As Germany approaches pivotal regional elections in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, the political atmosphere has become increasingly polarized. Recent polls suggest that the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is gaining significant momentum, positioning itself to potentially secure its first regional government victory since 1945. This success for the anti-immigrant, pro-Russian party poses a direct challenge to the current governing coalition. However, this rise in popularity is occurring against a backdrop of mounting concern among lawmakers and activists, who fear that Moscow is actively interfering in the democratic process to destabilize the nation and bolster the far right.
The digital landscape has become the primary battleground for these suspected influence operations. Experts and activist groups, such as the anonymous organization “Antibot4Navalny,” have identified sophisticated disinformation campaigns emerging across platforms like X, TikTok, and Bluesky. These operations involve creating imposter social media accounts that mimic trusted, high-profile German news outlets like AFP, ARD, and Deutsche Welle. By doctoring content to accuse mainstream politicians of corruption or scandals, these actors appear to be strategically fanning flames of resentment, specifically targeting the historical divide between eastern and western Germany while conspicuously excluding the AfD and the far-left BSW from such negative portrayals.
These coordinated efforts are widely believed to be the work of a Russian-linked influence network dubbed “Matryoshka.” Although definitive, irrefutable proof remains elusive, those who monitor these virtual threats argue that the methods, consistency, and targets align perfectly with known Kremlin-backed tactics. For many observers, the lack of any other logical explanation makes it clear that this represents a form of “cognitive war.” By exploiting existing societal fractures, these digital operations aim to manufacture fear, discredit the ruling state institutions, and erode public trust in both the government and the integrity of traditional media outlets.
German political figures are deeply divided on how to respond to this mounting pressure. Konstantin von Notz, a prominent Green party lawmaker, has been vocal about what he describes as a symbiotic relationship between Moscow and the AfD. He argues that the two entities effectively “share the work,” where Russian-funded narratives are amplified and broadcast by local far-right actors to maximize their political impact. While the Russian embassy has dismissed these claims as ridiculous, characterizing them as a dangerous distraction from valid domestic policy critiques, government officials are struggling to find an effective counter-strategy that does not inadvertently amplify the very disinformation they are trying to suppress.
This dilemma of visibility complicates the government’s response, as officials fear that “calling out” every bot-driven lie may ultimately provide the malicious content with more oxygen. Marc Henrichmann, a CDU lawmaker, has emphasized the need for a delicate balance, while simultaneously urging for intelligence and domestic security agencies to be granted stronger, more proactive powers to identify and disable these networks. Despite the acknowledgment by the domestic spy agency (BfV) that these campaigns resemble established state-sponsored operations, no concrete countermeasures have been implemented, leaving the digital sphere largely unchecked as the election dates draw near.
Meanwhile, on the ground, the voters and supporters of the AfD have a very different perspective on these developments. Party candidates argue that their pro-Russian stance—which includes demands to cease military aid to Ukraine and normalize energy trade with Moscow—is rooted in pragmatism rather than foreign allegiance. They maintain that restoring affordable access to Russian raw materials is the only way to revive Germany’s struggling economy. For many supporters, the accusations of foreign interference are viewed as desperate smears by a failing establishment designed to silence a movement they believe is simply putting national interests back on the map.