On September 28, 1994, the ferry M S Estonia sank in the Baltic Sea under mysterious circumstances, claiming the lives of 852 individuals. Thirty years later, the tragedy remains enveloped in a cloud of conspiracy theories, allegations of cover-ups, and unanswered questions, stirring a renewed call for justice from survivors and relatives of the victims.

Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas commemorated the tragedy with a poignant tweet, “On September 28, 1994, the ferry Estonia sank in stormy seas, claiming 852 lives. Today, 30 years later, we, together with their loved ones, still mourn the victims of the largest peacetime maritime disaster in European waters.”

The ferry MS Estonia was operated by EstLine, a joint venture between Sweden’s Nordström & Thulin and a state-owned Estonian shipping company.

This acknowledgment highlights the major impact of the incident on the nation and the families left behind.

Relatives of those lost in this maritime catastrophe are adamant that they have not been provided with the full truth surrounding the events of that fateful night.

In a development, a statement signed by 34 individuals—including 14 survivors and 20 relatives of the deceased — was reportedly submitted to the Swedish prosecutor’s office just days before the anniversary.

The group has demanded a renewed investigation into the sinking, asserting that the prior inquiries failed to consider crucial evidence and circumstances.

The survivors and families assert that the official narrative, which attributes the sinking to adverse weather conditions, does not align with their suspicions of foul play.

They have even suggested the possibility of malicious intent, raising the specter of mass murder. “We appeal to the highest court for relatives and survivors to get answers. To reduce our suffering,” declared Anders Eriksson, one of the lucky few who survived the disaster.

The appeal to the prosecutor’s office outlines specific questions that individuals feel deserve additional inquiry. First, they seek comprehensive information about all vessels near the MS Estonia on that tragic night.

Second, they demand clarification regarding many individuals listed as deceased who, according to rumors, were later spotted onshore. Lastly, they want to ascertain who was accountable for the sudden deterioration of the vessel’s seaworthiness.

However, the likelihood of reopening the investigation remains low. In February 2024, the prosecutor’s office announced that Sweden would not reopen the inquiry into the 1994 ferry sinking in the Baltic Sea after investigators from Estonia, Finland, and Sweden found no signs of a collision or explosion.

AfriPrime App link:  FREE to download...

https://www.amazon.com/Africircle-AfriPrime/dp/B0D2M3F2JT

Sinking of “MS Estonia” 

The tragedy is one of the most devastating peacetime maritime disasters in history. By the late 20th century, advancements in technology had seemingly made such accidents a thing of the past.

Yet, in minutes, the 155-meter-long ferry, which boasted a gross tonnage of over 15,500 tons and had operated for 15 years without serious incident, sank unexpectedly.

Estonia, owned by EstLine, was a symbol of reliability. Its sudden loss raised eyebrows, leading to speculation and conspiracy theories that have persisted for decades.

The ferry set sail from Tallinn on the evening of September 27, 1994, embarking on its routine overnight journey to Stockholm. At that time, Estonia was the largest vessel bearing the flag of the newly independent Baltic republic, symbolizing the nation’s restored sovereignty.

There were 803 passengers on board, mostly Swedish nationals, and 186 crew members, predominantly Estonians. While the Baltic Sea weather that night was rough, with force 8 winds and 6-meter-high waves, the conditions were not unusual for autumn. Other ferries in the area continued their voyages as planned.

At 1:00 a.m., a loud metallic bang echoed through the ship, which the official accident report attributed to a large wave striking the vessel. By 1:15 a.m., Estonia’s rotary visor—a massive gate at the front of the ship designed for loading cars—was damaged.

The visor’s locking mechanisms failed, causing the 55-ton structure to swing open and eventually detach from the ship, plunging into the sea. With the bow exposed, water poured into the ship, causing it to tilt sharply.

The flooding happened so quickly that many passengers, particularly the elderly and those with children, were unable to escape from their cabins in time. They had about 10 to 20 minutes to react before the ship became unstable.

Despite Estonia’s radio operators managing to send multiple distress signals, the ferry sank stern-first by 1:50 a.m., just 20 minutes after the first warning signs appeared.

Survivors recounted seawater pouring through windows, ceilings, and doors as they scrambled to safety. The ferry sank in international waters, about 40 kilometers from the Finnish island of Utö.

Rescue efforts were immediately launched, with helicopters from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Russia, as well as several civilian ships and military vessels, rushing to the location. However, by the time they arrived, the majority of passengers had already succumbed to drowning or hypothermia.

Of the 989 persons aboard Estonia, only 137 were rescued, and one later died in the hospital. The remaining 852 perished, with a third of those who made it to the outer decks succumbing to the freezing temperatures. Only 93 bodies were recovered, with the last found 18 months later.

