National news — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q6_K_XL, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 10 August 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 52% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and the other topics.
Observations
These are measurements, not verdicts. Each one below states something we counted, alongside the evidence it was counted from, so you can check it rather than take it. None of them is graded: every observation this register holds is recorded at severity 0, because the precision of the detectors behind them has not been measured yet, and a rating we cannot support is worse than none. Read each as a fact about the data, not as a judgement about the channel. How we measure.
Content that also appears on other registered channels
Posts published here appear word for word on 1 other registered channel. The matching is on the text itself, not on Telegram’s forward marker, so it finds a copy whether or not it was labelled as one.
Matching posts — open both and compare (2 of the pairs behind the counts below)
Text overlap is the Jaccard coefficient over the set of distinct three-word phrases in the two bodies: 1.00 is identical wording, and the threshold for counting a pair at all is 0.70. Candidates are generated by simhash LSH (4 x 16-bit bands, exact Hamming <= 3) verified against the bodies with Jaccard over the SET of distinct 3-word shingles. Published first counts which side of each matching pair carries the earlier timestamp — in this corpus, which is the limitation directly below.
What this cannot establish
MEASURED, DOMINANT ERROR SOURCE: a post ingested before 2026-08-06 may have carried a forward header that was not recorded. A 45-pair hand-check against live t.me pages found 14 (31%) where the live page shows a forward header naming the other channel and the database has none, plus 4 more (9%) naming a third party. The text match itself was wrong 0 times out of 45. Read attribution_capture.items_in_trusted_window before treating the unattributed count as a claim.
Telegram lets a channel forward a post with a header naming the source, and we only began reliably recording that header on 2026-08-06. None of the 2 matches recorded here fall after that date, so for this entry we cannot say whether any of them carried a credit. The duplication is measured; the absence of attribution is not.
“Published first” means first in this corpus. We hold 35 comparable posts for this entry, running 4 August 2026 to 7 August 2026. A channel we have read one page deep will look younger than a neighbour we have read in full, and the order would flip with no change in the underlying facts.
The detector’s own notes on this observation, as it recorded them. Names in this_style are fields of the underlying evidence record, which the plain-English paragraphs above read out for this entry.
Verbatim republication has three causes and the text separates only two: a clone/mirror, unattributed copy-paste, or BOTH channels copying a common third source that neither attributes. The spread filter (content held by at most 8 channels) reduces the third and does not remove it.
'Earliest' means earliest IN THIS CORPUS. A channel ingested one page deep will look younger than a neighbour ingested in full; corpus_coverage above is there to be checked before the direction is believed.
shared_verified_est extrapolates the sampled pass rate over the full narrow match count; sampled/passed are the numbers actually measured.
Absence of a forward header is not proof of intent: Telegram lets a channel disable forward attribution, and a credit written in the body is not parsed as attribution here (mention_edge_either_way above is the closest available signal).
Across the whole group of 2, the earliest publisher we hold is @epravda. That is a statement about our reading window, not a claim of authorship.
Recorded under the key clone_copy, last confirmed 8 August 2026. An observation that a later pass no longer finds is cleared, and a cleared observation is removed from this page rather than being shown struck through — we do not keep publishing a claim we have withdrawn. Dispute an observation.
Also posting the same content
This channel’s posts match, word for word or near enough, posts on 1 other registered channel, found by comparing text fingerprints across every channel on the register. That matching has been checked by hand against the live Telegram pages and found reliable — 0 wrong of 45 pairs re-read.
Which channel, if either, published first is deliberately not shown. The same hand-check found that reading wrong 18 of 45 times — 60%, no better than a coin flip — because it depends on how deep our own crawl happened to reach into each channel’s history, not on when the content was actually first posted. This list is ordered by subscriber count, the same as every other listing on this site, never by which channel we think came first. Word-for-word matching has several ordinary explanations besides copying — a channel mirroring itself, an unattributed repost, or two channels independently repeating the same wire story — and this measurement cannot tell those apart. How this is measured.
