🔗 Share this article

The US Secretary of the Army, Daniel Driscoll, was an unlikely diplomat for the White House's newest proposal to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. Driscoll's strong relationship with JD Vance has positioned a close associate of the Eurosceptic vice-president at the center of President Trump's recent effort to settle the war.

Prior to his recent visit to Kyiv, Driscoll was not known as a mediator or statesman, and his early efforts to sell the deal to officials in Europe were labeled chaotic.

Driscoll's strong relationship with Vance, with whom he studied and shares a personal bond, signal the resurgence of the isolationist vice-president in talks to resolve the Ukraine crisis.

Vance's Involvement in Ceasefire Efforts

It was Vance who intervened during Ukraine's president's rocky initial visit to the White House in March and insisted he show Trump more courtesy. Now, Ukraine is once again pushing back against pressure from the US to accept a quick settlement that Ukrainian leaders have described as a surrender.

After a chaotic first year in office, international decisions in the White House are reportedly influenced by a handful of Trump's top advisers, including chief of staff Susie Wiles, conservative advisor Stephen Miller, diplomat Steve Witkoff, State Department head Marco Rubio, and finally Vance.

Vance has been a outspoken advocate of the latest plan, which was developed by Witkoff and Trump's relative Jared Kushner, alongside the Russian diplomat Kirill Dmitriev.

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

Initial Efforts and European Reactions

Vance's initial attempts at hammering out a peace deal with Russia, while simultaneously seeking to renew ties with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his camp feeling disappointed with their Russian interlocutors. Leaders in Europe, in turn, were angered by his initial speeches, in which he accused them of running from their constituents, who Vance claimed held restrictionist and right-leaning positions similar to those of Trump's own constituency.

However, the recently published peace deal mirrored his positions, 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 endorsing a peace framework that largely echoes Vladimir Putin's maximalist demands.

In posts this weekend, Vance argued that a peace deal would have to produce a truce that honored Ukrainian independence, be agreeable to both sides, and stop the conflict from resuming.

“A ceasefire won’t be made by unsuccessful diplomats or politicians residing in a dream world,” he continued. “An agreement could be made by intelligent people operating in the actual situation.”

Additionally, it was Vance who followed up on the presentation of the ceasefire proposal in a conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had mainly instructed his team with securing a signature on the peace deal prior to Thanksgiving this Thursday in the United States.

The Secretary of State's Reaction and Internal Concerns

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

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

However, his first response to the deal was tepid:

“Stopping a complex and violent war such as the one in Ukraine requires an thorough discussion of substantive and pragmatic ideas,” Rubio stated recently. “Furthermore, achieving a durable peace will require each party to consent to difficult but necessary concessions. This is the reason we are and will continue to create a list of potential solutions for resolving this conflict drawing from input from each party of this conflict.”

Behind closed doors, he was said to be much more doubtful of the plan. The Republican senator Mike Rounds stated last week at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had contacted lawmakers to clarify that the deal was just a preliminary proposal from the Russians and not an plan advocated by the administration.

“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 offer that was delivered to one of our officials,” said Rounds. “It is not our suggestion, it is not our ceasefire proposal.”

Rubio acted swiftly to align himself. “This ceasefire plan was authored by the US,” he subsequently wrote. “It is offered as a strong structure for ongoing discussions. It is based on input from the Russian side. But, it is additionally based on earlier and ongoing contributions from Ukraine.”