If Putin’s Russia is as strong and successful as the Kremlin says, why has so much ordinary information become harder to see?
I’m not talking about troop movements or intelligence operations. Every country keeps real military secrets.
What interests me is something else.
Over the last few years, Russia has become increasingly reluctant to let outsiders — and often Russians themselves — measure what is actually happening inside the country.
And that creates an interesting problem.
The Kremlin still wants us to believe that the economy is resilient, the war effort is under control, and the state is functioning effectively.
But the more difficult those claims become to check, the more revealing the secrecy itself becomes.
Russians have a joke about this:
“We make everything secret so our enemies won’t become jealous of how well things are going.”
It is funny because everyone understands what the joke is really saying.
Sometimes the most revealing thing about a government is not what it tells you.
It is what it suddenly decides you are no longer allowed to know.
Today, I want to look at Russia through the information that has disappeared from public view — and ask a simple question:
What became so dangerous about these facts that the Kremlin decided it was safer to hide them?
Here’s our roadmap:
- When Openness Became Dangerous — why transparency stopped serving the Kremlin.
- Military Secrets — what wartime secrecy reveals about the army’s weaknesses.
- The Economy Behind the Curtain — how hidden data masks the cost of sanctions and war.
- The Reality You Cannot See — how missing numbers keep Russians from seeing the country as a whole.
- Self-Reproducing Secrets — how fear and self-censorship create their own fog.
I have some exciting news! My new political thriller, The Snow Queen’s Spring, is coming out on November 9!
It’s a story about the war in Ukraine and what really happens behind closed doors among the Russian elites driving it.
I’m putting together a launch team, and I’d love you to join! You’ll receive a free advance copy of the book, either as an ebook or an audiobook. If you enjoy it, you can help me spread the word.
Just leave your email using the link.
And now, here’s a one-minute trailer to give you a taste of the story!
When Openness Became Dangerous
For a long time, Russia had a practical reason to remain relatively open to the outside world: it wanted Western money, technology, and access to global markets.
Russia spent eighteen years negotiating its entry into the World Trade Organization. When the talks were completed in 2011, the WTO described Russia’s commitments as part of an “open, transparent and non-discriminatory global trading system.” Russia finally joined in August 2012.
That kind of integration required transparency. Foreign businesses needed reliable data and predictable rules. If Russia wanted to attract investment and trade, it had to look like a country outsiders could understand and trust.
To the outside world, Russia could still look open enough for business. At home, the government was steadily tightening control over the institutions that collected information and explained what it meant. The Kremlin was trying to do two things at once: stay connected to the global economy while narrowing political space at home.
For a while, the West preferred to look the other way, despite growing concerns about repression, corruption, and Russia’s behavior abroad. Trade was too profitable, and no one wanted to disturb the relative peace in Eastern Europe.
But political problems can work a lot like health problems. Ignore them for long enough, and they do not disappear. They become chronic.
After the annexation of Crimea in 2014, the pretense became harder to sustain. After the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, it largely collapsed. Sanctions widened, Western companies pulled out, and Russia’s economic ties with Europe shrank dramatically.
Russia has lost major markets, taken on enormous military costs, and found itself confronting adversaries with far greater combined resources. In that situation, a direct contest is difficult to sustain.
But there is another strategy: convince your opponents that confronting you will be so costly and dangerous that they would rather negotiate on your terms. But intimidation only works if you look strong enough to be feared.
That makes inconvenient numbers dangerous. Russia has increasingly restricted access to information that could expose weakness, from the real cost of the war to the condition of the economy and the fortunes of those in power.
For us, that secrecy is useful. It gives us a map of the Kremlin’s vulnerabilities.
Military Secrets
Every army keeps real secrets. You do not publish troop movements, ammunition sites, or air-defense positions. That is normal.
What becomes revealing is when secrecy starts protecting the image of the army rather than its operations.
Start with casualties.
In 2015, Putin classified military losses during “special operations” in peacetime. Since the full-scale invasion, Russia has avoided publishing a credible overall casualty figure.
