Publicidad
Sabotage or accident? The cutting of critical undersea cables has sparked a heated debate between American and European officials, as they seek to uncover the truth behind this mysterious incident.
European officials are adamant in their belief that the disruption was the result of sabotage, pointing to a string of suspicious incidents across the continent that have been attributed to Russia. They have raised concerns about the possibility of this act being part of a larger “hybrid warfare” campaign orchestrated by Moscow.
In contrast, US officials are leaning towards the theory of an accidental occurrence, citing the possibility of anchor drag from passing vessels as the cause for the severed cables. Despite this, tensions remain high as both sides attempt to decipher the motives behind this potentially damaging event.
The cables in question were cut in the Baltic Sea within hours of each other, prompting swift reactions from European leaders. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius expressed disbelief that such an event could be accidental, echoing the sentiments of many across Europe who fear a deliberate act of disruption.
The foreign ministers of Finland and Germany issued a joint statement expressing serious concern over the incident, implying that it may be part of a larger campaign of aggression by Russia. This sentiment was fueled by a warning from the United States just weeks prior, cautioning of potential Russian threats to critical undersea infrastructure.
However, two US officials familiar with the ongoing investigation have indicated that there is no evidence of deliberate activity by Russia or any other nation. This discrepancy has only added to the confusion surrounding the incident, leaving many questions unanswered.
The Kremlin swiftly refuted any allegations of involvement in the cable cutting, dismissing the accusations as baseless and laughable. Despite this denial, law enforcement agencies in Finland and Sweden have initiated investigations into the incident, with suspicions pointing towards intentional sabotage.
Of particular interest to investigators is a Chinese-flagged vessel named Yi Peng 3, which was in the vicinity of both cable cuttings at the time of the incidents. Tracking data indicates that the ship crossed both cables around the time they were severed, raising suspicions about its potential involvement.
The vessel had recently departed from a Russian port and had been moored for a period of time, further adding to its suspicious nature. Danish authorities confirmed their presence near the Yi Peng 3 but did not disclose any further actions taken against the ship.
While the US and Western intelligence officials have identified the Yi Peng 3 as the most probable vessel involved in the incident, no concrete connections to any specific state or entity have been established. Cinia, the Finnish telecom provider, revised the location of the cable cut to align with the trajectory of the Chinese vessel, further intensifying scrutiny on Yi Peng 3.
Despite these developments, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian maintained that China adheres to international laws and regulations governing maritime activities. He emphasized China’s commitment to the safety of undersea infrastructure and collaboration with the international community on such matters.
As the investigation continues and tensions escalate between American and European officials, the truth behind the severed undersea cables remains shrouded in mystery. The repercussions of this incident could have far-reaching consequences on international relations and the security of critical infrastructure, underscoring the importance of a thorough and transparent investigation to reveal the truth behind this disruption.
