Why I Think Vlad Vexler Is Directionally Correct About Moscow’s Mobile-Internet Blackouts

Vlad Vexler is right about the coup talk. The mobile-internet blackouts inside Russia are not evidence that Putin is about to be overthrown, and analysts who treat every disruption in Moscow as proof of an imminent palace struggle are indulging fantasy rather than analysis. There is a difference between regime stress and regime collapse. There is a difference between paranoia and panic. And there is a difference between an authoritarian state tightening itself against danger and an authoritarian state visibly preparing for its own immediate dismemberment. On that point, Vexler’s read is a disciplined one.

But once that noise is cleared away, the real question finally comes into view. If these blackouts are not evidence of a coup, then what are they evidence of? Here is where I think Vexler is partially correct, but not exhaustive. His emphasis is on repression today in order to secure the regime tomorrow.

My emphasis, however, is on the acute pressure of the present moment. My reading is that Putin is in trouble right now, that the pressure on the Russian capital is not theoretical, and that the blackouts make the most sense first as a reaction to immediate wartime danger and only second as a useful instrument for future internal consolidation.

That distinction matters because causation matters. It is not enough to observe that a regime benefits from repression and then assume repression is the primary driver of every measure it takes. Authoritarian systems are opportunistic. They do not waste crises. If an acute military threat forces them to impose an emergency control, they will retain that control, normalize it, bureaucratize it, and later claim they cannot live without it.

But that is not the same thing as saying the long-term political use of the measure was the sole or original reason for its introduction. In my view, the more plausible hierarchy is simpler than that: Ukraine’s improving drone warfare created the acute reason for the blackouts, and the Kremlin will now use those blackouts to tighten its grip over Russia’s internal information space.

That hierarchy begins with a premise I consider central: Putin is in trouble now. Not coup trouble. Not collapse tomorrow morning. But real operational trouble. Real wartime trouble. The kind of trouble that forces him to disrupt the normal life of Moscow in ways he would rather avoid if he had the luxury of avoiding them. That matters because Moscow is not some disposable frontier city. It is the symbolic and administrative center of the regime. It is supposed to project order, control, and inevitability. When a regime begins tolerating repeated disruption there, the question is not whether it enjoys doing so. The question is what pressure it feels compelled to answer.

My answer is Ukraine. Over the winter, Ukraine has continued to refine and normalize long-range drone pressure on Russia. It has made the homeland battlespace more real for the Kremlin than Putin would like to admit. This does not mean Ukraine is about to topple the regime through drones. It means something narrower and more important: Ukraine has made the capital less secure in practical terms, and that practical insecurity has forced Moscow to take technically disruptive countermeasures. Once one begins from that premise, the mobile-internet cutoffs cease to look mysterious. They look like the behavior of a regime reacting to a real and immediate problem.

This is the point at which Vexler’s analysis becomes partially, and importantly, correct. Because even if the proximate cause is acute Ukrainian pressure, the Kremlin will not experience the blackouts as merely defensive or temporary. It will experience them as politically useful. The state learns from what it imposes. It studies what the population will tolerate. It tests how much inconvenience can be normalized. It discovers which sectors can be whitelisted, which can be throttled, which forms of communication can be interrupted, and how much dependency the public has on digital infrastructure that the regime can suddenly place behind a wall. In that sense, the blackout is not only a defensive measure. It is also a live rehearsal for a tighter internal order.

So yes, Vexler is correct that this fits a broader trajectory of repression. He is correct that the Russian regime is not moving toward openness. He is correct that it will need, and believes it will need, greater atomization of the population over time. He is also correct that internet controls are not merely about blocking foreign narratives from entering Russia, but about preventing Russians from interacting with one another collectively at the moment when collective coordination could become dangerous. That is a serious insight, and it should be granted rather than resisted.

But I still subordinate that insight to the proximate cause, because timing matters. If Putin were not under acute pressure, he would have more discretion about how abruptly and how visibly to inconvenience Moscow. The blackouts are easiest to explain if the pressure is present-tense. They are easiest to explain if the Kremlin believes it must answer a threat that is already operational, already uncomfortable, and already capable of embarrassing the regime at the center of its own power.

That is why I think Putin is trying to survive the moment more than survive the future. The future matters to him, of course. It always does. But regimes under pressure do not always have the luxury of sequencing their fears cleanly. Sometimes the immediate problem arrives first, and the longer-term consolidation comes afterward.

That is also why the conditional matters. If I am right that Putin is in deeper present-tense trouble than he is letting on, then I am probably right about the actual cause of the blackouts. The acute threat is the stronger explanation. But if I am wrong, if the Kremlin is not reacting to a more severe immediate danger than appearances suggest, and if instead it is chiefly managing the medium-term problem of regime durability, then Vexler’s emphasis becomes closer to reality. In that case, the blackouts would be better read less as a wartime reflex and more as a deliberate extension of domestic control architecture.

Most likely, however, the truth is a convergence of both views. The proximate cause was the acute reason for the cutoffs. Ukraine forced a response. Putin had to do something now. But once that response was imposed, the Kremlin immediately recognized its additional utility. It could be used to consolidate the information space, increase social atomization, rehearse future censorship mechanisms, and harden the regime internally for the more difficult times ahead. In other words, the emergency may have opened the door, but the state will happily move its furniture into the room.

That is the frame I think gets closest to reality. Vexler is right to demolish the coup fantasy. He is right to see the longer arc of repression. But the better starting point is not that Putin is comfortably engineering tomorrow’s police state from a position of control. The better starting point is that Putin is reacting to pressure now, and then converting that reaction into a durable advantage wherever he can. That is how authoritarian systems behave under stress. They answer the immediate threat, and then keep the tools they create for themselves.

So yes, I think Vlad Vexler is at least partially correct about Russia’s mobile-internet blackouts. I just think the order of causation runs the other way. The pressure came first. The repression will follow, deepen, and remain.

---

Continue the conversation on bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/johnrraymond.bsky.social