This week proved to be confusing for those concerned about how the new Trump administration would honor Donald Trump‘s commitment to end the Ukraine conflict. As the U.S. president initiated diplomatic efforts regarding the nearly three-year-long war, statements from his senior officials left many uncertain about his strategy for addressing the most significant security challenge Europe has faced in decades.

On Wednesday, Trump engaged in phone conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskiy, instructing his team to begin negotiations and indicating that a summit with Putin in Saudi Arabia was probable.

These discussions caught European allies off guard, especially in light of comments made by Trump’s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. Earlier that day, Hegseth informed NATO allies that it was unrealistic to expect Ukraine to join the alliance as part of a negotiated settlement with Russia, labeling Kyiv’s aspirations to restore its 2014 borders as an “illusionary goal.” He also stated that the U.S. would not deploy troops as part of a security force in Ukraine. However, he seemed to revise his stance the following day, asserting at a press conference that “everything is on the table” regarding negotiations for the Ukraine war.

On Friday, Vice President JD Vance added to the confusion by suggesting in a Wall Street Journal interview that the U.S. might consider options to pressure Moscow, including the potential deployment of U.S. troops to Ukraine, which would represent a significant departure from former President Joe Biden’s policy of keeping American forces out of the conflict. Vance later clarified on X that the Journal had misrepresented his comments, emphasizing that “American troops should never be put into harm’s way where it doesn’t advance American interests and security.” Ambassador Daniel Fried, a former U.S. diplomat now affiliated with the Atlantic Council think tank, noted that while the administration’s messaging appeared inconsistent, officials had left themselves the flexibility to negotiate a viable resolution with Russia.

The situation appears disorganized, with a lack of a clear and disciplined approach, yet no options have been dismissed. The administration has shrouded the issue in ambiguity and uncertainty, he remarked.

CONCESSIONS TO PUTIN?

The remarks from the administration have led some European allies to believe that the Trump administration is making concessions to Putin prior to any negotiations. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius described the administration’s strategy as “clumsy” and a “mistake” on Friday. He noted that Putin had “not budged an inch” from his negotiating stance, suggesting that it was not in the West’s best interest to make concessions. This statement was made during the Munich Security Conference, where defense officials and diplomats convened this week. “It would have been far more productive to discuss potential NATO membership and territorial adjustments at the negotiating table,” Pistorius added.

Republican U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, criticized what he termed a “rookie mistake” by Hegseth for seemingly conceding Ukraine’s borders before negotiations had even started. He expressed that he was “puzzled” and “disturbed” by Hegseth’s remarks. “Everyone understands… and those in the administration are aware that you do not disclose your positions before your initial meeting,” Wicker stated to Politico on Friday. Additionally, there were concerns regarding who would implement Trump’s Ukraine policy. In a social media post, he mentioned negotiators such as Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who traveled to Russia on Tuesday for a prisoner exchange, but notably omitted Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg.

The White House subsequently clarified that Kellogg remained engaged in Ukraine policy. Fried noted that, despite the mixed messages, Trump’s objectives regarding Ukraine were becoming clearer and could potentially result in a favorable resolution for the country. These objectives seemed to include a swift ceasefire, the necessity for security guarantees for Ukraine, and the deployment of European troops, rather than U.S. forces, to maintain peace, according to Fried.

“A favorable resolution entails the cessation of hostilities, with 80% of Ukraine liberated, alongside adequate security guarantees to prevent Russia from reigniting the conflict. This would represent a strategic triumph for Ukraine,” Fried stated.