Tech billionaire Pavel Durov’s recent arrest in France has sparked renewed discussions in Russia regarding the role of the Telegram messenger app in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This dialogue echoes a previous debate from July, when the State Duma enacted legislation imposing new penalties on soldiers utilizing “civilian” devices while deployed. Following backlash from pro-war bloggers and state media correspondents, who expressed concerns about the implications for reliable communication among Russian troops, the law was subsequently revised. Presently, these commentators are questioning whether the “keys to Telegram” might be surrendered to Western powers and whether Russian authorities could potentially block the app altogether.
Telegram has emerged as a pivotal communication tool within the military framework, purportedly linking various branches and levels of command into a cohesive network for management, intelligence sharing, and target engagement. However, this assertion may be somewhat overstated. Meduza delves into the actual usage of Telegram by the Russian military, the alternative communication platforms employed, and the absence of a dedicated military messaging system.
How is Telegram used on the battlefield?
Telegram is actively utilized by Russian soldiers, particularly at tactical levels and in support roles. Initially, during the early stages of the full-scale war in Ukraine, Telegram competed with WhatsApp for dominance as the military’s primary communication tool. Ultimately, Telegram prevailed, fueled by rumors regarding WhatsApp’s security vulnerabilities, particularly the belief that U.S. intelligence agencies could access all chats on platforms owned by Meta, WhatsApp’s parent company. Here are some key insights:
- Many divisions within the Russian Armed Forces maintain Telegram chats for logistical discussions, such as fundraising for munitions and equipment. In contrast, the Ukrainian Armed Forces often rely on other messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Viber for similar purposes.
- The prevalence of messenger apps diminishes among Russian assault units, primarily due to limited Internet access on the front lines. While certain elite formations have acquired Starlink antennas through volunteer efforts, many infantry assault groups find such technology financially prohibitive. Nonetheless, these units still utilize “civilian” devices for tasks like accessing pre-downloaded maps.
Researcher Ivan Philippov shares insights into navigating Telegram’s complex landscape, emphasizing the importance of maintaining one’s sanity while engaging with the platform.
- At higher levels of the military hierarchy, Telegram is occasionally employed to establish improvised “reconnaissance-strike networks,” allowing military intelligence to relay target coordinates directly to artillery and aviation units, bypassing traditional command structures. However, these networks predominantly rely on standard reconnaissance equipment, such as drones, rather than solely on Telegram. Over the past two and a half years, coordination within these networks has improved, enabling the military to effectively target mobile and camouflaged installations, a development attributed to lessons learned rather than the specific use of Telegram.
- Both the Russian Armed Forces and the Ukrainian military utilize software that poses greater challenges for replacement, such as Discord, which facilitates live drone feeds to command centers, enabling real-time operational management.
- Russian forces also depend on offline maps, which can be annotated with combat conditions before missions. Conversely, the Ukrainian Armed Forces benefit from more reliable access to Starlink terminals, allowing them to utilize advanced online maps equipped with data exchange capabilities.
- Telegram serves a crucial role in external communications for combat units, establishing a vast network between frontline troops and pro-Kremlin “war correspondents.” Soldiers share exclusive content, including combat footage, with these bloggers, who leverage this material to enhance their popularity and fundraise for military resources. This dynamic is integral to the war effort, making it challenging to envision operations without Telegram. Consequently, pro-Kremlin correspondents are among the most vocal advocates for maintaining soldiers’ access to the app, often exaggerating its significance.
- It is highly probable that senior personnel from both the Russian and Ukrainian military utilize Telegram for information exchange, despite this practice violating security protocols.
- Durov’s arrest serves as a stark reminder that Telegram is ill-suited for military applications. A cohesive system for managing a network-centric war cannot rely on a civilian messaging platform, even if individual units have successfully utilized it for localized tasks.
Why doesn’t the Russian military create a Telegram substitute?
The development of a unified digital management system, which included a military-specific messenger, has been a goal for Moscow since the Soviet era, continuing through the 2000s and 2010s. The Russian government has conducted numerous exercises incorporating elements of these systems, even deploying them in combat scenarios in Syria. In 2021, as preparations for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine were underway, the company Sozvezdie, a subsidiary of Rostech, was poised to deliver 40 brigade sets worth 300 billion rubles (.3 billion) for use with the unified tactical-level management system Sozvezdie-M2. This system was designed to connect command centers, weaponry managers, reconnaissance units, infantry commanders, and combat aviation.
The objective was to facilitate real-time transmission of reconnaissance data, target designation, and tracking of unit movements, ultimately creating a unified framework for orchestrating strikes against identified targets. However, by 2024, Sozvezdie-M2 had yet to become operational. Pro-Kremlin Telegram channels have attributed this delay to significant shortcomings within the system and the bureaucratic challenges prevalent in the Russian military. Additionally, it is likely that the reliance on Western-manufactured components hindered progress, as sanctions made it increasingly difficult to procure essential equipment.
