Opinion - Silencing Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty is a gift to autocrats
In 1989, with breathtaking speed, the Communist dictatorships that had ruled Eastern Europe for more than 40 years fell. Two years later, their sponsor, the Soviet Union, disintegrated. A crucial factor contributing to the decay and fall of these autocratic regimes was freedom of information. People across the region learned of the latest developments, of brave demonstrators and heroes such as Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa, from Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.
It was not propaganda they heard, nor was it stories of life in America — that was the role of Voice of America. Rather, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty reported on life in their listeners' own countries, in their own languages, telling people what their regimes would not. First started as a Cold War tool funded by the CIA, these services were reshaped and merged into a private independent corporation under the supervision of what is now the U.S. Agency for Global Media and funded by Congress.
I served as director of research for Radio Free Europe during the momentous years of 1989 to 1991. This gave me a day-to-day, inside look at the extraordinary work done by dedicated journalists, editors, technicians and by brave freelance reporters working in the countries we covered.
It is worth remembering, especially by those disparaging Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty, that roughly two-thirds of those working for these media organizations are not permanent employees but freelance reporters. These journalists risk their lives and freedom to report from countries under dictatorships, whose leaders are deeply hostile to the U.S. and even more hostile to the spread of information they don't control.
In Russia, even to call the invasion of Ukraine a 'war,' rather than a 'special military operation,' risks a prison sentence. Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty, in its broadcasting to Serbia, Bosnia, Ukraine, Iran, Afghanistan as well as Russia, does not regurgitate such dissembling euphemisms. That is why regimes like the one in Moscow declare them to be enemies of their states. As Mark Pomar, author of 'Cold War Radio,' put it in a recent interview, in Soviet times Radio Liberty was considered the most dangerous of Western broadcasts precisely 'because it dealt far more with domestic issues.'
As revolutionary sentiment spread across East Europe, we met every morning to go over the upcoming day's reporting. In the face of such unprecedented upheaval, the dissemination of unsupported rumors, cheerleading or fearmongering was ruled out. Stories for broadcast were based on facts that could be validated, on analysis of actual developments inside the countries. The Radio Free Europe teams supported the challenges to dictatorship, but inflammatory rhetoric was flagged by a broadcast analysis division that listened to and checked our work. At a time of crisis and a turning point in history — like now — simply reporting what was happening was powerful enough.
Radio Free Europe was and remains a 'surrogate free press' for people who live where there is none. The outlets provide a reliable, comprehensive picture of developments where people live. They inform people about things that are happening in their own country that the regimes hide or distort, thus validating people's own knowledge and experience — which is usually at odds with regime's media. More broadly, millions of listeners, viewers and readers see on a daily basis how free media should operate in a democracy.
In our contemporary environment, one might ask if radio stations are still worth supporting. In fact, the term 'radio' is misleading as the organizations publish written stories, interviews and broadcasts daily across the internet, via YouTube and podcasts on a variety of accessible media, in addition to radio. Precisely because the internet is flooded with disinformation on massive scale by Russia and other autocratic regimes, there needs to be a fact-checked, independent, authentic voice created for people who otherwise would not hear anything like the full story.
Do people in Russia know the real numbers of Russian casualties in Ukraine? Do people in Asia know what the Chinese regime is doing to its Uyghur population? They won't, unless services like Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty can stay active.
Moreover, information dissemination goes both ways. One of the most vital functions Radio Free Europe serves is to provide accurate analysis and description of what is happening in these countries and regions. People who want to know these countries and create effective policies toward them have a comprehensive source of uncensored information. The research and broadcast teams produce daily articles and reports that delve into the dynamics of countries that are not only closed but also threaten American interests.
Both those who live there, those who left and those who have to deal with these countries need an accurate picture. As Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty President and CEO Stephen Capus said, 'This is not the time to cede terrain to the propaganda and censorship of America's adversaries.'
Shutting down such a valuable service in the name of 'government efficiency' is as insulting as it is ludicrous. Elon Musk proclaimed on his own information service that 'Nobody listens to them anymore' and that they were 'just radical left crazy people talking to themselves while torching $1B/year of US taxpayer money.' Wrong on all counts.
Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty reaches 47 million people a week in 27 different languages, with more than 9 billion videos viewed. Not a bad return for an annual budget of $142 million — two-thousandths of a percent of the federal government's annual budget.
The Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the division of Europe was ended not by an invading army but by an invading idea: that people have a right to know what is happening in their own land and thus a right to take part in decisions made in their name. This is anathema to every would-be autocrat who sees an enemy behind all who might disagree with them.
Autocrats know now, as they did in 1989, that they must control the information environment. America should challenge those efforts with the powerful voices we have and, at the very least, not put out of business one of our most valuable instruments of global influence.
Ronald H. Linden is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Pittsburgh, where he served as director of the European Studies Center and director of the Center for Russian and East European Studies. He was director of research for Radio Free Europe in Munich, Germany from 1989 to 1991.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
33 minutes ago
- New York Post
Douglas Murray: Liberals turn killers, racists, and haters into martyrs
Why do parts of the left and the media keep asking for sympathy in all the wrong places? In recent months we have had to put up with crazed activists like Taylor Lorenz claiming that Luigi Mangione is a 'revolutionary' and a 'morally good man' because she finds him 'handsome.' Unfortunately he is also on trial for gunning down a father of two in cold blood on Sixth Avenue. In the eyes of many people that still counts against a man. And then there has been the bizarre defense of absolutely anybody who ICE has tried to deport. It doesn't matter whether the people being deported are gang members, violent criminals or serial abusers, if ICE wants them out then the illegals must be defended. In quick succession we went from protestors and Democrat lawmakers objecting to ICE taking illegal aliens from their homes, then to protesting when they are taken to a courtroom. Above the law? Then there was the case of Hannah Dugan, the Milwaukee judge who was arrested in April. She is accused of aiding an illegal alien to evade arrest. But rather than see the law take its course, Democrats kept suggesting that it was the Trump administration that had broken the rules, not the judge, and the judge who deserves our sympathy. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers claimed that the Trump administration was 'undermining the judiciary' and Chuck Schumer called her arrest 'an attack on the separation of powers.' But isn't it a bad idea for a judge to try to help someone evade the law? Doesn't it 'undermine the judiciary' for a judge to apparently help a man accused of battery to slip out of her courtroom through a side door so that waiting federal agents could not detain him? And if you think so, then why make a hero of Dugan? Why pretend that what she is accused of doing is in any way excusable? Why not at least wait for the law to take its course — and not make heroes of people who have done deeply unheroic things? It is the same here in New York, where the authorities, student groups and others continue to try to make a 'free speech martyr' out of Mahmoud Khalil. In their estimation, Khalil was simply an exemplary student, even though he wasn't a student. And he apparently has to be given all the rights of a US citizen, even though he isn't a US citizen. Just because all he did was spend 18 months helping to cause civil unrest and bring about what his group called 'the total eradication of Western civilization.' 'But' — so many people said — 'Khalil has a pregnant wife.' In which case you might have thought that Khalil would have tried to be on better behavior while enjoying the hospitality and benefits of this country. But no — it is he that has to be made into the martyr, he and his family who have to be given the sympathy, and he and his family who have to be said to have suffered so much. Bizarre new height This week this strange desire to extend sympathy to the worst people reached a bizarre new height. Habiba Soliman is the daughter of Mohamed Soliman. He is, the man who was in this country illegally and who last week firebombed Jewish Americans while they were protesting peacefully in Boulder, Colo. You might have thought in the wake of that gruesome attack — an attack that Soliman had apparently been planning for a year — sympathy might go to a number of people. Most obviously you might think that it would go toward the 12 people who were badly injured in Soliman's attack — victims including a Holocaust survivor, set on fire on the streets of a US city. By a man who should never have been here. And who seems to have had links with Hamas. But, oh, no. The real victims — we are now being told — are Soliman's family. Because the immigration authorities have looked at Soliman's illegal status and now arrested his wife as well as Habiba and her four siblings. Why should the sympathy go to them? Well, take the title of USA Today's story on the case: 'Habiba Soliman wanted to be a doctor. Then, her father firebombed Jewish marchers in Boulder.' Oh, no! If only that little stumbling block hadn't arisen we could have had another doctor in about a decade. What a bummer. CNN chose to go with a similar angle, saying that, 'The family's arrest threatens to derail what looked