A Bundestag hearing and recent Bundeswehr remarks point to a growing German consensus: Russian hybrid operations are not limited to drones, sabotage or infrastructure threats, but also include disinformation campaigns aimed at weakening trust in democratic institutions.
German experts and security officials are increasingly treating Russian disinformation as a security threat, not merely a communications problem. At a public hearing of the Bundestag Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid, witnesses warned that authoritarian states use disinformation to weaken democracy, undermine human rights and fracture public debate, according to the report from tz.de.
Another report by UATV said Colonel Sönke Marahrens of the Bundeswehr’s Cyber and Information Domain Service acknowledged that Germany was slow to recognize the scale of Russia’s hybrid attacks. He said German political and security institutions have become more open over the past one and a half to two years in warning the public about the threat.
Together, the two reports show how Germany’s debate on Russian influence has widened. It now includes propaganda media, troll networks, artificial intelligence, platform regulation, local journalism, critical infrastructure, and democratic resilience.
Bundestag Witnesses Describe Disinformation as a Security Risk
At the Bundestag hearing, journalist Gesine Dornblüth described Russian disinformation as a “Sicherheitsrisiko” — a security risk — and as a central part of Russia’s hybrid war against democratic and open societies, according to tz.de.
Dornblüth said the Kremlin continues to expand its disinformation system. She cited a figure of €1.5 billion in the Russian budget for propaganda media in 2026. According to her assessment, the campaigns focus heavily on turning public opinion against Ukraine and its supporters, while also spreading doubt about sanctions on Russia.
Her proposed response was not limited to security enforcement. Dornblüth called for stronger media education in schools and adult education. Her argument, as summarized in the report, was that people who understand how Russian campaigns work are less vulnerable to them.
Russia’s Influence System: Media, Intelligence Structures, Trolls and AI
Ferdinand Alexander Gehringer of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung told the Bundestag hearing that Russia was at the forefront of disinformation and represented the largest threat to Germany in this area, according to the tz.de report.
Gehringer described Russian campaigns as a connected system combining “staatliche Medien, Geheimdienststrukturen, Troll-Netzwerke und KI-generierte Inhalte” — state media, intelligence structures, troll networks and AI-generated content. He said the aim was to deepen social division, weaken trust in democratic processes and reduce the ability of Western states to act, including in support of Ukraine.
This framing is significant because it treats disinformation as part of a broader state-directed ecosystem. The claim is not simply that false information circulates online, but that information manipulation is coordinated with strategic political objectives.
AI Raises the Risk of Polluted Information Systems
Political and communications adviser Johannes Hillje described disinformation as a strategy of information manipulation. According to tz.de, he said the aim was to destroy trust so that people “no longer know what is true and what is false” and the shared factual basis of society is eliminated.
Hillje warned that artificial intelligence could intensify the problem. He said AI models could be strategically fed with disinformation. In his worst-case scenario, a person might ask an AI system to verify a claim and receive an answer shaped by the original source of the manipulation.
His proposed response was stronger media education focused on information literacy. Citizens, he argued, need to understand which sources are reliable and what interests may sit behind particular content.
The Bundeswehr Frames Hybrid Threats Beyond Drones and Sabotage
The UATV report adds a security-sector perspective. Colonel Sönke Marahrens, speaking at the New Age Defence security conference in Berlin, said Germany had been relatively late to recognize that it was being targeted through hybrid methods.
Marahrens said hybrid threats extend beyond drones and attacks on undersea cables. “It is also disinformation within our society,” he said, according to UATV. He also referred to the use of political and judicial systems and the concept of “one-time agents.”
The Bundeswehr officer said unidentified drones over critical infrastructure sites were among the most visible recent manifestations of hybrid activity. But he described their main effect as psychological rather than military.
His remarks point to a key shift in German security thinking: the effect of a hybrid operation may be measured not only by physical damage, but also by fear, uncertainty and institutional pressure.
Platform Power and the Digital Services Act
The Bundestag hearing also focused on the role of large online platforms. Stefan Liebich of the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung argued that Germany’s weakening local media landscape increases vulnerability to disinformation, according to tz.de. He pointed to the decline of local newspapers and called for support for nonprofit journalism, including donation models and, where necessary, tax support.
Liebich also called for stronger regulation of social networks and opposed any weakening of the European Union’s Digital Services Act. The DSA is intended to impose greater responsibility on large online platforms, including transparency obligations and measures linked to risks for democratic processes.
His remarks tied the disinformation debate to media economics. The underlying argument is that disinformation becomes more powerful when trusted local information sources disappear and citizens rely more heavily on large platforms controlled by private technology companies.
A Wider Democratic Problem
Taiwanese lawmaker Puma Shen, from the Democratic Progressive Party, brought an international perspective to the hearing. In his written statement, according to tz.de, he described an “asymmetrical dilemma”: authoritarian states such as China and Russia have resources and channels for influence campaigns that do not face democratic control.
Shen called for dismantling the structural architecture of foreign influence while also strengthening media literacy. Citizens, he argued, should be encouraged to resist simple online narratives and focus on primary and more nuanced information.
His intervention placed Germany’s concerns in a wider democratic context. The issue is not only Russian messaging toward Germany, but the broader vulnerability of open societies to coordinated influence campaigns by authoritarian states.
Analysis
The two reports show a German debate moving from awareness to institutional response. The Bundestag hearing framed Russian disinformation as a threat to democracy and human rights. The Bundeswehr remarks framed hybrid operations as a security challenge that includes both physical and psychological tools.
The most significant commonality is the breakdown of any clear boundary between national security and the public information space. Russian hybrid activity, as described by the Bundeswehr officer, works by targeting trust: trust in facts, institutions, elections, media, alliances and support for Ukraine.
There is also a policy tension. Several witnesses emphasized education and media literacy, while others stressed regulation, platform accountability and stronger state capacity. The reports do not resolve how Germany should balance these tools. They do show, however, that experts see no single solution.
Conclusion
Germany’s debate on Russian hybrid threats has broadened. Disinformation is now being discussed alongside drones, sabotage, infrastructure threats and cyber activity as part of a wider campaign to weaken democratic societies.
The Bundestag hearing presented Russian influence operations as a challenge to democracy and human rights. The Bundeswehr remarks added that Germany recognized the scale of the threat late but is now more openly addressing it.
The policy response remains contested. Education, independent journalism, platform regulation, and faster national-security decision-making all appear in the debate. But the central conclusion from the quoted sources is clear: Germany increasingly sees the information space itself as a front line in Russia’s hybrid confrontation with European democracies.
