25 a year (from anchors alone) is probably a safe estimate. I think most of us thought these incidents were exceptionally rare, so a recurring pattern of incidents itself would be suggestive of nefarious behavior. 'Oddly' enough the frequency datum was omitted from seemingly every single article on this topic. [1] - https://www.iscpc.org/publications/submarine-cable-protection-and-the-environment/ICPC_Public_EU_March%202021.pdf https://www.iscpc.org/publications/submarine-cable-protectio...
  - mcv 2y ago
    This is a fair point. Turns out dragging anchors are a lot more common than I expected. I guess what matters is whether these cable breaks in the Baltic are statistically significant.
  - capitainenemo 2y ago
    I have to think that some areas are more impacted than others. Say, shallow china sea area in asia with lot of small fisherman using drag nets and anchors and ignoring cable locations.. It'd be good to know what the frequency is in the baltic area and if this is abnormal. Seems the locals think it is.
diggan 2y ago
> Personally I think nations on the Baltic should simply ban Russian or Russian-originating ships from their waters Last incident involved a Bulgarian ship that was Maltese-flagged. Before that it was a Chinese ship I think. I don't even Russia would be stupid enough to send Russian ships to do Russian sabotage, but maybe I underestimate their willingness to "show off". > Just allowing the sabotage to continue is a bad idea. Plenty of information to learn by not run into situations without observing the behavior first. It seems like the last incident they were watching on standby as soon as they dropped their anchor, but they were standing by and observing until they tried to dock.
dijit 2y ago
> How are there suddenly lots of these kind of accidents out of nowhere? Two things to temper this mentality: 1) It is possible that we are seeing more news of this because it’s politicised, even if it is as common as before. 2) It is possible that there are more ships using this route as land traffic is stymied by sanctions from the Eurozone. Not making any statement, just steelmanning opposition to the statement you made.
- mantas 2y ago
  Those cables are becoming more interesting as Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia are about to switch from soviet-era electric grids network controlled in Russia to european grids network.
amiga386 2y ago
> simply I honestly think anyone using the words "simply" or "just" doesn't know enough about a situation. > ban Russian Do you mean the nationality of the ship's flag state, owner, beneficiary owner, constructor, charterer, captain, any of the crew, the origin of any of its cargo? I'm not an expert in shipping and I've probably missed a few other sources of nationality. The point I'd like to get across is that merchant ships are very international. Unlike warships, which are built, owned and operated by a specific nation's navy, there is rarely a specific nationality merchant ship. If your nation bans merchant ships (based on some specific criteria), all it means is they get fewer goods by sea and they'll be more expensive. A specific nation's maritime interests are chiefly that any merchant ships get to and from them, as well as their explicit warships having passage. This issue is about cable damage by the Chinese-owned, currently (but not formerly) Chinese-flagged, Chinese-built, Chinese-captained merchant ship the Yi Peng 3. Some nations accuse it of committing sabotage, for which they don't have hard evidence, and they don't accuse China, they accuse Russia, and they claim that somehow the evil Russians influenced the Chinese captain, or one of the crew, to drag their anchor on the seabed. But only after they departed a Russian port... even though these nations' evidence is supposedly encrypted transmissions between the ship and Russia, which could also have been sent before docking in Russia... or even sent to any ship in the area, including ones not docking in Russia. Any nation can send messages to any ship, regardless of who owns, runs or hires it. > or Russian-originating ships Do you mean a full naval blockade of Kaliningrad and Leningrad oblasts? By who? All of Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden and Finland? That'd be enormous, hard to enforce, and would almost certainly be taken as a declaration of war. Or were you imagining just a blockade of the Baltic Straits by Denmark, in violation of the Copenhagen Convention of 1857? The last time the straits were shut was by the Nazis when they occupied Denmark, because they were at war with most other nations. Or do you mean, by "Russian-originating", any ship that has docked at any Russian port in its recent history? Merchant shipping is the Amazon delivery of the sea, they just keep going, taking on cargo and offloading it in different countries on the most cost-effective route possible. > set some standards for crew training and expertise Already exists: the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STCW_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STCW_Convention > Inspect them at the very least Already the power and duty of harbourmasters, and a ship can already be stopped or escorted by a nation's navy if it's in their exclusive economic area or territorial waters.
slashdev 2y ago
Why don’t they bill the repairs plus a fine to the ship’s owner. If they don’t pay, sell the the ship to cover it. I bet it will stop real quick.
- permo-w 2y ago
  I am not a shipping lawyer, but, assuming this happened in international waters, my guess is that there is probably already some set-in-stone maritime law in place that covers scenarios like this, and one that probably isn't modifiable by mere national governments. This is complete speculation though.
  - slashdev 2y ago
    That wouldn’t surprise me. Doesn’t mean you can’t do it, just that people will object - but not likely with actions, just words, which can be ignored.
- mcv 2y ago
  It's entirely possible that the owner of the ship is some fake company that only exists to own this particular ship, and the company will vanish if there are fines to be paid. There's still a lot of shadiness in international shipping.
  - slashdev 2y ago
    I guess that would be a seize and sell the ship outcome then
    - Lio 2y ago
      That's a dangerous precedent to set. The initial claims might be legitimate but I worry that trumped up claims would soon escalate into an excuse for state sponsored piracy from other parties.
      - slashdev 2y ago

