🔗 Share this article

The US Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll, emerged as an unlikely diplomat for the Trump administration newest initiative to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. His close relationship with JD Vance has positioned a close associate of the Eurosceptic vice-president at the forefront of President Trump's latest push to settle the conflict.

Before his last week's visit to Kyiv, Driscoll was unrecognized as a mediator or statesman, and his initial efforts to promote the deal to officials in Europe were described as chaotic.

Driscoll's close relationship with Vance, who he attended Yale and shares a personal bond, indicate the rising influence of the non-interventionist vice-president in negotiations to end the Ukraine crisis.

The VP's Role in Peace Efforts

It was Vance who intervened during Volodymyr Zelenskyy rocky initial visit to the Trump White House in March and demanded he show Trump more respect. Currently, Ukraine is once again resisting pressure from the US to accept a swift settlement that local officials have described as a surrender.

After a tumultuous initial year in office, foreign policy actions in the White House are reportedly influenced by a handful of Trump's top advisers, including chief of staff Susie Wiles, conservative adviser Stephen Miller, envoy Steve Witkoff, secretary of state Marco Rubio, and finally Vance.

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

“All objection of the peace framework the administration is working on either misunderstands the framework or misstates some key situation on the ground,” Vance stated.

Early Efforts and European Responses

Vance's initial attempts at negotiating a ceasefire agreement with Russia, while also seeking to restore relations with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his camp feeling disappointed with their Russian counterparts. Leaders in Europe, meanwhile, were irritated by his early speeches, in which he accused them of ignoring their voters, who Vance said held anti-immigration and conservative views similar to those of Trump's own constituency.

However, the new peace deal closely resembled his stances, and he has been one of the most assertive advocates for the agreement in the government, even as the US has been under fire for accepting a ceasefire plan that mostly resembles Vladimir Putin's maximalist demands.

In social media updates this weekend, Vance asserted that a peace deal would have to produce a truce that honored Ukrainian independence, be acceptable to both sides, and prevent the war from restarting.

“A ceasefire won’t be made by unsuccessful negotiators or officials residing in a fantasy land,” he added. “An agreement might be made by intelligent people living in the real world.”

It was Vance who followed up on the presentation of the peace plan in a phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had primarily tasked his team with obtaining a agreement on the peace deal before Thanksgiving this Thursday in the United States.

Rubio's Response and Internal Doubts

Vance's stance was a notably more full-throated support of the proposal than that given by the secretary of state and national security adviser, Marco Rubio, a more traditional hawk in the government who has transitioned from a shaky position inside the White House to more stable standing.

Rubio was a member of a US team that traveled to Geneva this past weekend to meet with Ukrainian leaders to help moderate the initial 28-point ceasefire proposal in order to make it more acceptable to authorities in Kyiv.

However, his initial response to the deal was tepid:

“Ending a complicated and deadly war such as the one in Ukraine demands an extensive discussion of substantive and pragmatic proposals,” Rubio stated over the weekend. “Furthermore, securing a durable ceasefire will require both sides to consent to challenging but necessary concessions. This is the reason we are and will continue to develop a list of possible ideas for ending this war based on feedback from both sides of this conflict.”

In private, he was reportedly much more doubtful of the proposal. The Republican senator Mike Rounds stated recently at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had contacted lawmakers to explain that the agreement was merely a preliminary offer from the Russians and not an initiative advocated by the White House.

“The Secretary made a phone call to us this afternoon and I believe he emphasized to us that we are the receivers of a proposal that was presented to one of our representatives,” stated Rounds. “It is not our suggestion, it is not our ceasefire proposal.”

Rubio moved quickly to align himself. “The peace proposal was written by the US,” he subsequently wrote. “It is offered as a strong framework for continuing negotiations. The proposal is derived from input from the Moscow. However, it is also based on earlier and ongoing input from Ukraine.”