Sweden investigates suspected sabotage of Baltic Sea telecoms cable
Swedish police are investigating a suspected case of sabotage of an undersea telecoms cable in the Baltic Sea, and the country's coast guard has deployed a vessel to the area where multiple seabed cables have been damaged in recent months.
The Baltic Sea region is on alert and the NATO alliance has boosted its presence after a series of power cable, telecom and gas pipeline outages since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Most have been caused by civilian ships dragging their anchors.
Finnish telecom operator Cinia said on Friday that it had detected minor damage on its C-Lion1 undersea fiber-optic link connecting Finland and Germany but that there was no impact on the cable's functionality.
Swedish police said they were investigating the matter because the breach had occurred in Sweden's economic zone, police spokesperson Mathias Rutegard said.
'The preliminary investigation relates to suspected sabotage,' Rutegard said.
Police in a separate statement said no suspects had been identified and that the investigation would seek to clarify what happened and 'whether it is new or old damage.'
Some Baltic Sea incidents have been ruled accidental, including the cutting last month of a different telecoms cable in Swedish waters, while other cases are still under police investigation.
No prosecutions have been made so far.
The European Commission, responding to the recent spate of outages, said on Friday it will propose boosting surveillance of undersea cables and establishing a fleet of vessels available to carry out repairs in emergencies.
While the plan covered all of Europe, it would include a Baltic Sea hub intended to detect potential incidents in the area before they even occur, European Commission Vice President Henna Virkkunen told a press conference in Helsinki.
Friday's incident marks the third time in recent months that Cinia's C-Lion1 cable has been damaged, after it was completely severed in November and December last year.
The company said on January 7 that the cable was fully operational again after the second breach occurred on December 26.
The Swedish coastguard said it had sent a vessel to help investigate the incident off the island of Gotland.
Sweden's prosecution authority said it was not involved in the investigation of the cable breach.
Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said the government was being briefed and that damage to any undersea infrastructure was particularly concerning amid the current security situation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
6 hours ago
- Arab News
Pakistan, other nuclear states together spent $100 billion on weapons in 2024 — report
GENEVA: Nuclear-armed states spent more than $100 billion on their atomic arsenals last year, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons said Friday, lamenting the lack of democratic oversight of such spending. ICAN said Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the United States together spent nearly $10 billion more than in 2023. The United States spent $56.8 billion in 2024, followed by China at $12.5 billion and Britain at $10.4 billion, ICAN said in its flagship annual report. Geneva-based ICAN won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its key role in drafting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which took effect in 2021. Some 69 countries have ratified it to date, four more have directly acceded to the treaty and another 25 have signed it, although none of the nuclear weapons states have come on board. This year's report looked at the costs incurred by the countries that host other states' nuclear weapons. It said such costs are largely unknown to citizens and legislators alike, thereby avoiding democratic scrutiny. Although not officially confirmed, the report said Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkiye were hosting US nuclear weapons, citing experts. Meanwhile Russia claims it has nuclear weapons stationed in Belarus, but some experts are unsure, it added. The report said there was 'little public information' about the costs associated with hosting US nuclear weapons in NATO European countries, citing the cost of facility security, nuclear-capable aircraft and preparation to use such weapons. 'Each NATO nuclear-sharing arrangement is governed by secret agreements,' the report said. 'It's an affront to democracy that citizens and lawmakers are not allowed to know that nuclear weapons from other countries are based on their soil or how much of their taxes is being spent on them,' said the report's co-author Alicia Sanders-Zakre. Eight countries openly possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear weapons, although it has never officially acknowledged this. ICAN said the level of nuclear weapons spending in 2024 by these nine nations could have paid the UN budget almost 28 times over. 'The problem of nuclear weapons is one that can be solved, and doing so means understanding the vested interests fiercely defending the option for nine countries to indiscriminately murder civilians,' said ICAN's program coordinator Susi Snyder. The private sector earned at least $42.5 billion from their nuclear weapons contracts in 2024 alone, the report said. There are at least $463 billion in ongoing nuclear weapons contracts, some of which do not expire for decades, and last year, at least $20 billion in new nuclear weapon contracts were awarded, it added. 'Many of the companies that benefited from this largesse invested heavily in lobbying governments, spending $128 million on those efforts in the United States and France, the two countries for which data is available,' ICAN said. Standard nuclear doctrine — developed during the Cold War between superpowers the United States and the Soviet Union — is based on the assumption that such weapons will never have to be used because their impact is so devastating, and because nuclear retaliation would probably bring similar destruction on the original attacker.
