Does the Internet Route Around Damage? – Baltic Sea Cable Cuts

I have workloads on hetzner data centers in Finnland and Germany. Hetzner owns part of that cable, to connect those sites.

Tracerout gives me a path like this spine5.cloud2.fsn1.hetzner.com -> core22.fsn1.hetzner.com -> core5.fra.hetzner.com -> core53.sto.hetzner.com -> core31.hel1.hetzner.com

Which is worse than before, but still works for me.

My route from Poland to dedi box leased from Hetzner in Finland currently goes through AS1299 / twelve99.net (Warsaw->Talinn->Helsinki) peering, and there's a slight increase in latency since the cable cut. On a normal day, it's Poland -> Hetzner in Germany -> Hetzner in Finland. I'm guessing that the situation hurts companies like Hetzner financially.

I mean, it will definitely cost someone money to go fix the cables. I know that in the US, our insurance explicitly does not cover acts of war (1) so I would be curious as to how insurance covers this.

I suspect that the costs of moving extra bits through other cables is not large. I would assume that Hetzner (and the other companies that own parts of these cables) have peering agreements with other companies and that most of them will not try and take advantage of the cut cables to renegotiate their peering agreements (2). So whatever rates they paid before will still be paid.

1: Because a war creates a problem for the risk pool, it is one of the things that actually can destroy huge amounts of property simultaneously, so it is a risk explicitly separated out and basically impossible to insure against, at least in the US commercial market.

2: Too risky to start renegotiating when your cable can be cut just as easily the next time.

Is there any actual evidence that this is an act of war? Comments on Hacker News and reddit are not evidence. Act of war by a civilian Chinese tanker (not Chinese military vessel) against whom?