The terrorist attack in Lviv once again raises questions about Telegram and other similar anonymous platforms. This was emphasized by Deputy Head of the President's Office Iryna Vereshchuk.
"Once again, we see that the enemy systematically uses Telegram to recruit terrorists, coordinate their activities, and carry out terrorist attacks," Vereshchuk noted.
According to Vereshchuk, the enemy systematically uses Telegram to recruit perpetrators, coordinate actions, and organize terrorist attacks. Anonymity, lack of strict moderation, and the speed of information dissemination make such platforms a convenient tool for Russian special services and sabotage networks. In this context, restrictions appear to be an attempt to reduce risks and cut off one of the channels of influence.
Arguments "for": security in wartime
Arguments in favor of restrictions are based primarily on security issues. In a warring country, the state has the right to apply emergency measures if they help save lives. Partial or complete blocking of certain functions of anonymous platforms can complicate recruitment, disrupt communication between coordinators and perpetrators, and reduce the spread of panic and disinformation after terrorist attacks.
Counterarguments: risks to freedom and effectiveness
At the same time, there are serious counterarguments. Telegram in Ukraine has long become not only a messenger but also one of the main sources of news, official announcements, and volunteer coordination. Many government agencies, military units, and local administrations actively use this platform for communication with citizens. Complete restriction can harm both information resilience and trust in the authorities if people perceive it as censorship.
A separate issue is effectiveness. Technical blocking is often easy to circumvent through VPNs and mirrors. In such a case, restrictions may harm law-abiding users more than they actually stop the enemy. In addition, strict prohibitions without clear explanations and legal frameworks can create a dangerous precedent for freedom of speech after the war.
Thus, the question of the expediency of restricting Telegram and other anonymous platforms does not have a simple answer. Wartime conditions require decisive actions, but these actions must be balanced, effective, and legally justified. The balance between security and freedom of information remains one of the most difficult challenges for the state in the current conditions.
"Blocking will not solve the problem"
Andriy Kramarov, a reserve officer of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and military expert, commented to UNN on initiatives regarding the possible blocking of Telegram in Ukraine and assessed whether this could affect the security situation.
In his opinion, there are currently no grounds to consider Telegram a key tool for recruiting or coordinating sabotage in Ukraine.
I don't think that today Telegram is the main tool for recruiting or coordinating sabotage. Yes, there may be certain opportunities for communication between Russian special services and Ukrainians there, but I don't think this is critical or decisive.
Answering the question of whether blocking the platform would reduce the number of terrorist attacks, Kramarov was categorical.
No, it absolutely will not reduce it. If people use one messenger, they can switch to another. You call me via Telegram, but you could call via WhatsApp, Viber, or any other service. Therefore, blocking one platform does not solve the problem as a whole.
The expert also emphasized that from a technical point of view, it is almost impossible to completely block access to the service.
Even if the state tries to completely restrict Telegram, it will still be circumvented through VPNs. We see that even in Russia, despite all the prohibitions, people actively use VPNs and circumvent restrictions.
Kramarov separately mentioned the situation in the Russian Federation when problems arose with access to certain communication services.
When there were interruptions with Starlink and restrictions on Telegram in Russia, they took it very painfully. For them, this is a serious problem, because it means a rollback in communication capabilities for several years. Telegram, of course, is easy to replace, but there were still some difficulties.
At the same time, he emphasized that the Ukrainian military does not use Telegram for official communication.
We do not use Telegram for military purposes. Other messengers are used for this, but we will not talk about them.
The problem is not in one application
Military analyst, former SBU employee Ivan Stupak also expressed his position on the initiative to restrict Telegram in an interview with Kyiv24 TV channel.
Commenting on the proposal of Deputy Head of the President's Office Iryna Vereshchuk to restrict the messenger's operation in the wake of the terrorist attack in Lviv, Stupak sharply criticized the idea of blocking the platform as a universal solution.
Vereshchuk might as well go to North Korea or Russia - blocking Telegram is not a panacea.
According to the expert, the problem of recruitment is not tied to a specific application, because Russian special services can use any communication channel.
Russians can use absolutely any application to recruit a person. They can even send messages by transferring to a bank card - conditionally 1 hryvnia with text in the payment purpose.
He also outlined the main risk groups that, according to him, recruiters most often pay attention to.
Who is most often recruited? These are people with drug addiction. People with gambling addiction. There are those who are offended by everything and want revenge. There are children - especially during holidays, when they are left alone with a phone or tablet, and then "adventures" begin. I'm not even talking about anti-Ukrainian настроенных - they are a small percentage, but, unfortunately, they exist, and Russians continue to look for them. And, of course, there is still a small percentage of those who are simply intimidated.
Thus, experts' opinions converge on one thing: the fight against sabotage and recruitment requires systematic work of special services and increased public awareness, while blocking a separate platform is unlikely to become a universal safeguard against terrorist attacks or information operations.
Anonymous channels as a challenge to national security
The discussion around Telegram is much broader than the issue of a single messenger. It is about the phenomenon of anonymous platforms and channels that effectively perform media functions but are not registered media outlets and do not bear transparent editorial responsibility. This is what creates potential risks: the possibility of manipulation, the spread of disinformation, psychological operations, and intentional destabilization of the situation within the country.
In wartime conditions, such anonymous channels can become a tool of information influence or even an element of hybrid operations. The lack of clear identification of owners and sources of funding complicates both the legal assessment of their activities and accountability in case of a threat to national security.
At the same time, this goes beyond the purely technical issue of blocking a specific service. It is rather about the need for a systemic state policy in the field of information security: clear rules for digital platforms, transparent mechanisms for responding to threats, and at the same time maintaining a balance with freedom of speech.
So, the problem is not limited to Telegram as such. It concerns a broader challenge - how the state should react to the influence of anonymous digital media in wartime and after the end of hostilities, without violating basic democratic principles.