The national messenger will be usable not only for communication but also for accessing government services and signing digital documents with electronic signatures.
The State Duma passed in second and third (final) readings a bill to create a new multifunctional digital data exchange platform. The platform is expected to combine messenger functions with state and municipal services. The explanatory note to the bill states that the amendments aim to “improve mechanisms for preventing excessive processing of citizens’ personal data to minimize risks of unauthorized access to such information.”
As noted by IT expert Alexei Karpunin, the idea of developing a national messenger in Russia has been discussed for several years, but in 2025 it has become closer to implementation: the State Duma has passed a law establishing “a digital data exchange platform” that will serve as the foundation for a domestic alternative to Telegram and WhatsApp.
The motivation behind this initiative lies in the state’s pursuit of digital sovereignty, enhanced information security, and reduced reliance on foreign IT companies. However, the question remains: can such a messenger truly replace popular platforms, or will it remain a narrowly focused tool for interacting with government services?
This national messenger is more than just a communication app. At its core, it’s a platform deeply integrated with public services—featuring access to the State Services portal, digital signatures, electronic documents, application submissions, medical appointments, and even educational resources. The developers envision it as a “super app,” akin to China’s WeChat, combining messaging, document handling, payments, and direct interaction with state institutions. In this light, the national messenger isn’t merely a competitor to Telegram or WhatsApp—it’s a fundamentally different project with a broader and more ambitious scope, the expert notes.
One of the main advantages of this service is its focus on security. Developers promise comprehensive user identification, protection against fraud, official account verification, and the ability to engage in legally recognized correspondence with government agencies.
“At the same time, these very features raise concerns among part of the audience,” says Alexei Karpunin. “Strict personal identification, centralized data storage, potential censorship, and surveillance make the national messenger less appealing to those who prioritize anonymity and freedom of expression. Telegram, despite its controversial reputation, gained popularity thanks to its openness, flexibility, and limited government oversight. WhatsApp, on the other hand, thrives on its simplicity and widespread use.”
Neither Telegram nor WhatsApp were originally designed as platforms for government-citizen interaction, the expert emphasizes. A national messenger, by contrast, is specifically tailored for these purposes. This is not merely an alternative — it represents a distinct category of digital solutions. It could become a convenient tool for citizen-state communication, obtaining official documents, verifying paperwork, and even online voting. However, as a platform for informal communication, news sharing, and community/channel creation, it is unlikely to compete with Telegram, the specialist notes.
“Thus, discussing complete replacement would be premature at this stage. The national messenger could evolve into an effective government service — but only within its niche. It will not displace Telegram or WhatsApp, at least not while users retain freedom of choice. More likely, it will develop alongside them, covering official communications, document flow, and digital identification. The project’s success will depend on its ability to balance functionality with usability while avoiding user alienation through excessive control,” suggests Alexei Karpunin.
Developing such a service presents not just technical but social challenges. The government must demonstrate it can deliver trustworthy digital products and not just exercise control. Amid global digital pressure and political instability, the concept of a national messenger appears logical. Whether it can become a mainstream, widely adopted tool will only become clear through practical implementation, the expert concludes.