Architects of Division: An Analysis of Russia's Sovereign Runet and China's Great Firewall

Introduction: The Rise of Digital Sovereignty

The foundational architecture and ethos of the internet were once rooted in a vision of a borderless, decentralized, and globally interconnected network, a space where information could flow freely, transcending national boundaries and fostering a new era of communication and collaboration.1 This early, utopian ideal has increasingly collided with the contemporary reality of escalating state control, leading to a fundamental paradigm shift in global internet governance.4 At the heart of this shift is the ascendant concept of "digital sovereignty" or "network sovereignty," an ideology that asserts a nation-state's right to govern its own networks, regulate data flows, and enforce national laws within its digital borders.5 This model directly challenges the traditional multistakeholder approach—where governments, the private sector, civil society, and the technical community collaborate on governance—by prioritizing the primacy of the state in controlling its domestic information space.2

Nowhere is this paradigm shift more evident or advanced than in the national strategies of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China. These two nations have become the principal architects of digital sovereignty, constructing sophisticated legal and technical systems to assert control over their segments of the internet. While often grouped together under the umbrella of "digital authoritarianism," their approaches, motivations, and technical implementations reveal distinct philosophies. Russia's strategy, embodied in its "Sovereign Runet" initiative, is primarily focused on creating a defensible, resilient, and ultimately isolatable national network capable of functioning independently from the global internet in a crisis.9 This reflects a defensive posture, a digital fortress designed to withstand perceived external threats. In contrast, China's "Great Firewall" (GFW) represents a more mature, long-standing, and pervasive project. Its goal is not necessarily to disconnect but to build a permanently filtered, monitored, and curated national intranet—a parallel digital ecosystem that allows for controlled economic engagement with the world while neutralizing internal political dissent and external ideological influence.11

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of these two leading models of digital sovereignty. It will first deconstruct the legal architecture and technical implementation of Russia's Sovereign Runet, with a specific focus on its National Domain Name System (DNS). It will then conduct a deep-dive into the multi-layered technological arsenal of China's Great Firewall, examining how it separates the Chinese digital sphere from the global internet. Following these individual analyses, the report will offer a direct comparative assessment, highlighting the strategic divergences and areas of ideological convergence between the two systems. Finally, it will explore the profound global ramifications of these projects, analyzing their collective role in accelerating the fragmentation of the internet into a "Splinternet" and shaping the future of global digital governance.14

Section 1: The Russian Model - Forging a Sovereign Runet

The Russian Federation's approach to internet control is a strategic endeavor to reassert state authority over a digital space it perceives as a vulnerability. Culminating in the 2019 Sovereign Internet Law, this strategy aims to create a national internet segment, the "Runet," that can be centrally managed, filtered, and, if deemed necessary by the Kremlin, completely isolated from the global network. This section deconstructs the legal, technical, and practical dimensions of this ambitious and deeply strategic project.

1.1 The Legal Architecture of Control: The 2019 Sovereign Internet Law

The cornerstone of Russia's digital sovereignty project is a set of 2019 amendments to existing legislation, commonly known as the "Sovereign Internet Law" (Federal Law No. 90-FZ).9 This law provides the crucial legal framework for creating a centralized state management system over the country's internet infrastructure.17

The official rationale for the law is defensive. The Kremlin has consistently framed it as a necessary measure to protect the Russian internet from external threats, particularly the risk of being disconnected from foreign infrastructure by hostile actors.16 This narrative points to what Russia calls the "aggressive nature" of the United States' national cybersecurity strategy as a primary justification.10 This defensive posture is rooted in a deep-seated security concern within the Russian leadership, underscored by President Vladimir Putin's past characterization of the internet as a "CIA project".19 The stated goal is to ensure the "integrity, stability, and security" of the Runet, allowing it to function reliably even if servers outside of Russia's control are switched off.10

However, beneath this official justification lie implicit but more significant objectives: the consolidation of state control over information flows and the suppression of online dissent.5 The law grants the government sweeping powers for internet surveillance and the ability to partition Russia from the rest of the internet, effectively creating a "national fork".9 Human rights organizations have widely condemned the legislation, arguing that it jeopardizes the right to free speech and access to information by enabling state censorship on an unprecedented scale.16

To achieve these dual goals of defense and control, the law imposes several critical mandates on all telecommunications operators within Russia. It requires Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to install state-provided equipment on their networks, a measure that allows for direct state intervention in traffic management.16 It also mandates the creation of a national Domain Name System (DNS) to ensure the Runet can function independently.10 Most critically, the law grants the state's communications regulator, the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor), the authority to assume "centralized management" of the internet in the event of a perceived threat. This gives Roskomnadzor the power to issue binding instructions to all network operators and, theoretically, to disconnect the Runet from the global internet entirely.9 This legal framework transforms the decentralized structure of the internet within Russia into a centralized, hierarchical system subject to direct state command.

1.2 Re-engineering the Core: The National Domain Name System (NDNS)

The most ambitious and technically challenging component of the Sovereign Internet Law is the creation of a National Domain Name System (NDNS).21 The DNS is often described as the "phone book of the internet," translating human-readable domain names (like

example.com) into the numerical IP addresses that computers use to locate each other.22 By creating its own version of this core infrastructure, Russia aims to ensure the Runet can continue to function even if it is cut off from the global network of DNS root servers that manage this process worldwide.23

The technical blueprint for the NDNS is to create a complete replica, or "fork," of the global DNS.21 This involves establishing a Russian-controlled alternative root system that can resolve domain names for users within the country without needing to query servers abroad.24 The stated purpose is to mitigate the threat of being disconnected from the global root, thereby ensuring the operational autonomy of Russian websites and online services, particularly those with top-level domains like.ru,.su, and.рф.21

