Will the real Trump White House strategy to end the Ukraine war please stand up? In the past few days a welter of confusing, sometimes conflicting, messages has emerged from the administration. Secretary Hegseth said there will be no American GIs on the ground to enforce a peace deal. Vice President Vance then equivocated in a Wall Street Journal interview. The European Union’s top diplomat is leveling a charge of “appeasement.”

That approach, says the former Estonian prime minister, Kaja Kallas, now the EU’s foreign affairs chief, “has never worked.” She was “hardly the only European diplomat uttering the word ‘appeasement,’” the Times reports. Yet Ms. Kallas “was one of the few willing to do so on the record.” Her remarks point to what the Times is calling America’s “disorganized and often publicly contradictory approach” to the Ukraine peace question.

To the extent that strategic ambiguity could advance America’s interests, this could reflect a tactical decision by Mr. Trump. That, at least, was how Mr. Vance framed it in his remarks to the Journal. “If you look at President Trump’s approach to this historically,” Mr. Vance said, “he very much goes into these things, not saying ‘Here’s an extremely narrow way that I think about this, and I want the deal to fall within these narrow parameters.’” 

Instead, Mr. Vance adds, the president “will go into it saying” that “The Overton Window” — meaning the range of possibilities — “is wide open.” It may be why he’s been a successful negotiator. Such breadth of potential outcomes could fuel Russia’s hopes for a peace deal that grants President Putin all or most or some of what he sought when he launched his war in 2022 — namely, the absorption of Ukraine, de jure or de facto, into the Kremlin’s orbit. 

It’s hard, though, to imagine that as a positive outcome for a war that has already cost so much in terms of lives and treasure. So it was heartening to hear Mr. Vance emphasize the importance of maintaining Ukraine’s freedom as part of any prospective peace pact. That echoed comments made by Secretary Rubio on Thursday, when, in conversation with Ukraine’s foreign minister, he “underscored U.S. commitment to Ukrainian independence.” 

Mr. Vance, too, stressed that Mr. Trump “wants to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity” in a peace deal — second only to wanting “the killing to stop,” he told the Journal. In terms of “Ukrainian sovereignty,” Mr. Vance added, “he doesn’t want Ukraine to become a vassal state of either Russia or of NATO. He wants Ukraine to be a sovereign state.” Even so, he said, “where the lines are ultimately drawn is going to be part of the negotiation.”

Mr. Vance faced criticism for having stumbled, to a degree, in his response to questions over how that independence would be preserved vis-à-vis Russia. Asked whether “the presence of U.S. troops in Ukraine is not officially off the table,” Mr. Vance replied “the president is very clear that whenever he walks into negotiation, everything is on the table.” Yet when those remarks made headlines, Mr. Vance walked back that statement. 

“As we’ve always said,” he posted on Elon Musk’s X platform, “American troops should never be put into harm’s way where it doesn’t advance American interests and security.” He added that “This war is between Russia and Ukraine.” That appeared to put the vice president’s position closer to the view Mr. Hegseth advanced at Munich the other day. It’s hard to see how this kind of policy ambiguity could serve any strategic interest.

Amid this shadow boxing from the executive branch, President Zelensky warns that his nation cannot survive a cut-off in American aid and urges Europe “to create a united army,” CNN reports. It fell to a member of the legislature, Senator Graham, to offer reassurance. “Trump isn’t going to do what we did in Afghanistan,” he averred. The senator, “grabbing Mr. Zelensky by the shoulder,” our James Brooke writes, added: “How do you deter Putin? You arm this guy to the teeth.”