Will the Real U.S. Policy Step Forward, Please?
America's interests are not served with shifty foreign policies.
This Wednesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegesth made some comments about the U.S.’s Ukraine policy in a prepared address to NATO leaders that temporarily shook up the Western alliance:
We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. But we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective.
Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering.
A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again. …
That said, the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.
In one brief speech, Hegseth apparently announced a significant shift in U.S. policy. In the previous administration, President Biden said that while he did not support making Ukraine a NATO member in the middle of their defense war with Russia — which would prompt NATO’s Article 5 stipulations for all member states to defend Ukraine militarily — America should “lay out a rational path for Ukraine to be able to qualify to be able to get into NATO” at some point at the war’s conclusion. NATO first promised Ukraine a future membership back in 2008, but since the war began, NATO, like Biden, has never been keen on granting Ukraine membership amid this conflict. Membership, despite Ukraine’s wishes, would have to wait for a future date. Now, Hegseth seemed to tear that date off the calendar.
Our European allies — Russian-friendly Hungary excluded — immediately responded with no fuzzy feelings to the announcement. In the view of many European leaders, taking future NATO membership off the table amounted to “appeasement” with Putin’s Russia, especially if Ukraine and European allies aren’t involved in the peace negotiations. Clearly, Europe was none too happy with this shift in U.S. policy.
Or was this a shift that never was?
During the White House press briefing on the day Hegseth announced the apparent shift in policy, press secretary Karoline Leavitt received several questions about Ukraine, including Hegseth’s comments. Leavitt, however, was unable to confirm that U.S. policy had changed. The Department of Defense had a blog piece summarizing Hegseth’s remarks that day, explicitly confirming that Hegseth meant: “the U.S. does not believe NATO membership for Ukraine would be a ‘realistic’ outcome of any negotiated peace settlement with Russia.” Still, all Leavitt could say was that she had “not talked to President Trump” about this announcement and would leave it to him to address.
Confused whether or not the press could trust the Secretary of Defense when apparent changes in U.S. policy are stated, Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich had a very appropriate question for Leavitt. “Just to be clear,” she asked, “so when we’re listening for a shift in position on US policy, should we only listen to the president and maybe not the secretary of defense? Because what he outlined today would represent a shift in US policy.”
Leavitt’s answer: “I’m not saying that. I’m just saying I speak for the president of the United States behind this podium, and I will let him discuss that.”
Quite the lack of clarity, no?
As the facts surrounding Hegseth’s comments developed, many media outlets would report, assuming the Defense Secretary speaks for the president, that “President Trump does not support NATO membership for Ukraine,” as The New York Times detailed on Friday. But the Times seemed to miss some key developments the previous day that other outlets picked up on.
On Thursday, Hegseth seemed to do an about-face on his previous remarks. Hegesth emphasized that Trump is leading the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, and he now said, “Everything is on the table in his conversations with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky.” Hegseth went on to say he would not announce what concessions his boss would or would not make and characterized his original remarks on Ukraine as simply affirming the “hard-power realities on the ground,” not a shift in official U.S. policy. Apparently, Heinrich’s instincts were right: You can’t necessarily trust that a change in policy has been made when the Defense Secretary says a change in policy has been made.
Later that day, further clarification trickled down. John Coale, Trump’s deputy Ukraine envoy, explicitly told reporters that Ukraine potentially joining NATO was “still on the table” for now. Trump would later say that day that he did not believe “a country in Russia’s position” would make room for Ukraine to ever join NATO and could not envision this happening himself. Though Trump’s comment that he “trust[s]” Putin to come to a negotiated settlement probably disarrayed our European allies, they would likely be relieved to hear Trump saying that Ukraine and “a lot of people” would be involved in the peace talks.
Clarity at last. Maybe…
Trump has a history of casting aspersions on NATO and increasingly surrounding himself with those who question the value of the alliance. There have been a lot of questions over what Trump’s foreign policy in Europe will look like and how much it will differ from the Biden administration’s. Now, it is entirely legitimate for a new administration to shake up the policies of the previous administration — even if those new policies are wrong. Freshly elected presidents do this all the time. That said, America’s interests are not served when the administration appears schizophrenic on its own foreign policy.
Hegseth’s original remarks caused quite a stir in our European allies, many of them seriously wondering if the world could see an end to NATO as we know it. But to announce a change in policy only to walk it back later does not send a signal of American strength or seriousness. Even members of the president’s party can see this. Republican Senator Roger Wicker told Politico that he believed Hegseth’s Wednesday remarks were a “rookie mistake.” Then he dunked on Hegseth’s address, saying, “I don’t know who wrote the speech — but it could have been written by Tucker Carlson. Carlson is a fool.”
Of course, we should not pretend that the Biden administration projected strength or seriousness either. Biden talked a good game when it came to backing Ukraine, but repeatedly, his actions were wanting. Biden had a habit of rejecting to provide specific aid to Ukraine, only to change his mind months later and finally give them the aid, costing Ukraine tactical advantages that could have sped up a conclusion of the war. For example, the Biden administration initially objected to sending Ukraine Army Tactical Missile Systems for fear of escalation, until after months later Ukraine finally received and used them late into the war. Biden wanted to simply blame Republicans (with some merit) for all the problems with aiding Ukraine, but Biden was the one responsible for repeatedly slow-walking the aid.
Now, the Trump administration is at risk of repeating the bumbling mistakes and going back and forth on policy commitments from the Biden era. If the U.S. wants to be ambiguous on a future membership in NATO for Ukraine, that’s fine. But to flatly announce that such a possibility is off the table (when it is something the U.S. can use as a bargaining chip for both Russia and Ukraine), only to say later, “LOL, we didn’t actually mean that” is bad for America and our relationship with our European allies.
Certainly, this fiasco signals our adversaries that they might not want to take America too seriously. The U.S. must make itself clear before our allies and enemies and stick with its word as much as possible. Ambiguity can be effective when America is clear about its ambiguity, but ambiguity coupled with a shifty foreign policy paints a picture of America just making this all up as it goes.
America’s interests are put in jeopardy if the world can tell us, as Elijah told the children of Israel in his standoff with the prophets of Baal, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions?” (1 Kings 18:21 ESV). It’s time for the Trump administration to recognize this hard-power reality.