Implementation of the NDNS is not optional. The law mandates that as of January 1, 2021, all entities in Russia that operate an Autonomous System (AS)—a collection of IP networks managed by a single entity, such as an ISP or a large corporation—must connect to the NDNS and perform their name resolution through it.21 This is enforced in two primary ways: operators can be required to use a local root server, which provides a government-approved backup copy of the root zone, or they can be directed to use a public National DNS resolver, either directly or through their own network's resolvers.23 Roskomnadzor, through its subsidiary Center for Monitoring and Management of Public Communication Networks, is responsible for developing and disseminating the technical instructions for connecting to this national system.19 The state's commitment to this mandate is demonstrated by the fact that several companies have already been fined for their failure to connect to the NDNS.23

The strategic implications of this move extend far beyond creating a simple backup system. By forcing all domestic DNS traffic through a centralized, state-controlled system, the NDNS becomes a powerful instrument for censorship and surveillance. With control over the "phone book," the state can monitor all DNS requests made by its citizens, selectively block access to specific websites by refusing to resolve their domain names, or even redirect users from a legitimate site to a malicious or state-approved alternative.21 While the law's stated aim is to enhance resilience, the creation of a centralized NDNS introduces a critical single point of failure. A malfunction or a malicious attack on this national system could disrupt internet access for the entire country, potentially undermining the very stability it claims to protect.23

1.3 Centralizing Traffic Flow and Filtering

Beyond re-engineering the DNS, the Sovereign Internet Law fundamentally alters the physical flow of data within Russia. The legislation centralizes state control over the critical junctures of the network—the Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)—and mandates the installation of technology for content filtering.

The law explicitly redefines IXPs, the physical locations where different networks interconnect and exchange traffic, as "communications facilities" that fall under the direct authority of Roskomnadzor.19 This is a crucial step. By asserting control over these points, the state gains the ability to monitor and manage the flow of nearly all internet traffic that passes between different providers within Russia, as well as traffic entering or leaving the country. This centralized oversight is a prerequisite for any attempt to isolate the Runet, as it provides the state with the necessary levers to reroute or block data flows at a national level.17 The government has pursued this goal for years, with plans to route up to 95% of all Russian internet traffic domestically.19

A pivotal and revealing component of the law is the mandate for ISPs to install "technical means for countering threats" (ТСПУ or "TSPU") on their networks.20 This vaguely named equipment includes Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology.16 DPI allows network operators to examine the content of data packets as they travel across the network, enabling the filtering of traffic based on specific keywords, patterns, or application types.16

The inclusion of a DPI mandate reveals a strategy that goes beyond simple isolation. While the primary goal of the law is framed as creating the ability to disconnect, the installation of DPI technology indicates a parallel ambition to control content in a manner more akin to China's Great Firewall.16 This equipment gives authorities the power to filter, block, and reroute traffic without requiring the active cooperation of ISPs, as the state can manage the TSPU systems directly.21 This capability has already been put into practice; the technology was reportedly used by Roskomnadzor to slow down, or "throttle," the speed of the social network Twitter in Russia as a punitive measure for its failure to delete content deemed illegal by Moscow.10 This demonstrates that the Sovereign Runet is being built not only as a fortress but also as a panopticon, with tools for both isolation and pervasive content control.

1.4 Testing the "Kill Switch": From Theory to Practice

To validate the feasibility of its Sovereign Runet, the Russian government has conducted a series of large-scale tests designed to simulate a disconnection from the global internet. The 2019 law stipulates that such drills be carried out at least once a year, involving all major telecommunications firms in the country.10 These tests are not merely theoretical exercises; they are practical assessments of the Runet's ability to function independently in the face of "external distortions, blocks and other threats".10

The most widely reported of these tests took place over a month-long period from June 15 to July 15, 2021. According to sources cited in media reports, the exercise "tested the capabilities of physically disconnecting the Russian section of the internet".10 Preliminary results from this and other tests were deemed "successful" by government sources, with officials claiming that there were no noticeable disruptions for ordinary internet users.10 Subsequent, more localized tests have demonstrated the system's more granular capabilities. For instance, tests in regions like Dagestan, Chechnya, and Ingushetia resulted in temporary outages of popular services such as WhatsApp, YouTube, and Telegram, indicating that the infrastructure can be used to block specific applications and services on a regional basis.9

Despite these official declarations of success, significant skepticism remains among independent experts regarding Russia's ability to fully and seamlessly isolate the Runet without causing severe collateral damage to its digital economy and infrastructure.16 The technical and logistical challenge of re-engineering a nation's entire internet infrastructure is immense, requiring immense coordination among hundreds of public and private network operators.21 It remains questionable whether all ISPs have fully complied with the expensive mandate to install the necessary TSPU equipment and connect to the NDNS.21

While the Kremlin has demonstrated a growing capability to control and disrupt internet traffic, achieving a complete, stable, and sustainable isolation of the Runet from the global internet is a far more complex proposition. Researchers Andrey Soldatov and Irina Borogan estimated that as of late 2021, the state could effectively control around 73% of internet traffic, a significant portion but far from the total control required for a seamless disconnection.21 Therefore, while the "kill switch" may be partially functional, its use on a national scale would likely be a disruptive and unpredictable event.

The evidence points to a strategy where Russia prioritizes the capability of isolation as its ultimate tool of control, whereas China prioritizes continuous, pervasive filtering as its primary method. The official justification for the Sovereign Internet Law is consistently framed around external threats and the risk of being "cut off" by the West, pointing to a defensive, siege mentality.10 The core technical project is the National DNS, a massive undertaking whose main purpose is to ensure the internet continues to

function internally if the external root is inaccessible—a resilience and isolation project, not primarily a filtering one.21 The disconnection tests are explicitly designed to assess operational autonomy under external pressure.10 While DPI is being installed, its application has been targeted (e.g., throttling Twitter) rather than pervasive, suggesting it is a tool for specific threats rather than a blanket policy of content curation. Russia is building a kill switch; China has built a permanent filter.

