The discordant statements of the Trump team about Ukraine leave anxious

A cracked windshield forced the Secretary of State for the United States to Marco Rubio to a rapid change of U when his plane, on the way to the Security Conference of Munich, had to go back an hour on the flight.

The main diplomat of the United States, his senior officials and the traveling press returned to the Andrews Air Force base near Washington DC on Thursday night.

But despite the scare in the air, the news was already firmly in another part. In Europe, the Secretary of Defense of the United States, Pete Hegseth, had surprised United States allies with a speech that pronounced what many saw as a series of concessions that Ukraine would have to do to sign any peace agreement with Russia Negotiated by President Trump.

Hegesh said he was “unrealistic” to think that Ukraine could recover his sovereign territory occupied by Russia, as well as his demand for membership of NATO, and added that he depended on European and non -American troops to maintain peace.

Critics, including some Republicans in Washington, punished the speech, saying that he gave all the influence of Ukraine before any negotiation. It was, they argued, an American capitulation for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Without a doubt, it is an innovative approach to a negotiation to make very important concessions even before they began,” said Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, who co -presides over the European Council on Foreign Relations, a group of experts.

The next day, Hegseth recovered something he had said. He clarified that all the options were still on the table for Trump to use it as an influence between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“What decides to allow or not allowing is the scope of the leader of the free world, President Trump,” Hegseth said. However, he added that he had been “simply pointing to realism” and rejected the idea that he had offered any undue concession to Moscow.

As for Rubio, the broken down plane delayed his arrival in Munich, where his officials were informing about his own priorities for the trip.

The United States would work for a “fair and lasting peace” in which European countries would take the initiative to create a “durable security framework,” they said.

European leaders are expected to meet in Paris on Monday to see urgent conversations aimed at ensuring that their countries are completely involved in any peace negotiation in Ukraine.

The position of the Secretary of State of the United States did not contain a trace of establishing limits for Ukraine in the way the Secretary of Defense had done. Then, also in the German city, Vice President JD Vance said that the United States could use “military leverage tools” to force Russia to make an agreement, seeming to contradict Hegeseth, who had said that US troops would not be deployed in Ukraine.

Later in the Oval office, the consequences of Hegesh’s speech pronounced President Trump, along with the comment of a Republican senator who described him as a “rookie error”, as something that a Pro -Putin expert could have written.

Had Trump had been aware of what Hegseth was going to say? “In general terms, yes, in general, I was,” said the president. “I will talk to Pete, I will discover it,” he added.

The three days on one side and back some of the first important ideas about Trump’s evolutionary position on one of the most consistent issues he faces: the large -scale invasion of Ukraine of Russia and his vote of ending the War, and also about how its administration is formulated and send messages from its foreign policy.

In the substance, Hegesh’s speech, along with Trump’s long statement about a seemingly warm phone call with Putin aimed at starting negotiations with Ukraine, sent shock waves through European capitals, despite Hegseth’s attempts to trace.

“Any quick solution is a dirty agreement,” said the head of foreign policy of the European Union, Kaja Kallas, on the perspective of an agreement led by the United States with Russia that could leave Ukraine’s voice to the margin.

Then there is the question of the way in which the foreign policy of the United States under Trump was being communicated. What happened in Munich seemed to be partly an attempt of his senior officials to interpret and transmit Trump’s positions, but that effort resulted in sometimes explosive statements and often contradictory, some of which were diluted or reversed in part.

It is still not clear how much is the result of a new but poorly coordinated administration that still clarifies its lines to take internally, instead of a deliberate characteristic of a presidency less concerned with officials regardless of rhetoric, even if it sows some confusion, always and when they remain loyal to their last word.

Trump’s first mandate saw a series of high -profile farewells or resignations of senior officials who contradicted or disagreed with him, including three national security advisors, two defense secretaries and a Secretary of State.

This time, their quotes have been more frequently characterized by the will to show loyalty. Pete Hegseth, who had no previous experience in executing an army or a government or agency, was Fox News weekend presenter and former National Guard student who aligns strongly with Trump’s thought and agenda.

His appointment was highly disputed and scraped through his confirmation process with three Republican senators voting against him, since the result tied 50-50 with JD Vance emitting the tie vote.

As Trump said this week, he was “well” with the idea of ​​taking Ukraine joining NATO out of the negotiating table, calling her “non -practical.”

Heghseth’s comments were barely out of line with the president’s position, rather they were an amplification of it for an anxious audience to underpin Ukraine’s negotiation position not weakening it.

The challenge for those affected is that the precise position of the foreign policy of the United States is to have to guess. One of its characteristics is uncertainty. This can be deliberate, Donald Trump using the “crazy” theory of foreign relations, often attributed to former Republican President Richard Nixon.

This suggests that being powerful but unpredictable is a way of making the allies stay close while coercing adversaries. He would also explain a feeling that his own officials become dishonest but within the parameters of Trump’s widely known positions.

But, as this theory suggests, considerable risks of errors or calculation errors in a world already violent and uncertain.

Trump’s recent proposals for Gaza, which empties from its Palestinian population to build the “Riviera del Middle East” under American property, confusion and contradiction were similarly impregnated.

While his officials seemed to correct something he established, as only “temporary relocation”, for example, Trump then doubled by saying that he would in fact be “permanent” without the right to return.

As for Rubio, who wants the State Department to be the most influential government agency when it comes to Trump’s decision -making, his colleagues’ comments in Munich were already eclipse.

His smallest replacement plane finally landed in Europe: an intact windshield but without the press pool on board, while most headlines also went to the other side.