by mcv 2y ago

BrandoElFollito 2y ago

The national waters are a few hundred nautical miles wide, they do not cover all of the sea. I guess international waters is where the incidents happen.

Symbiote 2y ago
The territorial sea is 12nmi (22km) from the coast. Even where this covers the whole distance (e.g. Denmark and Sweden) foreign ships still have the right to pass through. You are thinking of the EEZ, exclusive economic zone, but that's only the rights for fishing and mining and so on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
mcv 2y ago
Yeah, but ships can't get to the center of the Baltic without passing through the national waters of Denmark, Finland or Estonia. Current treaties allow all ships through those waters, but if that access is abused for sabotage, maybe it's time to revisit the treaties.
- cocodill 2y ago
  Be careful what you wish for. Blocking the waterways would provide Russia with a legitimate reason for war or at least lead to a resolution of the blockade with force. That is insane. Nobody even considered that during the Cold War. If the damage to the cables wasn't an accident, the damage was pretty minor. This is in no way comparable to the blowing up of the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which was certainly not an accident.
  - jajko 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - cocodill 2y ago
      It's a common misconception that they don't care about legitimacy. I believe this is what is delaying any negotiations to end the conflict. Just as ridiculous is the story of the conquest, the one my teachers used to scare me with in school, and my parents their teachers, and probably my grandparents their teachers too.
  - Hamuko 2y ago
    What legitimate reason they had in Ukraine?
  - wasmitnetzen 2y ago
    The Cold War was, well, cold. The war in Ukraine isn't.
    - cocodill 2y ago
      May be, but Ukraine does not control the straits, is not a member of the European Union, and is not yet the 51st US state. Other European countries are unfortunately or fortunately only in a state of cold war for the time being.
      - rightbyte 2y ago
        I don't think we could comment on HN if that was not the case.
  - mcv 2y ago
    I'm not sure legitimacy matters here. Their war in Ukraine is not legitimate, but that's not stopping them. And a legitimate reason to attack a NATO country does not mean they will. Keep in mind that Russia has also blocked sea traffic to and from Ukraine. And it is kinda weird to sanction a country because of its illegitimate war, while still letting their ships through your waters. And it's not like Russia has no other access to the sea.
belorn 2y ago
The rights that UN provide for international waters is under the condition that nations, for which the ship flags under, protects undersea cables (among other things). International waters are not a free-for-all space where anything goes.
- BrandoElFollito 2y ago
  Would you know if, when the conditions are not respected, the owner of the cables could actively counter the activities? It would be a ship of a country vs a ship of another country on international waters. (I am wondering about that in the context of the international law.)
  - nradov 2y ago
    Well that's more of a political question. Nothing in the treaty explicitly states what a nation can do if another nation's merchant vessel appears to be intentionally damaging property. So then it becomes a matter of whether they want to escalate the situation, or pursue an international legal case, or retaliate clandestinely, or some other option.

