The Country No One Can See: Turkmenistan and the Collapse of Digital Transparency

Introduction

Turkmenistan is currently pursuing one of the most extreme state-directed approaches to digital control in the world. Voices are suppressed, independent access to information is systematically eliminated, and state-driven repression often occurs without observation or accountability. This model of digital authoritarianism reflects strategies employed by larger autocratic powers such as China, Iran, and Russia. Although Turkmenistan is often viewed as peripheral, its deepening diplomatic and technological alignment with adversarial regimes presents a growing institutional challenge to Western interests.

1. Cultural Context and Geopolitical Relevance

This issue has gained urgency since March 2023, when the United Nations Human Rights Committee formally condemned Turkmenistan for a pattern of politically motivated persecution. The Committee called for the release of several individuals imprisoned for exercising fundamental freedoms, including journalist Nurgeldy Khalykov, and civil society activist Murat Dushemov. Their cases highlight the regime’s systematic repression of free expression and the risks of political speech in one of the world’s most closed media environments. In a digital age where information flows even in remote or geopolitically peripheral states, Turkmenistan’s deliberate suppression of online voices stands out as a strategic red flag.

These imprisoned figures illustrate the perceived threat of independent communication. Their silencing reflects the regime’s understanding that limited digital expression can mobilise dissent and strengthen communal awareness. Government pushback is not tolerated in this tightly controlled environment. When journalists or activists attempt to critique state authority, the response is immediate and punitive. This is further engineered to extinguish dissent before it can take root.

 2. Strategic Context

Turkmenistan holds notable strategic relevance in the Caspian region, where authoritarian governance, digital repression, and geopolitical alignment intersect. It operates within an informal bloc of autocratic states which includes Russia, China, Iran, and, in behavioural terms, North Korea. Turkmenistan has mirrored many of their restrictive practices, especially in the digital sphere. Huawei and ZTE have built the backbone of Turkmenistan’s telecommunications and surveillance systems, including “Safe City” projects that enable high-resolution monitoring and centralized control.

Huawei, founded in 1987 by former People’s Liberation Army officer Ren Zhengfei, is now a Fortune 500 firm and one of the world’s leading providers of telecom infrastructure. ZTE, founded in 1985, supplies network equipment and mobile technologies to over 140 countries and plays a central role in China’s digital expansion strategy. Their presence in Turkmenistan reflects more than just economic ties. It signals the export of authoritarian tools and the quiet normalization of surveillance as statecraft.

While neighboring countries permit partial access to digital platforms, Turkmenistan remains deeply insulated. Independent communication is virtually nonexistent, and online dissent is suppressed before it can surface. Often described as the “North Korea of Central Asia,” Turkmenistan could become a long-term test case for how digital isolation sustains authoritarian stability. The deeper question is whether this model, supported by external powers, becomes more durable over time or collapses under its own rigidity.

Argument 1: Turkmenistan’s rigidity poses a global & domestic security risk

With Turkmenistan’s regime, limited flexibility creates a domino effect that draws in more countries than necessary. Only about 2.8% of the population—roughly 180,400 people out of 6.5 million—use social media. Strategic blind zones are created where nearly all citizens are digitally invisible, eliminating any organic signals of unrest or crisis. Intelligence and security agencies depend on these signals. As platforms like SentinelOne note, OSINT is used to detect extremists, prepare for disasters, and gather real-time information during conflicts or unrest.

Turkmenistan actively enforces surveillance and censorship from within. Deep packet inspection (DPI) and multi-layered filtering techniques block over 100,000 domains through HTTP, DNS, HTTPS, and IP-level restrictions. This creates a critical vacuum. Without open digital ecosystems, the country stagnates, not only in development, but in public thought. While the internet includes distracting content, it also enables cognitive development, technical literacy, and access to tools that could advance society.

Turkmenistan’s government appears determined to preserve its values by rejecting foreign influence in daily life. But in a world defined by connectivity, its information policies are more than outdated, posing threats as a liability. This degree of internal rigidity carries consequences that ripple far beyond its borders.

Argument 2: Turkmenistan’s isolation is accelerating citizen displacement and external dependency

Turkmenistan’s digital closure raises serious questions about how its population, particularly youth and working adults, will function in a modernizing world. With all legal media under state control and repurposed for propaganda, citizens are consistently deprived of honest, pluralistic information. This creates a deeply skewed civic foundation, one in which individuals internalize the perceived “rightness” of regime values while remaining largely unaware of global systems, democratic norms, or even neighboring Caspian societies.

This matters not only at home, but abroad. If economic or political conditions trigger large-scale displacement, Turkmen citizens may enter international labor or refugee systems with underdeveloped digital skills and limited cross-cultural knowledge. Critical areas such as cybersecurity literacy, digital communication, or even basic online navigation may be unfamiliar or deliberately suppressed.

Youth are affected the most. A recent study notes that new generations in Turkmenistan lack awareness of global challenges such as climate change, international institutions, or democratic governance. Their understanding of international affairs is often described as “limited or nonexistent.” If an entire generation grows detached from the core forces shaping international relations, the result is long-term civic and diplomatic fragility. Time is one of the few assets Turkmenistan still possesses, but without deliberate intervention, the widening gap in intellectual capacity may soon become irreversible.

In the event of migration or displacement, this stagnation creates downstream risks for regional development, security coordination, and integration—vulnerabilities that could haunt the state for decades.

Conclusion

If Turkmenistan intends to build an effective and resilient future, it must reassess the social and cognitive costs its citizens endure. Technology is no longer optional. To compete in a connected world, the government should consider collaborating with technologists from similarly structured states to design systems that enable trust while supporting self-education. Exposure to new ideas will challenge the regime’s current model, but managed carefully, it can offer the foundation for a sustainable and informed society. Without such reform, Turkmenistan risks isolating itself beyond repair in both regional and global systems.