I wouldn't say The Economist dissolved anything. They showed a great deal of disdain for the conspiracy theories, but they said absolutely nothing to debunk the suspicion that at least one of these cables was cut on purpose. Unexpectedly weak and biased writing from a magazine I rather respect.
I hear you. But it might not be as weak as you say.
Their argument lies in the last paragraph: "Global Marine Systems [...] says more than 50 cables were cut or damaged in the Atlantic last year; big oceans are criss-crossed by so many cables that a single break has little impact. What was unusual about the damage in the Suez canal was that it took place at a point where two continents' traffic is borne along only three cables."
Although they (indeed) do not point to the cause/s of the cables breakage (which could have effectively dismissed any conspiracy theories), they certainly show that the room for conspiracy is considerably reduced.
Plus, they duly remind us of the network's vulnerability in certain locations, the Suez canal in particular.
Thus, I would say those 2 points were interesting enough to be highlighted. As for their editorial/biased style, that's The Economist's trademark, like it or not :)