63 measurements spanning 95 days, net +2,642. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 96,590–101,923 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded, most recent 20 of 63
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
8 Nov 2026, 18:46
101,308
+33
7 Nov 2026, 11:46
101,275
-25
6 Nov 2026, 14:41
101,300
+101
5 Nov 2026, 15:39
101,199
+116
4 Nov 2026, 13:55
101,083
+158
3 Nov 2026, 17:01
100,925
+265
2 Nov 2026, 13:37
100,660
+59
1 Nov 2026, 16:07
100,601
-46
31 Oct 2026, 14:17
100,647
+36
30 Oct 2026, 14:36
100,611
-16
29 Oct 2026, 14:49
100,627
+88
28 Oct 2026, 12:31
100,539
+89
27 Oct 2026, 11:05
100,450
+189
26 Oct 2026, 10:55
100,261
+45
25 Oct 2026, 10:40
100,216
-35
24 Oct 2026, 11:46
100,251
+219
23 Oct 2026, 09:38
100,032
+83
22 Oct 2026, 10:06
99,949
+214
21 Oct 2026, 04:17
99,735
+131
20 Oct 2026, 00:57
99,604
first reading
Engagement
1,300 posts held, back to 4 August 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 192 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
27.4%
avg views ÷ 101,308 subscribers
Avg views / post
27,800
394 posts measured
Reaction rate
2.44%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
394
of 1,300 held
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views — note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 8 November 2026
Posts held
1,300 (4 August 2026 – 8 November 2026)
Views total
10,940,340
Reactions total
267,294
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
8 Nov 2026, 18:23 UTC
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
What this channel posts
Video runtime
1h 16m
Average length
1m 21s
Measured directly from 57 videos with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
Reaction mix
717,669 reactions across 1,000 posts, in 9 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 25.4% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
👍
182,010
25.4%
🤬
181,013
25.2%
🤣
174,176
24.3%
❤
67,453
9.40%
🤯
44,850
6.25%
🔥
36,936
5.15%
😢
19,800
2.76%
🙏
5,745
0.801%
😱
5,686
0.792%
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 1,000 of the 1,000 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 717,669 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 1,000 most recent posts we hold (the sample is capped at 1,000), published 27 August 2026 to 8 November 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Recent posts
Telegram’s own ‘edited’ marker: 198 of 394 posts held from the last 30 days (50.3%) carried it when this register last read them. The marker says a post was changed after publishing, not what it said before — this register holds the earlier wording only where an edit fell between two of its own reads (see the edit ledger and how it is measured).
🗓️ Зараз іде Погоджувальна Рада.
Від фракції вимагаємо поставити мою і колег Постанову про перегляд рішення Кабінету Міністрів України від 4 вересня 2026 року № 1092 щодо заборони здійснення діяльності суб’єктами господарювання під час жовтого рівня загрози.
Це там, де укриття від бізнесу вимагають.
🤷♂️ Сказали, що завтра дадуть відповідь, коли включать у порядок денний….
🇺🇦 The Economist: російська війна б’є по Україні не лише ракетами. Населення на підконтрольній території скоротилося з 37 млн до 27-28 млн; ще 3-5 млн живуть в окупації, понад 5 млн - за кордоном.
Народжуваність впала з 1,2 дитини на жінку у 2020 році до 0,8-0,9. У першій половині 2026-го смертей було утричі більше, ніж народжень. Лише 43% біженців тепер кажуть, що планують повернутися - наприкінці 2022 року таких б…
🕳️ The Economist
Теорії змови ростуть там, де суспільство не може скласти складну реальність у зрозумілу картину.
У 24 країнах 37% опитаних погодилися, що світом керує таємна група; у 2021-му таких було 25%. Війна, нерівність, міграція й політики, які самі грають на підозрах, роблять це ще сильнішим.
Реальні змови існують. Але звичка пояснювати ними все підряд вбиває здатність розрізняти доказ і вигадку.
🏗️ Міністр Зеленського 30 жовтня:
На захист критичної інфраструктури не вистачає 60 млрд грн
🤴Зеленський 08 листопада: доручаю забезпечити безкоштовний громадський транспорт….
P.S. Але популістом представники влади назвуть мене, хто запропонує мораторій на документальні перевірки під час обстрілів…..🫡
🌍 The Economist: після провалу на проміжних виборах Трамп може ще активніше шукати перемоги за кордоном. Усередині країни на нього чекають слухання, повістки й Конгрес, який нарешті може ставити незручні питання. Зовнішня політика лишається сферою, де президент має найбільше простору.
