Organized hostility towards the state and the Frankfurt riots: Who exactly are meant by the "troublemakers"?

Frankfurt shows what political appeasement costs

181 injured police officers, looted shops, and 73 identified suspects so far: The riots of October 31, 2026, in Frankfurt are more than just the ugly end to a day of demonstrations. They raise the question of how reliably a state protects its citizens, its emergency services, and the economic foundations of its cities. According to the latest publicly available information from the investigation, more than half of the identified suspects had prior police records. This demands not only outrage at the perpetrators but also a thorough examination of what was neglected or failed to be done before that night.

According to official accounts so far, different violent groups clashed: violent left-wing extremists during the demonstration and predominantly young men with a migration background involved in the subsequent riots and looting. For a large portion of these nighttime rioters, the police initially found no political motive. This distinction is important – but it doesn't lessen the problem. Rather, it shows that organized hostility towards the state and a known, but not clearly politically motivated, propensity for violence each require their own, decisive responses.

Anyone who wants to discuss this issue must neither hide behind the catch-all term "troublemakers" nor treat the German passports of many suspects as proof of successful integration. It is equally insufficient to condemn violence and then immediately return to discussing only social disadvantage, legitimate protest concerns, or the risk of stigmatization. The responsibility of those involved must remain the focus. Investigating societal causes is necessary; however, this must not lead to the permanent exoneration of perpetrators and those politically responsible.

The crucial test, therefore, is this: Do the same standards apply to left-wing extremist violence and violence perpetrated by migrants as to other threats to the democratic order? Frankfurt provides no proof of every suspected political double standard. However, the riots are a compelling reason to examine selective outrage, failures in integration policy, and the state's actual ability to enforce the law. For the costs of evasive answers are borne not by those who issue conciliatory statements, but by injured emergency personnel, damaged business owners, and citizens who depend on reliable public order.

Those who only recognize violence in their political opponents risk jeopardizing social consensus

The credibility crisis begins with one's own standards

A democratic state doesn't lose its authority only when it can no longer arrest perpetrators of violence. It loses it when citizens get the impression that their political background and social affiliation determine how resolutely violence is named and combated. Where some are immediately questioned about networks, ideological enablers, and political accountability, while others are primarily blamed on frustration, lack of prospects, and societal circumstances, a dangerous credibility problem arises.

The Frankfurt riots therefore raise a bigger question than that of a botched police operation or a demonstration that got out of hand. It's about the reliability of democratic standards. Attacks on police officers, looted shops, and smashed storefronts are not mere side effects of social discontent. They violate the rights of other people and are directed against the very public order upon which a free society depends.

An objective analysis must begin at this point. It does not view security as a secondary concern that can only be addressed after all social problems have been solved. Rather, security is a prerequisite for education, economic activity, social participation, and personal freedom to be reliably possible in the first place.

This does not imply a blanket condemnation of demonstrators, migrants, or Muslims. However, it does entail the obligation to investigate politically inconvenient perpetrator structures just as thoroughly as those that are politically convenient. A democracy must not choose its opponents based on its own ideology.

Immigration problems don't disappear behind a German passport

The debate surrounding the nationality of the Frankfurt suspects reveals a fundamental problem in political discourse. The fact that many suspects are German answers a legal question, but it does not automatically refute a finding regarding integration policy.

According to the current state of the investigation, 73 suspects have been identified. Of these, 30 held only German citizenship, 17 dual citizenship, and 26 held only foreign citizenship. This breakdown is important for potential immigration-related consequences. However, it does not definitively reveal the social backgrounds in which the suspects grew up or the attitudes that shaped their behavior.

Anyone who uses German citizenship as a counter-argument to any migration-related problem analysis is confusing legal citizenship with successful social integration. A German passport documents a constitutional status. It guarantees neither the recognition of the state's monopoly on the use of force nor a personal commitment to the rules of a free society.

Especially when young people are born or raised here and yet repeatedly come to the attention of authorities for serious violence, the question of integration policy failures becomes more urgent. Then the problem cannot be reduced to difficult arrival conditions. It affects the capacity of families, schools, youth services, local government, and law enforcement over many years.

The conspicuous involvement of violent groups with a migrant background must therefore be investigated without linguistic evasions. This is not a devaluation of all people with a migration history. It is a necessary prerequisite for addressing the problems that also affect many immigrants willing to integrate.

