By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration’s decision to defund Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America has been met with quiet satisfaction in Moscow. High-ranking Russian officials view the move as beneficial, as these outlets, originally designed to counter Soviet propaganda, had recently undermined Kremlin narratives, particularly in the post-Soviet space. While publicly downplaying the event, Kremlin officials privately celebrated the weakening of these “enemy voices,” highlighting the outlets’ impactful reporting which challenged Moscow’s wartime censorship and propaganda efforts.
Read the original article here
The Kremlin’s glee over President Trump’s decision to drastically cut funding for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America is palpable. It’s a move that feels less like a strategic shift and more like a gift wrapped in blatant disregard for American interests. The sheer celebratory tone from Moscow speaks volumes.
This isn’t just about budget cuts; it’s a dismantling of decades-long efforts to counter disinformation and provide alternative news sources in countries with repressive regimes. These outlets, established during the Cold War to combat Soviet propaganda, have remained crucial in the information war against autocratic powers. Their demise leaves a gaping void that authoritarian governments will eagerly fill.
The jubilant reaction from Russian officials and propagandists is telling. Their public pronouncements might downplay the significance, but behind closed doors, the sentiment is one of unqualified triumph. Comments like “a dog’s death for a dog” reveal the cynical satisfaction with the elimination of a significant obstacle to their propaganda efforts. They openly admit that these outlets posed a serious threat to their influence, particularly in the post-Soviet space.
The impact extends far beyond Russia’s borders. In countries like Iran and Belarus, where press freedom is severely restricted, RFE/RL and VOA were vital sources of unbiased news. Their silencing empowers authoritarian rulers, allowing them to tighten their grip on information and suppress dissent. This isn’t just a matter of opinion; it’s a tangible loss of access to independent information for millions.
This move has drawn parallels to historical betrayals, with some comparing it to the actions of a “Great Value American Judas.” The fact that rival superpowers like China and Russia are openly celebrating these actions should give anyone pause. It’s a stark reminder that these actions are not viewed as an internal matter, but rather a strategic victory for those opposed to American interests.
The implications for US foreign policy are profound and far-reaching. The erosion of soft power, the ability to influence global affairs through cultural and informational means, is significant. Trump’s apparent belief that soft power equates to weakness is short-sighted and dangerous. The long-term consequences of undermining these crucial instruments of diplomacy are likely to be far-reaching and detrimental.
This situation underscores a deeper concern. The alignment of interests between the Trump administration and adversaries like Russia raises serious questions about loyalty and national security. The very fact that a Russian asset in the White House might act in this manner should be deeply troubling. The idea that such overt actions could be taken without broader resistance within the American system itself is equally unsettling.
The celebration from Kremlin-backed media outlets, like Margarita Simonyan’s enthusiastic declaration of a “holiday,” further highlights the significance of this event. These aren’t just quiet backroom deals; this is a blatant win for those seeking to undermine American influence and spread disinformation globally. This celebratory tone stands in stark contrast to the potential fallout faced by the US due to this decision.
The narrative that this was simply an internal matter of US government is clearly false. The responses from Moscow, both public and private, suggest otherwise. The strategic implications of this action extend far beyond America’s borders and point towards a weakening of American influence on the world stage. This is not about internal budgeting; this is a clear and present danger to global stability and democracy. The question remains: was this a strategic blunder, or something far more sinister? The jubilant reaction from those who actively oppose America’s interests suggests the latter.