The German government is facing a complex and contentious debate following Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt’s announcement of a shift towards active cyber defense, signaling a potential move to retaliate against attacks on German infrastructure. While the proposal has garnered support from within the ruling coalition, it has also drawn sharp criticism from the opposition, raising fundamental questions about legality, constitutional limits and Germany’s standing on the international stage.
Günter Krings, deputy parliamentary group chairman of the CDU/CSU, voiced strong backing for Dobrindt’s stance, emphasizing the necessity for the state to possess the capability of active defense against cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure and businesses. He stressed, however, that any such measures must be “clearly regulated by law, parliamentarily controlled and conform to international law” arguing that Germany must not become a “defenseless target” for hostile actors. SPD interior policy spokesperson Sebastian Fiedler echoed this sentiment, referencing a pre-existing coalition agreement committing to expanding active cyber defense capabilities within constitutional parameters and suggesting imminent legislative action.
However, the announcement has provoked a wave of skepticism and concern from the opposition benches. Konstantin von Notz, deputy parliamentary group chairman of the Green Party and deputy chairman of the Parliamentary Control Committee, sharply criticized Dobrindt, accusing him of neglecting the issue of hybrid threats for an extended period, focused almost exclusively on the so-called “migration shift”. He questioned the consistency and coherence of the government’s approach, stating that it remains “far from a coherent, adequate response to the great challenges”. Von Notz demanded more than just pronouncements, reserving judgment on any proposed regulations until they fully comply with constitutional requirements and present a viable strategy for enhancing danger mitigation.
The Left party’s interior policy spokesperson, Clara Bünger, has expressed serious reservations regarding the legal ramifications of a more assertive cyber defense posture. She characterized the proposal to permit “resistance in cyberspace” as “highly problematic under constitutional and international law” arguing that the federal government cannot create its own defensive powers without a constitutional amendment and that digital counter-strikes against servers in foreign countries would violate the sovereignty of other nations.
The initial announcement, made by Dobrindt at a “Welt” event, suggested a move beyond merely diverting and deflecting cyberattacks, towards actively disrupting and damaging enemy infrastructure, even if located abroad. This declaration has amplified existing anxieties regarding potential escalations in cyberspace and the delicate balance of international law. The debate highlights a critical juncture for Germany as it grapples with evolving security threats and the complex legal and political considerations involved in responding to them. The government now faces the challenge of balancing a desire for enhanced security with the imperative to uphold constitutional principles and respect international norms.