Titled “Who Trusts Telegram in Wartime Ukraine? The Dynamics of Trust and the Use of Messenger-Based Social Media,” the article offers timely, empirical insights into the role of Telegram within Ukraine’s wartime information environment. 

Telegram is one of Ukraine’s most popular platforms, but it has faced ongoing criticism over how it’s run, what content it allows, and how easily misinformation spreads on it. These concerns led the authors to explore what drives Ukrainians to use Telegram—and whether they trust it—during wartime. 

The study draws on a national survey of 2,014 Ukrainians conducted in August 2024, complemented by 17 qualitative interviews with media experts. The findings show that the majority of respondents (86%) have a Telegram account, and nearly half (47%) trust Telegram channels as news sources. One in five respondents only started using Telegram after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, showing how central the platform has become since the war escalated. 

To understand this rise, the article first situates Telegram within the region’s media landscape. A key driver of its popularity has been its channel feature, which enables free rapid one-to-many broadcasting to unlimited audiences. This simple yet powerful functionality transformed Telegram from a private messaging app into a major news distribution platform. Today Telegram hosts tens of thousands of Ukrainian channels, some with audiences exceeding one million subscribers. While channels cover a wide range of topics – from entertainment to personal blogging – news and political content constitute the most numerous categories. 

Telegram channels are used in Ukraine by actors across the entire media ecosystem. Government agencies, politicians, major news outlets, and public institutions use the platform – to stay in contact with their audiences and share updates. During the ongoing war, Telegram channels are used to provide instant access to air-raid alerts, official statements, humanitarian information, and breaking news.  

At the same time, Telegram has been used to facilitate grassroots mobilisation, including fundraising initiatives, volunteer coordination, documentation of war crimes and for engaging pro-Ukrainian users for “cyber resistance.” In this way, Telegram is a communication infrastructure that operates in parallel with traditional media, while also reinforcing civic engagement during the war. 

But this prominence has also made the platform deeply controversial. Concerns have emerged over opaque ownership structures, potential surveillance risks, questionable security features, limited moderation, and misinformation and manipulative content, including Russian information operations. The same features that make Telegram effective for rapid communication and effective coordination – speed, anonymity, ease of sharing, and minimal content restrictions – also create vulnerabilities. As the article argues, Telegram serves simultaneously as a tool of resilience and as a vector for information risk. 

The survey reveals who uses and trusts Telegram most in Ukraine. Usage is higher among younger, more educated, and politically active Ukrainians, particularly those looking for fast updates on local events. Trust is highest among people who prefer to curate their own news,are sceptical of traditional media, and oppose wartime social media restrictions. For them, Telegram likely feels more immediate and less filtered than mainstream outlets. 

These patterns carry important policy implications. While concerns about security and foreign influence are legitimate, the study cautions that broad restrictions on Telegram could have unintended consequences. Given the platform’s widespread use, limiting access may risk undermining public trust. In uncertain conflict conditions, restrictions on trusted information channels may affect broader attitudes toward governance and policy. 

By combining quantitative survey data with qualitative expert insights, the article provides a nuanced, evidence-based assessment of Telegram’s dual role in Ukraine’s wartime information ecosystem. Rather than framing the platform as either inherently harmful or wholly beneficial, the study highlights the trade-offs policymakers face when addressing digital platforms during conflict. 

Ultimately, the research contributes evidence to ongoing debates about social media governance, trust in digital news environments, and the role of communication platforms in conflict settings. As governments across the world grapple with platform regulation, information integrity, and national security, understanding how citizens use and trust these platforms is critical. 

Read the article here.

A full German translation is also available in sister publication Ukraine-Analysen.