🔗 Share this article

The US Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll, was an unlikely diplomat for the Trump administration latest initiative to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. Driscoll's close relationship with JD Vance has positioned a close associate of the Eurosceptic VP at the forefront of Donald Trump recent push to settle the war.

Before his recent visit to Kyiv, Driscoll was not known as a negotiator or statesman, and his early efforts to sell the deal to European policymakers were described as chaotic.

Driscoll's strong ties with Vance, who he attended Yale and maintains a personal bond, indicate the resurgence of the non-interventionist VP in negotiations to end the Ukraine crisis.

Vance's Role in Peace Efforts

It was Vance who intervened during Ukraine's president's disastrous first visit to the Trump White House in March and demanded he show Trump more courtesy. Now, Ukraine is again pushing back against demands from the US to agree to a quick settlement that local officials have called a surrender.

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

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

“All objection of the peace framework the administration is developing either misinterprets the proposal or misrepresents some critical reality on the ground,” the VP wrote.

Initial Attempts and EU Reactions

Vance's initial efforts at hammering out a peace deal with Russia, while simultaneously attempting to restore ties with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his camp feeling frustrated with their Russian interlocutors. Leaders in Europe, meanwhile, were irritated by his early remarks, in which he accused them of ignoring their voters, who Vance said held restrictionist and right-leaning positions close to those of Trump's own supporters.

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

In posts this past weekend, Vance argued that a peace deal would have to establish a ceasefire that honored Ukrainian independence, be acceptable to each party, and prevent the war from restarting.

“Peace will not be made by failed diplomats or politicians living in a fantasy land,” he added. “It could be made by smart people living in the actual situation.”

Additionally, it was Vance who followed up on the introduction of the ceasefire proposal in a phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had mainly instructed his staff with securing a agreement on the ceasefire accord prior to Thanksgiving this week in the United States.

Rubio's Response and Private Doubts

Vance's stance was a distinctly more full-throated endorsement of the proposal than that given by the secretary of state and security advisor, Marco Rubio, a more conventional hawk in the administration who has gone from a shaky stature inside the White House to more firm footing.

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

But, his initial response to the deal was tepid:

“Ending a complex and violent war such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive discussion of substantive and realistic ideas,” Rubio stated recently. “Furthermore, achieving a lasting peace will necessitate both sides to agree to challenging but essential compromises. That is why we are and will persist to create a list of possible ideas for resolving this conflict based on feedback from each party of this conflict.”

In private, 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 called legislators to explain that the deal was just a preliminary offer from the Russians and not an initiative advocated by the White House.

“The Secretary did make a phone call to us this day and I believe he emphasized to us that we are the receivers of a proposal that was presented to one of our officials,” stated Rounds. “It is not our recommendation, it is not our peace plan.”

Rubio acted swiftly to fall in line. “The peace proposal was written by the US,” he later wrote. “It is presented as a strong structure for continuing negotiations. The proposal is based on feedback from the Russian side. But, it is additionally informed by earlier and current contributions from Ukraine.”