The Chinese-flagged bulk carrier was in the vicinity when the cables were severed, sparking fears of deliberate sabotage.
However, following a delayed inspection and limited onboard access, SHK officials were unable to confirm whether the vessel’s anchor was released intentionally.
“Due to time constraints and lack of access to electronic evidence, it is not possible to definitively determine what occurred on board,” the findings read [translated].
The first of the two incidents involved the BCS East-West Interlink, a fibre optic subsea cable linking Lithuania and Sweden, which was cut on the morning of November 17. Roughly 18 hours later, a second system — C-Lion 1, connecting Finland and Germany and operated by Finnish state-owned firm Cinia — was also disrupted.
Upon investigation, Swedish authorities suggest that the vessel’s port anchor was unintentionally deployed just after midnight near Fårö, Sweden. It was not properly secured, and the crew failed to notice the issue until 1.5 days later when the ship was in Hanö Bay.
During that time, the anchor was dragged for approximately 180 nautical miles (~330 km), likely causing damage to infrastructure on the seabed along its path.
Tracking data showed no evidence of the vessel reducing speed or altering course when the anchor was released, a detail that, according to SHK officials, would have been expected if the deployment were deliberate.
Brake wear and improper securing further suggest that the anchor may have been left in a state ready for emergency use rather than fully stowed after departing the Russian port of Ust-Luga.
The ship’s Voyage Data Recorder (VDR) had already overwritten the relevant recordings by the time officials boarded, and SHK was not given access to onboard surveillance footage. The investigators said they were ultimately left with limited insight into the moment of deployment.
Criminal investigations remain ongoing in several countries. However, SHK determined that because the incident occurred in international waters and involved a Chinese-flagged vessel, it “does not consider it justified to conduct a full maritime accident investigation” [translated].
While SHK will not conduct a full maritime accident investigation, its decision to not come to a firm conclusion does not, however, bar the Swedish Prosecution Authority from continuing its criminal probe.
Though the findings are inconclusive, the Swedish authority acknowledged ambiguity around the vessel’s intent.
“Two alternative scenarios remain: either the anchor was deliberately released to damage seabed infrastructure, or it was unintentionally deployed due to inadequate securing or maintenance” [translated].
Releasing an anchor at full speed would have posed serious risks to the ship and crew — a factor SHK officials said argues against deliberate intent.
The fact that the anchor was dragged for such a long distance without detection still raises questions about procedures and oversight on board.
Following the November incidents, several cable incidents occurred in the Baltics, including the severance of a system that connected Latvia to the Swedish island of Gotland, which was found to have been an accident.
A subsea cable operated by Russia's state-controlled telco Rostelecom was also damaged in February.
RELATED STORIES
Telecom giants urge Europe to strengthen subsea cable security
Russia's Rostelecom reports subsea cable damage in the Baltics
Swedish prosecutors rule Baltic subsea cable cut an accident
