Fyodor Lukyanov: Unveiling the True Motive Behind the US Sanctions on RT
Washington's heightened response stems from anxiety over its diminishing control over global media. Read Full Article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
Washington’s intense reaction stems from a sense of panic over losing its dominance in global media.
In late 1986, Yegor Ligachev, then-secretary of the Soviet Communist Party’s Central Committee, along with Viktor Chebrikov, the head of the KGB, proposed ending the practice of jamming foreign radio stations, commonly referred to as ‘enemy voices’ at the time.
The two officials were not swayed by any bourgeois ideals; rather, they took a pragmatic approach. They described to the Central Committee how signal jamming was not only costly but also largely ineffective in a country as vast as the Soviet Union. They recommended halting the jamming of broadcasts and reallocating funds toward counter-propaganda efforts, aiming to engage foreign audiences and present the Soviet perspective on global affairs.
This topic arose weeks later during a meeting between USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan in Iceland. Gorbachev remarked, “your radio station Voice of America broadcasts around the clock in many languages from stations you have in different countries in Europe and Asia, and we can’t present our point of view to the American people. So, for the sake of equality, we have to jam the Voice of America broadcasts.” He proposed that the jamming cease if Reagan allowed Moscow to operate a similar frequency in the U.S. Reagan vaguely promised to consider it but ultimately, the Soviet Union unilaterally stopped the jamming without any formal agreement.
Recent developments echo this historical moment. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken devoted an entire speech to RT, which is currently under ‘full-blocking’ sanctions for alleged destructive activities globally. According to Blinken and the referenced American intelligence agencies, the threat posed by the Russian media outlet necessitates decisive action from Washington’s allies.
Without any irony or exaggeration, it can be stated that RT has gained global recognition from Blinken’s comments. The media group's prominence has been less validated by its own actions and more by acknowledgment from significant figures representing its competition.
While one could lament the erosion of freedom of expression and the narrowing of diverse viewpoints, such concerns seem futile. These principles should ideally apply to the domestic information environments of individual nations, where they foster necessary progress. In contrast, foreign information sources are often viewed as tools of influence rather than platforms for dialogue.
The influence of the information and communication environment correlates directly with its comprehensiveness; as such, it significantly impacts public behavior. This leads to an intensified desire among governments to assert control over the flow of ideas. The international media landscape is inherently ideological, charged, and conflict-driven. This context positions Blinken’s unusual characterization of RT as “like an intelligence agency” in a new light.
How effective are measures to restrict alternate perspectives and block foreign broadcasts? Ligachev and Chebrikov accurately recognized that the expensive efforts to jam opposition broadcasters were, to put it mildly, far from effective. The very act of trying to silence dissenting voices often backfires, suggesting that the authorities harbor fear of the truths being conveyed. By the end of the Soviet era, this sentiment had permeated the intellectual elite, and even many ‘ordinary people’ were dismissive of official channels.
During their Iceland meeting, Reagan responded to Gorbachev's assertions by stating that, unlike the Soviets, “we recognize freedom of the press and the right of people to listen to any point of view.” He had unwavering belief in the superiority of the American system across the board. Thus, calls for information plurality, both then and now, reflect Washington's conviction in its eventual triumph over any ideological competition. For a period, the U.S. effectively monopolized global interpretations of events.
Washington's current extreme reaction can be traced back to feelings of waning control over this monopoly. Growing public interest in alternative narratives challenges the established order. While Western, primarily English-language media possess extensive resources, the internal unease within these platforms is rising, driving a desire to protect their information landscape.
Echoing tactics from the past, there have also been efforts to attribute internal discord and accumulated national contradictions to deleterious external influences, reminiscent of Soviet methods. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union never successfully addressed its internal dilemmas by attributing them to foreign factors, as these external elements often compounded those issues.
While targeted punitive actions can hinder organizations, particularly from a power such as the United States, history teaches that monopolies are not everlasting. Ultimately, cartels can stifle growth and eventually face measures aimed at their dissolution.
