🔗 Share this article

America's Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll, emerged as an unlikely diplomat for the White House's newest initiative to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. Driscoll's close relationship with JD Vance has placed a close associate of the Eurosceptic vice-president at the forefront of Donald Trump latest push to conclude the war.

Before his recent trip to Kyiv, Driscoll was not known as a mediator or diplomat, and his initial attempts to sell the deal to European policymakers were labeled chaotic.

His strong relationship with Vance, who he attended Yale and maintains a close friendship, indicate the resurgence of the non-interventionist vice-president in talks to resolve the Ukraine war.

Vance's Role in Peace Negotiations

This was Vance who intervened during Volodymyr Zelenskyy disastrous first visit to the Trump White House in March and insisted he show Trump more respect. Now, Ukraine is again pushing back against pressure from the US to accept a swift deal that Ukrainian leaders have described as a capitulation.

Following a tumultuous initial year in office, foreign policy actions in the White House are said to be shaped by a small group of Trump's top advisers, including top aide Susie Wiles, rightwing advisor Stephen Miller, envoy Steve Witkoff, secretary of state Marco Rubio, and of course Vance.

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

“Every criticism of the peace framework the White House is developing either misinterprets the proposal or misrepresents some key reality on the ground,” Vance wrote.

Early Attempts and European Responses

Vance's initial efforts at negotiating a peace deal with Russia, while also attempting to renew relations with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his camp feeling frustrated with their Russian counterparts. European officials, meanwhile, were angered by his early speeches, in which he charged them of running from their voters, who Vance said held restrictionist and right-leaning views 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 deal in the administration, even as the US has been under fire for endorsing a ceasefire plan that largely echoes Vladimir Putin's extreme demands.

In posts this past weekend, Vance asserted that a peace deal would have to produce a truce that respected Ukrainian sovereignty, be agreeable to each party, and stop the conflict from restarting.

“Peace won’t be made by unsuccessful diplomats or politicians living in a fantasy land,” he added. “An agreement might be made by smart people operating 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 obtaining a signature on the peace deal before Thanksgiving this Thursday in the United States.

The Secretary of State's Response and Internal Doubts

That was a notably more enthusiastic endorsement of the plan than that given by the secretary of state and security advisor, Marco Rubio, a more traditional hardliner in the administration who has transitioned from a shaky position inside the White House to more firm standing.

Rubio was a member of a US delegation that traveled 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 palatable to authorities in Kyiv.

However, his first response to the deal was tepid:

“Ending a complicated and violent conflict such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive exchange of substantive and realistic proposals,” Rubio stated over the weekend. “Furthermore, achieving a durable peace will necessitate each party to consent to difficult but necessary compromises. This is the reason we are and will persist to create a list of potential solutions for resolving this war based on feedback from both sides of this conflict.”

In private, he was said to be 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 lawmakers to explain that the deal was merely a preliminary proposal from the Russians and not an initiative pushed by the administration.

“Rubio made a 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 representatives,” said Rounds. “The document is not our suggestion, it is not our ceasefire proposal.”

Rubio acted swiftly to align himself. “The peace proposal was written by the US,” he later wrote. “The framework is offered as a strong framework for continuing discussions. The proposal is based on feedback from the Russian side. But, it is additionally informed by previous and current input from Ukraine.”