Yi Peng 3 crossed both cables C-Lion 1 and BSC at times matching when they broke

October 2023 there was similar incident where Chinese cargo ship cut Balticonnector cable and EE-S1 cable. Chip named 'Newnew Polar Bear' under Chinese flag and Chinese company Hainan Xin Xin Yang Shipping Co, Ltd. (aka Torgmoll) with CEO named Yelena V. Maksimova, drags anchor in the seabed cutting cables. Chinese investigation claims storm was the reason, but there was no storm, just normal windy autumn weather. The ship just lowered one anchor and dragged it with engines running long time across the seabed until the anchor broke.

These things happen sometimes, ship anchors sometimes damage cables, but not this often and without serious problems in the ship. Russians are attempting plausible deniability.

What are some concrete reasons why someone would want to damage these cables? Who benefits?

When Trump becomes President next year he is expected to demand that Ukraine settle the war with Russia or risk losing US aid and military support. It is why Russia is throwing everything at re-taking Kursk and US is now allowing long range strikes.

If the EU decides to join the US the war is over and Russia will keep the occupied lands. If the EU decides to support Ukraine then because of the devastating sanctions there is a strong chance Russia loses.

So it's in Russia's interest to make life as difficult as possible for Europe over the coming months in order to convince them that ending the war is in their best interest.

Plausible.

But alternatively, it is the outgoing Biden administration that do not want a freeze, and are escalating their involvement in the war, by giving permission to use their long-range missiles to attack inside Russia, in order to derail any potential 'agreement'.

And they are now sewing the press with 'hybrid war' mania. I see news sites are now plastered with fearmongering stories about embassies being closed in Kyiv, that Ukraine front might collapse without aid, and so on and on. Note that none of it is actual Russian attacks or any actual events, just fear of them. It looks very much like a media campaign to me.

edit: oh dear, a few people on HN really do not like this take, without offering any take-down, which just makes me think there's probably something to it.

Russia has been striking civilian targets throughout Ukraine with ballistic missiles since the beginning of the war.

How is allowing Ukraine to use ATACMS on military targets in Russia an escalation?

That's beside the point.

It is a very clear escalation in US/European involvement. Ukraine were prohibited from using long-range western weapons to attack targets inside Russia up until now.

I'm not saying if it's right or wrong.

But it's a very clear escalation in western 'participation'. Russia have for a long time been saying that such action would be tantamount to a NATO attack, and so everyone involved surely understands that this is an escalation in the NATO-Russia face-off.

That is a very particular use of the term 'escalation' which is bound to mislead people.

Normally, if we show up at the flagpole at noon to confront each other, and you throw a punch, you have escalated things to a fistfight, and then my return punch is not an escalation. If I pull a knife, I have escalated things to a knife fight. We escalate from fist to knife to gun. Reciprocation - self defense - does not count.

The only way to torture the term into contextual use is to suggest that Russia is not firing rockets at NATO because Ukraine is not NATO, but NATO is firing rockets at Russia because all these missile systems are not Ukrainian, but NATO. This is Putin's framing, and it incorporates the idea that the missile systems are actually being manned but US & EU soldiers.

If you are not adopting that frame, "escalation" only really works if you explicitly define the context as a Great Powers proxy war with a potential nuclear endpoint, where Ukraine is stipulated for the sake of argument to have no agency.

If a robber is holding an innocent at gunpoint and the innocent pulls out a gun and starts pointing it at the robber, has the situation escalated?

I mean, maybe. If the robber is using a replica firearm, the innocent may have successfully deescalated the situation.

The question in this thread is more along the lines of "if the robber shouts 'fighting back is a red line!', should we avoid fighting back?"

Whether or not the innocent should avoid fighting back and whether or not fighting back would result in an escalation are two separate questions