🔗 Share this article

America's Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll, was an unlikely diplomat for the White House's newest proposal to end the Russian invasion in Ukraine. Driscoll's close relationship with JD Vance has positioned a close associate of the Euroskeptic VP at the center of Donald Trump latest push to settle the conflict.

Before his last week's trip to Kyiv, Driscoll was not known as a negotiator or diplomat, and his early efforts to sell the deal to officials in Europe were described as chaotic.

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

The VP's Role in Peace Efforts

It was Vance who stepped in during Volodymyr Zelenskyy disastrous first visit to the White House in March and demanded he show Trump more respect. Now, Ukraine is once again resisting demands from the US to agree to a swift deal that Ukrainian leaders have called a capitulation.

Following a chaotic initial year in power, international decisions in the White House are reportedly shaped by a small group of Trump's key advisers, including chief of staff Susie Wiles, rightwing advisor Stephen Miller, envoy Steve Witkoff, State Department head Marco Rubio, and of course Vance.

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

“Every objection of the ceasefire plan the White House is developing either misunderstands the proposal or misstates some critical reality on the ground,” the VP wrote.

Initial Attempts and EU Responses

Vance's initial efforts at hammering out a ceasefire agreement with Russia, while simultaneously attempting to restore ties with Moscow, were fruitless and left his camp feeling frustrated with their Russian interlocutors. European officials, meanwhile, were irritated by his initial speeches, in which he charged them of ignoring their constituents, who Vance claimed held anti-immigration and right-leaning views close to those of Trump's own constituency.

But, the new ceasefire proposal closely resembled his positions, and he has been one of the most assertive spokespeople for the deal in the administration, even as the US has been under fire for endorsing a peace framework that largely resembles Vladimir Putin's extreme demands.

In posts this weekend, Vance asserted that a peace deal would have to establish a ceasefire that honored Ukrainian sovereignty, be agreeable to each party, and stop the conflict from resuming.

“Peace won’t be made by unsuccessful negotiators or politicians living in a dream world,” he continued. “It might be made by intelligent people living in the actual situation.”

It was Vance who followed up on the presentation of the peace plan in a conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had primarily instructed his team with securing a signature on the peace deal prior to Thanksgiving this week in the United States.

Rubio's Response and Private Doubts

Vance's stance was a notably more full-throated support of the plan than that expressed by the secretary of state and national security adviser, Marco Rubio, a more conventional hawk in the government who has transitioned from a uncertain stature inside the White House to more firm footing.

Rubio was part of a US delegation that went to Geneva this past weekend to confer with Ukrainian officials to help refine the initial 28-point ceasefire proposal in order to make it more acceptable to authorities in Kyiv.

But, his initial reaction to the agreement was tepid:

“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, achieving a lasting peace will require each party to agree to challenging but essential compromises. This is the reason we are and will continue to develop a list of possible solutions for resolving this conflict drawing from feedback from each party of this war.”

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

“Rubio made a call to us this afternoon and I believe he emphasized to us that we are the receivers of a proposal that was delivered to one of our officials,” said Rounds. “The document is not our recommendation, it is not our peace plan.”

Rubio acted swiftly to align himself. “The peace proposal was written by the US,” he later wrote. “The framework is presented as a solid structure for continuing negotiations. It is derived from input from the Russian side. However, it is additionally based on previous and current input from Ukraine.”