A roundtable on Ukrainian journalism, organized at the initiative of the Committee on Freedom of Expression of the Verkhovna Rada, concluded with a push to ban Telegram within Ukraine and to explore practical steps to achieve that aim. The discussion was reported by TASS, providing a concise account of the event and its outcomes.
The participants included Taras Shevchenko, Ukraine’s Deputy Minister for European Integration, Alexander Burmagin, a member of the National Council of Television and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine, and Sergei Tomilenko, the head of the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine. Their presence underscored the seriousness with which Ukrainian media and government bodies view the platform in question, highlighting concerns about information control and national security in the digital age.
State broadcasters described the roundtable as focusing on perceived threats to national security emanating from the Telegram social network. Officials and industry representatives alike discussed the possibility of restricting or dismantling the platform’s operations in Ukraine, arguing that such measures could mitigate risks perceived by the state and by media professionals around information flows and public safety.
Earlier, Andrey Yuzov, a representative of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense, characterized Telegram as a security threat to Ukraine. He cited multiple concerns related to information security but did not specify the particular risks during his remarks. His statements aligned with a broader narrative that digital messaging services can complicate defense and security planning in times of tension.
Several users of Telegram had previously warned about potential cyber risks to personal data carried by the service. The ongoing debate in Kyiv reflects a broader trend in which governments, media organizations, and civil society examine how secure, private, and reliable digital communication channels are under conditions of political stress and external pressures. The discussions also touch on the balance between freedom of expression and national security, a dynamic that has become increasingly salient as more people rely on messaging apps for both everyday communication and critical information dissemination.
Experts note that any decision to ban or restrict a widely used platform like Telegram would involve a complex mix of legal, technical, and diplomatic considerations. Policymakers would need to weigh the potential benefits of reducing the spread of misinformation and state security concerns against possible costs to press freedom, digital rights, and the practical realities of enforcement. Tech policy analysts often emphasize the importance of a transparent regulatory framework, reliable enforcement mechanisms, and clear definitions of prohibited content and activities when contemplating such measures.
In this context, journalists and media advocates argue for robust protections that preserve the integrity of reporting while ensuring that critical safety concerns are addressed. They stress the importance of safeguarding the ability of reporters to communicate securely, verify information, and collaborate with colleagues across sectors. The roundtable hence served as a forum for exchanging perspectives on how best to manage risk in the digital information landscape without compromising essential professional freedoms.
The participants’ remarks reflect a broader global conversation about the role of encrypted messaging platforms in national security strategies. While some governments pursue absolute bans or tight controls, others pursue graduated restrictions, enhanced monitoring, or built-in compliance measures that can curb harmful activity while preserving legitimate communication. The Ukrainian discussion indicates a preference among certain officials and industry leaders for decisive action, but it also signals the need for careful legal and technical planning to implement any such policy effectively and sustainably.
In short, the roundtable highlighted a convergence of concerns over information security, public safety, and media freedom, all focused on understanding how Telegram and similar technologies fit into Ukraine’s evolving security and governance landscape. The discussions will likely inform future policy deliberations, media strategies, and public debates about how digital platforms should be governed amid ongoing geopolitical tensions. The outcome remains to be seen, but the emphasis on safeguarding national security while preserving essential freedoms is clear and persistent, shaping the discourse around digital communication in the country for months to come.