Intelligence chiefs warn Russia threatens Germany

Oct 5

Tagesschau reports the public Bundestag hearing of Germany's three intelligence chiefs. Frank Jahn says they identify Russia as the greatest threat and see Moscow behind the failed Leipzig/Halle airport attack. BND president Martin Jäger warns of a possible violent conflict and calls Leipzig an example of Russia's direct, extensive threat. Sinan Selen describes espionage, sabotage and willingness to conduct assassinations; Martina Rosenberg calls incidents involving the armed forces concrete attacks on Germany. The anchor links Russia's targeting of Germany to support for Ukraine. Jahn then explains coalition proposals allowing intelligence services to disable hackers' servers or weapons. Opposition critics fear erosion of the separation between intelligence collection and police intervention and demand changes. The reforms remain under parliamentary consideration; no adoption or independently resolved attribution is reported.

At the October 5 German intelligence oversight hearing, the government's proposed active countermeasures are discussed, with examples of disabling weapons or hacker servers. Konstantin von Notz questions replacing domestic police action and judicial warrants with secret intelligence operations, invoking Germany's historical experience. Jäger says the new powers would be used and opponents would feel them. The report establishes a public debate and pledge, not legislative adoption. At the October 5 hearing the chiefs advocate operational, technical and organizational reform, presenting BND and BfV drafts as means to detect and avert threats and cooperate on European partner standards. Jäger describes desired data retention, sharing, cyber and joint prevention powers; Selen describes device-based investigation and conditional intervention against imminent serious state or international-terrorism threats. They welcome independent and parliamentary oversight and stress dependence on foreign capabilities under the current framework. Rosenberg relates the enacted MAD changes to further needs. Eichwede insists stronger powers require stronger rights protections and oversight. Von Notz challenges police coordination, immediate information-sharing qualifications and constitutionality, predicts Karlsruhe review and says the proposed oversight is not yet sufficiently apparent. These disagreements, narrow conditions and future tense are preserved; no draft is treated as enacted or judicially approved.