Section 2: The Chinese Model - Architecting the Great Firewall (GFW)

China's approach to internet control represents the world's most sophisticated, extensive, and mature system of digital censorship. Known colloquially as the "Great Firewall" (GFW), it is not a single technology but a dynamic, multi-layered apparatus that combines comprehensive legislative mandates, advanced technological tools, and the enforced complicity of the private sector. The GFW's objective is not to isolate China from the global internet, but rather to construct a carefully curated and monitored national intranet, allowing the state to reap the economic benefits of connectivity while neutralizing political threats and controlling the domestic information environment.

2.1 The Golden Shield: A Blueprint for a National Intranet

The origins of the GFW can be traced back to the "Golden Shield Project," a massive surveillance and censorship initiative launched by the Ministry of Public Security in the late 1990s.26 The project's guiding philosophy was rooted in the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) early recognition of the internet's dual nature: it was a powerful engine for economic modernization but also a potential vector for social and political instability that could challenge the Party's monopoly on power.29 From its inception, China's strategy was not one of disconnection but of controlled integration. The goal was to build a regulated, state-dominated domestic internet—what is more accurately described as a national intranet—that could be sealed off from undesirable foreign influences while still allowing for beneficial economic and technological exchange.11

This technological project is underpinned by a robust and comprehensive legal framework that has evolved over two decades.13 Unlike Russia's more recent legislative push, China's regulatory regime is deeply entrenched and multifaceted. Key legislation, such as the 2016 Cybersecurity Law, provides the state with sweeping powers. It mandates strict data localization, requiring that data generated on Chinese citizens be stored within the country's borders.6 It also enforces a real-name registration system for internet users, linking online accounts to official government identification, and legally compels all internet companies, both domestic and foreign, to comply with state censorship and surveillance directives.30 This legal structure creates an environment where adherence to state control is a prerequisite for market access, forming the bedrock upon which the GFW's technical systems operate.

2.2 A Multi-Layered Arsenal: The GFW's Technical Mechanisms

The technical resilience and effectiveness of the Great Firewall stem from its multi-layered, redundant architecture. It employs a suite of different technologies that operate at various levels of the network stack, ensuring that if one method of censorship is bypassed, another is likely to catch the targeted traffic. This defense-in-depth strategy makes the GFW exceptionally difficult to circumvent.

DNS Manipulation (Poisoning, Injection, and Tampering): The GFW's first line of defense often operates at the DNS level. It actively monitors all DNS queries that cross China's internet border.32 When a user inside China attempts to look up the IP address of a blocked domain (e.g.,

twitter.com), the GFW's sensors detect the request. It then immediately injects a forged DNS response containing a fake or non-routable IP address. This fake packet is engineered to reach the user's computer before the legitimate response from the actual DNS server can arrive, a tactic that exploits the "race condition" inherent in the UDP-based DNS protocol.32 This technique, known as DNS injection or poisoning, effectively prevents the user from ever learning the true address of the blocked site. The incorrect information is then cached by domestic DNS resolvers, spreading the "poison" throughout China's internet and ensuring that subsequent requests for the same domain also fail.32 This method is known to cause significant collateral damage, as the GFW's indiscriminate injection can poison the caches of public DNS resolvers outside of China that happen to route traffic through Chinese networks.32

IP Address Blocking (Blacklisting and Null Routing): A more foundational and blunt instrument in the GFW's arsenal is IP address blocking. China's internet traffic flows through a very limited number of state-controlled international gateways.12 Routers at these gateways are configured with a massive, constantly updated blacklist of IP addresses associated with undesirable websites, VPN servers, and other services.11 When a user attempts to connect to a blacklisted IP, the routers are instructed to simply drop the data packets, a technique known as null routing or "blackholing".32 While this method is computationally inexpensive and effective for blocking entire servers, it is imprecise and can suffer from overblocking, where numerous innocent websites that share an IP address or server with a banned site are rendered inaccessible as collateral damage.40

Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) and Keyword Filtering: For more granular, content-based censorship, the GFW employs sophisticated Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology.11 DPI systems inspect the actual content of unencrypted data packets as they traverse the network. They scan for a dynamic list of sensitive keywords and phrases within URLs, HTTP headers, and even the text of webpages and search queries.11 If a forbidden term—such as "Tiananmen Square protests," "Falun Gong," or the names of political dissidents—is detected, the GFW takes immediate action. It injects forged TCP Reset (RST) packets, sending them to both the user's computer and the destination server. These RST packets mimic a legitimate command to terminate the connection, abruptly closing the session and preventing the sensitive content from being delivered.32 This allows the GFW to block a specific article on a news site while leaving the rest of the site accessible.

HTTPS and Encrypted Traffic Filtering: The global shift to encrypted HTTPS traffic posed a significant challenge to the GFW's content-based DPI methods. In response, the GFW adapted its strategy. While it cannot easily read the encrypted content of an HTTPS connection, it can inspect the unencrypted portions of the initial connection handshake. Specifically, it targets the Server Name Indication (SNI) field, a plaintext component of the TLS protocol that reveals the domain name the user is trying to connect to.33 By filtering based on the SNI, the GFW can block connections to specific HTTPS-enabled websites without needing to perform costly and complex decryption. To further enhance its capabilities, China has also been accused of leveraging its control over domestic Certificate Authorities (CAs) to issue fake SSL certificates for man-in-the-middle attacks and has mandated the use of older TLS protocol versions that leave the SNI field unencrypted.35

Advanced Evasion Countermeasures (Active Probing and VPN Fingerprinting): The GFW is in a constant cat-and-mouse game with users employing circumvention tools like Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and The Onion Router (Tor). To combat these tools, the GFW utilizes a technique called "active probing." The system identifies suspicious traffic patterns and then actively sends its own probes to the suspected server to determine if it is a known circumvention tool.11 Once confirmed, the server's IP address is added to the blocklist. Furthermore, the GFW employs "VPN fingerprinting," which involves analyzing the unique traffic patterns, packet sizes, and handshake protocols of various VPN services (like OpenVPN). Even if the data is encrypted, these metadata signatures can be enough to identify the traffic as belonging to a VPN, allowing the GFW to block the connection.44

The following table provides a structured overview of the GFW's primary technical mechanisms and their strategic purposes.

