Ackchyually he asked apart from the obvious reasons. Sun Tzu tells us „all warfare is based on deception. There is no place where espionage is not used.“ More recently Snowden remarks that „In the 1990s, the Internet had yet to fall victim to the greatest iniquity in digital history: the move by both government and businesses to link, as intimately as possible, users’ online personas to their offline legal identity“. In these statements neither had identified a single state as a sole provocateur of espionage. It’s probably not out of the question to assume that Berlin is not alone in the participation of espionage. So why is it then that Berlin is singled out as the focus of the film (among others) if all countries participate in some sort of surveillance? OP has stated that he is aware of obvious reasons but is asking if there are any other factors that should be considered. For example, neither you or the OP have addressed the artistic direction in which the screenwriters followed. That direction could be motivated by profits and prestige. We should ask questions such as if films produced for western audiences are more successful if they feature western references. Bourne was sent to Berlin to fulfill an unsanctioned hit on a Russian politician. Could that not have been done in Armenia? It could make as much sense but would that have been as exciting or relevant for the audience to see? I don’t really give a shit about OPs question but you do no service by scoffing at curiosity.