Left-wing extremist violence is not an accident of good intentions

The involvement of left-wing extremist forces must not be obscured by general terms like unrest, escalation, or chaos. Such words describe a situation but often leave open who brought it about and what political ideologies underlie it.

Even before the Frankfurt protests, warnings had been issued about the involvement of violent left-wing extremists. This raises not only the question of why the situation escalated, but also whether the threat was treated with the necessary seriousness by political and social forces.

Left-wing extremist violence is no less dangerous simply because its perpetrators invoke social justice, antifascism, or the fight against perceived oppression. An attack on a police officer remains an attack on a human being and on the enforcement of democratically legitimized rules. The perpetrator's alleged moral superiority changes nothing.

A democratic left-wing milieu, in particular, must therefore draw an unambiguous line. Those who downplay violence against property, who fundamentally portray the police as the enemy, or who treat violent actors as a particularly committed fringe group within an otherwise commendable movement, make this distinction more difficult.

Not every strong protest is extremist, and criticism of police operations must remain possible. However, the order of criteria is crucial: First, responsibility for specific acts of violence must be clearly identified. The assessment of these acts must not depend on whether the perpetrator's political agenda is considered sympathetic.

Religious extremism also demands clear boundaries

The confrontation with radical Islamist movements must follow the same logic. Freedom of religion protects belief and religious practice. It protects neither the legitimation of violence, nor the denial of equal civil rights, nor the intimidation of those who think differently.

A precise distinction is essential. A migrant background does not prove Muslim religious affiliation. Muslim religious affiliation does not prove Islamist beliefs. And participation in a pro-Palestinian demonstration, in itself, does not prove extremism.

However, these differences are no argument for ignoring actual connections between extremist groups. Where left-wing extremist groups and Islamist actors develop shared enemies, spread antisemitic ideas, or fundamentally delegitimize state institutions, these overlaps must be examined.

A uniform Islamist motivation cannot simply be assumed for the Frankfurt riots. An analysis gains nothing by conflating verifiable problems with unsubstantiated attributions. Its strength lies in remaining precise even where outrage is understandable.

Democratic Muslim organizations are expected to clearly distance themselves from religiously legitimized violence and antisemitism. This is not because Muslims are collectively responsible for extremists, but because credible internal debate is an important contribution to defending shared rules. The same expectation applies to political parties, associations, and other social groups.

Condemnation is not enough if it is immediately relativized

It would be inaccurate to accuse democratic left-wing parties or Muslim associations of blanket silence. There were public condemnations of the Frankfurt violence. Serious criticism must acknowledge these.

However, this does not settle the question of the quality of such statements. There is a significant difference between a formal distancing and a serious examination of one's own context. A condemnation can be politically weakened if, immediately afterward, the focus shifts primarily to the understandable anger of the perpetrators, the legitimate concerns of the movement, or the problematic choice of words by an interior minister.

Social explanations are not inherently wrong. However, they become problematic when they obscure the responsibility of the actors. Anyone who throws a stone, loots a shop, or attacks a person is making a decision. Societal difficulties can explain the background of this decision, but they do not absolve the perpetrator of responsibility.

The fear of stigmatization is also legitimate. However, it must not lead to a situation where specific groups of perpetrators can no longer be described at all. A state that conceals relevant characteristics out of political considerations hinders targeted prevention and leaves the interpretation to those who have no interest in differentiation.

The appropriate answer is therefore: no collective guilt, but also no collective protection from unpleasant questions.

The suspicion of double standards is itself a political problem

Whether a comparable outbreak of right-wing extremist violence would have triggered a greater public outcry cannot be proven for a hypothetical scenario. Anyone who makes a factual claim out of this exceeds the available basis.

The suspicion of differing standards nevertheless warrants serious investigation. This involves more than just the number of published articles. Also relevant are the choice of words, the duration of public attention, calls for political consequences, and the willingness to inquire into responsibility beyond the immediate circle of perpetrators.

The decisive criterion is simple: Comparable violence must be addressed with comparable resolve, regardless of its political orientation. Those who investigate right-wing extremist perpetrators for ideological networks must also be allowed to investigate left-wing extremist perpetrators for structures and support networks. Those who combat religious extremism cannot be satisfied with a general explanation of societal disadvantage.

A consistent fight against right-wing extremism is not weakened by this. It becomes more credible when it is part of a comprehensive defense of the democratic order.

