Western sanctions were designed to choke off Russia’s access to critical technology, but their most potent effect may be the quiet paralysis inside corporate IT departments. Even as the Kremlin talks up digital sovereignty, a large majority of Russian companies still run their daily operations on software built far beyond its borders. The result is a slow‑burn vulnerability that is reshaping how Russian business, and the state behind it, can plan for the future.
New data show that more than 70% of Russian firms remain locked into foreign platforms for everything from accounting to industrial design, despite years of pressure to switch. That dependence is not just a technical detail. It is a structural weakness that limits Moscow’s room for maneuver, exposes companies to sudden disruption, and gives Western policymakers a rare point of leverage in a conflict that has otherwise settled into a grinding stalemate.
The stubborn 70% and what it really means
The headline figure is stark: more than 70% of Russian companies are still using Western software despite sanctions and official campaigns to replace it. In practice, that means core systems like enterprise resource planning, customer databases, and design suites remain tied to vendors that have either exited the Russian market or sharply curtailed support. For a typical manufacturer, that might involve running legacy versions of SAP for logistics, Microsoft SQL Server for data, and Adobe tools for marketing, all of them increasingly difficult to update or legally license.
From what I can see, this is less about corporate stubbornness and more about the absence of credible alternatives. Russian authorities have pushed domestic products, but many firms report that local offerings cannot match the functionality, security, or integration they rely on from established Western stacks. When a bank has built its risk models around a specific analytics engine, or an oil company has standardized its field operations on a particular geospatial platform, ripping that out is not a simple patriotic gesture. It is a multi‑year, high‑risk transformation that many executives judge more dangerous than clinging to unsupported foreign code.
Why Russian replacements keep falling short
Officials in Moscow have framed import substitution as a patriotic duty, yet the market response suggests that duty collides with hard technical limits. Domestic vendors can often replicate basic office tools or simple accounting packages, but they struggle in complex domains like high‑end CAD, semiconductor design, or large‑scale cloud infrastructure. When Russian developers try to mirror a mature Western product, they face not only the challenge of writing comparable code but also of recreating the surrounding ecosystem of plug‑ins, integrations, and trained specialists that make that product viable in a large enterprise.
That gap is visible in the way companies describe their choices. Many are willing to experiment with Russian‑made CRM systems or niche security tools, but they keep mission‑critical workloads on the Western platforms they know. The fact that Russian firms still talk about “no equivalent” solutions is telling. It signals that, even under intense political pressure, performance and reliability remain decisive. For a logistics operator trying to keep railcars moving or a telecom provider managing millions of subscribers, a buggy domestic clone is not a serious option.
Sanctions as a slow‑motion systems failure
Sanctions have not flipped a switch that turns off Russian IT overnight, but they have created a creeping form of technical debt that grows more dangerous each year. When Western vendors halt official updates and support, companies are left to freeze software at older versions, rely on gray‑market patches, or attempt risky workarounds. Security vulnerabilities accumulate, compatibility with newer hardware erodes, and integration with global partners becomes harder. Over time, that erodes productivity and raises the odds of catastrophic outages in sectors that depend on uninterrupted digital services.
In my view, this is where sanctions “bite” most effectively. They force Russian firms into a choice between stagnation on aging Western platforms and the operational risk of jumping to immature domestic tools. Either path imposes costs that compound over time. A bank that cannot safely upgrade its core systems will struggle to roll out new products or comply with evolving regulatory standards. An energy company stuck on outdated modeling software may find it harder to optimize production or explore new fields. The damage is not always visible in headlines, but it shows up in slower innovation, higher maintenance costs, and a widening gap with global competitors.
Corporate coping strategies and quiet workarounds
Faced with this bind, Russian companies have improvised a range of survival tactics. Some have turned to parallel imports, acquiring licenses and hardware through intermediaries in third countries that are not formally enforcing Western restrictions. Others have leaned on local integrators who specialize in keeping legacy systems alive, reverse‑engineering patches, and stitching together hybrid environments where Russian front‑end applications sit on top of Western back‑end databases. These arrangements are fragile, but they buy time for firms that hope geopolitical conditions will eventually ease.
At the same time, there is a visible push to cultivate homegrown champions in key software categories. State‑linked corporations are often the first to pilot domestic platforms, sometimes under explicit government instruction. Yet even there, the transition is partial. Many large enterprises run dual systems, keeping Western tools for core operations while testing Russian alternatives in non‑critical units. That duality reflects a basic calculation: executives want to signal compliance with political directives without betting the entire company on unproven technology. The persistence of more than 70% foreign dependence suggests those pilots have not yet delivered the confidence needed for a full switch.
Political pressure, digital sovereignty, and what comes next
The Kremlin has invested significant political capital in the idea of technological self‑reliance, presenting it as both a security imperative and a marker of national strength. That narrative sits awkwardly with the reality that Most Russian businesses still depend on Western code to function. Officials can pressure state‑owned enterprises, adjust procurement rules, and channel subsidies toward favored vendors, but they cannot easily legislate away the complexity of modern software ecosystems. When figures like Jan, Volodymyr Tunik, and Fryz appear in official discussions, they often underscore the same point: replacing deeply embedded systems is a generational project, not a quick policy win.
Looking ahead, I expect the tension between political goals and technical constraints to sharpen. If sanctions tighten further, or if Western regulators crack down on gray‑market licensing, the quiet vulnerabilities inside Russian corporate IT could turn into acute crises, from banking outages to industrial accidents triggered by failing control systems. On the other hand, if some Western vendors quietly resume limited support, the current limbo could drag on, with Russian firms stuck on aging but familiar tools. Either way, the fact that more than 70% of Russian companies remain tethered to Western software is now a central fault line in the country’s economic future, one that will shape how sanctions policy, corporate strategy, and technological development interact for years to come.
More from Morning Overview