Deeds, Not Words: Observing the Realities of Diplomacy in the Ukraine War

Diplomacy is an art conducted in language, but its truths are revealed in action. Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, countless words have been spoken: communiqués from summits, declarations of solidarity, pronouncements of red lines, and lofty visions of peace. Yet if the war has taught one lesson above all, it is that rhetoric is cheap while deeds are costly. To understand the trajectory of the conflict and the prospects for peace, it is better to watch what parties do than to listen to what they say.

This principle is hardly new. Niccolò Machiavelli, in The Prince, wrote that “men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand; for everyone can see, but few can feel.” He meant that rulers were often judged by appearances. Yet in the reverse, those who seek to penetrate the illusion of appearances must look to deeds rather than words. Vladimir Lenin, whose heirs in Moscow now wage war upon Ukraine, was blunt: “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” Those weeks, for Lenin, were not filled with speeches but with action—revolutions, insurrections, wars.

Russia’s Words and Deeds

Russia has maintained, in speech, that her invasion was a defensive act: the “special military operation” designed to “denazify” Ukraine and shield herself from NATO encirclement. The Kremlin has repeatedly declared openness to peace negotiations. Yet her deeds belie these words. Each “gesture” towards negotiation has been accompanied by escalatory action: annexation referenda, bombardment of Ukrainian cities, and mobilisation of additional forces. The 2022 Istanbul talks, trumpeted as a moment of possible settlement, were swiftly followed by atrocities revealed in Bucha and missile strikes deep into Ukraine’s infrastructure.

The Russian President has invoked history, culture, and even the language of brotherhood to justify aggression. But his deeds tell another story: a determination to erase Ukraine’s sovereignty through violence. As Winston Churchill once observed of the Nazi regime, “no one has been a more consistent opponent of the appeasement policy than I, because every concession makes the aggressor more arrogant”. The same pattern holds true with Russia’s conduct: what is said at the table is far less revealing than what is done on the battlefield.

Ukraine’s Words and Deeds

Ukraine, for her part, has declared since the invasion that she fights for survival, sovereignty and the values of the free world. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has become a master of rhetoric, addressing parliaments, summits and assemblies with speeches that evoke Churchill, invoke Lincoln, and mobilise moral outrage. Yet his words have been accompanied by resolute deeds. Ukraine has resisted when many expected collapse; she has reclaimed territory when many predicted stalemate.

Crucially, Kyiv’s actions have often spoken louder than her statements. Even when declaring openness to peace, Ukraine has continued to prepare for prolonged resistance, mobilising her society and forging new security guarantees with Western partners. The recent strikes inside Russian territory, carried out even under American restrictions, reveal a reality: Ukraine’s resolve is not just a matter of eloquent speeches, but of strategic initiative and sacrifice. The philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say”. Likewise American industrialist famously observed, "As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do". Ukraine’s deeds have embodied this maxim.

Western Allies: Pledges and Deliveries

The West, too, offers a study in the contrast between words and deeds. Since 2022, statements of “unwavering support” have been routine. Yet the timing and scale of military assistance have lagged behind rhetoric. Each weapons system—the HIMARS, the Leopard tanks, the F-16s—was preceded by months of hesitation and denial before eventual delivery. While Western leaders proclaimed the necessity of Ukraine’s victory, their deeds often revealed fear of escalation and a preference for incrementalism.

Nevertheless deeds matter most, and despite delays, Western states have committed resources that far exceed what Ukraine could have expected in the early days of the war. Actions have ultimately spoken more convincingly than the most soaring rhetoric, although always with the caveat that delivery has never matched the scale of declared principle. More determined actions earlier in the war could have brought this dreadful conflict to a far earlier conclusion. Now President Trump equivocates about enhanced sanctions: much the same thing.

Negotiations in Light of Actions

Now, as diplomatic manoeuvres intensify, the lesson of history remains pertnent: words uttered in negotiation chambers are worth little without the anchor of action. The Vietnam War offers an instructive parallel. While the Paris Peace Accords of 1973 were couched in fine diplomatic language, Henry Kissinger’s dictum that “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac” explains why the North Vietnamese ultimately imposed their will on the battlefield, not through promises in Paris. Similarly in Ukraine, the substance of negotiations will not be found in communiqués but in the realities created by soldiers, drones, and artillery on the ground.

As the Stoic philosopher Epictetus taught: “Don’t explain your philosophy. Embody it.” For Russia, that philosophy is embodied in destruction and annexation. For Ukraine, it is embodied in defiance and survival. For the West, it is embodied—however unevenly—in the steady transfer of arms and money. The rhetoric of each party may aim to obscure, soften, or embellish. But their deeds expose their true intentions.

The lessons of history hold true

In the cacophony of diplomatic rhetoric surrounding the war in Ukraine, it is tempting to measure progress by the words spoken at podiums, summits and press conferences. Yet to do so is to mistake appearance for reality. The deeds of Russia, Ukraine and her allies tell a clearer story than any speech. They reveal intentions, expose hypocrisies, and chart the course of the conflict more reliably than declarations of peace or proclamations of principle.

The conflict reminds us of the timeless wisdom attributed to Abraham Lincoln: “Actions speak louder than words.” It is by watching what is done, not what is said, that one can discern the true direction of the war and the prospects for its end. Words may inspire, justify, or deceive, but deeds will determine whether Ukraine secures her independence, whether Russia entrenches her aggression, and whether the West proves that its pledges are more than mere sound.