Works fine until HuaWei can't make compatible products without US tech in them. The way the EU likes to sue US companies, I don't see the US doing any different when the EU keeps doing business with HuaWei equipment that has stolen tech in them. Put yourself in some other country's shoes, would you continue to buy HuaWei over their competitors when you know you might get sued for it and not be able to use the gear you bought? Or will you pay a little more and buy elsewhere and just avoid the issue entirely?
Countries don't take kindly to being told they'll be sued if they act in their own country's interest. There's a recalibration happening between the US and its EU allies right now over that, with the EU setting up alternative payment routes to bypass the US-based SWIFT international transaction system for trading with Iran and any other country the US decides to place extrajudicial sanctions on the trade of.
The US has already warned that it could sanction countries that participate in the Nord Stream 2 LNG pipeline project from Russia. EU countries have rejected US threats.
The more the US threatens foreign countries from making their own decisions that are in their own interests, the more other countries are going to work around the US and isolate the US from their problem-solving processes.
The source would be those issuing the statements, and not the medium reporting them. But, yes, RT would obviously be the source of the reports, though not the source of the information.
And I'm not sure what point you intend to be, there because all the most popular news in the West is state-sponsored (BBC, CNN, Washington Post, Euronews, CBC, all of the Radio Liberty outlets, Radio France, France 24, Deutsche Welle, RAI...).
The US government funds over 1,400 domestic US news outlets through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and funds tons of foreign media through U.S. Agency for Global Media.
The US, like all other Western countries, is full of state-sponsored news. That includes Washington Post, CNN, NPR, PBS, Voice of America, and, well, close to 1.5 thousand other outlets. Many outlets either used to be or still are managed by the CIA, including New York Times, TIME, Newsweek, Washington Post, and others. And some outlets, like NBC have filled their staff with former CIA persons. Operation Mockingbird never ended in the US and today US MSM is almost entirely an industry of state propaganda pretending that it isn't (as a part of its state propaganda).
RT is state-sponsored like most major news in the West, but a huge difference that adds to RT's credibility that other Western outlets don't have is that RT is produced, hosted, and staffed by persons from Western countries and their MSM outlets who bring a counter-balance to RT's funding source. In comparison, Western state-funded outlets are also produced, hosted, and staffed by persons from Western countries, and so those outlets end up being more biased and polarized than RT which involves perspectives from all sides to create a more balanced approach to news.
RT features US government persons, CIA officers and directors, and other US agency persons as guests and critics on their programming. Do CNN, NYT, NBC, or Washington Post invite and feature Russian FSB officers and directors on their shows to serve as critics to their narratives?
I don't see anything notable about RT receiving funding from the Russian government. What I take as notable is when an outlet, regardless of its funding, perpetually lies or is biased in a headstrong manner - like CNN does and is, for example.
None of the countries listed are close US allies. If the source of the intelligence is very sensitive then only our closest friends will be shown that information. Those close countries are Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. So look which way they go. Stop looking at them as puppets, they are US Allies not US puppets. They make their own decisions for themselves but they do make those decisions based on information that is often known only to these five countries. Well, I think Israel shares a lot also, but sometimes they have their own sources.
Well, they are increasingly becoming more independent from the US, but certainly Germany has been a close ally of the US. As for the Five Eyes... being a Canadian, I can tell you that much of Canada's policy is not because Canada believes in the same things as the US on certain matters, but because the US government makes things very uncomfortable if Canada's government doesn't fall in line.
Look at how much of Canada's trade is done with the US: https://globaledge.msu.edu/countries/canada/tradestats
Our policy decisions have to take that into consideration. Though, we should have been and especially now should be diversifying our trade, dealing with China, dealing with Russia, dealing with the EU, and dealing with other non-traditional potential trade partners. But, we just had US tariffs on steel exports to the US removed, and I think that only happened because EU countries aren't backing US sanctions against Iran, Nord Stream 2, and aren't banning Huawei, and the US recently lost its WTO dispute with Turkey over steel tariffs (which might have set the stage for Canada to also win a WTO dispute against the US on steel tariffs). The US has been playing a losing game on large fronts, and it needs to secure some support somewhere, and I think that cancelling steel tariffs was an effort to do that. Who knows what the Canadian and Mexican governments agreed to in order to get those tariffs dropped. Maybe agreement to oppose Huawei 5g? I hope not, but who knows.
There is currently a trial in Canada involving the Huawei CFO, which the US wants to be extradited to the US. If the Huawei CFO wins her challenge against extradition, I wonder how that will affect Canada's approach towards Huawei. I think it's absurd and embarrassing for Canada that the Huawei CFO would be arrested in Canada for violating US sanctions China never agreed to follow in the first place.