Technology

Description

Strategic Purpose

IP Address Blocking

Routers at internet gateways are configured to drop all data packets destined for a blacklist of IP addresses (null routing).

To create a foundational, albeit blunt, layer of censorship by making entire servers or services unreachable.

DNS Poisoning/Injection

The GFW intercepts DNS queries for banned domains and injects fake responses with incorrect IP addresses, which then get cached by local resolvers.

To prevent users from even discovering the correct IP address of a blocked site, effectively making it disappear from the Chinese internet.

Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) & Keyword Filtering

Unencrypted traffic is scanned for sensitive keywords in URLs, headers, or page content. If a match is found, the connection is terminated.

To enable granular, content-based censorship, allowing the blocking of specific pages or articles on an otherwise accessible website.

TCP Reset Attacks

Upon detecting banned keywords via DPI, the GFW sends forged TCP Reset (RST) packets to both the user and the server.

To actively and immediately terminate an undesirable connection, preventing the transfer of sensitive information.

SNI Filtering

The GFW inspects the unencrypted Server Name Indication (SNI) field during the HTTPS handshake to identify the requested domain.

To block encrypted HTTPS traffic without needing to decrypt the content, adapting censorship to a more secure web.

Active Probing & VPN Fingerprinting

The system actively probes suspected circumvention tool servers and analyzes traffic patterns to identify and block VPN and Tor connections.

To counter attempts by users to bypass the GFW, maintaining the integrity of the censorship regime.

2.3 The Ecosystem Within the Walls

The Great Firewall's enduring success is attributable to more than just its technical sophistication. It has fostered a unique, self-contained digital ecosystem, turning a tool of political control into a powerful instrument of economic policy. This dual function creates a powerful symbiotic relationship between the state and domestic industry, deeply entrenching the GFW in China's political economy.

By blocking access to the world's leading internet platforms—including all Google services, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube—the GFW has effectively acted as the ultimate protectionist trade barrier.13 This has created a vast and captive domestic market of over 700 million internet users, shielded from dominant foreign competitors.35 In the vacuum left by the absence of these global giants, a host of Chinese technology companies have not only survived but thrived, growing into behemoths in their own right.35 Companies like Baidu (search), Alibaba (e-commerce), Tencent (social media and gaming with WeChat), and Sina (microblogging with Weibo) have become the cornerstones of China's digital life, developing services and platforms tailored specifically to the Chinese market.26 The GFW, therefore, has directly "influenced the development of China's internal internet economy by giving preference to domestic companies and reducing the effectiveness of products from foreign internet companies".13

This state-fostered ecosystem relies on a crucial second element: the delegation of censorship responsibilities to the private sector. The CCP does not manually police the entirety of the Chinese internet. Instead, it leverages its legal and regulatory power to compel domestic Internet Content Providers (ICPs) to engage in elaborate self-censorship.30 To maintain their operating licenses, companies like Tencent and Sina must proactively monitor and remove content deemed politically sensitive or socially disruptive by the government.26 They employ tens of thousands of human moderators and invest heavily in powerful artificial intelligence algorithms to scan user-generated content for banned keywords, images, and ideas.30 Because the government's red lines are often intentionally vague and subject to change, companies tend to err on the side of caution, over-censoring content to avoid official sanction.46 This model is remarkably efficient for the state, as it outsources the immense cost and labor of censorship to the very companies that profit from the protected market the GFW creates. This symbiotic relationship—where the state provides a protected market and companies provide censorship and surveillance in return—is a key reason for the GFW's resilience and pervasive effectiveness.

Section 3: A Comparative Analysis of Digital Authoritarianism

While both Russia and China are leading proponents of a state-centric approach to internet governance, their respective models—the Sovereign Runet and the Great Firewall—reveal significant divergences in philosophy, technical maturity, and strategic implementation. A direct comparison highlights two distinct paths toward the common goal of digital control, shaped by different historical contexts, political priorities, and economic ambitions. At the same time, a clear pattern of ideological alignment and tactical knowledge-sharing underscores their shared challenge to the global, open internet.

3.1 Divergent Paths to a Common Goal: Isolationism vs. Pervasive Curation

The most fundamental difference between the Russian and Chinese models lies in their core philosophies. China's strategy is one of proactive, pervasive curation. Its approach, developed from the internet's inception in the country, has always been to create a comprehensive, filtered, and monitored national intranet that coexists with, but is distinct from, the global internet.12 The goal is to manage information flow constantly. Russia's strategy, in contrast, is more recent and reactive, born largely out of the Kremlin's fear of social media-fueled political mobilization, such as the Arab Spring and domestic protests.29 Its primary focus is on building a defensible infrastructure capable of complete isolation in a crisis—a digital "fortress" that can be sealed off from external influence.29

This philosophical divergence is reflected in their legal and institutional frameworks. China's system, while institutionally complex with bodies like the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and the Ministry of Public Security, has demonstrated a degree of responsiveness to criticism, particularly from the business community. It has amended or delayed regulations on cross-border data transfers, for example, indicating a desire to balance state control with the economic benefits of global integration.48 Russia's approach is institutionally more centralized under the singular authority of Roskomnadzor and has proven far less responsive to external feedback, suggesting that state security and regime stability are the overriding priorities, even at the cost of economic friction.48 Furthermore, their data localization laws differ in scope and detail. Russia's law takes an expansive jurisdictional approach, claiming authority over the data of all Russian citizens globally, but is less granular in its implementation requirements.48 China's regulations are more detailed and multifaceted, creating a complex web of rules for different types of data and industries.31

The following table provides a comparative framework of the key features of the Russian and Chinese internet control architectures.

