Why authoritarian countries lie: a persuasive theoretical perspective

I recently came across a fascinating working paper by Konstantin Sonin, “The Reverse Cargo Cult: Why Authoritarian Governments Lie to Their People.” Although the motivation focuses on the USSR — why did it hold sham elections, for example? — the logic and examples can easily be applied to Russia today.

The key idea is simple: authoritarian regimes often lie not to convince people of something false, but to make them disbelieve everything. When the Kremlin insists that it doesn’t target civilian infrastructure in Ukraine-despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary-it may not expect anyone to truly believe it. Instead, the goal is to muddy the waters. If “everyone lies,” then no one can be trusted-not Russia, not Ukraine, not even Western democracies. This isn’t about bolstering the regime’s credibility; it’s about destroying the credibility of everyone else.

Sonin calls this strategy the “reverse cargo cult.” In the original “cargo cult” metaphor, people build replicas of airplanes and landing strips, believing that doing so will summon the prosperity associated with Western technology. The reverse version turns that on its head: if a regime’s fake elections or fake appliances don’t work, then maybe real elections and capitalism don’t work either. The more obviously a regime lies, the more it suggests that everyone else must be lying too.

Sonin formalizes this with a political model showing that when a regime lies in ways its citizens know are false — like denying obvious corruption or staging meaningless elections — it can paradoxically make people less likely to believe credible reports about other countries. If Russians know their own media is full of propaganda, and they hear that the U.S. or Ukraine claims something positive, they may dismiss it: “They’re probably lying just like our guys do.”

This has real implications for understanding Russia’s strategic use of disinformation-especially its embrace of whataboutism, a rhetorical tactic where criticism is met with counter-accusations (“What about Iraq?” “What about police brutality in the U.S.?”). The point isn’t to refute criticism, but to convince people that no political system is trustworthy or legitimate. That’s why disinformation doesn’t need to be plausible. It just needs to sow doubt.

Sonin’s paper is a timely reminder that the goal of authoritarian propaganda isn’t persuasion, it’s demoralization and confusion. And in the context of Russia’s war on Ukraine, it underscores why transparency and persistent truth-telling are incredibly important.

Originally published at https://ukraineinsights.substack.com.