Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been accused of collecting information potentially useful to Russian intelligence by submitting parliamentary questions on sensitive security matters. The allegations have intensified scrutiny of how democratic oversight tools can be exploited amid growing concerns over hybrid threats from Moscow.
Centrist politicians and security officials argue that even when individual responses contain no classified material, the cumulative effect of repeated inquiries can help build an operational picture of Germany’s security posture, including areas relevant to Russia’s war against Ukraine.
Security-focused questions raise red flags in Berlin
According to a report by Politico, AfD lawmakers have repeatedly sought detailed information on arms deliveries to Ukraine, drone defence measures and the protection of critical infrastructure. Officials warn that such themes are of clear interest to Russian intelligence services operating in the context of hybrid warfare.
The concerns are not limited to federal politics. In the eastern state of Thuringia, where the regional AfD branch has been designated extremist by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the pattern of questioning has drawn particular alarm from security authorities.
Thuringia lawmaker at centre of controversy
Suspicion has focused on Ringo Mühlmann, an AfD member of the Thuringian state parliament, who has repeatedly demanded detailed disclosures from the regional government. His questions have covered drone threats, countermeasures and routes used to transport Western weapons to Ukraine.
In June, Mühlmann submitted eight separate inquiries to the regional police, which is responsible for detecting and countering drones considered a spying risk. He has denied acting on behalf of Russia, but critics say the volume and specificity of the requests go beyond routine parliamentary scrutiny.
AfD rejects accusations and cites parliamentary oversight
The AfD leadership has dismissed the allegations, insisting that its lawmakers are exercising legitimate oversight and reflecting public concerns about security and transparency. Party officials argue that parliamentary questions are a lawful and essential part of democratic accountability.
However, intelligence officials counter that the issue lies not in legality but in risk. They warn that open democratic processes can be systematically used to extract sensitive information when a party consistently targets security-related topics.
Scale of inquiries fuels intelligence concerns
Data cited by German media show that AfD factions in state parliaments have filed more than 7,000 security-related inquiries since 2020, more than any other party. Since spring 2025, the AfD has accounted for more than 60% of all parliamentary questions submitted to the federal government and ministries.
In Thuringia alone, nearly 70% of all parliamentary inquiries during the current legislative term have come from the AfD. In October, the state’s interior minister, Georg Maier, said the pattern showed signs consistent with espionage activities benefiting Russia.
Hybrid warfare and democratic vulnerability
The controversy highlights broader fears about how openness in democratic systems can be turned into a vulnerability. Parliamentary oversight is designed to ensure transparency, but security officials say it can also become a channel for gathering sensitive data when exploited at scale.
German policymakers increasingly see the case as part of Russia’s wider strategy to destabilise Western democracies by combining political influence, information gathering and messaging aligned with Kremlin interests. The AfD’s strong electoral showing, including more than 21% of the vote in the February 2025 federal election, has added urgency to the debate.
Pressure mounts to review security safeguards
The accusations have dealt a reputational blow to the AfD and raised questions about whether existing rules adequately protect sensitive information. While no criminal violations have been established, officials warn that the risks to national security are real.
The episode is prompting calls in Berlin to reassess the balance between transparency and security, potentially leading to stronger counterintelligence measures and legal safeguards. For Germany and its allies, the case underscores how hybrid threats increasingly operate within the formal boundaries of democratic politics.
