Diplomacy, Donald Trump-style, is becoming increasingly ad hoc. Pick the day, and you can never be sure whether he will stick to a policy or change course. From Venezuela to Ukraine, he swerves from position to position. And he is unpredictable on whose lead he will follow.

Will it be Secretary of State Marco Rubio or special advisor Steve Witkoff who shapes the response?

Ukraine particularly mirrors this approach to foreign policy. One minute, he is on the phone with Vladimir Putin; the next, he is hosting Vladimir Zelensky. Trump praises both and boasts of progress, while the Ukrainian and Russian presidents seem to concede little. For observers, it is a jumble of confusion. Given the official line, it is hard to imagine any areas of agreement.

Again, it is Richard Nixon’s “policy” being revised. Witkoff plays Henry Kissinger, and Marco Rubio plays the role of Secretary of State William Rogers. Witkoff does shuttle diplomacy while Rubio goes the less flashy route. However, neither the more conciliatory Witkoff nor the hawkish Rubio appears to deliver a consistent message. Then there is the theatrical Trump, who goes from euphoria to grimness in a nanosecond.

This is a bit like calling balls and strikes without a strike zone. Trump makes up the terms to fit the day or the news cycle. Putin does not approach the question that way. He wants long-term guarantees that contradict Zelensky’s desire for a Nato-like red line. These are not easy goals to reconcile. And if this pattern of talking past each other continues, it could easily bring the United States close to War with Russia.

Consistency is not a Trump strength, and, inadvertently, this might erode his goals, which, on paper, seemed more achievable than Ukraine.

So, what is US foreign policy? It is a curious blend of traditional gunboat diplomacy merged with inaction and caution. Trump is not going to succeed where Dwight Eisenhower triumphed in Guatemala in 1954, where the CIA mocked up an invasion and forced Jacobo Arbenz out of office. Trump also pursues a vague approach towards Russia, tethered to his faith in his ability to master “the art of the deal.”

The root of this ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ approach to diplomacy is that Trump does not want a shooting war. He clearly despises going to war, preferring to display muscle by blowing up speedboats allegedly hauling drugs in the Pacific and in the Caribbean. This is a deadly version of a shot over the bow, but this could further damage American credibility. So far, Trump has gotten away with the tactic, but the prospect of a boomerang remains high.

Trump is getting closer to the George W. Bush approach, which was manufacturing points of contention, as witnessed by Colin Powell’s speech at the United Nations in 2003, which falsely claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. If Trump wanted to end “forever wars,” he should not emulate George W. Bush.