By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 20 Mar 2026 11:32:46 +0000

This is a really compelling analysis, especially in showing how Telegram evolved from a useful wartime amplifier into something harder for the Kremlin to fully control.
That said, I wonder if framing the move primarily as an attempt to contain decentralized nationalism slightly underplays how deliberate this “messiness” was in the first place. For much of the war, Telegram didn’t just escape state control it actually seemed to serve it. The mix of official messaging, milbloggers, and “patriotic critics” arguably made pro-war narratives feel more dynamic and credible than top-down propaganda alone ever could.
What’s interesting is that this ecosystem allowed criticism but only of a certain kind. Attacks on military leadership or logistics were tolerated, even amplified, as long as they didn’t challenge Putin directly. In that sense, what looks like dissent often functioned as a pressure valve rather than a threat.
So the recent throttling of Telegram might not only be about fear of nationalist escalation. It could also reflect a shifting calculation: earlier in the war, decentralized voices helped with mobilisation and real-time adaptation. But in a longer, more politically sensitive phase especially with elections on the horizon that same openness starts to create coordination problems and unpredictability within the pro-regime camp.
From that perspective, this isn’t just containment it’s a move from a relatively flexible, networked model of control toward a more tightly managed and hierarchical one.

Comments on: Why Russia is turning against Telegram

By: Michael