After the announcement in February 2026 that Telegram would be throttled in Russia, State Duma deputies began loudly criticizing the new restrictions. Earlier, the authorities had already limited calls in Telegram and WhatsApp, presenting the move as protection against phone fraud. The measures are formally imposed by Roskomnadzor, while the Digital Development Ministry and its head Maksut Shadaev publicly explain and defend them.
According to Vyorstka, citing sources in the Presidential Administration, the main drivers of the new campaign are the security agencies, especially the FSB. In mid-February, Vladimir Putin granted the service formal authority to restrict communications. Later, FSB chief Aleksandr Bortnikov again accused Telegram of being linked to crime, terrorism and sabotage.
Against that backdrop, parliamentary parties adopted a politically convenient public stance. Sergey Mironov of A Just Russia harshly attacked the blockers. New People leader Aleksey Nechayev asked Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin to introduce a one-year moratorium on new blocks, while Vladislav Davankov said charging for VPN use would create “digital inequality.”
The Communist Party and LDPR drafted their own bills on digital rights. The communists proposed banning internet shutdowns without a court order, while LDPR spoke of equal internet access and freedom to choose communication tools. Both factions had also voted against the Yarovaya package and the “sovereign internet” law in earlier years.
Still, the parliamentary opposition’s leverage remains largely symbolic. United Russia holds 325 of 450 seats, enough to pass or block any initiative. The ruling party itself avoids becoming the main public face of unpopular restrictions, even though its majority ensures their legal approval. The article notes that even United Russia’s own website has reportedly spent a month waiting to be added to the “white lists” of sites accessible during communication shutdowns.
As a result, opposition parties may gain political points by criticizing internet controls, especially as support for the authorities declines, but they are effectively unable to alter the state’s overall policy on online freedoms.