By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Rostelecom, Russia’s state-controlled telecoms giant, reported damage to its Baltic Sea underwater cable caused by an “external impact.” Repair efforts are underway, with the company assuring that service disruptions to consumers have been avoided. This incident follows a series of similar cable cuts in the Baltic, prompting accusations of Russian-orchestrated hybrid warfare against Ukraine’s Western allies. The nature of the “external impact” remains unconfirmed.
Read the original article here
Russia’s claim that a Baltic Sea cable suffered damage from an “external impact” has sparked a wave of skepticism and speculation. The vagueness of the statement itself raises immediate red flags. It’s a phrase that feels designed to be as ambiguous as possible, leaving room for multiple interpretations, and potentially obscuring the true cause of the damage.
The sheer improbability of a submarine cable spontaneously damaging itself is a point many have highlighted. These cables are robustly engineered for underwater conditions and are not prone to self-destruction. An external force is, therefore, almost certainly the cause. The implication of an accident, however, feels unconvincing given the context.
The suggestion of an accident, perhaps involving a dragging anchor, is countered by the suspicion that this explanation might serve as cover for a more nefarious operation. The possibility of a covert Russian action, intentionally targeting cables, is a compelling alternative. This theory is fueled by the history of similar incidents and the overall geopolitical climate.
Another interpretation posits the damage as accidental self-inflicted harm. A clumsy maneuver during a separate operation targeting other cables could easily result in collateral damage to their own infrastructure. This aligns with the idea of incompetence and a lack of precision. The suggestion of this being a case of “poetic justice” or “karma” is a common sentiment, highlighting the ironic nature of the situation if the damage is indeed self-inflicted.
The idea that the statement itself is a form of gaslighting, attempting to control the narrative and deflect attention, is hard to dismiss. The seemingly casual and unconcerned nature of the announcement adds to this suspicion. It’s reminiscent of an arson investigator already smelling of smoke arriving at the scene of a fire. The whole situation raises serious questions about transparency and the true intentions behind the official Russian statement.
The lack of detail surrounding the cable – its purpose, location, and ownership – further fuels the mystery. If it’s a communication cable, the damage would have significant consequences for Russia’s connectivity. If it’s a power cable, the impact could be even more disruptive. If it’s completely inconsequential, why issue a statement at all? This only strengthens the belief that there’s a deliberate attempt to mislead.
The numerous humorous and sarcastic comments online highlight the widespread disbelief surrounding Russia’s explanation. The recurring joke about the cable “falling out of a window” underscores the absurdity of the situation and highlights the general lack of trust in the Russian government’s narrative. It’s a convenient, if outlandish, way of framing the issue that allows for dismissal of the claim and casts doubt on the entire official story.
Many people also suspect that the statement is part of a broader disinformation campaign, a common tactic in Russia’s playbook. By normalizing such incidents, they aim to make any future similar events easily dismissed, potentially covering up more serious actions. The statement’s vagueness and lack of detail are, in this context, not accidental but deliberate, designed to create a smokescreen.
Ultimately, the ambiguity surrounding the damaged Baltic Sea cable and the official Russian statement leave more questions than answers. Without further independent verification and a transparent investigation, the most plausible explanation remains a shrouded one, with the possibility of deliberate obfuscation from Russia. The lack of clarity and the suspicious nature of the explanation only fuel skepticism and reinforce existing perceptions of Russia’s actions. The whole affair points towards a deliberate attempt to conceal the truth, either through incompetence or calculated deception.