Sophie Wagner contributed to this report for TROIB News
In late 1986, Yegor Ligachev, then-secretary of the Soviet Communist Party’s Central Committee, along with Viktor Chebrikov, the head of the KGB, proposed ending the practice of jamming foreign radio stations, commonly referred to as ‘enemy voices’ at the time.
The two officials were not swayed by any bourgeois ideals; rather, they took a pragmatic approach. They described to the Central Committee how signal jamming was not only costly but also largely ineffective in a country as vast as the Soviet Union. They recommended halting the jamming of broadcasts and reallocating funds toward counter-propaganda efforts, aiming to engage foreign audiences and present the Soviet perspective on global affairs.
This topic arose weeks later during a meeting between USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan in Iceland. Gorbachev remarked, “your radio station Voice of America broadcasts around the clock in many languages from stations you have in different countries in Europe and Asia, and we can’t present our point of view to the American people. So, for the sake of equality, we have to jam the Voice of America broadcasts.” He proposed that the jamming cease if Reagan allowed Moscow to operate a similar frequency in the U.S. Reagan vaguely promised to consider it but ultimately, the Soviet Union unilaterally stopped the jamming without any formal agreement.
Recent developments echo this historical moment. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken devoted an entire speech to RT, which is currently under ‘full-blocking’ sanctions for alleged destructive activities globally. According to Blinken and the referenced American intelligence agencies, the threat posed by the Russian media outlet necessitates decisive action from Washington’s allies.
Without any irony or exaggeration, it can be stated that RT has gained global recognition from Blinken’s comments. The media group's prominence has been less validated by its own actions and more by acknowledgment from significant figures representing its competition.
While one could lament the erosion of freedom of expression and the narrowing of diverse viewpoints, such concerns seem futile. These principles should ideally apply to the domestic information environments of individual nations, where they foster necessary progress. In contrast, foreign information sources are often viewed as tools of influence rather than platforms for dialogue.
The influence of the information and communication environment correlates directly with its comprehensiveness; as such, it significantly impacts public behavior. This leads to an intensified desire among governments to assert control over the flow of ideas. The international media landscape is inherently ideological, charged, and conflict-driven. This context positions Blinken’s unusual characterization of RT as “like an intelligence agency” in a new light.
How effective are measures to restrict alternate perspectives and block foreign broadcasts? Ligachev and Chebrikov accurately recognized that the expensive efforts to jam opposition broadcasters were, to put it mildly, far from effective. The very act of trying to silence dissenting voices often backfires, suggesting that the authorities harbor fear of the truths being conveyed. By the end of the Soviet era, this sentiment had permeated the intellectual elite, and even many ‘ordinary people’ were dismissive of official channels.
During their Iceland meeting, Reagan responded to Gorbachev's assertions by stating that, unlike the Soviets, “we recognize freedom of the press and the right of people to listen to any point of view.” He had unwavering belief in the superiority of the American system across the board. Thus, calls for information plurality, both then and now, reflect Washington's conviction in its eventual triumph over any ideological competition. For a period, the U.S. effectively monopolized global interpretations of events.
Washington's current extreme reaction can be traced back to feelings of waning control over this monopoly. Growing public interest in alternative narratives challenges the established order. While Western, primarily English-language media possess extensive resources, the internal unease within these platforms is rising, driving a desire to protect their information landscape.
Echoing tactics from the past, there have also been efforts to attribute internal discord and accumulated national contradictions to deleterious external influences, reminiscent of Soviet methods. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union never successfully addressed its internal dilemmas by attributing them to foreign factors, as these external elements often compounded those issues.
While targeted punitive actions can hinder organizations, particularly from a power such as the United States, history teaches that monopolies are not everlasting. Ultimately, cartels can stifle growth and eventually face measures aimed at their dissolution.
Sophie Wagner contributed to this report for TROIB News
