🔗 Share this article

America's Secretary of the Army, Daniel Driscoll, was an unlikely diplomat for the White House's latest proposal to end the conflict in Ukraine. Driscoll's strong relationship with JD Vance has placed a close associate of the Eurosceptic VP at the forefront of President Trump's recent push to settle the war.

Before his last week's visit to Kyiv, Driscoll was not known as a mediator or statesman, and his initial attempts to promote the deal to officials in Europe were described as turbulent.

Driscoll's strong relationship with Vance, who he studied and shares a personal bond, indicate the rising influence of the non-interventionist vice-president in negotiations to resolve the Ukraine war.

The VP's Role in Ceasefire Efforts

This was Vance who intervened during Ukraine's president's disastrous first visit to the White House in March and demanded he show Trump more respect. Now, Ukraine is again resisting demands from the US to agree to a swift deal that Ukrainian leaders have described as a surrender.

After a chaotic first year in office, international decisions in the White House are said to be shaped by a small group of Trump's top advisers, such as top aide Susie Wiles, conservative adviser Stephen Miller, envoy Steve Witkoff, secretary of state Marco Rubio, and finally Vance.

Vance has been a outspoken advocate of the latest plan, which was developed by Witkoff and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, alongside the Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev.

“Every objection of the peace framework the administration is developing either misunderstands the proposal or misrepresents some key reality on the ground,” the VP wrote.

Early Attempts and European Responses

Vance's initial attempts at hammering out a ceasefire agreement with Russia, while simultaneously attempting to renew ties with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his team feeling frustrated with their Russian counterparts. Leaders in Europe, in turn, were irritated by his early speeches, in which he charged them of running from their constituents, who Vance claimed held anti-immigration and right-leaning views close to those of Trump's own supporters.

However, the new peace deal mirrored his positions, and he has been one of the most forceful spokespeople for the agreement in the government, even as the US has been under fire for endorsing a ceasefire plan that mostly resembles Vladimir Putin's extreme terms.

In posts this weekend, Vance asserted that a ceasefire agreement would have to establish a truce that honored Ukrainian sovereignty, be acceptable to each party, and prevent the war from resuming.

“Peace will not be made by unsuccessful diplomats or officials residing in a dream world,” he added. “An agreement might be made by smart people living in the actual situation.”

Additionally, it was Vance who continued on the introduction of the ceasefire proposal in a phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had primarily instructed his team with obtaining a agreement on the peace deal before Thanksgiving this week in the United States.

The Secretary of State's Reaction and Private Doubts

Vance's stance was a notably more enthusiastic support of the proposal than that given by the top diplomat and national security adviser, Marco Rubio, a more conventional hardliner in the government who has gone from a shaky stature inside the administration to more firm standing.

Rubio was a member of a US team that traveled to Geneva this past weekend to confer with Ukrainian leaders to help moderate the original 28-point peace plan in order to make it more palatable to leaders in Kyiv.

However, his initial reaction to the agreement was lukewarm:

“Ending a complicated and deadly conflict such as the one in Ukraine demands an thorough exchange of substantive and pragmatic proposals,” Rubio wrote over the weekend. “Furthermore, securing a durable ceasefire will require each party to agree to challenging but essential compromises. This is the reason we are and will continue to develop a set of potential solutions for resolving this conflict based on feedback from each party of this conflict.”

In private, he was reportedly much more skeptical of the plan. The GOP lawmaker Mike Rounds stated last week at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had called lawmakers to explain that the deal was just a preliminary offer from the Russians and not an initiative advocated by the administration.

“Rubio made a phone call to us this afternoon and I believe he made it very clear to us that we are the receivers of a offer that was presented to one of our officials,” said Rounds. “The document is not our suggestion, it is not our peace plan.”

Rubio acted swiftly to align himself. “The peace proposal was written by the US,” he subsequently stated. “It is offered as a strong structure for continuing negotiations. The proposal is derived from feedback from the Russian side. However, it is also based on previous and current contributions from Ukraine.”