When the Soviet Union was implicated in an Olympic doping scandal this spring, it brought up my pent- up indignation from the Cold War.  During the regime of Nikita Krushchev Russians would deny any charge, from silencing dissent to aerial spying to expanding nuclear arsenals to manipulating East European governments to aiding guerilla forces in Vietnam, Cuba, the Congo, Angola and most corners of the earth. And like all good liars they accused the United States of conducting a propaganda campaign against them. At the time I never considered that my country would lie, so Krushchev’s blatant lies sounded all the more offensive. I knew that Russians were lying when their mouths were moving.

The recent Soviet admission that the doping charges in May were true has added fuel to my fire:

Russian sports officials had vehemently denied the doping operation’s existence despite a detailed confession by the nation’s former antidoping lab chief, Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, in a New York Times article last May that was subsequently confirmed by global antidoping regulators.

An investigator appointed by the World Anti-Doping Agency, Richard McLaren, published more extensive evidence this month that prompted the International Olympic Committee to open disciplinary proceedings against dozens of additional Russian athletes.

Russia’s drastic shift in tone may be motivated by a desire to reconcile with the regulators, who have stipulated that the nation accept the findings of the recent investigation before the country is recertified to conduct drug testing and be a host again of Olympic competitions. (NY Times, December 27)

It feels wrong to assume that Russian officials are chronic liars, but there is not much evidence to the contrary. That they have confessed to systematic doping to give their athletes an advantage in the 2014 Olympics in Sochi suggests that they have cheated their way through many other Olympics, who knows how many? That they initially denied the charges outright and only confirmed them when they had something to gain suggests that their steadfast denials of most charges are suspect. That they lie whenever it gives them advantage. For example, when they were accused of sending in troops to take Crimea and managed to deny it for months.

That we have always contended they were liars seems to support our credibility and the Soviets lack thereof. So whenever they deny charges of aggression or spying they are probably lying. They are so contemptuous of the truth, they are barely able to recognize it, when they stumble across it. In short, they are pathological liars.

Here is where I should point out that the United States lies as well. However, the U.S. also confesses when necessary and has a free press that often makes it necessary.  Probably the worst offenses come in time of war, as a U.S. statesman pointed out in World War I: “The first casualty when war comes is truth” (Hiram W Johnson, staunchly isolationist senator for California, to the US Senate in 1917).  But even here we can hear exposure and transparency.  There is an implicit standard of truth that mocks us if we lie and do not confess.

We would not expect these admissions from Soviet statesmen. Maybe from powerful dissenters who are not silenced by the state, but not from those who represent the state or its organs of power. Lying is an accepted norm, a necessary mode of defense. Lying is a reflex that allows the nation to maintain its illusions of world leadership and power.

The Conspiracy of the Lie may be actually what draws President Vladmir Putin to other liars, such as Hafiz Assad and Donald Trump. All three men will make counter-factual statements with fiery resolve. If their lies are ultimately proven false, they quietly withhold their assertions and ultimately act as if they had never made them.  They may indignantly deny having made them.  There are no retractions, confessions or setting the record straight. The lies drift off into the ether. They perpetuate the myth that the liars are never wrong.

It still raises my hackles, whether it be strategy, pathology or personality. It seems so abusive of the listener, so arrogant, so contemptuous that the only appropriate response would be a slap in the face. Because accusing a liar is what the liar expects. The liar thrives on accusations; it deepens his resolve; it fortifies him.  Maybe if we beat him senseless, he would blink or make a small concession. Maybe if we water-boarded him.

Yes, it’s till there. That Cold War indignation.  The kid’s heightened sense of justice. It burns deep and sears the trust I should have of Russian adults. But I won’t trust them. I only hear the rage of betrayal, when voices of Soviet power speak.  But only when their lips are moving.