Absolute honesty and complete transparency have rarely been regarded as core political virtues in the history of human governance. From the earliest moments in which the concept of the state began to take shape, the architecture of governance, the construction of power, and the management of public opinion repeatedly and intensively relied on the strategic and deliberate use of deception, the concealment of information, and the fabrication of political myths. The enduring objective of these practices has been to secure survival in power, preserve social cohesion, and outmanoeuvre rivals on both the domestic and international fronts. Political leaders and decision-makers have long understood that unvarnished truth can often be destabilising, and that governing the public successfully requires carefully calibrated doses of illusion and direction. In this sense, lying has become a central political instrument, no less important than economic influence or military power in the arsenal of any ruling authority.   Yet the contemporary political landscape is undergoing a profound and unprecedented transformation in the nature, speed, and reach of political lying. With the rapid expansion of mass communication technologies and digital platforms, the rise of sharp partisan polarisation, and the steady erosion of the very notion of “shared facts” within society, political lying has moved far beyond the traditional practice of concealing state secrets from adversaries. It has become an active, overt, and institutionalised enterprise aimed at constructing an alternative reality and replacing the real one. The objective is no longer simply to conceal the truth, but to shape citizens’ perceptions and steer their political and electoral behaviour in ways that serve the ambitions of ruling elites and secure their hold on power.   This complex shift requires a deeper understanding that goes beyond merely identifying false statements in official rhetoric. It demands closer attention to the strategic motives and institutional environments that nurture and produce such deception. Lying is no longer a mere political slip or a temporary defensive tactic to contain public anger. It has become a broader system of deceptive practices, ranging from outright falsehoods to more sophisticated methods such as strategic ambiguity, twisted justification, deliberate concealment, and semantic manipulation. All of this is deployed within political and media environments that shape the success or failure of deception. To grasp this dangerous evolution, it is necessary to unpack the philosophical and theoretical foundations that have long justified and described political lying, and then apply them to contemporary leadership models to understand how such deception is used to secure strategic gains, and how political systems respond to it, whether through strict punishment or complete impunity.

Almost overnight, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), long regarded as one of the world’s most credible and enduring news institutions, found itself under heavy fire. Its reputation for impartiality has been shaken by a media scandal whose reverberations extend far beyond the organisation itself. The network now stands accused of the “deliberate distortion of a speech by then former U.S. President Donald Trump.” Even with the resignations of Director-General Tim Davie and Head of News Deborah Turness on Nov. 9 2025, the crisis is far from over. The controversy has erupted at an extraordinarily sensitive moment, as critical questions are being raised about the limits of media responsibility and the mechanisms by which credibility can still be assured.   Traditional news organisations, long considered the guardians of truth, now face fierce competition and unprecedented challenges from AI and the limitless evolution of digital platforms and media tools. Indeed, crises of credibility striking such established outlets as the BBC have a compounded effect precisely because they have long served as relatively safe havens for audiences seeking professionally curated and verified information, in stark contrast to the chaotic flood of unverified content circulating across social media.   This latest scandal and its implications will be explored in the following sections and present a striking illustration of the transformation underway in Western media. The press is no longer merely a monitor or transmitter of information; it has increasingly become an active participant in the battles of power and influence. Today, media institutions stand at a decisive crossroads: confronted by audiences who question everything they encounter and are fully aware that anything can be fabricated. In such a volatile environment, the key question is whether these institutions can ever regain public trust and respect. The erosion of journalistic ethics, perhaps a by-product of the overwhelming deluge of news and content on social networks, combined with technological developments that have far outpaced human oversight, has left the field teetering on the brink of losing control altogether.

Abstract The post-World War II arrangements generated several decisions that granted the victorious countries certain powers, most notably The Declaration of the Four Nations on General Security, the Four Power Declaration, and Articles 106 and 107 of the United Nations Charter. Questions have recently been raised about the possibility of exploiting these powers to legitimize Russian intervention in Ukraine. However, given the nature and background of these articles and decisions, it turns out that they were part of the arrangements for a transitional period, followed by the transfer of these powers and tasks to the United Nations, and the subsequent new arrangements, most notably the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the Russian Federation, which arranged for a new legal situation. This does not contradict the rule of inheriting international treaties as one of the principles of international law but takes into account the change in the new legal status of states. Therefore, the countries that were under the guise of the Soviet Union have become independent members in the United Nations General Assembly, and by reviewing the contents of the documented sessions of the United Nations since the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, it turns out that the defenses and arguments presented by the Russian delegate to legitimize the Russian intervention in Ukraine were based on two main arguments, which were repeated in most of the Russian President’s speeches. For the Russian Federation, especially the speech of the declaration of invasion, which was based on Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which guarantees the right of states to defend themselves against threats, and Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that all peoples have the right to self-determination, meaning that any Russian ethnic minority in Ukraine has the right to determine its political status and to pursue its economic, social and cultural development.   Since Putin announced his intention to invade Ukraine militarily, numerous analyses came up that the legal arguments Russia depend on to justify the invasion, and the talk about the arrangements made after World War II that gave the powers to the victorious nations that could be exploited by the Russian side has increased recently. There is even a rumor that claims that the Russian president talked to the secretary-general of the United Nations about the article contained in the United Nations charter and these arguments depended on two articles; 106 and 107 in the United Nations charter, that gives the right to the victorious countries and nations to take any needed decision against the countries that fought against them in World War II to avoid revising the results of World War II. In these decisions, it is specially allowed to utilize military power against these countries.