Europe may not be witnessing the movement of tanks or the firing of missiles, but a quieter and potentially more destabilizing shift is underway. Germany, long seen as a symbol of post-war restraint and constitutional caution, is preparing to fundamentally transform the role of its foreign intelligence agency.
If a new draft law is adopted, Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND) would move beyond surveillance into the realm of active, offensive operations — including cyberattacks, sabotage, and covert disruption abroad.
According to reports by Süddeutsche Zeitung and other major German outlets, the proposal originated in the Chancellery under Chancellor Friedrich Merz. It represents one of the most dramatic changes to Germany’s intelligence framework since the BND was founded in 1956.
From Observation to Action
For nearly seven decades, the BND’s mandate has been deliberately limited. Created in the aftermath of World War II, Germany’s intelligence and military institutions were shaped by a single overriding principle: prevent the return of unchecked state power. The BND was allowed to gather and analyze intelligence, but not to carry out offensive “executive measures” such as sabotage or cyber warfare.
That restraint now appears to be ending.
Under the proposed legislation, the BND would be authorized to conduct cyberattacks, sabotage infrastructure or weapon systems, and carry out other covert operations on foreign soil. These powers would place the German agency closer to counterparts like the CIA or Mossad, marking a historic departure from Germany’s traditionally defensive security posture.
Expanded Powers at Home
The draft bill does not stop at foreign operations. It also significantly expands domestic surveillance capabilities. BND agents would reportedly be permitted to secretly enter private homes to install spyware on computers and electronic devices. The use of facial recognition technology would be widened, alongside the collection of vehicle location data and travel routes. Data retention periods could be extended to as long as 15 years.
These measures would be justified under a newly defined “systematic threat” scenario — a broadly framed category that critics warn could be expanded over time, especially during periods of heightened political or security tension.
Oversight on Paper, Pressure in Practice
Supporters of the proposal argue that strong safeguards are built into the law. The newly established National Security Council would first have to determine that a special intelligence situation exists. Any use of offensive powers would then require approval by a parliamentary oversight committee with a two-thirds majority.
While these checks may appear robust on paper, intelligence history suggests otherwise. During moments of crisis, emergency frameworks often compress debate, reduce scrutiny, and normalize extraordinary measures. Once secrecy becomes the default, democratic oversight tends to weaken rather than strengthen.
A Dangerous Escalation Spiral
The most serious concern raised by the proposal is not legal but strategic. Europe is already witnessing a rise in cyber operations, infrastructure disruptions, drone incidents, and intelligence confrontations linked to broader geopolitical rivalries. Granting Germany’s intelligence service formal authority to conduct sabotage risks accelerating an already volatile covert conflict environment.
Covert warfare operates without clear red lines. Sabotage invites retaliation, cyberattacks provoke counterattacks, and each side denies responsibility. Trust erodes rapidly, and escalation becomes harder to control than in conventional military conflicts. Once a major European power normalizes such tactics, others are likely to follow.
The result is not deterrence, but a silent arms race in the shadows.
Domestic Political Implications
The timing of the proposal has also raised eyebrows within Germany. Earlier this year, intelligence authorities expanded surveillance of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party after it was designated an extremist group. When combined with expanded spyware powers, home entry authority, and mass data collection, the boundary between foreign intelligence operations and domestic political monitoring risks becoming blurred.
Historically, intelligence powers introduced to counter external threats often migrate inward, especially during periods of political polarization. Critics argue that this expansion could undermine civil liberties and public trust in democratic institutions.
Germany’s “Zeitenwende” Goes Deeper
The proposed reforms fit within Germany’s broader “Zeitenwende” — the strategic turning point announced after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war. Defense spending has increased, intelligence coordination has intensified, and Berlin has taken on a more assertive security role within Europe.
However, moving from intelligence collection to sanctioned sabotage represents a qualitative leap. It signals that Germany is no longer merely adapting to hybrid warfare but actively institutionalizing it.
A Quieter, Riskier Europe
German officials frame the proposal as a necessary response to modern threats. Yet intentions do not determine outcomes. Once sabotage, cyberattacks, and covert disruption become tools of official policy, escalation becomes easier, deniability becomes routine, and mistrust becomes permanent.
Europe may appear calm on the surface, but beneath it, the rules are changing. Germany’s shift suggests the continent is entering an era where conflict is less visible, less accountable, and potentially more dangerous.
Wars that unfold in the shadows rarely remain there forever.