to be a promising academic career for Soliman's oldest daughter, who graduated days before her father's attack and had recently won a 'Best and Brightest' scholarship from the Colorado Springs Gazette.' Pity for 'terrorist's kin We have been told that before the attack, Habiba Soliman apparently wrote an application for a scholarship in which she said that being in the US: 'I learned to adapt to new things even if it was hard. I learned to work under pressure and improve rapidly in a very short amount of time. Most importantly, I came to appreciate that family is the unchanging support.' And then her dad decided to carry out a terrorist attack. As a result, it is Soliman's family who are now being pitied. While the victims of their family member, ranging in age from 25 to 88, are swiftly passed over. The Trump administration has repeatedly said that it wants to prioritize the deportation of people who are in the US illegally, who have committed crimes and who support terrorism. It is an effort not only to clear up the open borders mess left by Biden — or whoever was in charge of the autopen in those years. It is also an effort to dissuade violent criminals and terrorists from thinking this country is an entirely safe space to operate from. But there is a cost to committing crimes. And there are costs for carrying out acts of terrorism. If one of those costs is inconvenience to your loved ones, then perhaps you should think twice about it first. Because the sympathies of the American public have been stretched quite far enough.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
US slaps sanctions on four ICC judges over Israel, US cases
The United States on Thursday imposed sanctions on four judges at the International Criminal Court including over an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as it ramped up pressure to neuter the court of last resort. The four judges in The Hague, all women, will be barred entry to the United States and any property or other interests in the world's largest economy will be blocked -- measures more often taken against policymakers from US adversaries than against judicial officials. "The United States will take whatever actions we deem necessary to protect our sovereignty, that of Israel, and any other US ally from illegitimate actions by the ICC," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement. "I call on the countries that still support the ICC, many of whose freedom was purchased at the price of great American sacrifices, to fight this disgraceful attack on our nation and Israel," Rubio said. The court swiftly hit back, saying in a statement: "These measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution which operates under the mandate from 125 States Parties from all corners of the globe." - War crimes - Human Rights Watch urged other nations to speak out and reaffirm the independence of the ICC, set up in 2002 to prosecute individuals responsible for the world's gravest crimes when countries are unwilling or unable to do so themselves. The sanctions "aim to deter the ICC from seeking accountability amid grave crimes committed in Israel and Palestine and as Israeli atrocities mount in Gaza, including with US complicity," said the rights group's international justice director, Liz Evenson. Two of the targeted judges, Beti Hohler of Slovenia and Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin, took part in proceedings that led to an arrest warrant issued last November for Netanyahu. The court found "reasonable grounds" of criminal responsibility by Netanyahu and former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant for actions that include the war crime of starvation as a method of war in the massive offensive in Gaza following Hamas's unprecedented October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. Israel, alleging bias, has angrily rejected charges of war crimes as well as a separate allegation of genocide led by South Africa before the International Court of Justice. The two other judges, Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza of Peru and Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, were part of the court proceedings that led to the authorization of an investigation into allegations that US forces committed war crimes during the war in Afghanistan. - Return to hard line - Neither the United States nor Israel is party to the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court. But almost all Western allies of the United States as well as Japan and South Korea, the vast majority of Latin America and much of Africa are parties to the statute and in theory are required to arrest suspects when they land on their soil. Trump in his first term already imposed sanctions on the then ICC chief prosecutor over the Afghanistan investigation. After Trump's defeat in 2020, then president Joe Biden took a more conciliatory approach to the court with case-by-case cooperation. Rubio's predecessor Antony Blinken rescinded the sanctions and, while critical of its stance on Israel, worked with the court in its investigation of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. ICC judges in 2023 issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over the alleged mass abduction of Ukrainian children during the war. Both Putin and Netanyahu have voiced defiance over the ICC pressure but have also looked to minimize time in countries that are party to the court. The ICC arrest warrants have been especially sensitive in Britain, a close US ally whose Prime Minister Keir Starmer is a former human rights lawyer. Downing Stret has said that Britain will fulfill its "legal obligations" without explicitly saying if Netanyahu would be arrested if he visits. Hungary, led by Trump ally Viktor Orban, has parted ways with the rest of the European Union by moving to exit the International Court. Orban thumbed his nose at the court by welcoming Netanyahu to visit in April. sct/nl
