Russian servicemen and pro-war commentators reacted with open outrage after the authorities began slowing down and restricting Telegram, warning that the move threatens communication on the battlefield and could seriously undermine military operations in Ukraine.

Russia’s communications watchdog announced on February 10 that restrictions on the messaging app would continue as part of a broader effort to tighten control over the country’s information space. The measures follow earlier limitations on calls made via Telegram and WhatsApp, reflecting a long-standing policy to bring digital platforms under stricter state oversight.

For soldiers deployed in Ukraine, however, Telegram is not just a social platform but a key operational tool. Messages circulating in pro-war channels described shock and anger among troops, who complained that after losing access to satellite internet services, they are now facing interference with their main channel for coordination. Some questioned how combat operations could continue without reliable communication.

Several servicemen publicly appealed to the authorities through recorded video messages shared on monitoring channels. One soldier said that Telegram was their only means of staying in contact while on active duty and pleaded for it not to be restricted. Others stressed that the app is essential for rapidly sharing information about incoming drone attacks and coordinating defensive responses. Fighters from anti-drone units warned that any slowdown would weaken their ability to counter unmanned aerial vehicles, especially in recently occupied areas.

The backlash quickly spread beyond the front line. Nationalist bloggers and pro-war commentators expressed fury, arguing that the decision showed a disconnect between the state’s information policies and the realities of the war. Some accused the authorities of undermining their own military effort, while others mocked the idea that Russia could block communication tools for its own forces while failing to disrupt similar technologies used by Ukraine.

Several prominent pro-war channels criticized the move as yet another blanket ban that would only fuel frustration and confusion. Even officials in border regions voiced concern, warning that slowing Telegram could disrupt the flow of urgent security updates to civilians in areas exposed to shelling and drone strikes. At the same time, residents were encouraged to switch to state-backed messaging platforms.

Pro-government commentators attempted to redirect blame toward the platform’s founder, accusing him of hiding behind free speech arguments instead of preventing the spread of what they described as hostile narratives. In response, the founder stated separately that limiting citizens’ freedoms is not an effective solution.

Despite the backlash, the regulator confirmed that restrictions would continue.