Manta
Data Cable Between Finland and Estonia damaged; Higher Security Requested
Articles & News
Published 12.01.2026
8 min read

© Wiktor Dabkowski / Zuma Press / ContactoPhot
What Has Happened?
On 31 December 2025, an undersea telecommunications cable connecting Helsinki (Finland) and Tallinn (Estonia) was damaged in the Gulf of Finland, triggering critical infrastructure investigations and broader discussions regarding the resilience of international ICT networks. The incident highlights the complex interplay of technical vulnerabilities, operational oversight, legal frameworks, and geopolitical risk in the protection of submarine cable systems that underpin modern communications and digital economies.

Map: RFE/RL Graphics - Source: yle.fi, submarine Cable Map, Marine Traffic, RFER
Technical Implications
The damaged infrastructure was a submarine fibre-optic telecommunications cable operated by Finnish telecommunications provider Elisa, forming part of the digital connectivity backbone between Finland and Estonia. At approximately 04:53 local time on 31 December, Elisa detected an anomaly in the cable’s performance and immediately reported the fault to Finnish Border Guard authorities, sparking an urgent investigation.
​
Submarine fibre-optic cables carry the vast majority of international data traffic, including internet, financial, and governmental communications. Their physical integrity is essential for continuity of services; even minor damage can escalate into significant service disruption if redundancy and alternative routing are insufficient. In this case, redundancy in regional infrastructure prevented immediate outage of services despite the physical damage.
​
Finnish authorities identified and boarded a cargo vessel, the Fitburg, present near the damaged cable. The vessel was found with its anchor chain lowered and subsequently detained, with 14 crew members taken into custody and interrogated as part of a criminal investigation into aggravated interference with telecommunications and possible aggravated criminal damage.
​
Technical investigation work included seabed inspections to assess the exact nature and location of the damage and to determine whether mechanical forces, such as anchor dragging, were the primary cause of cable rupture. The proximity of the vessel to the site, coupled with the anchor’s position, gave authorities cause for suspicion, although legal and evidentiary challenges remain significant.

© Roni Rekomaa / Lehtikuva
Are Our Data Cables Too Vulnurable?
Submarine cable infrastructure is inherently vulnerable due to its exposure to natural, accidental, and human-induced risks. Risks include fishing and anchoring activity, natural shifting of seabeds, and marine geological processes. Due to the physical nature of these systems, even well-defined maritime safety protocols cannot fully eliminate accidental damage.
​
Operational safety of underwater cables relies on detailed route planning, shipping-traffic exclusion zones where feasible, real-time monitoring, and rapid detection systems. Redundancy and network design that ensures multiple cables and alternative routing paths are essential risk mitigation strategies. In the 31 December incident, existing redundancy prevented immediate communication outages, underscoring its importance in network resilience.
​
Cable governance also involves cooperation between private operators, national authorities, and international bodies. Service providers must closely coordinate with maritime authorities and coastguards to monitor vessel movements and react promptly to incidents. Strengthening governance mechanisms, such as cross-border incident reporting and joint investigative frameworks like the Joint Investigation Team between Finnish and Estonian authorities, plays a key role in managing physical threats to critical infrastructure.

© Roni Rekomaa / Lehtikuva
Legal & Geopolitical Risks Moving Forward
The legal response to submarine cable damage poses challenges. While Finnish authorities detained the Fitburg and its crew and opened criminal investigations, jurisdictional complexities, particularly in exclusive economic zones versus territorial waters, can influence prosecutorial outcomes. Previous cases involving cable interruptions have seen mixed legal results, with some courts determining that remote maritime zones limit the applicability of domestic jurisdiction.
​
While the precise cause of the 31 December cable damage remains under investigation, the event occurred amid heightened sensitivity to undersea infrastructure security in the Baltic Sea region. Several submarine cable and power link disruptions over recent years have fed concerns about intentional damage, whether due to hostile state activity, hybrid threats, or inadequately regulated shipping practices. NATO allies and Baltic states have reported multiple incidents and increased monitoring efforts, reflecting the strategic importance of undersea infrastructure in national security