A political culture in which a commitment to opposing the far right is considered sufficient proof of democratic reliability would be problematic. Democracy is defended by those who protect its rules even when the rule-breaking originates from within their own community.

Governmental responsibility does not end with the next declaration

Parties that hold governmental responsibility for years cannot permanently retreat to the role of concerned commentators when faced with recurring security and integration problems. Those who design schools, approve municipal budgets, fund prevention programs, or lead government agencies must be held accountable for their results.

For the SPD and the Greens, this question is particularly relevant where they have shaped local education, social, and integration policies over the long term. Simply stating that more must be done to combat discrimination is insufficient when these same political forces have already been responsible for these areas for years.

Such criticism, however, must be comprehensive. In Hesse, the CDU and SPD jointly hold governmental responsibility; the Interior Ministry is headed by the CDU. In Frankfurt, too, the CDU is now part of the city government and is responsible for security and public order. A political standard cannot ignore these responsibilities.

Therefore, this is not about assigning blame in the most convenient way possible for partisan politics. It's about identifying which decisions were made, which warning signs were ignored, and which measures were continued despite their obvious ineffectiveness.

Invoking difficult societal developments does not automatically absolve those in power. They are elected precisely to deal with difficult developments. The longer a problem has been known, the less convincing the claim becomes that its reappearance is primarily surprising.

Known violent environments are a call to action

The fact that some members of the violent groups were already known to the police carries particular weight. This does not mean that every single act could have been prevented. However, it does create a clear obligation to investigate and address the matter.

What information was available? Were there repeated incidents? What measures, support, or sanctions were implemented? Were responsibilities effectively coordinated between youth services, schools, the police, and the judiciary? Where was information lost, and where was there no action despite available information?

These questions are more important than the routine demand for yet another new concept. A concept is useless if established tools aren't implemented. Likewise, an additional committee is of no help if, in the end, no one takes responsibility for a specific case.

A credible policy should therefore insist on clearly defined jurisdiction. In cases involving repeatedly violent young offenders, it must be transparent which institution is handling the case, what its objectives are, and what will happen if the law is repeatedly violated.

This does not mean transforming youth services into criminal prosecution. It means no longer treating support and consequences as opposites. Those who repeatedly commit acts of violence may need help. Above all, other people need protection from their next act.

The economic costs are borne predominantly by uninvolved parties

The economic dimension of the riots extends far beyond destroyed goods and damaged buildings. Business owners, employees, customers, residents, and taxpayers are all affected. Many of them have no influence on the political conflicts or the perpetrators' decisions.

For a small business, even a few lost sales days can be significant. Rent, wages, and other obligations continue while revenue is lost. Added to this are repairs, organizational costs, and potentially additional security expenses.

Insurance doesn't fundamentally change anything. It can distribute financial losses and secure liquidity. However, it doesn't undo the destroyed resources, lost working hours, and lost opportunities.

From a macroeconomic perspective, it must be taken into account that some purchases will be made up for later or shifted to other locations. Not every local loss of revenue represents a lasting, significant loss for the overall economy. However, it can still be serious for the directly affected business.

The political question, therefore, is also why law-abiding citizens should bear the costs of an inadequately controlled propensity for violence. A system that ignores this connection treats the need for protection selectively. Solidarity must also extend to those whose life's work is destroyed within a matter of hours.

Public order is a social issue

Security is often portrayed as a conservative concern, while social justice is associated with the left of the political spectrum. This division is artificial. Insecurity hits people with limited options particularly hard.

Those who work late, have to use public transport, or live in a troubled neighborhood cannot simply avoid risks. Those with more money are more likely to be able to pay for a taxi, choose a different place to live, or use private security services.

A weak state is therefore not automatically a liberal or social state. It shifts the responsibility for protection onto private means of payment. The less reliably public order is guaranteed, the more important income, wealth, and personal networks become.

This also applies to city centers. When families, older people, or employees avoid certain places, public space loses its unifying function. A generally accessible infrastructure becomes a space whose use increasingly depends on risk tolerance and the availability of alternatives.

A credible security policy can therefore advocate an explicitly social principle: Equal freedom demands reliable minimum protection for all. This protection must not depend on whether a victim is particularly politically visible or can afford a private alternative.

Moral stances can overshadow practical performance

A key problem in political governance lies in the differing visibility of attitudes and impacts. A statement can be published quickly. In contrast, a functioning process, successful case management, or a permanently safer shopping street result from continuous work.