Asharq Al-Awsat
7 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Trump: On the Way to Crucial Summits
While President Donald Trump prepares for G-7 and NATO summits later this month political circles and media in Europe are busy trying to cut him down to size before the two events. 'Trump will come empty-handed,' says one commentator. 'None of the things he announced with fanfare has been achieved.' Other commentators use such phrases as 'deflated balloon' and 'bogged down in the mess he created.' At first sight it looks certain that he has not scored big on any of the dramatic goals he announced. His tariff campaign is stalled in a maze of zigzags. His peace-making gambit in Ukraine has led to him humiliating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and labelling Russian President Vladimir Putin as 'quite mad'. He has not secured the accord with Iran which he had boasted would be done and dusted in an afternoon. Worse still, scores of US judges have lined up to block some of his dramatic measures including the crackdown on illegal immigration. His purge of bureaucracy has also been stalled and the federal government is desperately rehiring many of the staff that Elon Musk fired as 'do-nothing parasites.' In another register, the Gaza tragedy continues and the ceasefire promised seems as remote as ever. The cherry on the top of all that is the riot triggered by illegal immigrants in Los-Angeles leading to the deployment of the National Guard and the Marines, a rare move in American history. Even on the personal side of things his success in securing business contracts for Trump holdings plus a Jumbo Jet is counter-balanced by the acrimonious split with his most ardent backer Elon Musk. With such a tableau, Trump's favorite words 'amazing' and 'wonderful' used to describe his first 100 days in office sound hollow. Well, what can one make of all that? At the start of Trump's second term I suggested that the sky hasn't fallen and advised those who saw the events as an end-of-time catastrophe to take a deep breath and not judge Trump by what he says he might do but wait and see what he does. At the time many Trump critics overestimated his power, indeed the power of any president of the United States and assumed he could do what he likes by fiat or ukase. This time they may be underestimating the United States as the indispensable world power. That misunderstanding is due to the fact that the American model doesn't easily fit into concepts such as democracy and republic. What became the United States was the fruit of a rebellion against a system in which concentration of power contained the threat of tyranny. For the Founding Fathers, therefore, the priority was to prevent any one person or institution of state to monopolize power with a system of checks and balances learned from Xenophon in his 'Cyropaedia' and Montesquieu in 'The Spirit of Laws'. Thus the US couldn't become a state modeled on Athenian democracy in which the 'people', which in fact meant a small minority of free male citizens could do whatever they liked with the power won through elections. Nor could the US become a republic modeled on the Roman republic or the more recent Venetian version where power was wielded by narrow patrician elites. To complicate matters further the system the founding fathers designed included elements both of democracy and republic. It is a democracy because almost all public positions are filled through elections. However, those elected face a series of constraints both in having their election confirmed and when exercising the power delegated to them. Worse still the art of winning an election isn't the same as the craft of governing. In other words a genius in winning elections may turn out to be a dunce in governing. In that system the Leviathan, Hobbes' symbol of state power, is heavily chained down. The aim of those who designed it was to make sure it did as little as possible. In what could be a constitutional republic democracy is more of a point of moral reference than a blank cheque to exercise power. This is why President Barack Obama, a closet collectivist, was unable to implement his agenda and inject a heavy dose of socialism into the American economy and foreign policy. George Shultz, one of the wisest American politicians of the last century, noted that no political battle in the US is ever won or lost forever. The US is a giant cruiser set on its course by mystical elements and couldn't be suddenly put on another course wished by the captain of the moment and his crew. Politicians, therefore, are either swimming with the tide or as L.H Mencken charged 'brothers in pillage.' According to Shultz, the American system doesn't allow radical changes; in its reform, could only be incremental. A passing revolutionary mood may help you win an election. Soon, however, you shall find out that you are in office but not in power to implement your promised revolutionary agenda. The American system is designed to slow down decision making to avoid both tyranny and anarchy. The ideal government in that model is one that doesn't do anything, thus allowing individuals who make up the society to shape their lives in a framework of laws that guarantees freedom. The key concept in the American system is consent which, if and when achieved, could allow changes of course, innovations and what is branded as reform. The political set-up against which Trump led his 'revolution' was the