Germany’s debate over alleged Russian influence reignited on Wednesday, 22 October 2025, after officials in Thuringia accused lawmakers from Alternative for Germany (AfD) of using formal parliamentary questions to collect sensitive information potentially useful to Moscow.
Thuringia’s interior minister, Georg Maier (SPD), said AfD deputies had lodged 47 inquiries over the past 12 months concerning critical infrastructure and policing capabilities, a pattern he likened to working through a “Kremlin order list.” The AfD rejected the charge.
According to Maier, the requests covered transport networks, water supply, digital and energy systems, as well as police IT and counter-drone measures. He argued that the increasing detail demanded by these inquiries posed security concerns if collated or contextualised, particularly where answers could map vulnerabilities. AfD figures dismissed this, saying opposition questions are a standard oversight tool intended to expose shortcomings in infrastructure and preparedness.
The dispute coincides with scrutiny of a planned trip to Moscow by Markus Frohnmaier, the AfD’s deputy parliamentary leader in the Bundestag. Reporting by Handelsblatt said the visit drew criticism from other parties, including the CSU, whose general secretary called it “treason,” while Frohnmaier maintained it served German interests. The AfD did not link the trip to the Thuringia controversy, but the timing has reinforced concern among rivals about the party’s posture towards Russia.
Senior members of the Bundestag body overseeing Germany’s intelligence services have also spoken out. Marc Henrichmann (CDU), who chairs the committee, said Russia exploits influence “especially on the AfD” to “pick up sensitive information.” His deputy, Konstantin von Notz (Greens), argued the party amplifies narratives favourable to authoritarian regimes. AfD representatives called such claims political attacks.
The Thuringia episode adds to a wider context in which German and European authorities have highlighted attempts at Russian interference. In 2024–2025, attention focused on “Voice of Europe,” a Prague-based platform that EU states and investigators linked to a pro-Kremlin network. AfD politician Petr Bystron became the subject of inquiries in Germany and the Czech Republic over alleged cash payments, allegations he has repeatedly denied; his parliamentary immunity has been lifted more than once to allow searches. EU institutions have since urged tighter action against the network.
Separately, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency (BfV) in May classified the AfD nationally as a “confirmed right-wing extremist” organisation, expanding prior regional designations. A Cologne court soon after instructed the BfV to pause public use of the label pending a ruling on an injunction, leaving the national classification in legal limbo while litigation proceeds. In Thuringia specifically, the AfD branch remains identified by authorities as extremist.
Maier’s assertions prompted a sharp response from AfD figures at state and federal level. Ringo Mühlmann, an AfD lawmaker in Thuringia, called the accusations “bizarre conspiracy theories,” arguing that detailed questions are inherent to parliamentary accountability. In Berlin, AfD chief whip Bernd Baumann described the claims as “crazy suspicions,” saying the party’s questions expose infrastructure deficits. Neither Maier nor the Bundestag committee leaders presented public evidence that confidential material had been obtained or transferred to Russia via the inquiries.
Germany’s rules on parliamentary questions oblige ministries to respond while allowing refusals or redactions where disclosure would endanger security or ongoing operations. The latest row is likely to intensify calls for tighter handling of technical detail in official answers that touch on critical networks. Security officials and some MPs have argued that granular responses, when aggregated, can reveal patterns of potential use to hostile actors; opposition parties counter that excessive withholding erodes oversight.
The political stakes are heightened by the current balance of power. Since May, Chancellor Friedrich Merz has led a CDU/CSU–SPD coalition, with the AfD as the largest opposition group. That status affords the party significant scope to deploy formal instruments of scrutiny, including written questions and committee requests, while also placing its interactions with foreign counterparts under closer observation by rivals and the press.
While the Thuringia allegations centre on Russia, separate investigations in recent months have examined suspected foreign links involving individual AfD figures beyond that context. Proceedings related to former MEP Maximilian Krah have focused on alleged Chinese payments and an aide arrested on espionage charges; Krah denies wrongdoing. These cases are distinct from the Thuringia claims but form part of a broader security discussion about how foreign states seek information and influence in European politics.
No law-enforcement action has been announced in direct connection with the Thuringia inquiries, and AfD figures insist their actions remain within parliamentary norms. Maier and members of the intelligence oversight committee, by contrast, say the volume and focus of questions justify heightened vigilance. With Frohnmaier’s Moscow travel plan under debate and court proceedings continuing over the AfD’s legal status, the interface between parliamentary oversight and protection of sensitive data is set to remain under scrutiny.
Germany’s Domestic Intelligence Agency Classifies AfD as “Proven Right-Wing Extremist” Organisation
