CDU MP Kiesewetter sees Germany “in the focus of Russian sabotage”

CDU security expert Roderich Kiesewetter believes Russia is responsible for many acts of sabotage in Germany. He suspects why the federal government is not making this clear.

Experts have long warned of a sharp increase in Russian acts of sabotage throughout Europe, including the Baltic region, the far north – and also in Germany. Recently, for example, there was a NATO-Air Force Base Geilenkirchen was placed under the second highest security level “Charlie” for 24 hours. Suspicious drones hovered over the Brunsbüttel LNG terminal. There were strange fires and sabotage against the railway. The perpetrators were not caught. CDU Bundestag member and former colonel of the Bundeswehr Roderich Kiesewetter said in an interview with IPPEN.MEDIA a clear suspicion against Putin’s Russia.

There are a number of smaller acts of sabotage in Europe and Germany, and investigations are often initially carried out against unknown persons. How likely do you think it is that Russia is involved in acts of sabotage against the railways, drinking water facilities or critical infrastructure, such as the LNG pipeline in Brunsbüttel in 2023?

Germany is the focus of hybrid attacks and influence operations from Russia. NATO and security experts have repeatedly warned in the past of possible Russian acts of sabotage. In particular, they have condemned the increase in cyber attacks, espionage cases and hybrid attacks by Russia on NATO states and military facilities – and called for prevention and deterrence efforts. It is therefore very likely that Russia is directly involved in acts of sabotage against critical infrastructure or militarily relevant facilities and logistics, or is the mastermind behind them.

Why has Germany come into focus?

Germany serves as a logistics hub for NATO in Europe – and is particularly important for the logistics of supporting Ukraine. That is why we are the focus of Russian sabotage.

Kiesewetter: Clearly express suspicion against Russia and its coalition partners

In your opinion, would it be necessary to clearly state any suspicion against Russia, even if the facts are unclear?

Russia has taken hybrid warfare to a new level in terms of complexity, simultaneity, mass and It is important that suspicion against Russia and its coalition partners is clearly expressed. This is the only way to inform the population about the increased threat and to make clear Russia’s intention to destabilise Germany and Europe.

Why, in your opinion, is it then mostly avoided to bring Russian secret services into play as possible perpetrators of acts of sabotage?

Eastern and Central European states are much clearer about these hybrid attacks from Russia; NATO has also made clear decisions at previous summits that clearly identify these hybrid attacks by Russia. Germany, on the other hand, is reluctant to say so clearly – because then it would have to admit that we have long been a target of Russia’s war and that our society has long been under attack by Russia. This would result in enormous pressure to act in terms of security policy. It would therefore be necessary to support Ukraine much more and also to reorganize its own defense capabilities, preparing itself materially and mentally for war.

The Chancellor and his party obviously do not want that, and that is why Olaf Scholz is choosing the path of continued strategic blindness and refusing to implement the mental turning point. The prospects of doing business with Russia again probably also play a role.

“Susceptibility to Russian narratives” in Germany

Do you think that some population groups or even companies want to return to “business as usual”?

Russia has traditionally had support in Germany in the areas of business, politics, the military, the media and science. And we make it particularly easy for Russia in Germany. The threat of hybrid information falsification is completely ignored in a part of our society. Rather, a Vulnerability to Russian narratives and a mixture of nationalist ways of thinking, romanticism towards Russia and pacifist anti-Americanism is firmly anchored in some areas of society. Since the beginning of the war of aggression, thousands of Germans have been spreading the propaganda of the aggressor Russia on social networks. The state has little control here.

In your opinion, how can we prevent acts of sabotage from increasing even further and causing uncertainty or anger in society?

We need to increase our intelligence capabilities and capacity in counter-espionage and financial intelligence, as well as technical means and legal options. Our counter-espionage capabilities are almost zero, and sanctions to deter are only half-heartedly implemented.

Recently, military bases have also become a target for saboteurs. Some warnings have come from abroad. Why?

We are primarily dependent on foreign partner services for such warnings because our own services lack the legal authority to identify hybrid threats at an early stage and pass on the threat findings. This includes, for example, investigating messenger services, financial transactions or accessing movement data from Russian proxies, as well as passing on data to the police and security authorities. Our services are faced with far too many barriers and excessive control – and lack the legal authority.

Kiesewetter: More equipment for drone defense and cyber security

What do you think is still missing?

Both the German armed forces and the security forces in the area of ​​critical infrastructure protection lack personnel to investigate and, if necessary, monitor suspicious persons. Materially, there is a lack of equipment at German Armed Forces and police, for example in the areas of drone defense, cyber security and electronic warfare. Otherwise, the countless drone flights over Bundeswehr facilities in the past two years would have been stopped and punished long ago.

What do you recommend?

What is needed is a mental rethink among political decision-makers and a ‘strategic culture’ to prioritize security in all its facets and to finally adequately reflect the financial needs of the armed forces and security authorities in the federal budget.