Feature

Russia (Sovereign Runet)

China (Great Firewall)

Core Philosophy

Defensive Isolationism & Regime Security. Aims to create a resilient, isolatable "fortress internet" that can function if disconnected from the global network.

Pervasive Curation & Information Control. Aims to create a permanently filtered, monitored, and curated national intranet that coexists with the global internet.

Primary Legislation

2019 "Sovereign Internet Law"

2016 Cybersecurity Law, plus a web of older regulations and directives (Golden Shield Project).

Key Technologies

National DNS (NDNS), Centralized IXP Control, Deep Packet Inspection (DPI).

Multi-layered: IP Blocking, DNS Poisoning, DPI/Keyword Filtering, SNI Filtering, Active Probing, VPN Fingerprinting.

Enforcement Body

Roskomnadzor (Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media).

Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), Ministry of Public Security.

Maturity Level

Developing. Implemented since 2019, with capabilities still being tested and refined. Not yet fully comprehensive.

Mature. In development for over two decades, highly sophisticated, pervasive, and effective.

Economic Impact

Primarily negative. Increases costs for businesses, creates friction, and risks economic isolation. Limited evidence of fostering a unique domestic ecosystem.

Dual-purpose. Creates a protected domestic market that has incubated national tech giants (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent), fostering a unique and thriving internal digital economy.

3.2 Technical Sophistication and Implementation Gaps

The two decades of development and refinement behind the Great Firewall have resulted in a system that is far more mature, technologically sophisticated, and effective than Russia's Sovereign Runet.29 The GFW is a resilient, multi-layered censorship apparatus that integrates numerous techniques, from the network layer (IP blocking) to the application layer (keyword filtering), and is constantly evolving to counter new circumvention methods.11

Russia's implementation, by contrast, is in a much earlier stage. While its capabilities are growing, the project has been marked by implementation gaps and clumsy failures. The Kremlin's widely publicized attempt to ban the messaging app Telegram in 2018, for example, was largely unsuccessful and resulted in significant collateral damage to unrelated Russian online services.51 While Russia is clearly adopting specific technologies from the Chinese playbook—most notably mandating the use of DPI for filtering and centralizing control over traffic management—its strength is not yet in the seamless integration of these tools.19 China's success lies not just in its technology, but in the deep integration of that technology with a comprehensive system of corporate self-censorship and a unique domestic application ecosystem that reinforces state control.46 Russia has yet to build this broader socio-technical system of control, relying more heavily on direct legal coercion and infrastructural engineering.

3.3 A Partnership of Convenience: Sino-Russian Cooperation in Cyberspace

Despite their different approaches, Russia and China are ideologically aligned in their push for a new model of global internet governance. Both nations are the most prominent proponents of "cyber sovereignty," a concept they champion in international forums like the United Nations to push back against the U.S.-led, open, multistakeholder model.6 Their shared goal is to legitimize a state-centric system where national governments have the ultimate authority to regulate the internet within their borders, primarily to maintain regime stability and control the domestic information environment.6

This ideological alignment has translated into practical cooperation and knowledge sharing. Since Chinese leader Xi Jinping's first visit to Russia in 2013, the two countries have signed numerous agreements and held high-level meetings focused on internet governance.51 Leaked documents and reports have provided concrete evidence of this collaboration. Russian officials from Roskomnadzor have been documented actively seeking practical advice and know-how from their Chinese counterparts at the CAC on a range of technical challenges, including how to disrupt VPNs, crack encrypted internet traffic, and regulate messaging platforms.51 In one instance, the head of Roskomnadzor requested permission to send a technical team to China specifically to study the operations of the Great Firewall, noting that the vast majority of "prohibited content" in Russia was foreign-produced.51

However, this partnership has its limits. A central tenet of the cyber sovereignty doctrine is national self-sufficiency, which inherently discourages deep technological interdependence.6 Russia, for instance, remains highly cautious about relying on Chinese hardware from companies like Huawei for its core network infrastructure, viewing it as a potential national security risk.6 Their strategic goals in the global information space also diverge. Russia's foreign information operations are often overtly disruptive and aimed at sowing chaos, while China's strategy tends to be more subtle, focusing on long-term influence, economic leverage, and the promotion of pro-China narratives.52 Theirs is a partnership of convenience, united by a shared opposition to the Western-led digital order, but ultimately driven by distinct national interests.

Section 4: Global Ramifications - The Dawn of the Splinternet

The concerted efforts by Russia, China, and other nations to impose sovereign control over their digital territories are having profound consequences that extend far beyond their borders. These actions are the primary drivers of a global trend toward internet fragmentation, a phenomenon often referred to as the "Splinternet" or "cyber-balkanization." This final section analyzes the mechanisms and consequences of this fragmentation, its impact on the global economy and society, and the escalating battle over the future of internet governance.