biomene 2y ago

The reason for these accidents to happen more frequently is explained in the WaPo article linked by the parent: Russia is smuggling oil out via the Baltic to fund the war, and it's hard to find experienced crews for these smuggling operations: > 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.” The last thing Russia wants is to draw attention to the boats it's using to keep its economy afloat. These seamen really didn't know what they were doing.

nradov 2y ago
That is not a plausible explanation. Even inexperienced crews don't accidentally drop anchor. This requires a specific set of actions by a crewman on the bow. It's not like just pushing a button.
- ahahahahah 2y ago
  > This requires a specific set of actions by a crewman on the bow. That's not true. While well maintained equipment would require a specific action, it is not uncommon for accidental anchor drops to happen, typically due to poorly or improperly maintained equipment. It's also common that ship is unaware that it has dropped the anchor (depending on the depth of the water, the anchor may not even have much effect, but even if it does it's not always identified). For example, here's a report from a US based ship accidentally dragging anchor for a couple days: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MAB1912.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...
- mcv 2y ago
  I thought so too, but apparently anchors are a significant cause of cable damage, and were so well before the war in Ukraine. I don't know why anchors are such a problem, but apparently they are.
  - willvarfar 2y ago
    Near anchorages there are lots of signs showing where cables land so boats can avoid dropping their anchors on them. Yet still it happens. Anchors are something you drop when stationary or nearly stationary in order to stay stationary. They aren't something you drop accidentally as you are going along. So legitimate accidental anchor damage is generally close shore.

ANewFormation 2y ago

It turns out that these incidents are actually incredibly common [1], about once every 3 days. But 'undersea line disrupted temporarily in mundane way' wasn't exactly international news until it could be tied into geopolitics. [1] - https://blog.telegeography.com/what-happens-when-submarine-cables-break https://blog.telegeography.com/what-happens-when-submarine-c... (telecoms intel service/site)

Sabinus 2y ago
25 a year due to 'Anchorage' according to the image in your source. That's once every 14.6 days, worldwide.
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  Yeah I was considering all issues rather than just anchor. Another source [1] gives 100-200 incidents per year with 16% as anchorage, so 25 a year (from anchors alone) is probably a safe estimate. I think most of us thought these incidents were exceptionally rare, so a recurring pattern of incidents itself would be suggestive of nefarious behavior. 'Oddly' enough the frequency datum was omitted from seemingly every single article on this topic. [1] - https://www.iscpc.org/publications/submarine-cable-protection-and-the-environment/ICPC_Public_EU_March%202021.pdf https://www.iscpc.org/publications/submarine-cable-protectio...
- mcv 2y ago
  This is a fair point. Turns out dragging anchors are a lot more common than I expected. I guess what matters is whether these cable breaks in the Baltic are statistically significant.
- capitainenemo 2y ago
  I have to think that some areas are more impacted than others. Say, shallow china sea area in asia with lot of small fisherman using drag nets and anchors and ignoring cable locations.. It'd be good to know what the frequency is in the baltic area and if this is abnormal. Seems the locals think it is.

diggan 2y ago

> Personally I think nations on the Baltic should simply ban Russian or Russian-originating ships from their waters Last incident involved a Bulgarian ship that was Maltese-flagged. Before that it was a Chinese ship I think. I don't even Russia would be stupid enough to send Russian ships to do Russian sabotage, but maybe I underestimate their willingness to "show off". > Just allowing the sabotage to continue is a bad idea. Plenty of information to learn by not run into situations without observing the behavior first. It seems like the last incident they were watching on standby as soon as they dropped their anchor, but they were standing by and observing until they tried to dock.

