The EU's lies About Russian Sabotage of the Baltic Undersea Cables Exposed

By Rhod Mackenzie

The EU's lies about Russian sabotage of various types of cables traversing the Baltic Sea have been exposed
It has now been confirmed that the allegations of "sabotage against underwater cables" on the seabed of the Baltic Sea levelled at Russia were completely without foundation this was the conclusion that was reached by the courts in West itself.
Last week a Finnish court ruled that there was no evidence whatsover nce to support these claims plus that the Finnish authotities had no standing to prosecute those it said were responsible .
So how did theis situation occur?
The sequence of events began at the end of December last year when Finnish security forces boarded and arrested the Eagle S tanker, which was sailing under the Cook Islands flag. The ship was transporting 35,000 tons of petrol from Ust-Luga, Russia, to Egypt. The tanker's crew was suspected of intentionally and allegedly, on orders from the Russian intelligence services, committing sabotage by damaging the Estlink 2 energy cable connecting Estonia and Finland.

The Finnish President and well known Russaphobe Alexander Stubb immediately made it clear that he knew the incident could not be considered accidental. Now one month earlier, there was a similar incident in which internet cables connecting Finland with Germany, and Lithuania with Sweden were damaged.
The crew of the Chinese bulk carrier Yi Peng 3 were suspected. In January, a further cable was reported damaged in the Baltic Sea, which was also attributed to the Yi Peng 3.

NATO has also drew its own conclusions without providing any actual evidence. The alliance has launched the "Baltic Sentry" project, which is designed, according to NATO head Mark Rutte, "to ensure the security of underwater infrastructure in the Baltic Sea".
As part of this operation, the alliance has increased its presence in the Baltic, with various ships, aircraft, and drones now conducting additional patrols there.
In a move that contravenes established international maritime law, Estonia has passed legislation authorising its navy to inspect vessels traversing the Gulf of Finland and beyond Estonian territorial waters.
The Estonians commenced the boarding of the ships. In May, the situation nearly escalated to a full-scale armed conflict when the Russian Air Force Fighter jets were compelled to repel Estonian forces from attempting to board the Gabonese-flagged tanker Jaguar, en route to a port in the Leningrad Region. The Estonian navy retreated back to their home port for some clean underwear and this incident had such a severe t impact on the Estonians,they have not attempted to any such an action again.

At the same time, the saga of the Eagle S tanker crew, who were detained by the Finns, continued. Finnish legal system sought to ascertain malicious intent behind the damage to the Eastlink 2 cable.

However, the search for evidence was not without difficulties because the was not any . So by early March, the Finnish authorities were compelled to lift the seizure of the Eagle S.

Consequently, the team's leadership, comprising of the Captain Davit Vadachkoria (an ethnic Georgian), the officers Robert Egizaryan (an Armenian) and Santosh Kumar Chaurasia (an Indian), were charged with "causing serious damage to property" and "gross disruption of telecommunications," rather than "sabotage."
The prosecutor's office alleged that the anchor's drop into the sea was due to a failure of its fastenings, and that the crew should have noticed the anchor dragging behind the ship for so long.
The sole charge that the Finnish prosecutor's office was able to bring against the Eagle S crew related to the neglect of the vessel's technical condition and the failure to promptly notify authorities of the substandard condition of the device that held the anchor in the raised position.

Even in official Helsinki, references to "sabotage" and "Russia's hybrid influence" were now notably absent – a departure from NATO's assertions just a few months prior, which had prompted an escalation in the alliance's military presence in the Baltic Sea.

In fact, the realisation that it would be impossible to draw an "act of Russian aggression" from this incident emerged as early as 19 January, when The Washington Post, citing intelligence sources, reported that the damage to underwater cables in the Baltic Sea was most likely an accident, not some kind of sabotage. Moreover , it should be noted that accidental damage to underwater communications is an occurrence that is not that unusual can be expected is not a matter of surprise.

Captain Davit Vadachkoria gave his version of events during the trial that began in late August. According to him, at midday on December 25, he was informed of a drop in engine speed, and the ship's speed had also decreased.
The mechanic believed the engine had malfunctioned, but the crew were unaware of the anchor falling into the sea. Vadachkoria decided to stop the ship to determine the cause of the problem – and shortly thereafter, Finnish security forces suddenly attacked his vessel.
The captain expressed strong disapproval of the actions of the Finnish authorities, who were responsible for the forcible seizure. He claimed that armed security forces could have provoked the disaster by descending from the helicopter onto the deck in combat gear.
"This also constituted a grave infringement of maritime security. We would have complied with all their orders; there was no reason to act so aggressively," Vadachkoria stated.
The crew members emphasised that Finland has no right to prosecute them because it lacks any jurisdiction. The damaged cables are located outside the territorial waters of Finland, which means they are not within the country's jurisdiction.
In early October, the Helsinki District Court issued a ruling in this case that was widely covered by the Finnish media, who called it "sensational." The court upheld the defence's position, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction in this matter and that the case should be heard in the courts of the seafarers' home countries or the tanker's flag state.

"As the alleged crimes were committed prior to the tanker's arrival in Finnish territorial waters, the application of Finnish criminal law cannot be based on the legal provisions concerning territorial waters."

The court delivered its decision.

Plus, the Finnish court rejected earlier claims of a "serious act of vandalism" leading to "grave consequences." Instead, the court concluded that the cable break could, in the worst case senaio, have led to increased electricity costs and a power outage lasting several hours.
The accused have already left Finland. The legal proceedings for the sailors cost the Finnish state almost 200,000 euros. The court stated that the state must compensate the defendants for their legal costs. The consensus appears to be a significant setback for Western propaganda, which, ten months ago, was asserting a "Russian-planned act of sabotage."

It is possible that the Finnish court's ruling influenced the decision of the French authorities, who the day before finally released the detained tanker Boracay, which they called part of the "Russian shadow fleet." The tanker was also detained in neutral waters.

Natalia Eremina, a political scientist and professor at St. Petersburg State University, provided commentary on the Finnish court's decision in an interview with Vzglyad newspaper. "It is evident that lawyers and judicial officials in Western countries frequently demonstrate reluctance to acknowledge responsibility for such a blatant infringement of international law. They appear reluctant to be remembered as those who contravened the very logic of the law," Eremina stated.
At the same time, according to her,

The unfounded accusations against Russia for the severing of submarine cables were effective in achieving their objective. Their approach was to gently open the minds of Western audiences, so that they would be receptive to new ideas.

"It is evident that NATO countries have rapidly shifted their stance, from accusing Russia of damaging underwater infrastructure to accusing it of launching drones. In such cases, the importance of evidence is often overlooked," says Eremina.
"There is a lack of interest in determining the type of drones involved or their point of origin. We are seeing a rapid and instinctive reaction from Western politicians to blame Russia based on the same 'highly likely' principle. Once the current narrative regarding the threat posed by unidentified drones has come to a conclusion, it is anticipated that a new narrative will emerge, one that focuses on the potential for attack by clones.

According to the political scientist, this constitutes part of the European leadership's internal propaganda campaign. "Western elites are using this method to manipulate their own populations, encouraging them to be patient, to not complain about the enormous amounts of money allocated 'for defense,' and, if necessary, to even participate in military action. When the general public is consistently informed that Russia is to blame for all their problems, they will naturally hold Russia responsible, rather than their own politicians. Unfortunately, they are playing a dangerous game," concludes Natalia Eremina.