4.1 From a Global Network to a Patchwork of Intranets: The "Splinternet"

The Splinternet is the characterization of the global internet as fracturing into a collection of disparate, often non-interoperable national or regional networks.14 This fragmentation is driven by a confluence of political, commercial, and technological factors, with the prevention of interoperability at its core.53 Russia and China are the principal state actors accelerating this trend, their projects actively creating a divide between the open, globally connected internet and closed, state-controlled digital spheres.15

The very technologies and policies designed to achieve digital sovereignty are the mechanisms of this fragmentation. Russia's creation of a national DNS is a move toward a technically incompatible system that could, in a crisis, be severed from the global root.53 China's development of alternative technical standards and protocols, promoted through international bodies like the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), threatens to create a competing technological stack that would fundamentally break the interoperability of the current internet.56 Data localization mandates, enacted not only by authoritarian regimes but also in democracies like the EU, create digital borders that restrict the free flow of information, adding "friction" to global connectivity.4 The result is a move away from a single, universal network toward a patchwork of national and regional intranets, each with its own rules, standards, and access restrictions.53

The discourse around the Splinternet often frames it as a future, hypothetical risk. However, the evidence demonstrates that fragmentation is not a distant possibility but a present and accelerating reality. China's Great Firewall has, for over two decades, created a functionally separate internet experience for its citizens, a system more accurately described as a "national intranet" than a part of the global internet.12 Russia's Sovereign Runet project, with its successful disconnection tests, represents a concrete, operationalized move toward infrastructural separation that is an ongoing, active process.10 This fragmentation is not exclusively an authoritarian phenomenon. Democratic initiatives, such as the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and its push for a "sovereign cloud," while motivated by privacy protection rather than political censorship, also contribute to fragmentation by establishing data borders and localization requirements.57 The debate is no longer about

if the internet will splinter, but about the degree and nature of the existing fragmentation and whether the common underlying protocols that ensure basic global connectivity can be preserved amidst a "fragmentation of governance" where the network is overlaid with uncoordinated and dissonant national rules.4

4.2 Economic and Social Consequences

The fracturing of the internet carries severe long-term consequences for the global economy, scientific and cultural exchange, and societal cohesion.

A fragmented internet erects significant barriers to global trade and commerce, stifling economic growth and innovation.53 For multinational corporations, the Splinternet transforms a unified global market into a complex and costly patchwork of jurisdictions. Companies must navigate conflicting technical standards, duplicative data storage requirements due to localization laws, and unpredictable censorship rules, all of which increase the cost and complexity of doing business internationally.4 This regulatory and technical "friction" makes it harder and more expensive to connect and transact across borders, undermining the efficiencies that have driven the digital economy for decades.4

Beyond the economic costs, the Splinternet erodes the internet's function as a global commons for knowledge and culture. By restricting access to information and erecting barriers to communication, fragmentation directly hinders international scientific research, which relies on open collaboration and data sharing.3 It limits cross-cultural understanding and educational opportunities, leading to the loss of a shared global internet culture and potentially hindering international cooperation and empathy.53 The recent global IT outage caused by a software flaw in a widely used cybersecurity product provides a stark case study: while numerous countries faced crippled infrastructure, China was largely unaffected because its domestic systems do not rely on the same foreign technology, highlighting both the resilience and the profound isolation of its digital ecosystem.14

At the societal level, fragmentation exacerbates the formation of "echo chambers" and "walled gardens," which can amplify disinformation and deepen political polarization.14 Within censored environments, the state can control the narrative completely. For example, research on TikTok's response to Russia's censorship laws following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine found that content available to Russian users was reduced by 95%, with the remaining content heavily skewed toward pro-war, state-controlled narratives.60 This leaves citizens not only misinformed about global events but also potentially unaware of genuine digital threats, as cybersecurity warnings from outside their national bubble may never reach them.60

4.3 The Future of Internet Governance

The rise of digital sovereignty has ignited a fundamental ideological battle over the future of internet governance. This conflict pits the traditional, open, multistakeholder model—which advocates for distributed decision-making among various stakeholders—against the state-centric "cyber sovereignty" model championed by Russia and China.2 This is not merely a technical debate; it is a struggle over who will write the rules for the digital world of the 21st century.15

International institutions, particularly the United Nations, have become the primary arena for this contest. The introduction of competing resolutions on cybersecurity norms and the ongoing debates surrounding proposals like the UN's Global Digital Compact reflect the deep divide between the two camps.6 The outcomes of high-level reviews, such as the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)+20, could potentially trigger a formal shift in global governance structures, moving away from the multistakeholder model toward a multilateral, government-led system, which would legitimize the sovereignty-based approach.2

The proliferation of the sovereignty model poses a direct and growing threat to human rights online. It normalizes the practices of mass surveillance, pervasive censorship, and the suppression of free expression, providing a blueprint for other authoritarian or democratically backsliding regimes to follow.1 The lack of a unified, coherent response from the world's democracies has created a regulatory vacuum. If Western nations cannot align around and enforce a normative framework that preserves privacy, openness, and accountability, a growing number of governments may be drawn toward the more repressive, but seemingly effective, models of digital control.15

Conclusion and Strategic Outlook

This analysis has deconstructed the two leading architectures of digital control: Russia's Sovereign Runet and China's Great Firewall. While both are expressions of a shared ideology of state-centric "cyber sovereignty," they represent fundamentally different strategic paths. Russia's model is one of defensive isolationism, an infrastructural project designed to create a digital fortress capable of withstanding a total disconnection from the global network. China's model is one of pervasive curation, a mature and sophisticated system built over two decades to create a permanently filtered and monitored national intranet that is also a powerful tool of economic protectionism. Despite these differences, their actions are the primary state-driven forces accelerating the fragmentation of the global internet.

The original vision of a single, open, and global digital village is receding. The future of the internet appears to be a far more complex, contested, and fragmented space, a patchwork of interconnected but distinct spheres with varying degrees of openness and state control. The Splinternet is not a future risk to be averted but a present reality to be managed. The trajectory is toward increased friction, greater regulatory divergence, and an ongoing struggle between competing governance models.