But the human cost keeps surfacing elsewhere. In Rostov, morgues have processed thousands of war dead. Military hospitals have been so overloaded that civilian facilities have been converted to treat wounded soldiers.
A country at war may delay some information for operational reasons. But when the total price of the war itself becomes dangerous to discuss, that tells us what the state fears: not only enemy intelligence, but public understanding.
The same applies inside the army.
Russia needs a constant flow of new recruits, and recruitment becomes harder if potential volunteers hear too much about what happens after they sign.
Independent media have documented beatings, extortion, punishment pits, and systems in which soldiers pay commanders for leave, safer assignments, or better treatment.
Fixing this would require confronting the informal structures that give commanders money and power. That is difficult. Silencing discussion is easier.
So secrecy serves two purposes at once: recruits hear less about what may await them, and the people benefiting from the system face less scrutiny.
Then there is the question of war crimes.
An aggressive war still needs a moral story. Russians are told that their country is defending itself and fighting on the side of good.
Evidence of atrocities threatens that story.
Ilya Yashin was sentenced to eight and a half years after discussing the killings in Bucha. Alexei Gorinov was imprisoned after speaking about civilian deaths in Ukraine.
The danger is political. If people begin to see the war as unjust, they may also begin to question the man who started it.
The Economy Behind the Curtain
In a normal economy, data is not decoration. It is how businesses, investors, and governments understand what is actually happening.
Russia increasingly treats that information as a liability.
Soon after the invasion, the Federal Customs Service stopped publishing detailed import and export statistics. The Central Bank suspended some foreign-trade and external-debt data. Banks were allowed to limit financial disclosures. Major companies in aviation, metals, diamonds, oil, and gas also stopped publishing information they had routinely released before the war.
Some of those restrictions were later eased. But the principle remained: if a number can help outsiders understand the effect of sanctions, Russia may decide that the number itself is dangerous.
Energy is the clearest example.
Russia stopped publishing detailed oil-production data in 2023. In 2024, it restricted gasoline-production figures after Ukrainian drone strikes on refineries. And in 2026, the Kremlin expanded restrictions around energy trade even further.
Why?
Because sanctions have created a permanent game of cat and mouse.
Russia has built elaborate ways to keep trade moving under sanctions, often by routing business through third countries and intermediaries.
Secrecy makes those arrangements harder to trace. The less outsiders know about how Russian trade actually works, the harder it is to enforce sanctions against it.
But it has another very useful effect. It becomes harder to measure the damage.
If Russia says its oil industry has adapted, how do we check? If officials say sanctions have failed, how much does it now cost to import the same technology through an intermediary? If the aviation industry claims it can replace Western aircraft and components, how serious are the delays and shortages? The less data we have, the easier it becomes to replace measurement with competing stories.
The Reality You Cannot See
There is another kind of secrecy that has very little to do with foreign enemies.
It prevents Russians from understanding the country they themselves live in.
In a normally functioning state, the budget is one of the simplest ways to see government priorities. Politicians can promise anything. The budget shows what they are actually willing to pay for.
Russia’s 2025 federal budget made that comparison unusually difficult. Almost one-third of all spending was classified. Within national defense, about 85 percent was secret. Reuters described it as the most secretive Russian budget of the post-Soviet era.
That matters because the visible part of life tells you very little about the state’s real priorities.
You may see your local school, your hospital, your paycheck and your grocery bill. But if a huge share of public spending disappears behind classified lines, it becomes harder to see what you gave up in exchange for the war and the security apparatus supporting it.
And the same fog is spreading over Russian society itself.
Here we encounter something almost paradoxical. Russian law explicitly says that information about healthcare, demography, and crime cannot be classified as a state secret.
So often it is not formally classified. It simply becomes harder to find.
One example appeared after Wagner began recruiting prisoners for the war. Public prison statistics showed an extraordinary fall in the number of inmates. Journalists could use those numbers to estimate the scale of recruitment. Soon afterward, the Federal Penitentiary Service stopped publishing its regular nationwide prison-population statistics. Mediazona then had to reconstruct the picture region by region.
The same thing happened with military justice. Instead of declaring every desertion case secret, the Judicial Department simply removed the detailed national statistics from its published tables.
