Three words sum up Donald Trump

“Uncertain” is perhaps the best single word summary of the Trump presidency so far. It applies to issues of both personnel and policy, and has continued for months beyond what is to be expected for any new administration finding its sea legs.

With respect to personnel, particularly troubling is the continuing absence of expertise in certain US departments and agencies for the new president to draw upon. The White House National Security Council (NSC) staff has already seen its first leader, Michael Flynn, fired for misrepresenting his contacts with Russian officials. He has been replaced by HR McMaster, who has begun a staff shakeup, removing controversial Trump strategist Stephen Bannon from his NSC perch. The White House Press Office, led by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, is a gaffe factory—the latest incident being Spicer’s remarks that were viewed as downplaying the Holocaust. And Trump is yet to appoint staff to key roles in the State Department and the Pentagon.

With respect to policy, despite efforts on the part of Secretary of Defence James Mattis and Vice-president Mike Pence to reassure NATO regarding the US commitment to the trans-Atlantic alliance, the feeling running through the Munich Security Conference in February was one of uncertainty. The broadcast of President Trump’s 16th February press conference on the eve of Munich—where he asserted despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that: “This administration is running like a fine-tuned machine"—only exacerbated Europe’s nerves.

President Trump’s professed willingness to improve US-Russia relations (albeit without specifying to what end and at what cost), along with his insistence that European allies contribute more to NATO’s defence capabilities, are among the few constants that ran through his campaign, transition and the early weeks of his presidency.

Yet in early March, reports began circulating that Trump might shelve his plan to pursue better relations, at least temporarily, between Washington and Moscow, due to Russian “provocations.” These included Russia’s reported violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in deploying a new cruise missile. Now, America’s cruise missile strike on Syria in retaliation for Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons has provoked an angry Russian response. Today, both Washington and Moscow appear uncertain with respect to the direction of their bilateral relations.

A close second to uncertain, when looking for words to describe Trump’s presidency, is “undisciplined.”

From early on, there was ample evidence that Trump would not be captive to norms associated with American presidential campaigns. The expectation has historically been that both candidates and their campaign staffs are given high marks by pundits—and rewarded by the electorate—for having a clear message and staying on point. For much of the Trump campaign, however, the candidate was going off-topic via his twitter outbursts with little regard for whatever theme might have been on the campaign chalkboard that morning.

Of course, what looks like an undisciplined approach to one person can look like a genius at work to another. And when all was said and done on 8^th November, Trump had succeeded in hammering home more recognisable themes than his disciplined and cautious opponent. That said, the process of getting there, including the turnover of multiple campaign chairs, was undisciplined in the extreme—at least until the last two weeks of the campaign. Then, FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that the bureau had reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails effectively paused the election and gave Trump one last opportunity to regroup.

Now, in the White House, the undisciplined Trump and his staff are in full view. True, any new administration goes through growing pains, as there is nothing quite like running the executive branch of the US government from the White House enclave. The lack of experience in governing among many of Trump’s staff and cabinet picks has exacerbated this. If government is an art form, a president is usually better served by bringing in some proven artists, rather than an eclectic group of finger painters. Unfortunately for the Republican artists, many of them—particularly in the area of national security and foreign policy—said during the campaign that they would take their brushes and go home if Trump won. And he did—and he does not forget a slight.

But even with an allowance for inexperience, Trump’s undisciplined stamp with respect to policy-making is unmistakable. The President’s cobbling together of a first executive order on immigration after only seven days without the appropriate vetting and consultations; and accusation that his predecessor tapped his communications, offer a flavour.

Finally, Trump is “unpredictable.” Even with the two seeming constants in Trump’s Euro-Atlantic world view—his professed desire to improve US-Russia relations and emphasis on a greater contribution from NATO allies to defence—Europeans should be bracing for an unpredictable ride with respect to the Euro-Atlantic security order. In particular, Trump’s attitude towards US-Russia bilateral relations and Russia’s role in Europe, even if somewhat dampened now due to Russia’s reported INF violations and Moscow’s anger over Trump’s missile strike in Syria, could literally change overnight in the span of a single tweet.

In theory, we should know more following the coming NATO-Russia summit, scheduled for 25^th May; and the first meeting between presidents Trump and Putin. This is as yet unscheduled, but presumably it will follow the NATO meeting. Yet for all the reasons noted, it would be a mistake for Europe to try and discern a US policy pattern from either meet.

No one should bet on the normal laws of political gravity applying in Washington: uncertainty, a lack of discipline and unpredictability could define US policy for at least the next four years. In practice, this means that Europeans would be wise to proceed cautiously.

Steve Andreasen has written a contribution to the Fabian Society pamphlet, The Age of Trump: Foreign policy challenges for the left, published today