Undersea cables: A hidden war beneath the waves? | Mapped Out

Undersea Cables: Geopolitical Fault Lines

Key Concepts: Undersea cables, Baltic Sea, sabotage, Russia, NATO, hybrid warfare, critical infrastructure, Eagle S, shadow fleet, Baltic Energy Independence Day, international law, threshold for act of war.

1. The Vulnerability of Undersea Cables

• Main Point: Undersea cables, crucial for global internet traffic (nearly 1.5 million kilometers), are vulnerable to damage and potential sabotage.
• Details: These "thin garden hoses" on the seabed are susceptible to both accidental damage and intentional attacks.
• Example: Incidents in the Baltic Sea involving damage to internet cables, power cables, and pipelines connecting NATO states.

2. Suspicious Incidents in the Baltic Sea

• Main Point: A series of incidents in the Baltic Sea since 2023 raise concerns about potential sabotage targeting undersea infrastructure.
• Case Study: The Eagle S:
  • Cargo ship Eagle S suspected of dragging its anchor over the seabed for 100 km, severing cables.
  • The ship slowed down near the Estlink 2 power cable (Finland-Estonia) coinciding with a power outage.
  • Finnish authorities boarded the Eagle S and recovered its damaged anchor.
  • The Eagle S only transported Russian goods, including oil, in 2024, allegedly part of Russia's shadow fleet.
  • Reportedly equipped with spy equipment capable of monitoring NATO ships and aircraft.
• Other Incidents: Damage to communication cables connecting Lithuania to Gotland (Sweden) and Finland to Germany, also suspected to be caused by ships dragging anchors.
• Nord Stream Pipelines: In 2022, the Nord Stream gas pipelines were damaged in explosions, with investigations linking the incident to Ukrainian nationals (though Ukrainian officials deny involvement). Traces of explosives were found, confirming deliberate sabotage.
• Accidents vs. Sabotage: While accidents (up to 200 per year) are common, the Baltic Sea's shallow depth and heavy ship traffic make it a prime location to disguise sabotage as accidents.

3. The Geopolitical Context: Russia and NATO in the Baltic Sea

• Main Point: The Baltic Sea is a region of heightened tension between Russia and NATO, making it a potential arena for hybrid warfare tactics.
• Katarzyna Zysk's Perspective: The Baltic Sea is a focal point due to the Russian war in Ukraine and increased tensions between Russia and NATO. Finland and Sweden joining NATO has shifted the balance of power.
• Military Activities: Both NATO and Russia conduct naval drills in the Baltic Sea, showcasing military power.
• Kaliningrad: Home to Russia's Baltic fleet.
• Katja Bego's Perspective: Undersea cables were built in an era of peace and not designed to withstand deliberate attacks.

4. Russia's Means and Motives

• Means:
  • Shadow Fleet: Russia uses unregistered tankers to circumvent Western sanctions on oil.
  • Spying: Russia has been mapping undersea infrastructure for at least two decades.
• Motives:
  • Baltic Energy Independence Day: Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia disconnecting from Russia's grid and joining the European energy system, relying on undersea cables.
  • Punishing the Baltics: Russia may have an interest in slowing down or punishing the Baltic republics for reducing their dependence on Russia.
• Russia's Denial: Russia denies any involvement in incidents in the Baltic Sea and the existence of a shadow fleet.
• Hybrid Warfare: Attacking critical infrastructure is part of Russian military doctrine.
• Signaling: Cutting cables could be a signal of capability to harm, creating fear and chaos.

5. NATO's Response: Baltic Sentry

• Main Point: NATO has launched "Baltic Sentry" to protect infrastructure in the Baltic Sea, but monitoring the entire area is nearly impossible.
• Actions: Increased patrols with airplanes and warships.
• Signaling: Sending a message that threats to infrastructure will have consequences, including boarding, impounding, and arrest.
• Legal Challenges:
  • International Law: Difficult to interfere with foreign ships in international waters based on suspicion alone.
  • Territorial Waters: States have jurisdiction within their territorial waters.
• Finnish Authorities' Actions: Boarding and bringing the Eagle S into their waters, which is technically not compliant with international law.

6. Ambiguity and the "Quiet War"

• Main Point: The ambiguity surrounding the incidents in the Baltic Sea may be part of Russia's strategy in a "quiet war" below the threshold of traditional conflict.
• Testing Reactions: Russia may be testing NATO's reactions and thresholds.
• Threshold for Act of War: Discussions within NATO about when damage to critical infrastructure constitutes an act of war, with no shared agreement on the "red line."

7. Conclusion

Undersea cables, while essential for global connectivity, have become geopolitical fault lines. The incidents in the Baltic Sea highlight the vulnerability of this infrastructure and the potential for hybrid warfare tactics. While attributing blame and proving intent is difficult, the events underscore the need for increased vigilance, international cooperation, and a clear understanding of the thresholds that could trigger a more significant conflict.