For open societies and proponents of a global internet, this new reality demands a clear-eyed and coordinated strategic response. The following imperatives are critical for navigating this contested digital future:

1. Reaffirm and Strengthen the Multistakeholder Model: The most direct counter to the state-led, multilateral push by Russia and China is to actively defend, reform, and invest in the existing multistakeholder institutions of internet governance, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). These bodies must become more effective, inclusive, and responsive to global challenges to maintain their legitimacy and authority.8

2. Promote a Positive, Affirmative Vision: Liberal democracies must move beyond a reactive posture and articulate a clear, affirmative model for an open, secure, and rights-respecting internet. This involves not only defending principles like free expression and privacy but also demonstrating the tangible economic and social benefits of this model to the undecided "swing states" in the developing world, which are currently being courted by competing techno-ideological blocs.15

3. Develop Coordinated Policies and Standards: To create a powerful alternative to the authoritarian model, like-minded nations must resist the temptation of unilateral actions that contribute to unnecessary fragmentation. They should work collaboratively to develop common standards and interoperable regulatory frameworks on critical issues like data protection, cybersecurity, and the ethical governance of artificial intelligence.

4. Support Digital Resilience and Literacy: In a fragmented world, it is essential to support the means of connection. This includes investing in and legally protecting the development and use of circumvention technologies that allow users in closed societies to access the global internet. Simultaneously, a global push for enhanced digital literacy is crucial to build societal resilience against the disinformation and manipulation that thrive in fragmented, echo-chambered information environments.

The era of passive stewardship of the internet is over. The coming decade will be defined by an active and determined struggle to shape its future. Preserving the most valuable aspects of a global, interoperable, and open network will require a concerted and strategic effort from all who value it.

Works cited

1. From Digital Sovereignty to Digital Agency - New America, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.newamerica.org/planetary-politics/briefs/from-digital-sovereignty-to-digital-agency/

2. Converging on the future of global Internet governance: The United States and Brazil, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/converging-on-the-future-of-global-internet-governance-the-united-states-and-brazil/

3. The Splinternet - Duke Law Scholarship Repository, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4066&context=dlj

4. Sovereignty and the Evolution of Internet Ideology - CSIS, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/sovereignty-and-evolution-internet-ideology

5. Russia's Quest for Digital Sovereignty - German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), accessed on October 6, 2025, https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/russias-quest-digital-sovereignty

6. The Rise of Cyber Sovereignty: Russia, China, and the Future of ..., accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.ypfp.org/the-rise-of-cyber-sovereignty-russia-china-and-the-future-of-internet-governance/

7. Network sovereignty - Wikipedia, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_sovereignty

8. Revitalising Global Internet Governance - Tony Blair Institute, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://institute.global/insights/tech-and-digitalisation/revitalising-global-internet-governance

9. Sovereign Internet Law - Wikipedia, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Internet_Law

10. Russia disconnected from global internet in tests - RBC daily, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://news.trust.org/item/20210722094330-21wee

11. Advancing Obfuscation Strategies to Counter China's Great Firewall: A Technical and Policy Perspective - arXiv, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2503.02018v1

12. The Chinese Firewall - Internet Society, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/internet-fragmentation/the-chinese-firewall/

13. Great Firewall - Wikipedia, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall

14. Splinternet - Wikipedia, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splinternet

15. Tackle the 'Splinternet' | Chatham House – International Affairs Think ..., accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2019/06/tackle-splinternet

16. Russia Enacts Sovereign Internet Law, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.nifusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Russia-Enacts-Sovereign-Internet-Law.pdf

17. Deciphering Russia's “Sovereign Internet Law” | DGAP, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/deciphering-russias-sovereign-internet-law

18. Russia Tests Way to Disconnect from Worldwide Internet - VOA Learning English, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/russia-tests-way-to-disconnect-from-worldwide-internet/5976331.html

19. Analysis: Russia's Plans for a National Internet - New America, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.newamerica.org/cybersecurity-initiative/c2b/c2b-log/russias-plans-for-a-national-internet/

20. Disrupted, Throttled, and Blocked: State Censorship, Control, and Increasing Isolation of Internet Users in Russia | HRW, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/07/30/disrupted-throttled-and-blocked/state-censorship-control-and-increasing-isolation

21. What If Russia Isolates Itself from the Global Internet? - Flashpoint.io, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://flashpoint.io/blog/russian-runet-sovereign-internet/

22. Russia creates its own Domain Name System Internet - Cybersecurity Insiders, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.cybersecurity-insiders.com/russia-creates-its-own-domain-name-system-internet/

23. Russia's National DNS - Internet Society, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/internet-fragmentation/russias-national-dns/

24. INTERNET disconnection: Russia successfully tests blocking millions of users and prepares a global alternative system, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://en.clickpetroleoegas.com.br/Internet-disconnection-Russia-successfully-tests-blocking-millions-of-users-and-prepares-a-global-alternative-system/

25. Russia 'Successfully Disconnected' From World Wide Web in Tests ..., accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/07/22/russia-successfully-disconnected-from-world-wide-web-in-tests-rbc-a74581

26. China's Great Firewall - Stanford Computer Science, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/FreeExpressionVsSocialCohesion/china_policy.html

27. The complete guide to the Great Firewall of China (GFoC), accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.goclickchina.com/insights/the-complete-guide-to-the-great-firewall-of-china-gfoc/

28. What is China's Great Firewall? Censorship and Control of the Internet - UD Blockchain, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.ud.hk/insight/article/cybersecurity-insights-what-is-china-great-firewall

29. Navigating Digital Sovereignty: A Comparative Analysis of Internet Regulation in Russia and China - ResearchGate, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377964910_Navigating_Digital_Sovereignty_A_Comparative_Analysis_of_Internet_Regulation_in_Russia_and_China

30. Internet censorship in China - Wikipedia, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_China

31. Chinese Data Localization Law: Comprehensive but Ambiguous, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://jsis.washington.edu/news/chinese-data-localization-law-comprehensive-ambiguous/

