Discussions about the possibility of Russia being disconnected from the global internet are becoming increasingly frequent. Against this backdrop, the question of creating an autonomous Russian internet gains new urgency. How likely is such a scenario, and what would it mean for the average Russian internet user? Could such a step strengthen our country’s sovereignty, or would it, on the contrary, divide society and confine Russia to a kind of virtual solitude?

About ten years ago, I noticed a pattern: the countries that possess the greatest sovereignty tend to have an internet that functions poorly—at least in the global sense, meaning limited international connectivity. For example, in China, half of the services familiar to us do not work. In Iran and Turkey, too, many similar platforms are inaccessible. In short, where a state truly exercises sovereignty, the internet operates selectively.

Having observed this, I once joked in conversation with an Italian senator:

“You know how to make Italy sovereign? Your internet needs to glitch.”

What does this mean? It means that a state which restricts internet access takes responsibility for the mental health and civilizational self-awareness of its citizens. Such a state assumes the duty of caring for the spiritual condition of its people.

Therefore, a state cannot simply open full access to all global resources. In today’s toxic international environment, countless attacks occur daily. There is hacking—not only of accounts or personal data, but also of ideas, of meaning itself: intellectual and conceptual hacking. This is the hijacking of consciousness, when the human mind becomes the target of cognitive technologies designed to manipulate thought. The task of a sovereign state, naturally, is to prevent such incursions within its borders.

China has chosen the most rational path: it replicates everything. Whenever a popular global platform appears, the Chinese immediately create their own version—with their own content, censorship, control, rules, and algorithms. And if the information is harmless, it remains accessible; you can obtain everything you need on your chosen topic.

Interestingly, Elon Musk is now moving in a similar direction. He aims to make his X network independent of liberal and globalist manipulations. He is building Grokipedia—an encyclopedia of universal knowledge modeled on Wikipedia, but stripped of globalist ideology, the liberal agenda, and the LGBT narrative. Thus, even in the United States, the question has arisen of how to establish one’s own paradigms and limit certain algorithms within one’s digital environment.

Russia, too, undoubtedly needs a sovereign internet. As always, though, there remains a modest, almost whispered wish: that this sovereign internet be developed and managed, first, by patriotic and, second, by intelligent people.

Still, if I must choose between having such sovereignization carried out (even by those who are neither particularly patriotic nor particularly wise) or having it not carried out at all, I would choose the former. Of course, it would be ideal if everything were done with intelligence and foresight, but even in the absence of brilliance, it is better to act correctly than to stand idle.

Here I differ from many critics: I am absolutely convinced that censorship is essential. Even if it is implemented by fools, it is preferable to having none at all. For in our era, it takes very little effort to “hijack” an entire generation or an entire society. It is better to ban indiscriminately than to allow everything.

Ideally, these matters should be handled by people who are competent, profound, intelligent, conscientious, and culturally grounded—those capable of distinguishing crude propaganda or subtle insinuation from genuine cultural phenomena, even when ambiguous, still worthy of access.

Therefore, I would wholeheartedly welcome the sovereignization of the internet under the guidance of highly competent people. If that happens, I will rejoice. But if such individuals are lacking, then let anyone take up the task. It is better to impose some restrictions first—and later, after reflection, lift them—than to leave our internet users exposed to aggressive and toxic propaganda.

Source