На столі - Іран, Куба, Україна, Росія, Китай і Північна Корея. Але війна з Іраном уже показала межі: Трамп відклав нові удари, а Нета…
🤠 The Economist: Техас, схоже, перестає бути автоматично республіканським. Джеймс Таларіко переміг Кена Пакстона на 12 пунктів і став першим демократом-сенатором від штату за 38 років. Демократка Гінойоса також обійшла тритермінового губернатора Ебботта.
У виборчій кампанії спрацювали не лише культурні війни. Податок на майно за каденції Ебботта зріс на 86%, а обіцяна «компенсація корупційного податку» в $1 500 обій…
🗞️ Кавер The Economist очікуваний:
⛳️Трамп отримав не просто поразку, а приниження. Демократи взяли 54 місця в Сенаті, близько 260 - у Палаті представників, п’ять губернаторських посад і випередили республіканців у голосуванні до Палати на 13 пунктів.
🇺🇸Видання пов’язує це з цінами, тарифами, війною з Іраном і втомою від стилю управління. За Gallup, 9 із 10 американців вважають корупцію широко поширеною; 80% хочуть…
🇺🇦Останнє на тему внутрішньої політики і далі зробимо розбір the Economist:
📺«Карфаген-2» подивилось 1,5 млн глядачів. Перший ще 1 млн.
🤴 Ось всіх цих силовиків, які за останній час вже зашкварились від віджиму бізнесу до наркоти, Зеленський ж тримає не просто так.
Все він чудово знає. Просто це був певний тред-ін. Він їм дає політичний захист, а вони мали б:
▪️захистити його та оточення від НАБУ
▪️захистити його …
💁♂️ Я вам скажу більше:
▪️Законопроект був готовий ще влітку.
▪️Далі у вересні його навіть вже анонсував Президент.
▪️Потім прибігли чекісти, почали розповідати, що інформація про РайнджРовери і квартири на Новопечерських Липках основа національної безпеки, тож не можна. І Президент повірив….та відклав ідею)
▪️Зараз знову коли пішов черговий раз стало зрозуміло, що чорти вже концентрацію влади в колл-центрацію краї…
Законопроєкт про декларації СБУ Зеленський обіцяв ще у ВЕРЕСНІ (див. скрін). Зараз дістав знову, щоб гасити скандал «Карфагену».
Це і є вся “потужна” відповідь президента на наркокартель у погонах. Тобто реакції – нема. Нуль. Зеро.
А значить Зеленського влаштовує кримінальне пекло ЙОГО силовиків. Бо якби він був проти, то й реакція була б інша.
Він би наказав своїм Слугам в Раді голосувати за конкурси на генпрокур…
📊📉 Ось так виглядає статистика останньої сесії Ради.
Ще раз: тут є і непогані законопроекти, є і так собі.
Але коротко: ядро Мотовиловця ще зменшилось)
💁♂️Детальніше тут https://youtu.be/rn0YGhY63V8?si=RAnEzrxT406FQJ2C
🗓️ Завтра починається засідання Ради…. Де монобільшість складає порядок денний і там нуль антикорупційних змін. Хоча всі законопроекти з нашого антикорупційного пакету давно готові.
📊 Тож ми з командою вирішили перевірити, а що таке зараз «більшість». Порахували всі голосування Ради з 1 вересня по 28 жовтня. Брали лише дні, коли депутат був на роботі (щоб не плутати прогул із позицією). І вийшла дуже проста арифмети…
👍250🤬130❤50🤯36🤣12🔥5
Showing the 12 most recent of 1,300 posts we hold for @yzheleznyak. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Posts edited after publishing
@yzheleznyak edited 2 posts after it first published — the same permalink now carries different wording than the one this register originally read, caught because our own crawl held a copy of the earlier text.
An edit is not deception. Typo fixes, price updates and corrections look exactly like this too — this register can tell you the wording changed and when, not why. How this is measured.
First edit seen
3 October 2026
Most recent edit
5 October 2026
Posts recorded as deleted after publishing
We recorded 1 post on @yzheleznyak as deleted — posts this register held that were missing from the channel’s public page on two separate reads, taken from different network addresses at least an hour apart.
A deletion is not wrongdoing. This register can see that a post it held is no longer on the channel’s public page, and when — not why. Expired ad placements, reposts, rotating links and corrections all look the same. This is a count of recorded detections, not an exact total: it misses deletions we could not see, because only a post we held and later re-read inside the page can be seen to go, and it may include a small number of wrong records. How this is measured.