This is a very effective form of information control.
You do not have to erase reality. You make reality expensive to discover.
A journalist now has to search hundreds of local sources and assemble the national picture manually. An ordinary person will never do that.
Courts can create the same effect. In 2022, Russian judges ordered more than 25,000 criminal cases to be heard without the public or press, a record in the available statistics.
Piece by piece, the country becomes harder to see as a whole, and that helps explain one of the strangest contrasts in wartime Russia.
The surface can still look reassuringly normal. In many big cities, public spaces are polished and daily life often appears untouched by crisis. That visible order matters because the damage is concentrated elsewhere and much harder to see.
A cemetery outside a provincial town does not shape the experience of someone in the capital. Neither does a military hospital hundreds of miles away.
This is where missing data becomes politically useful. Without a reliable national picture, local tragedies remain local. People see what is in front of them and have little reason to connect it to what is happening across the country.
The same principle applies to the people running it.
For years, Russians could at least inspect public declarations of senior officials and ask whether their lifestyles matched their official incomes. In 2023, those disclosures became far less transparent. The Kremlin said that Putin’s declaration and those of presidential-administration employees would no longer be published, even though the declarations were still being submitted internally.
That removes another comparison. Citizens can still be told to sacrifice. They simply have less ability to see how much sacrifice is being made by the people asking for it.
Self-Reproducing Secrets
Secrecy in Russia is not created only by government decrees. Ordinary people do a great deal of the work themselves.
A few highly visible prosecutions can teach an entire profession where the boundaries are. When journalists see colleagues arrested or reporting treated as espionage, they begin to calculate the risk before anyone formally tells them what they cannot publish.
The arrest and closed trial of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich sent that message far beyond one newsroom. Russia accused him of espionage, which he, his newspaper, and the U.S. government denied. But the broader lesson was impossible to miss: certain kinds of information can become dangerous simply because the state decides they are.
That is how self-censorship grows.
Eventually it reaches ordinary conversation.
I sometimes speak with an editor I have known for years in Moscow. Her publishing house recently went through serious trouble. There were arrests and searches. Some of its books were destroyed during a strike on a Wildberries facility.
I know these things happened, so naturally I ask how she is doing.
“Fine,” she says.
Then the conversation moves away from facts and toward feelings. She does not want to explain what happened, who was involved, or what is happening now. I can hear the caution in the way she speaks.
And that silence itself tells me something.
When people learn that discussing reality can be dangerous, they stop helping one another understand it. Everyone begins protecting a small private world.
This creates a peculiar kind of magical realism. Reality extends only as far as your own experience. If your life is going well, it becomes easy to assume that the country is doing fine. If your life is falling apart, you may conclude that you were simply unlucky.
The Kremlin does not need everyone to believe the official version. Confusion is enough.
People begin saying: “I don’t know.” Then: “Nobody really knows.” And finally: “Maybe I know, but I’m not going to talk about it.”
A story I heard from the Russian Far East shows how powerful this can become.
A woman I know told me about her niece, born in 2003, who went to school in the Magadan region. According to her, every boy in that class except one has died in the war. The surviving young man is now avoiding military service and struggling to build a normal working life.
I shared that story on my Russian-language Facebook page. People from large Russian cities immediately told me it could not be true. “We don’t see anything like that around us,” they said.
Of course they don’t. Magadan is thousands of miles from Moscow. The human cost of the war is spread very unevenly across Russia. What is obvious in one small community may be almost invisible in another.
Russia begins to resemble an information archipelago. A Muscovite knows Moscow. A woman in Magadan knows what happened to families around her. A soldier’s wife knows what she hears from his unit.
Each person holds a piece of the picture, but the mechanisms that once helped assemble those pieces into a national reality are disappearing.
This is why propaganda does not always need to convince. You may doubt the official casualty figures. Then you see photographs of a cemetery online. Someone says they are old. A friend tells you several men from her town were killed, but nothing similar has happened on your street. There is no reliable national number to settle the argument.
At some point, censorship no longer needs to come entirely from above. The society starts producing its own fog.
