🔗 Share this article

America's Secretary of the Army, Daniel Driscoll, was an unlikely envoy for the Trump administration latest initiative to end the conflict in Ukraine. Driscoll's close relationship with JD Vance has positioned a close associate of the Eurosceptic vice-president at the center of President Trump's latest push to settle the war.

Before his recent visit to Kyiv, Driscoll was unrecognized as a mediator or diplomat, and his early efforts to promote the deal to European policymakers were labeled turbulent.

Driscoll's strong relationship with Vance, who he attended Yale and shares a personal bond, signal the rising influence of the non-interventionist VP in talks to resolve the Ukraine war.

Vance's Involvement in Peace Negotiations

It was Vance who stepped in during Ukraine's president's disastrous initial visit to the Trump White House in March and insisted he show Trump more respect. Currently, Ukraine is once again pushing back against pressure from the US to accept a swift settlement that local officials have called a surrender.

After a chaotic first year in power, foreign policy actions in the White House are reportedly influenced by a small group of Trump's top aides, including top aide Susie Wiles, conservative advisor Stephen Miller, diplomat Steve Witkoff, secretary of state Marco Rubio, and of course Vance.

Vance has been a vocal supporter of the latest proposal, which was developed by Witkoff and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, together with the Russian diplomat Kirill Dmitriev.

“Every objection of the peace framework the White House is working on either misunderstands the proposal or misstates some critical reality on the ground,” Vance stated.

Early Efforts and European Responses

Vance's early attempts at negotiating a peace deal with Russia, while simultaneously seeking to restore relations with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his camp feeling frustrated with their Russian interlocutors. Leaders in Europe, meanwhile, were irritated by his initial remarks, in which he charged them of running from their voters, who Vance claimed held restrictionist and conservative views similar to those of Trump's own supporters.

However, the new ceasefire proposal mirrored his stances, and he has been one of the most assertive spokespeople for the deal in the administration, even as the US has been criticized for accepting a ceasefire plan that largely echoes Vladimir Putin's extreme demands.

In social media updates this weekend, Vance asserted that a ceasefire agreement would have to produce a ceasefire that honored Ukrainian sovereignty, be agreeable to each party, and stop the conflict from resuming.

“Peace will not be made by unsuccessful diplomats or politicians residing in a fantasy land,” he added. “It might be made by smart people living in the actual situation.”

It was Vance who followed up on the introduction of the ceasefire proposal in a phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had mainly instructed his team with obtaining a signature on the ceasefire accord prior to Thanksgiving this week in the United States.

Rubio's Reaction and Internal Doubts

Vance's stance was a distinctly more enthusiastic endorsement of the plan than that expressed by the secretary of state and security advisor, Marco Rubio, a more traditional hardliner in the government who has transitioned from a shaky position inside the White House to more stable footing.

Rubio was part of a US delegation that went to Geneva this weekend to meet with Ukrainian officials to help moderate the original 28-point peace plan in order to make it more acceptable to authorities in Kyiv.

But, his initial reaction to the deal was lukewarm:

“Ending a complicated and violent conflict such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive exchange of substantive and pragmatic proposals,” Rubio stated recently. “Furthermore, securing a lasting ceasefire will require each party to consent to challenging but necessary compromises. This is the reason we are and will persist to develop a set of potential ideas for ending this war based on feedback from both sides of this conflict.”

In private, he was reportedly much more skeptical of the proposal. The GOP lawmaker Mike Rounds stated last week at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had contacted lawmakers to clarify that the agreement was merely a preliminary proposal from the Russians and not an plan advocated by the White House.

“Rubio did make a phone call to us this day and I believe he made it very clear to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives,” said Rounds. “It is not our recommendation, it is not our ceasefire proposal.”

Rubio acted swiftly to fall in line. “The peace proposal was authored by the US,” he subsequently wrote. “The framework is offered as a solid framework for ongoing discussions. The proposal is based on input from the Moscow. But, it is additionally based on earlier and ongoing contributions from Ukraine.”