🔗 Share this article

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

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

Driscoll's close relationship with Vance, who he attended Yale and maintains a close friendship, signal the resurgence of the non-interventionist VP in negotiations to end the Ukraine war.

The VP's Role in Peace Efforts

This was Vance who intervened during Ukraine's president's disastrous first visit to the White House in March and insisted he show Trump more respect. Currently, Ukraine is again resisting pressure from the US to agree to a quick settlement that Ukrainian leaders have called a capitulation.

After a tumultuous first year in power, foreign policy decisions in the White House are reportedly shaped by a handful of Trump's top aides, including chief of staff Susie Wiles, conservative adviser Stephen Miller, diplomat Steve Witkoff, State Department head Marco Rubio, and of course Vance.

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

“All objection of the peace framework the administration is developing either misinterprets the proposal or misstates some critical situation on the ground,” Vance stated.

Early Efforts and EU Reactions

Vance's initial attempts at hammering out a peace deal with Russia, while simultaneously attempting to renew ties with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his camp feeling frustrated with their Russian interlocutors. Leaders in Europe, meanwhile, were angered by his initial speeches, in which he charged them of ignoring their constituents, who Vance said held restrictionist and right-leaning views close to those of Trump's own supporters.

But, the new peace deal mirrored his stances, and he has been one of the most assertive spokespeople for the deal in the administration, even as the US has been criticized for endorsing a ceasefire plan that largely resembles Vladimir Putin's maximalist demands.

In social media updates this weekend, Vance argued that a ceasefire agreement would have to produce a truce that honored Ukrainian independence, be agreeable to both sides, and stop the war from restarting.

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

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 signature on the ceasefire accord before Thanksgiving this Thursday in the United States.

The Secretary of State's Reaction 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 security advisor, Marco Rubio, a more traditional hawk in the government who has transitioned from a uncertain stature inside the administration to more stable footing.

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

However, his first response to the agreement was lukewarm:

“Stopping a complicated and violent war such as the one in Ukraine requires an thorough exchange of substantive and pragmatic ideas,” Rubio stated recently. “Furthermore, securing a lasting ceasefire will require both sides to consent to difficult but essential concessions. That is why we are and will persist to develop a list of potential ideas for resolving this conflict drawing from input from each party of this war.”

In private, he was reportedly much more doubtful of the proposal. The Republican senator Mike Rounds said last week at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had called legislators to explain that the deal was merely a preliminary proposal from the Russians and not an plan pushed by the administration.

“The Secretary did make 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,” stated Rounds. “The document is not our recommendation, it is not our peace plan.”

Rubio moved quickly to align himself. “The peace proposal was authored by the US,” he later stated. “The framework is offered as a solid framework for continuing discussions. It is derived from feedback from the Russian side. However, it is also based on earlier and current input from Ukraine.”