This can create perverse incentives. Political actors receive attention for morally unambiguous messages, while the benefits of organizational improvements are more difficult to attribute to a single person or party. Conversely, the costs of failing to reform often fall on others.

This isn't just true for progressive politics. Conservative parties, too, can project an image of resolve without creating the conditions for its implementation. Those who demand harsh punishments but inadequately equip investigative authorities and courts produce the same gap between aspiration and outcome.

The difference between political orientations should therefore not be measured by who uses the stronger terms. What matters is who derives verifiable tasks from them.

A credible political system must subject itself to this test. It must not devalue legitimate criticism of symbolic cosmopolitanism through its own symbolic harshness. State authority is demonstrated by the reliable application of rules, not by the frequency with which their restoration is announced.

Integration must not fail because of its own promises

An integration policy begins with a clear offer: those who live here permanently should be able to become part of society. This includes an equally clear expectation: the fundamental rules of this society are binding.

Integration means more than access to social benefits or legally secured residency. It encompasses language, education, employability, and the recognition of equal rights. This explicitly includes gender equality, freedom of religion, freedom from religious coercion, and the rejection of antisemitic ideas.

These requirements are not cultural harassment. They describe the conditions for a free and democratic society. Those who fail to clearly define them out of consideration for different cultural backgrounds, in particular, abandon those who advocate for these freedoms within their own communities.

At the same time, the state must fulfill its part. It must organize understandable procedures, accessible educational pathways, and realistic opportunities for economic self-sufficiency. Demands lose credibility when necessary access is blocked by avoidable bureaucracy.

The crucial element is the combination of enabling and requiring. Neither a purely benevolent nor a purely punitive approach will do justice to the task. But support without clearly defined limits can fail just as easily as demands without practical solutions.

A state's capacity to absorb resources is not unlimited

A responsible immigration policy must take into account the actual capacity of public institutions. Housing, schools, administration, language support, and security services cannot be expanded arbitrarily quickly.

This does not imply a blanket statement that immigration inevitably leads to violence. Rather, it reflects the sober realization that political goals must be compatible with available resources. A state assumes responsibility not only by promising to accept refugees, but also by demonstrating its ability to create viable life prospects for them.

A political perspective must therefore examine the scope, control, and composition of immigration. It must differentiate between claims for protection, economic migration, family reunification, and cases without permanent residency rights. Anyone who dissolves all categories in a sweeping moral debate hinders informed decision-making.

Equally important is the distinction between successful immigration and problematic, violent environments. Millions of law-abiding people with an immigrant background are not proof against concrete integration deficits. Conversely, conspicuous groups do not make all immigration a failure.

It is precisely this distinction that enables political steering. It protects successful integration from being damaged by an evasive debate about unresolved problems.

Solidarity is not a claim to impunity

The question of what obligations a society has towards people who disregard its rules must be taken seriously. A community can only endure if its members accept at least basic boundaries.

This does not mean that fundamental rights are granted based on good behavior. Even criminals retain their human dignity and their right to a fair trial. These rights are reliable precisely because they do not depend on political sympathies.

However, this does not entitle one to the avoidance of all unpleasant consequences. Criminal sanctions, permissible conditions, and lawful immigration measures are part of the toolkit of a functioning state.

Furthermore, solidarity should not be viewed solely from the perspective of the person receiving support. It also encompasses those who, through work, taxes, commitment, and adherence to the law, ensure the functioning of society.

When these people get the impression that their obligations are binding, while others are repeatedly told they've broken the rules, their willingness to take on collective responsibility suffers. Therefore, defending clear rules is not the opposite of solidarity; it is one of its prerequisites.

The rule of law does not grant a license for inaction

The demand for consequences must remain legally precise. German citizens cannot be treated like foreign guests whose citizenship can be arbitrarily revoked after a crime. Dual nationals are also German citizens.

Similarly, detention pending deportation is not a substitute for punishment. It serves a specific purpose under immigration law and has its own set of requirements. Anyone who demands it across the board as a reaction to every serious suspicion of a crime creates expectations that the state cannot meet.

Policymakers should clearly define such limits and then focus on the instruments that are actually available. These include consistent investigations, legally sound sanctions, addressing repeat offenders, and enforcing lawful deportation orders.

Where legal regulations appear insufficient, a well-founded reform should be considered. Where existing rules are adequate but are not applied, the problem lies in their implementation.