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump compares Ukraine-Russia war to kids' brawl: ‘Sometimes you're better off letting them fight'
For months, President Donald Trump has voiced varying degrees of optimism that he – and only he – will be able to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. But halting progress, ever-more deadly drone attacks and unmoving negotiating positions seem to have taken their toll. On Thursday, Trump used a striking analogy to concede the warfare was nowhere near over, and that he did not, at that moment, feel it was best to intervene. 'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Trump said in the Oval Office, with his German counterpart Friedrich Merz looking on silently. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' In this comparison — which Trump said he delivered directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin during their 75-minute phone call Wednesday — Trump is acting not as the man in the middle but as a referee letting an altercation play out. 'You see it in hockey. You see it in sports. The referees let them go for a couple of seconds,' he said. 'Let them go for a little while before you pull them apart.' It was a frank admission for Trump, the verbal equivalent of throwing up his hands at a problem he cannot solve. Trump's evolution — from vowing to end the war in a day to comparing the warring sides to children allowed to spar on a hockey rink — has been, for him, a frustrating one. He has wavered on applying new sanctions on Moscow, wary of pushing Putin further away from the negotiating table. He also hasn't approved new military aid for Ukraine, hopeful a swift end to the war means it won't be required. A timeline he offered last week for determining Putin's seriousness in wanting an end to the war — 'two weeks' — hasn't been repeated since, and there seems to be little expectation he'll take action when the self-imposed deadline arrives on Monday. His laissez-faire position will be tested over the coming weeks, as Trump embarks on a series of global summits where he'll come under pressure from US allies to adopt a firmer position. He's likely to encounter Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in person at the Group of 7 summit in Canada, scheduled for mid-June. For the past three years, the conference has acted as something of a steering committee for western support to Ukraine, with Zelensky attending as a guest to underscore his requests for aid. This year's conference promises to be very different. Trump's aides say there is little expectation he'll agree to new sanctions on Russia while in Alberta. A NATO summit a few weeks later will similarly put American support for Ukraine under a spotlight. NATO's leaders have designed the summit to be brief and heavily focused on increasing member state defense spending, hoping to avoid any open hostility from a US president who has questioned the alliance's importance. Still, for all the preparations hosts of both summits have made to appease Trump, his current position on Ukraine could pose existential questions for leaders eager to encourage Trump's attempts at negotiating a ceasefire. The stance Trump espoused Thursday may not be his final one. A few moments after his 'fight for a while' comparison, he insisted he was 'for stopping killing.' Yet his comments nonetheless reflected a new degree of resignation for his prospects of ending the war, and detachment from the conflict he once vowed to resolve. 'They fight, fight, fight,' he said. 'Sometimes you let them fight for a little while.' The dispassionate tone was similar to how he described his call with Putin on Wednesday, when he related — without comment — the Russian leader's determination that he would have to retaliate to Ukraine's audacious drone attack over the weekend. Trump did not say whether he cautioned Putin or encouraged him to calibrate his response. Nor did he offer any particular view of Ukraine's actions. His visitor in the Oval Office on Thursday sought to encourage a more confident outlook. Merz cited the anniversary this week of the D-Day invasion of Normandy — a turning point in World War II — as an example of 'when the Americans once ended a war in Europe.' Trump was not, at first, moved by the comparison. 'That was not a pleasant day for you,' he joked, referring to the defeat of the German Nazis. Merz kept going, however, stressing the American intervention amounted to 'the liberation of my country from Nazi dictatorship' that has parallels to today's war. 'We know what we owe you,' he said. 'But this is the reason why I'm saying that America is, again, in a very strong position to do something on this war and ending this war.' Trump did not seem particularly moved. He stopped short of promising new sanctions on Russia — something European leaders have been pressing him on for weeks — saying only he would know when the time is right, but that it hadn't arrived yet. 'It's in my brain, the deadline,' he said. He even suggested he'd be willing to apply new punitive measures on Ukraine if the war doesn't end. 'We'll be very, very, very tough, and it could be on both countries to be honest,' Trump said. 'You know, it takes two to tango.'