Questions Regarding The Investigation Results 

In 1997, the Joint Accident Investigation Committee (JAIC)—comprising officials from Estonia, Sweden, and Finland—released its findings on the sinking of MS Estonia.

The report concluded that the bow door locks had failed due to the immense pressure from the waves, causing the door to break off. The failure of the bow door led to the ramp behind it becoming dislodged, which allowed water to flood the ferry rapidly.

The report also mentioned other contributing factors, such as the ferry’s high speed and the crew’s lack of safety training, but it identified the primary cause as the failure of the bow door.

The JAIC also reported no external damage to the hull. Despite this, the findings did not provide closure for the survivors and the families of the victims. Many were upset by the investigators’ refusal to interview survivors, a decision that sparked further frustration.

Kent Härstedt, a Swedish diplomat who survived the sinking, later expressed frustration over the lack of opportunity to share vital information. “We were never given the opportunity to share our information. It was very upsetting… It still is,” he remarked.

For years, groups representing the victims’ families have demanded a new investigation, suggesting that the loud bang heard before the disaster and the ship’s rapid sinking pointed to a possible collision.

Allegations Of Estonia’s Involvement In Secret Weapons Transport 

The ferry MS Estonia was reportedly involved in transporting weapons systems as part of a joint operation conducted by the intelligence services of Estonia, Sweden, and the UK.

Russia was aware of this operation and issued multiple warnings to the UK. In 1994, just a month before the sinking of MS Estonia, the Russians delivered a new warning directly to MI6, stating, “Don’t do it or else,” without clarifying what that threat entailed.

Some believed that M S Estonia could have been destroyed by an explosion transporting such weapons. However, two separate investigations in 2005 ruled out this theory.

Political scientist Maxim Reva, who lived in Estonia during the 1990s, described the tense atmosphere of that era in an interview with Izvestia. According to Reva, some Estonian newspapers claimed that the Estonia ferry had been used at least twice before its final voyage to transport weapons.

He highlighted the rushed nature of the Russian troop withdrawal from Estonia, completed on August 31, 1994, which, according to rumors, left behind secret Soviet military electronics that were allegedly sold to the Swedes by the new Estonian authorities.

Speculation went even further, suggesting that the Estonia ferry might not have been carrying electronics at all but rather a shipment of cobalt or even a nuclear warhead stolen from the former Soviet military base in Paldiski.

These theories became more prominent as a result of Sweden’s actions. Initially, the Swedish government suggested encasing the wreckage, which lies about 80 meters underwater, in a concrete shell rather than attempting to raise it and recover the bodies.

However, public backlash led the government to abandon the plan. In 1995, several nations, including Sweden, Finland, and Estonia, signed a treaty designating the wreck as a marine grave.

This treaty prohibited further exploration and imposed penalties of up to two years in prison for violations, which only intensified suspicions of a cover-up.

The Hole In The Hull

Many maritime experts, in line with the official report, argue that the sinking of the MS Estonia was not just an unfortunate accident but a result of a critical flaw in the ro-ro ferry design—a lesson the maritime industry learned too late.

While these ferries were built for efficiency, allowing easy vehicle access, the design created a significant vulnerability: the bow visor.

Just as official explanations for the MS Estonia disaster seemed to quell public debate, a significant development emerged in 2019. A large hole in the wreck’s hull revealed by a Swedish documentary raised the possibility that the ferry was struck by an outside object, like a submarine or an explosion.

This revelation brought renewed attention to doubts raised by Margus Kurm, a former state prosecutor who led a 2007 Estonian investigation. Kurm suggested that a “collision with a submarine” could have caused the disaster, implying that a Swedish submarine might have been nearby.

The documentary sent shockwaves through Estonia, Finland, and Sweden, suggesting that the original investigation might have been incomplete or part of a cover-up. It also reignited theories about the potential presence of military equipment or classified cargo on board that night.

However, maritime experts pointed out a significant flaw in the documentary: it failed to show the rocky seabed, which could have caused the damage as the wreck settled.

Despite this clarification, the demand for a renewed investigation remained strong. As a result, officials in Estonia, Sweden, and Finland decided to revisit certain aspects of the case.

However, the investigation has yet to uncover any new information. On the 30th anniversary of the MS Estonia disaster, the unresolved questions and conspiracy theories persist.

Was the disaster merely a result of poor design and adverse weather conditions, or was there something more significant that authorities were concealing? The discovery of the hole in the wreck has only intensified public speculation.

Additionally, with key documents sealed for decades, it could be a long time before the complete story comes to light—if it ever does.

AfriPrime App link:  FREE to download...

https://www.amazon.com/Africircle-AfriPrime/dp/B0D2M3F2JT