Russia is reportedly gearing up for a significant move against the popular messaging app Telegram, with plans to implement a full block on April 1, 2026. This decision follows a gradual escalation of pressure over the past six months, during which authorities have halted calls via the app, conducted experiments with complete shutdowns in certain regions, and, as of February, slowed its functionality across the nation.
Telegram’s Unique Position in Russia
While WhatsApp is currently facing similar scrutiny, Telegram stands out as a unique case. With nearly 96 million users, it is the most widely used messaging app in Russia. Beyond serving as a social network, Telegram functions as a media outlet, a vehicle for propaganda, and a source of uncensored information. Almost all Russian state agencies maintain Telegram channels, including the Kremlin, alongside opposition politicians, independent journalists, and uncensored media outlets. Additionally, Russian soldiers utilize the platform to share battlefield coordinates, conduct meetings, and communicate with family members.
This multifaceted role makes Telegram both a vital communication tool and a source of concern for the Kremlin. The government’s objective to cleanse the Russian internet of unmanageable content has led to the decision to block the app. However, such a move poses significant inconveniences for ordinary citizens, military personnel, and businesses alike.
A Complicated History
Telegram’s relationship with the Russian state has been fraught with complexity. Founded by Russian entrepreneur Pavel Durov, the app was initially embraced by authorities as a homegrown technological success. However, Durov’s departure from Russia, following a conflict over his previous project, the social media network VKontakte, marked a turning point. In 2014, he was compelled to sell his stake in VKontakte after refusing to comply with demands from the Federal Security Service (FSB) for information on political activists.
The first attempt to block Telegram occurred in 2017, amid a broader push for internet control. When Telegram declined to comply with the Yarovaya Law, which mandated online services to provide decryption keys upon request from the FSB, the Russian watchdog Roskomnadzor initiated a blocking effort. However, this attempt was largely unsuccessful due to the lack of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) capabilities across all regions, allowing many users to evade the IP blocks. Ultimately, Roskomnadzor was forced to abandon its efforts to block millions of IP addresses to avoid paralyzing the entire Russian internet.
Shifting Dynamics
In an unexpected turn, Russian authorities allowed Telegram to operate freely again in 2020, leading to its adoption by officials and sparking speculation of an agreement between Durov and the FSB. This situation shifted dramatically following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, when Telegram emerged as the only major unblocked messenger not under Kremlin control.
However, the landscape began to change in early 2025 when Russian internet giant VK launched its own messaging app, MAX. The rhetoric from officials shifted overnight, with Telegram facing accusations of disseminating banned information and failing to address issues related to scammers and data privacy. These allegations provided a pretext for Roskomnadzor to restrict calls and later slow down the app’s overall functionality.
The Future of Telegram
In response to these developments, Durov suggested that the restrictions were intended to compel users to switch to MAX. Despite the authorities’ efforts to promote VK’s app through advertising and organizational mandates, the dubious reputation of VK—controlled by a subsidiary of state-owned Gazprom—has limited its success. VKontakte has been criticized for its lack of user privacy, with reports indicating that it has handed over user data to security services without proper legal procedures.
As the conflict in Ukraine continues, VKontakte has been labeled as Russia’s most vulnerable social network, with rights groups noting that a significant percentage of criminal cases against anti-war activists are linked to posts on the platform. Nevertheless, Telegram’s future appears increasingly precarious. Following the slowdown of its functionality, some officials speculated about the possibility of reaching an agreement with Roskomnadzor. However, recent statements from military personnel describing Telegram as a “hostile means of communication” suggest that a total block is imminent.
Andrei Svintsov, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Information Technologies, has even suggested that Telegram could be classified as an extremist or terrorist organization. Such a designation would pose legal risks not only for Durov but also for any Russians who have made payments to Telegram, including those purchasing Premium subscriptions or advertising.
Legal and Market Implications
The Federal Antimonopoly Service’s claim on March 5 that advertising on Telegram was already illegal has further complicated the situation. This assertion is puzzling, given that Telegram has not yet been officially labeled as extremist, and a law passed in November 2024 allows channels with over 10,000 followers to post ads after registering with Roskomnadzor. If the advertising ban is confirmed, it would have significant ramifications, as Telegram currently hosts around 40 percent of Russia’s influencer market.
This inconsistency underscores the futility of attempting to negotiate a long-term agreement with the Kremlin. Just a year ago, officials hailed Telegram as a primary source of information, utilized not only for official communications but also by soldiers engaged in combat. Now, it has been relegated to the status of a “hostile social network.”
The unfolding saga of Telegram serves as a cautionary tale for international companies that believe they can find common ground with Moscow. The Kremlin’s efforts to create a closed internet ecosystem, where all essential services are under state control and accessible to the FSB, illustrate the challenges facing foreign platforms. Any remaining services that have not yet been blocked are likely only surviving due to the absence of viable domestic alternatives.
