🔗 Share this article

America's Secretary of the Army, Daniel Driscoll, emerged as an surprising diplomat for the White House's latest proposal to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. Driscoll's close connection with JD Vance has positioned a close associate of the Euroskeptic vice-president at the center of Donald Trump latest effort to settle the conflict.

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

His close relationship with Vance, with whom he attended Yale and maintains a personal bond, signal the rising influence of the non-interventionist VP in talks to end the Ukraine war.

The VP's Role in Ceasefire 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 again pushing back against demands from the US to agree to a quick deal that local officials have described as a surrender.

After a tumultuous first year in power, international decisions in the White House are reportedly shaped by a handful of Trump's key aides, such as chief of staff Susie Wiles, rightwing advisor Stephen Miller, diplomat Steve Witkoff, State Department head Marco Rubio, and of course Vance.

Vance has been a vocal supporter of the latest proposal, which was crafted by Witkoff and Trump's relative Jared Kushner, alongside the Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev.

“Every objection of the peace framework the White House is developing either misinterprets the proposal or misrepresents some critical situation on the ground,” Vance stated.

Early Efforts and EU Reactions

Vance's early efforts at negotiating a ceasefire agreement with Russia, while simultaneously attempting to restore ties with Moscow, were fruitless and left his camp feeling frustrated with their Russian counterparts. European officials, meanwhile, were irritated by his initial remarks, in which he accused them of ignoring their voters, who Vance claimed held restrictionist and conservative views close to those of Trump's own supporters.

But, the new ceasefire proposal closely resembled his positions, and he has been one of the most forceful advocates for the deal in the government, even as the US has been criticized for endorsing a ceasefire plan that mostly echoes Vladimir Putin's extreme terms.

In posts this past weekend, Vance argued that a ceasefire agreement would have to produce a truce that honored Ukrainian independence, be acceptable to each party, and prevent the conflict from resuming.

“A ceasefire will not be made by unsuccessful diplomats or officials living in a fantasy land,” he continued. “An agreement could be made by smart people living in the actual situation.”

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

Rubio's Reaction and Private Doubts

Vance's stance was a notably more enthusiastic endorsement of the plan than that expressed by the top diplomat and national security adviser, Marco Rubio, a more conventional hardliner in the administration who has transitioned from a shaky position inside the administration to more stable footing.

Rubio was a member of a US delegation that went to Geneva this weekend to confer with Ukrainian officials to help refine the initial 28-point peace plan in order to make it more palatable to leaders in Kyiv.

However, his initial reaction to the deal was lukewarm:

“Ending a complex and violent war such as the one in Ukraine demands an thorough discussion of substantive and realistic ideas,” Rubio stated over the weekend. “And, achieving a durable ceasefire will necessitate both sides to agree to challenging but necessary compromises. That is why we are and will continue to create a list of potential ideas for resolving this war drawing from input from each party of this conflict.”

Behind closed doors, he was reportedly much more doubtful of the plan. The GOP lawmaker Mike Rounds stated last week at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had called legislators to explain that the agreement was merely a preliminary proposal from the Russians and not an initiative advocated by the administration.

“The Secretary did make a call to us this day and I believe he emphasized to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was presented to one of our representatives,” stated Rounds. “It 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 wrote. “The framework is offered as a solid framework for ongoing negotiations. It is derived from feedback from the Russian side. But, it is additionally informed by previous and current input from Ukraine.”