The head of Ukraine’s Counter-Disinformation Center within the National Security and Defense Council asserts that a blanket ban on the Telegram messenger is not feasible and that such a move is not on the current policy agenda. He emphasizes that the challenge lies in distinguishing the content people read on Telegram from the way they use the platform to communicate with one another. This stance was shared through his Telegram channel, underscoring a call for a nuanced approach to the service rather than an outright shutdown.
Earlier, participants in a roundtable organized by the Committee on Freedom of Expression of the Verkhovna Rada discussed Telegram and whether it should be banned in Ukraine. The dialogue highlighted the need to explore practical measures if any threats associated with the service were to be addressed, rather than pursuing a simple prohibition. The discussion reflected a broader debate about balancing national security interests with access to information and freedom of expression.
In previous remarks, Andrey Yuzov, a representative of the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense, characterized Telegram as a potential security risk. He pointed to certain aspects of the platform that could affect information security in the country, though he did not provide specific details at that time. The remarks contributed to a wider conversation about how messaging apps intersect with national defense and cyber resilience.
There are also regional contexts referenced in discussions about Telegram and other platforms. Earlier signals from other states included moves to restrict or ban messaging services and online platforms, illustrating that concerns about online communications are not unique to Ukraine. Those experiences are often cited in policy debates within Ukraine as people weigh the real-world impact of potential restrictions on digital communication and the dissemination of information.
Experts note that any policy approach should consider multiple factors, including user safety, information integrity, and the need to maintain channels for legitimate journalistic work and secure personal communication. Implementing measures that focus on harmful content, misinformation, and misuse while preserving access to lawful communication can require technical, legal, and administrative steps. The goal is to reduce risk without cutting off essential forms of communication for the public, businesses, and civil society. This balance remains central to ongoing discussions among policymakers, security officials, and independent observers.