The likelihood of a knowingly sham/setup investigation is in that paragraph. Plenty of reasons to drop anchor (storm, port not ready to unload you), and to not care whether your anchor is dragging or not.
The inherent problem with an investigation is whether NAFO is more motivated to blame Russia for it, than Russia is motivated to cut cables. There would seem to be zero motive for Russia or China or ship owner to cut EU communication cables. The usual demonism to fabricate a narrative that promotes more war.
Except in hybrid warfare, acts of sabotage to important infrastructure is an important aspect.
Compared to the BS agitation that will follow a narrative similar to JFK/9-11 “investigations” this would always be suspect as a black flag to create the narrative, or the more simpler cover up to form a narrative independent of truth. Dreaming that Russia has begun in warfare against EU is a symptom of the hatred behind the narrative. The absurd official nordstream narrative has Ukraine destroying major EU infrastructure, even as it is obvious US or sycophants did it. Investigations done in the papers are immediately political, and the narrative is going to be demonic. Russia doesn’t care about these cables should be the overriding common sense in following the political stunt of an investigation, from nations who have already fully committed to demonism.
Yes, it’s more likely it’s an accident than someone coming up with an idea to cut one of many undersea cables using an off the shelf anchor – something undersea cables are hardened against depending on the company that produced them. We’ve had undersea communication lines for more than a hundred and fifty years now, we’ve had anchors for longer than that. The former was designed to withstand the latter.
Also the attack serves no purpose as many have pointed out. There are literally hundreds of routes, dozens of other cables under water. At most this costs a random company — not country, company a few hundred thousand euros worth of replacement cabling for such a short distance… What’s the literal point? It’s not particularly expensive venture, it’s not going to cripple anything, it doesnt affect the countries involved just entities within them… What is the motive?
Could be an accident if this ship is involved. Could be a distinct sabotage operation to frame the ship, or suggest other accusations if it hadn’t been around. I don’t understand “forensic evidence” of the anchor being dragged recently or recent hull “damage.” The drive for a narrative is not going to care about the truth. Which I’m not saying I (will) know either.
The likelihood of a knowingly sham/setup investigation is in that paragraph. Plenty of reasons to drop anchor (storm, port not ready to unload you), and to not care whether your anchor is dragging or not.
The inherent problem with an investigation is whether NAFO is more motivated to blame Russia for it, than Russia is motivated to cut cables. There would seem to be zero motive for Russia or China or ship owner to cut EU communication cables. The usual demonism to fabricate a narrative that promotes more war.
Except in hybrid warfare, acts of sabotage to important infrastructure is an important aspect.
Turning off transponder is suspect and all those other “reasons” can be easily verified with the ships logs and weather information.
Compared to the BS agitation that will follow a narrative similar to JFK/9-11 “investigations” this would always be suspect as a black flag to create the narrative, or the more simpler cover up to form a narrative independent of truth. Dreaming that Russia has begun in warfare against EU is a symptom of the hatred behind the narrative. The absurd official nordstream narrative has Ukraine destroying major EU infrastructure, even as it is obvious US or sycophants did it. Investigations done in the papers are immediately political, and the narrative is going to be demonic. Russia doesn’t care about these cables should be the overriding common sense in following the political stunt of an investigation, from nations who have already fully committed to demonism.
So… it was an accident? Or what are you saying is the cause?
Yes, it’s more likely it’s an accident than someone coming up with an idea to cut one of many undersea cables using an off the shelf anchor – something undersea cables are hardened against depending on the company that produced them. We’ve had undersea communication lines for more than a hundred and fifty years now, we’ve had anchors for longer than that. The former was designed to withstand the latter.
Also the attack serves no purpose as many have pointed out. There are literally hundreds of routes, dozens of other cables under water. At most this costs a random company — not country, company a few hundred thousand euros worth of replacement cabling for such a short distance… What’s the literal point? It’s not particularly expensive venture, it’s not going to cripple anything, it doesnt affect the countries involved just entities within them… What is the motive?
Could be an accident if this ship is involved. Could be a distinct sabotage operation to frame the ship, or suggest other accusations if it hadn’t been around. I don’t understand “forensic evidence” of the anchor being dragged recently or recent hull “damage.” The drive for a narrative is not going to care about the truth. Which I’m not saying I (will) know either.