Across public education institutions, a significant shift has been visible in the software ecosystem. By 2022, licenses for many software products—primarily from Western vendors—were revoked for over 400 institutions. In response, a Unified Register of domestic software for use in education was established in May 2023. This registry lists more than 400 local solutions, offering a path for institutions to tighten control over their IT assets. Yet, access to these offerings remains uneven, and several schools still struggle to replace what they previously relied on, as reported by Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
Survey data gathered from leaders of technical programs at universities show a spectrum of attitudes toward software sourcing. A majority of 66 percent describe their dependence on imported software as moderate, while 13 percent primarily use domestic options. Still, 24 percent foresee difficulties in switching to domestic software in the near term, citing the scale of change required and possible compatibility gaps.
Industry voices, including Nikolai Komlev, Executive Director of the Association of Computer and Information Technology Enterprises, suggest that the issue of substituting software in universities is often overstated. He notes that Russian-made programs frequently offer lower costs and better alignment with the country’s educational needs. This viewpoint reflects a broader expectation that domestic solutions can match or exceed the performance of foreign software in many academic contexts.
Proponents of domestic software also argue that the educational process can adapt quickly as local tools gain traction in the market. They emphasize that future training programs could pivot toward Russian analogues once these tools prove stable, secure, and manageable at scale. The concerns highlighted include ensuring reliability, safeguarding information, and avoiding fragmentation across services that originate from different vendors within the Russian market.
Experts identify several categories of software that are particularly challenging to replace. These include specialized tools for mathematical modeling, comprehensive integrated development environments, programming environments for microcontrollers, software used in electronics design, compilers, and platforms capable of handling large datasets with artificial intelligence capabilities. The unique functionality and performance characteristics of these tools create barriers to straightforward substitution in educational settings.
When institutions consider moving to new products, they face notable labor and cost pressures. The transition often involves formal procedures, procurement rules, and necessary staff retraining, all of which can slow progress. A careful, phased approach is typically required to minimize disruption while maintaining teaching quality and research productivity.
Looking ahead, universities that invest in building local software capabilities may gain resilience against external shocks. A balanced strategy—combining selective adoption of domestic solutions with continued access to essential international tools where necessary—could support ongoing innovation in teaching and research. Institutions are increasingly documenting lessons learned, from licensing models to interoperability standards, to guide future technology decisions.