Why Claiming 'Mission Accomplished' After German Election is a Mistake

A week has passed since Germany’s federal election, and many are breathing a sigh of relief.

Friedrich Merz, a 69-year-old center-right politician, will almost certainly become the country’s next Chancellor, though a ruling coalition government — between Merz’s Christian Democrat Union (CDU) and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SDP) — won’t be formed until mid-April, at the earliest.

Alternative for Deutschland (AfD), a far-right party that garnered support from the likes of US Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk, finished second in the election with just under 21 percent of the national vote. That party had found vocal support with younger, male voters, particularly in the Eastern parts of Germany, and had garnered significant traction across social media — particularly on Musk’s X, formerly known as Twitter.

Yet widespread fears around online election interference, either promoted by foreign countries like Russia or amplified by fringe domestic groups spreading conspiracy theories around alleged voter fraud or Germany’s supposed misguided support for Ukraine, did not materialize.

The result of Germany’s February 23 election was as many had predicted. The country’s vote now joins a growing list of national elections — including scores during 2024 in which more than two billion people voted globally — where close scrutiny from regulators, national security officials and outside researchers has discovered that foreign actors’ both overt and clandestine efforts to sway voters’ decisions proved less successful than first imagined.

Yet the relief now felt in Germany — that the country’s democratic institutions withstood what national officials and outsiders claimed were unprecedented levels of election-related foreign interference — is misplaced.

It fundamentally misunderstands that digital attacks on countries’ electoral processes can not be combatted solely during short election campaign cycles during which heightened attention is aimed at such malign actors. Instead, foreign adversaries and domestic groups that often amplify state-backed online propaganda are in this for the long haul — and their activities should be viewed over years, if not decades.

Any claims — in Germany or other democratic countries — that national officials, tech companies and civil society groups were able to thwart digital interference attacks ahead of individual elections represent a false economy. For one, it’s almost impossible to link specific examples of online state-backed propaganda and covert influence campaigns to how voters cast ballots. For another, those online attacks don’t just stop because a country’s election cycle has come to an end.

Even as Merz’s CDU political party began haggling with the center-left SPD over a new coalition government, Russia’s state-backed media continued to sow dissent and division within Germany for its own political gain.

RT Deutschland — a Kremlin-back media organization that, while banned within the European Union, is still widely accessible in Germany — pumped out article after article about how the February 23 election was unjust; that the failure to include AfD in the coalition government was anti-democratic; and that Germany’s ongoing support for Ukraine represented unjustified war-mongering.

If promoted by domestic actors, such talking points would be legal under the country’s free speech rules. But they were instead amplified by a foreign state adversary whose Kremlin-backed media outlets have been sanctioned because of “disinformation and information manipulation against the EU and its member states.”

Under long-standing political norms dating back to the aftermath of World War Two, Germany’s mainstream political parties have created a so-called “firewall” in which politicians will not allow groups associated with extremist movements, including the AfD, to join coalition governments.

Vance, the US Vice President, recently criticized such practices in a speech in Munich. “Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters,” he said. “There’s no room for firewalls.”

It’s not just foreign adversaries that have continued to cast doubt on Germany’s election — even after the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

Across multiple Telegram channels, some of which have hundreds of thousands of followers, domestic influencers have spread false claims about rigged ballots; accusations that Germany should not support Ukraine because of its alleged starting of the war with Russia; and allegations the CDU wants to outlaw the AfD. Those messages have been further amplified, primarily on X, where some have garnered attention from non-German social media users and have been picked up by Russia’s state media.

Again, none of these falsehoods are illegal under German law, and can not be removed by platforms under the EU’s Digital Services Act. But this slow dripping of inaccurate information — often within fringe social media communities where fact-checking does not exist — represents an ongoing threat to national democratic institutions, particularly when those domestic messages are further amplified by foreign adversaries.

Ahead of Germany’s February 23 election, the country’s officials held a so-called ‘stress test’ with the likes of Meta, TikTok, and X to war-game potential threats to the national vote. Klaus Müller, head of the national regulator in charge of the exercise, said his agency was “well prepared” to combat election-related problems. The European Commission also published advice for how national regulators should protect national elections.

Such efforts should not be prioritized for when countries hold elections.

In the ongoing whack-a-mole fight between national officials seeking to defend countries’ democratic institutions and foreign adversaries eager to undermine those norms via covert influence campaigns and outright online propaganda, it’s now a 24/7, 365-day battle — one that doesn’t just come to an end when the votes have all been counted.