32. The Great Firewall of China: A Digital Black Hole - Catchpoint, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.catchpoint.com/blog/great-firewall-of-china

33. Measuring the Great Firewall's Multi-layered Web Filtering Apparatus | USENIX, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.usenix.org/publications/loginonline/measuring-great-firewall%E2%80%99s-multi-layered-web-filtering-apparatus

34. A Cunning Operator: Muddling Meerkat and China's Great Firewall - Infoblox Blog, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://blogs.infoblox.com/threat-intelligence/a-cunning-operator-muddling-meerkat-and-chinas-great-firewall/

35. What is the Great Firewall of China and how does it work? - Proton ..., accessed on October 6, 2025, https://protonvpn.com/blog/great-firewall-china

36. Exhaustive study puts China's infamous Great Firewall under the microscope - PortSwigger, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://portswigger.net/daily-swig/exhaustive-study-puts-chinas-infamous-great-firewall-under-the-microscope

37. The Great Firewall of China: What It Is and How to Get Around It | EXPERTE.com, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.experte.com/internet-censorship/great-firewall-china

38. [2106.02167] How Great is the Great Firewall? Measuring China's DNS Censorship - arXiv, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.02167

39. www.experte.com, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.experte.com/internet-censorship/great-firewall-china#:~:text=The%20Great%20Firewall%20of%20China%20censors%20sites%20that%20the%20Chinese,before%20it%20reaches%20its%20destination.

40. Deconstructing the Great Firewall of China | ThousandEyes, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.thousandeyes.com/blog/deconstructing-great-firewall-china

41. ELI5: How does the Chinese 'great firewall' work? : r/explainlikeimfive - Reddit, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b01cbc/eli5_how_does_the_chinese_great_firewall_work/

42. (PDF) Great Firewall of China - ResearchGate, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281030754_Great_Firewall_of_China

43. Great Firewall of China (GFW) today experienced the largest internal document leak in its history : r/cybersecurity - Reddit, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/cybersecurity/comments/1ngdcem/great_firewall_of_china_gfw_today_experienced_the/

44. A Technical Overview of the Great Firewall (3) — VPN | by xnvlnasna | Medium, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://medium.com/@xnvlnasna/a-technical-overview-of-the-great-firewall-3-vpn-b7224f1d9fd9

45. Great Firewall of China and its importance for europeean companies - Marketingblatt, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://blog.marketingblatt.com/en/great-firewall-of-china

46. China, Russia, and Censorship - Vanguard Think Tank, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://vanguardthinktank.org/china-russia-and-censorship

47. IntelBrief: Implications of China-Russia Cooperation on Censorship and Disinformation, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://thesoufancenter.org/intelbrief-2024-march-20/

48. Full article: Shades of authoritarian digital sovereignty: divergences in Russian and Chinese data localisation regimes - Taylor & Francis Online, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23738871.2024.2413938

49. Russia is weaponizing its data laws against foreign organizations - Brookings Institution, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/russia-is-weaponizing-its-data-laws-against-foreign-organizations/

50. In-depth analysis of the Great Firewall of China - Department of ..., accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.cs.tufts.edu/comp/116/archive/fall2016/ctang.pdf

51. Exclusive: Leaked Files Show China And Russia Sharing Tactics On Internet Control, Censorship - Radio Free Europe, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-china-internet-censorship-collaboration/32350263.html

52. Sino-Russian Convergence in Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference: A Global Threat to the US and Its Allies - CEPA, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://cepa.org/comprehensive-reports/sino-russian-convergence-in-foreign-information-manipulation-and-interference/

53. What is the Splinternet? - SplinterCon, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://splintercon.net/2023/08/what-is-the-splinternet/

54. Sovereignty Cyberspace and the Emergence of Internet Bubbles - Marine Corps University, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/MCU-Journal/JAMS-vol-14-no-1/Sovereignty-Cyberspace-and-the-Emergence-of-Internet-Bubbles/

55. Splinternet: how geopolitics is fracturing cyberspace - Polytechnique Insights, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/geopolitics/splinternet-when-geopolitics-fractures-cyberspace/

56. Standardising the splinternet: how China's technical standards could fragment the internet, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23738871.2020.1805482

57. 'Splinternets': Addressing the renewed debate on internet ..., accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/729530/EPRS_STU(2022)729530_EN.pdf

58. What is digital sovereignty and how are countries approaching it? | World Economic Forum, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/europe-digital-sovereignty/

59. A Splintered Internet? Internet Fragmentation and the Strategies of China, Russia, India and the European Union - Ifri, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/migrated_files/documents/atoms/files/ifri_nocetti_internet_fragmentation_february_2024.pdf

60. How Will the Splinternet Impact Cybersecurity - Cyber Defense Magazine, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.cyberdefensemagazine.com/how-will-the-splinternet-impact-cybersecurity/

61. Defend the Internet, Stop the Splinternet - Internet Society, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.internetsociety.org/news/statements/2022/defend-the-internet-stop-the-splinternet/

62. 3 ways the 'splinternet' is damaging society | MIT Sloan, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/3-ways-splinternet-damaging-society

63. The Impact of the Internet on Sovereignty: Real and Unfounded Worries, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://nautilus.org/information-technology-and-tools/the-impact-of-the-internet-on-sovereignty-real-and-unfounded-worries/

64. Assessing the Near Future of Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.cigionline.org/publications/assessing-the-near-future-of-multi-stakeholder-internet-governance/

65. 19th Internet Governance Forum sets out vision for inclusive, equitable digital future, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://www.un.org/en/desa/19th-internet-governance-forum-sets-out-vision-inclusive-equitable-digital-future

66. How business shaped the Internet Governance Forum 2024 - ICC, accessed on October 6, 2025, https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/news/how-business-shaped-the-internet-governance-forum-2024/