First seen missing
26 August 2026
Most recent seen missing
26 August 2026
Median time before seen missing
12 hours
Seen missing in the last 30 days
0
Polls
The 6 most recent of 15 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
📊 100 днів Уряду Хто, на вашу думку, заслуговує на підтримку в новому Уряді? 2 частина
🫡 Мінветеранів Віталій Кім2%
📊 Мінекономіки та довкілля Олександр Кравченко3%
🏥 МОЗ Віктор Ляшко4%
💰 Мінфін Сергій Марченко7%
👨⚖️ Мін’юст Денис Маслов2%
🪪 Соцполітика, сім’я та єдність Денис Улютін1%
📲 Мінцифри Оксана Ферчук7%
🌍 МЗС Андрій Сибіга19%
🪖 Міноборони Євгеній Хмара29%
🙅 Жоден55%
The shares total 129%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
🗞️Я раз в тиждень, якщо немає дуже важливих внутрішньополітичних новин намагаюсь вам дати тут підбірку найцікавіших для мене статей з the Economist. Те що мені цікаво і, що я не бачив в інших каналах та медіа.
Продовжувати?
Так80%
Ні7%
Так, але менше (тільки 3-и найцікавіші статті)13%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Щотижневе опитування #223
💰 Ваші очікування, що буде з економічною ситуацією в країні протягом року?
📈 Стане краще ніж зараз7%
📉 Стане гірше ніж зараз86%
🤷♂️ Буде так само7%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none. The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.
The shares need not add up to 100. Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.
Read from the 1,000 most recent posts we hold (the sample is capped at 1,000), published 27 August 2026 to 8 November 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.
Forward network
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Republished by 73 registered channels. The 48 listed are the ones that have forwarded the most posts; the rest are counted here but not each listed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Mentions
Named by 90 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it. The 24 listed below are the most frequent namers; the rest are counted above but not each listed.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
Handles this channel named that no longer answer
Dead references
1
handles named in this channel’s posts, vacant today
Evidenced gone
0
we ourselves saw one of these resolve, at some point
Never seen alive
1
vacant every time we have ever looked
@yzheleznyak named 1 handle that resolve to nothing today. That is a fact about the reference, not necessarily a fact about the handle’s history — see the two groups below.
Most of these may never have existed as a live channel at all. A handle a channel names can be a typo, an aspirational name nobody registered, or a channel that was already gone before this one ever mentioned it. Unless a row below is marked evidenced, all we know is that it references a handle that is not a live channel today — not that anything “died”. How this is measured.
Never seen alive
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
@oleksandr_tsyvinskyi named in 3 posts, 21 September 2026 – 4 October 2026
Channels Telegram recommends alongside this one
Telegram’s own answer, not this register’s. When this register asks Telegram’s API what is similar to this channel, this is the list it returns, in the exact order Telegram returns it — never re-sorted by subscribers or by anything else this register measures. The relationship, and the order, are Telegram’s; we record them and date them, and make no claim of our own about which of these channels actually resemble this one.
БЕБ | Бюро економічної безпеки України @esbu_gov_ua · 13,807#95
Read from Telegram’s recommendation API, most recently 16 August 2026. Telegram holds a list like this for a small and growing share of the register — how this is measured, and why most channel pages show nothing here.