This distinction is crucial. Constantly demanding new laws can be just as convenient an evasion as claiming that the rule of law is fundamentally incapable of anything. Effective action begins with an honest assessment of what is possible and why it hasn't happened yet.

Without an effective justice system, toughness remains a pose

The state can only credibly enforce its rules if the police, public prosecutors, and courts are sufficiently efficient. A growing backlog of pending cases is therefore not merely an internal administrative problem.

At the end of 2024, public prosecutors' offices had approximately 950,900 open investigations. By mid-2026, more than 1.1 million were reported, although these figures come from various surveys. This scale underscores why political debates must not end with the issue of sentencing.

A high case backlog doesn't prove that each individual case is taking too long. However, it does demonstrate the importance of analyzing actual bottlenecks. Is there a lack of staff? Is the digital evidence analysis taking too long? Are responsibilities unclear? Are workflows hampered by unsuitable technology?

Fiscal and regulatory policy should set priorities here. Safeguarding core functions of the rule of law is not an arbitrary additional expenditure. It is a fundamental obligation of the state.

Simply increasing staffing levels is not enough. What matters is whether procedures are handled carefully and promptly. A legally sound decision that is actually issued creates more authority than even the most determined demand that gets bogged down in an overloaded system.

Prevention must deliver results

Prevention is necessary, but it should not be legitimized solely by its good intentions. A project is not successful simply because it takes place, receives funding, or reaches many participants.

It needs to be examined whether the program reaches those individuals who are at significant risk and whether it changes their behavior. A program that primarily appeals to already engaged young people can be valuable to society. However, it is not automatically an effective response to repeated serious acts of violence.

This necessitates different instruments. General political education, family support, intensive individual care, and police threat prevention pursue different goals. They must not be treated as interchangeable solutions.

Therefore, a comprehensive approach should demand an independent evaluation of programs. Measures must be able to be adjusted or terminated if they fail to deliver convincing results. The fact that an organization represents a socially recognized cause should not exempt it from this scrutiny.

The same applies to repressive measures. Additional controls or new technologies must also demonstrate their effectiveness. The common criterion is not social background, but effectiveness within the bounds of the rule of law.

A societal consensus requires a non-negotiable core

A pluralistic society must be able to debate immigration, social policy, foreign policy, and economic distribution. It does not need complete cultural uniformity.

However, it requires a binding core principle: Political conflicts are resolved without violence. The police and judiciary enforce democratically legitimized rules. No one may intimidate others because of their origin, religion, gender, or beliefs. Property and physical integrity are not dependent on the goodwill of a protesting group.

This consensus is not only damaged by perpetrators of violence. It also suffers when democratic actors weigh its violation differently. Those who judge their own extremist fringes more leniently because their goals seem partially compatible weaken the common ground.

Therefore, internal demarcation is particularly important. Democratic leftists must be able to combat left-wing extremism without seeing themselves as traitors to social causes. Democratic Muslims must be able to reject religious extremism without having to justify their religion. Conservatives must demonstrate the same clarity towards right-wing extremist actors.

A shared order does not arise from everyone simply describing the dangers of the other side. It arises from everyone defending the same boundaries, even within their own environment.

The change begins with equal consequence

The crucial lesson from Frankfurt is not that societal causes should no longer play a role. It is that the analysis of causes and individual responsibility must be brought back into a proper balance.

Anyone who wants to understand violence must examine its origins. Anyone who wants to govern a state governed by the rule of law must simultaneously ensure that this does not lead to political exoneration of the perpetrators. Explanation without consequence is just as inadequate as consequence without solid evidence.

One response therefore relies on clear language, reliable responsibilities, and verifiable results. It identifies migrant-influenced violent environments without collectively suspecting migrants. It treats left-wing extremism as an independent threat and investigates Islamist structures where there is evidence of their existence. It demands accountability from those in power, regardless of their party affiliation.

Above all, it takes seriously the perspective of those who abide by the rules. They have a right to a state that does not prioritize the political impact of its own words over their security.

The costs of selective outrage extend beyond damaged trust. They include hurt people, destroyed property, wasted resources, and a social cohesion eroded by differing standards.

Those who wish to preserve this cohesion need not be less discerning. They must differentiate more precisely and then act more consistently. The democratic boundary does not lie between agreeable and disagreeable perpetrators. It lies between the acceptance of shared rules and their violent disregard.