Consciousness

Truces and Truths

Published on Jade McGlynn's Substack

Some wars are about territory, others about power. Sometimes it seems like this war is about everything, but that might reflect my own engagement with it. Either way, as we have seen since late January, this war is also about consciousness—about how reality is interpreted, manipulated, and ultimately shaped.

The ceasefire talks in Jeddah are no exception. Ukraine has signalled it is willing to accept an American proposal for a 30-day truce. Washington, in turn, has promised to resume intelligence sharing and military aid (promised by Biden - not new aid).

At first glance, this is a triumph of diplomacy. And it is. But on deeper exploration, the diplomacy is somewhat more crooked. The new U.S. administration clearly interprets reality in a different way to the majority of Europe, including and especially Ukraine. The White House appears to believe that diplomacy with Russia is possible in good faith - without employing considerable leverage - something that made Ukrainians incredulous. I think the Ukrainians are right to be incredulous but clearly the White House needs to learn this itself. As I see it, this ceasefire is a gambit—a test not just of Russia’s intentions but of whether the US can still recognise reality when it unfolds in front of them.

Gambits and Ceasefire

The Gambit: Forcing Reality into the Open (Truce, truth or Gambit)

Ukraine’s ceasefire offer is not so much concession as invitation:

• If Russia refuses the truce, the White House sees, unequivocally, who is blocking peace.

• If Russia accepts, the war enters a new phase—one shaped not just by military strategy but by how that ceasefire is interpreted.

Because there is little doubt about what comes next: Russia will break the ceasefire.

It has done so in Ukraine before. It will almost certainly do so again. It will manufacture an excuse, stage an attack, and flood the information space with fabricated “evidence” that Ukraine is the one violating the deal. It will claim victimhood, weaponise diplomacy, and attempt to force Western policymakers into another round of self-doubt, which some will be very grateful to accept. We all remember 2014.

And when that happens, the real question will not be whether Russia is lying (they will be) but whether the White House/America chooses to believe them.

The Risks of Playing the Best Card Available

This is the best card Ukraine has to play in the current situation. But like any gambit, it carries risk.

There is a real possibility that Russia accepts the ceasefire. If in good faith - wonderful. Ukrainians need genuine peacefulness in their lives and they are not in a position to militarily retake the occupied territories in any case at the moment. More energy for diplomatic focus on the occupied territories would also be welcome. But I cannot see an option where the Kremlin agrees to a truce, respects it, and then leaves Ukraine to live in peace.

Instead, the truce will more likely be another stage in a war of interpretations that many in Europe presumed had already been won (ie Russia invaded Ukraine, Russia is the aggressor, Russia is the block to peace).

While there is discontent from war-adjacent Russian nationalists over the ceasefire, a pause in fighting (given the sanctions relief being promised) would ease economic pressure on Russia, giving the Kremlin time to manage growing discontent and internal fractures. It would allow Moscow to consolidate power in occupied territories, further entrenching its grip. And it would provide time to regroup, rebuild, and prepare for the next offensive by learning lessons.

And then, when the war inevitably resumes, Russia will claim it is merely responding to Ukrainian aggression.

We have seen this pattern before. The question is whether Western policymakers will recognise it when it happens—or whether they will allow themselves to be deceived, again.

At its core, these ceasefire talks are not just about a pause in fighting. They are about how people perceive the war itself. Ukraine is offering people who still, somehow, don’t get it, a chance to see reality: Russia pursues this war, Ukraine defends itself.

That is clever, unless Russia accepts the truce and then breaks the ceasefire claiming retaliation to a Ukrainian attack. In such a case, I have very little confidence as to whom the White House would believe.

I have studied this war since 2014, in particular in relation to propaganda and myth, and it has always been to me a war of ‘to be or to seem’. To fight against the modern day equivalent of fascism, or to spend millions on propaganda convincing gullible types and captive audiences that you aren’t invading your neighbour - you are the ones fighting fascism. To actually be sovereign, or to just pretend to be, like Belarus. To decide one’s own fate and take charge of your country, or to shun all accountability and responsibility for your people, your fellow countrymen, and your representatives. Ukraine is not perfect or ideal - no country is - but it is real. Its successes and mistakes are committed as part of its striving towards authentic independence, of refusing to live in a world where nothing is fixed, where facts are negotiable, where any event can be rewritten, reversed, or denied outright.

America appears to have made a different choice. Hopefully Ukraine’s ceasefire acceptance can help to readjust their consciousness (defined here as how one interprets reality), since it will not overwrite the fundamental nature of this war. To think it will is not reality but a chosen interpretation of reality.

Ukraine’s ceasefire gambit is designed to force a moment of clarity.

If Russia refuses, the illusion of diplomacy collapses.

If Russia accepts, the real test begins: will Washington recognise when Moscow inevitably violates the ceasefire? Or will it, once again, allow Russia to dictate the terms of reality?

Because in war, as in history, reality is not just what happens—it is what those in power choose to see.