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.

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.

> Russia have for a long time been saying that such action would be tantamount to a NATO attack

They say this every time. When Obama sent non-lethal aid, they used the same line.

none-the-less, it is a clear escalation ON THE INVOLVEMENT OF EUROPE AND THE US in the war.

It is not that Ukraine are escalating the war by using long-range missiles. Of course Russia have been using them all along.

But it is a clear escalation in western 'participation' in the war.

So "finally replying to constant attacks" gets redefined by putin as escalation, no surprise here. Or is there any other argument I'm missing?

Well the somewhat obvious thing you’re missing is that Russia is waging a war against Ukraine, not the US or NATO.

From that follows the logical conclusion that it’s not the US’ or NATO’s job to “reply to constant attacks”, and instead getting involved in the conflict is just that — waging war against Russia.