fruit of a consent that started with President Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' reforms and took almost half a century to shape the status quo that Trump challenged. The Trump 'revolution' was also the fruit of a new consent that took decades to shape as a challenge the status quo created by the previous consent in its many forms including positive discrimination, political correctness, globalism and more recently wokism. But, once the revolutionary mood ebbs reality strikes back with people who wish to light the chimney without setting their home on fire. Though the fruit of a rebellion dressed as a revolution American society has always been deeply conservative in politics. In some cases political power comes with a heavy dose of personal attributes. Nero wasn't satisfied with just being emperor and fancied himself as a great musician and poet. Although he had a squeaking voice he was convinced he was the best singer in the empire. Commodus believed he was a descendant of Hercules and showed his strength by strangling savage beasts in the forum. More recently, Obama saw himself as a magician to conjure a new American rabbit out of his cylinder hat while reforming the Islamic world. The Caesar may be able to tame the whole world but is unable to rule his own inner self. That task is always performed by reality which obeys no Caesar. Thus the best option is to wait until that golden rule of history is applied to Trump who continues to represent a desire by many Americans, perhaps still a majority, to put the giant cruiser on a new course. Reality will teach them that the American system allows only incremental changes of course. The Trump-Musk fall-off may not be a mere lovers' tiff but is also unlikely to be as final as it seems. Love cools, friends fall off, brothers divide belongs to theatre. In politics a Cato cannot re-script his role as a Brutus. The Trump-Musk duel may turn out to be a palatial version of catch wrestling popular in the US in which adversaries seem to be killing each other with incredibly violent attacks which turn out to be harmless show-off gestures. These are known as kayfabe in wrestling circles and regarded as an art form. Let us return to George Shultz. He believed that a US president could regard himself as immensely successful if he manages to implement 10 per cent of his agenda. Mencken, for his part, noted that all US presidential terms end either with a scandal or a sense of dissatisfaction. Well, who knows, maybe the system is so designed to produce only such outcomes.
Asharq Al-Awsat
7 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
ICAN: Nuclear States Spent $100 Billion on Weapons in 2024
Nuclear-armed states spent more than $100 billion on their atomic arsenals last year, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons said Friday, lamenting the lack of democratic oversight of such spending. ICAN said Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the United States together spent nearly $10 billion more than in 2023. The United States spent $56.8 billion in 2024, followed by China at $12.5 billion and Britain at $10.4 billion, ICAN said in its flagship annual report, according to AFP. Geneva-based ICAN won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its key role in drafting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which took effect in 2021. Some 69 countries have ratified it to date, four more have directly acceded to the treaty and another 25 have signed it, although none of the nuclear weapons states have come on board. This year's report looked at the costs incurred by the countries that host other states' nuclear weapons. It said such costs are largely unknown to citizens and legislators alike, thereby avoiding democratic scrutiny. Although not officially confirmed, the report said Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Türkiye were hosting US nuclear weapons, citing experts. Meanwhile Russia claims it has nuclear weapons stationed in Belarus, but some experts are unsure, it added. The report said there was "little public information" about the costs associated with hosting US nuclear weapons in NATO European countries, citing the cost of facility security, nuclear-capable aircraft and preparation to use such weapons. "Each NATO nuclear-sharing arrangement is governed by secret agreements," the report said. "It's an affront to democracy that citizens and lawmakers are not allowed to know that nuclear weapons from other countries are based on their soil or how much of their taxes is being spent on them," said the report's co-author Alicia Sanders-Zakre. Eight countries openly possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear weapons, although it has never officially acknowledged this. ICAN said the level of nuclear weapons spending in 2024 by these nine nations could have paid the UN budget almost 28 times over. "The problem of nuclear weapons is one that can be solved, and doing so means understanding the vested interests fiercely defending the option for nine countries to indiscriminately murder civilians," said ICAN's program coordinator Susi Snyder. The private sector earned at least $42.5 billion from their nuclear weapons contracts in 2024 alone, the report said. There are at least $463 billion in ongoing nuclear weapons contracts, some of which do not expire for decades, and last year, at least $20 billion in new nuclear weapon contracts were awarded, it added.