Appears in Telegram’s recommendations for other channels
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
Ціна держави @costukraine · 37,367 Telegram ranks this channel #1 of 79 here — alongside 78 others — read 1 September 2026
Данило Гетманцев @getmantsevdanil · 51,308 Telegram ranks this channel #1 of 95 here — alongside 94 others — read 17 August 2026
ЕП. Економічні хроніки війни @epravda · 19,248 Telegram ranks this channel #2 of 81 here — alongside 80 others — read 3 October 2026
Бізнес-Patriot @BiznesPatriot · 21,389 Telegram ranks this channel #2 of 62 here — alongside 61 others — read 24 September 2026
УП. Кляті питання @ukr_pravda · 25,143 Telegram ranks this channel #3 of 79 here — alongside 78 others — read 15 September 2026
Дон Кихот @DonUkraine · 22,878 Telegram ranks this channel #4 of 75 here — alongside 74 others — read 18 September 2026
Олександр Нотевський @notevskyi · 25,840 Telegram ranks this channel #4 of 81 here — alongside 80 others — read 13 September 2026
ZN.UA (Дзеркало тижня / Зеркало недели): новини України та світу, аналітика, інтерв'ю | Війна @znua_live · 58,311 Telegram ranks this channel #4 of 92 here — alongside 91 others — read 22 August 2026
Мінфін @Minfin_com_ua · 33,006 Telegram ranks this channel #5 of 81 here — alongside 80 others — read 5 September 2026
Mortis Æterna / Департамент пасивних заходів @mortisaeterna · 19,293 Telegram ranks this channel #7 of 74 here — alongside 73 others — read 30 September 2026
Останній Капіталіст ✙ @OstanniyCapitalist · 118,209 Telegram ranks this channel #7 of 85 here — alongside 84 others — read 14 August 2026
ВИЙ.Ukraine @viyukraine · 21,935 Telegram ranks this channel #8 of 86 here — alongside 85 others — read 22 September 2026
Юрій Богданов @yb_ua · 26,098 Telegram ranks this channel #9 of 79 here — alongside 78 others — read 12 September 2026
Є ПИТАННЯ @e_p_2026 · 26,395 Telegram ranks this channel #9 of 82 here — alongside 81 others — read 12 September 2026
Орестократія @orestokratiia · 22,626 Telegram ranks this channel #10 of 81 here — alongside 80 others — read 19 September 2026
🇺🇦 Віталій Коваль @vitalykoval8 · 41,447 Telegram ranks this channel #10 of 87 here — alongside 86 others — read 28 August 2026
ШО, АЗАРТНИЙ? @sho_azartny · 112,550 Telegram ranks this channel #12 of 78 here — alongside 77 others — read 15 August 2026
Українська правда @ukrpravda_news · 203,775 Telegram ranks this channel #12 of 93 here — alongside 92 others — read 11 August 2026
Європейська Солідарність @officialeurosolidarity · 19,359 Telegram ranks this channel #13 of 80 here — alongside 79 others — read 1 October 2026
Стисло і по суті @te_legal · 25,407 Telegram ranks this channel #15 of 66 here — alongside 65 others — read 17 September 2026
Inzhur @InzhurREIT · 58,999 Telegram ranks this channel #15 of 84 here — alongside 83 others — read 29 August 2026
Harley Quinn @harley_with_love · 30,448 Telegram ranks this channel #16 of 80 here — alongside 79 others — read 8 September 2026
Верховна Рада України @verkhovnaradaukrainy · 95,970 Telegram ranks this channel #17 of 93 here — alongside 92 others — read 16 August 2026
Істребін.UA @istrebin · 21,234 Telegram ranks this channel #19 of 78 here — alongside 77 others — read 4 October 2026
This channel appears in 306 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total, of which the 24 where it ranks highest are shown above. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
Cross-platform identity — Wikidata
A Wikidata item names this Telegram handle as belonging to the entity it describes. This is Wikidata’s claim, not a verification made by this register — nobody here confirmed that the account is genuinely operated by the entity named. Wikidata content is CC0; every fact below is dated to when it was read from Wikidata, not to when the association was first made there.
This handle named by sources this register does not control and did not measure — each shown exactly as found, attributed by name, dated to when it was read.
Wikipedia
3 Wikipedia articles name this handle in its article text, found by searching for a t.me link inside the article source. A citation is a notability signal, not a verification: nobody here confirmed the cited post is genuine or still says what the article quotes. Article text is CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikipedia contributors; snippets below are short excerpts.
Бесплатная (нулевая) растаможка авто в Украине в 2022г.(ru.wikipedia.org) “…3 месяца в Украину было ввезено 211 тысяч{{cite web |url = https://t.me/yzheleznyak/1846 |title = Железный нардеп |website = Telegram |access-date…” read 1 November 2026
Железняк, Ярослав Иванович(ru.wikipedia.org) “…{{примечания}}
== Ссылки ==
* {{facebook|zheleznyak.y|Ярослав Железняк}}
* [https://t.me/yzheleznyak «Железный нардеп»] — авторский Telegram-канал Ярослава Железняка…” read 1 November 2026
Железняк Ярослав Іванович(uk.wikipedia.org) “…Железняк}}
* [https://t.me/yzheleznyak «Железный нардеп»] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210121063153/https://t.me/yzheleznyak |date=21…” read 1 November 2026
Cite this entry
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 8 November 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Залізний нардеп” (@yzheleznyak), 101,308 subscribers as measured 8 November 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/yzheleznyak.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.