Crew of Russian 'shadow fleet' tanker charged with intentionally sabotaging undersea cables — Finnish authorities claim ship dragged its anchor 56 miles along the sea floor, causing $70 million in damage to five cables

Crude oil tanker Eagle S, Svartbäck anchoring site, Porvoo, Finland. December 31, 2024.
(Image credit: Htm, with Creative Commons license)

Crew members of the Eagle S oil tanker have been charged with “aggravated sabotage and aggravated interference with telecommunications” by Finnish authorities, reports The Guardian. Specifically, the captain, first, and second officers of the Eagle S are now in trouble with the long arm of Finnish law, over allegations they intentionally damaged five undersea cables by dragging their ship's anchor across the sea floor for over 50 miles.

Late last year, this oil tanker, thought to be operating as part of the Russian ‘shadow fleet,’ was suspected of being behind some high-profile internet cable sabotage that occurred in the Baltic Sea. There was a flurry of such damage in late 2024, with European politicians talking about Russia being engaged in ‘hybrid warfare.’ The 'shadow fleet' designation indicates the tanker, registered in the Cook Islands, is understood to be a Russian vessel sailing under a foreign flag to evade sanctions.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Mark Tyson
News Editor

Mark Tyson is a news editor at Tom's Hardware. He enjoys covering the full breadth of PC tech; from business and semiconductor design to products approaching the edge of reason.

  • bolweval
    they shouldn't have released the ship, they could have sold it to offset the cost of the damage...
    Reply
  • das_stig
    Agree, it's not like the Finns are cosy with Putin's genocidal criminal regime.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    bolweval said:
    they shouldn't have released the ship, they could have sold it to offset the cost of the damage...
    Probably gets into the weeds of maritime law and risks retaliation in kind.

    However, I'd expect they would still pursue its owner for damages. Then, if the owner wants to sell the vessel to cover the costs, that's entirely up to them.
    Reply
  • Rob1C
    bit_user said:
    Probably gets into the weeds of maritime law and risks retaliation in kind.

    However, I'd expect they would still pursue its owner for damages. Then, if the owner wants to sell the vessel to cover the costs, that's entirely up to them.
    Sounds like they wouldn't be able to agree to pay, and then retaliate without cause.

    Seizing the ship and assets, waiting for it to work it's way through the courts, and both rolling with and retaliating against the punches is one of the ways forward; the other is to essentially do nothing.

    You can hardly rely on voluntary repayment.


    About the only valid point is that there's lots of opportunities to retaliate, and it's difficult to monitor all the locations. Hard to prove that it was deliberate; that's why seizing assets and tying them up in court is about all you can do.

    You may lose more money, but it's a case of who can afford to lose the most; one can write off their loses, the other can not.

    When one country is allowed to break sanctions and buy Russian oil they are keeping each other in advantage to the other countries who do not. That's another avenue where pressure can be applied.

    Insights from Captain Obvious don't help, thinking outside the box is a well worn idea; but one that can work.
    Reply
  • trica
    If that could send down a drive or mini sub to take pictures and show the captain dragged the anchor for dozens of miles, that's a slam dunk that this damage was done on purpose. No ship drags a massive anchor for 50+ miles without noticing something is wrong, and beyond an emergency there is zero reason to drop anchor while the engines are still running.
    Reply
  • cbrad3690
    bolweval said:
    they shouldn't have released the ship, they could have sold it to offset the cost of the damage...
    I thought the crude that was on board would have covered that expense.
    Reply