dijit 2y ago

> How are there suddenly lots of these kind of accidents out of nowhere? Two things to temper this mentality: 1) It is possible that we are seeing more news of this because it’s politicised, even if it is as common as before. 2) It is possible that there are more ships using this route as land traffic is stymied by sanctions from the Eurozone. Not making any statement, just steelmanning opposition to the statement you made.

mantas 2y ago
Those cables are becoming more interesting as Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia are about to switch from soviet-era electric grids network controlled in Russia to european grids network.

amiga386 2y ago

> simply I honestly think anyone using the words "simply" or "just" doesn't know enough about a situation. > ban Russian Do you mean the nationality of the ship's flag state, owner, beneficiary owner, constructor, charterer, captain, any of the crew, the origin of any of its cargo? I'm not an expert in shipping and I've probably missed a few other sources of nationality. The point I'd like to get across is that merchant ships are very international. Unlike warships, which are built, owned and operated by a specific nation's navy, there is rarely a specific nationality merchant ship. If your nation bans merchant ships (based on some specific criteria), all it means is they get fewer goods by sea and they'll be more expensive. A specific nation's maritime interests are chiefly that any merchant ships get to and from them, as well as their explicit warships having passage. This issue is about cable damage by the Chinese-owned, currently (but not formerly) Chinese-flagged, Chinese-built, Chinese-captained merchant ship the Yi Peng 3. Some nations accuse it of committing sabotage, for which they don't have hard evidence, and they don't accuse China, they accuse Russia, and they claim that somehow the evil Russians influenced the Chinese captain, or one of the crew, to drag their anchor on the seabed. But only after they departed a Russian port... even though these nations' evidence is supposedly encrypted transmissions between the ship and Russia, which could also have been sent before docking in Russia... or even sent to any ship in the area, including ones not docking in Russia. Any nation can send messages to any ship, regardless of who owns, runs or hires it. > or Russian-originating ships Do you mean a full naval blockade of Kaliningrad and Leningrad oblasts? By who? All of Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden and Finland? That'd be enormous, hard to enforce, and would almost certainly be taken as a declaration of war. Or were you imagining just a blockade of the Baltic Straits by Denmark, in violation of the Copenhagen Convention of 1857? The last time the straits were shut was by the Nazis when they occupied Denmark, because they were at war with most other nations. Or do you mean, by "Russian-originating", any ship that has docked at any Russian port in its recent history? Merchant shipping is the Amazon delivery of the sea, they just keep going, taking on cargo and offloading it in different countries on the most cost-effective route possible. > set some standards for crew training and expertise Already exists: the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STCW_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STCW_Convention > Inspect them at the very least Already the power and duty of harbourmasters, and a ship can already be stopped or escorted by a nation's navy if it's in their exclusive economic area or territorial waters.

slashdev 2y ago

Why don’t they bill the repairs plus a fine to the ship’s owner. If they don’t pay, sell the the ship to cover it. I bet it will stop real quick.

permo-w 2y ago
I am not a shipping lawyer, but, assuming this happened in international waters, my guess is that there is probably already some set-in-stone maritime law in place that covers scenarios like this, and one that probably isn't modifiable by mere national governments. This is complete speculation though.
- slashdev 2y ago
  That wouldn’t surprise me. Doesn’t mean you can’t do it, just that people will object - but not likely with actions, just words, which can be ignored.
mcv 2y ago
It's entirely possible that the owner of the ship is some fake company that only exists to own this particular ship, and the company will vanish if there are fines to be paid. There's still a lot of shadiness in international shipping.
- slashdev 2y ago
  I guess that would be a seize and sell the ship outcome then
  - Lio 2y ago
    That's a dangerous precedent to set. The initial claims might be legitimate but I worry that trumped up claims would soon escalate into an excuse for state sponsored piracy from other parties.
    - slashdev 2y ago