🔗 Share this article

The US Secretary of the Army, Daniel Driscoll, was an unlikely envoy for the White House's newest proposal to end the Russian invasion in Ukraine. His close relationship with JD Vance has positioned a close associate of the Eurosceptic VP at the center of Donald Trump recent push to settle the conflict.

Prior to his last week's trip to Kyiv, Driscoll was unrecognized as a negotiator or statesman, and his early efforts to sell the agreement to officials in Europe were described as turbulent.

His close ties with Vance, who he attended Yale and shares a personal bond, signal the rising influence of the non-interventionist VP in talks to end the Ukraine war.

Vance's Role in Ceasefire Efforts

It was Vance who stepped in during Ukraine's president's 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 agree to a swift settlement that local officials have described as a capitulation.

After a tumultuous first year in power, international decisions in the White House are said to be shaped by a small group of Trump's top advisers, such as top aide Susie Wiles, rightwing adviser Stephen Miller, diplomat Steve Witkoff, State Department head Marco Rubio, and finally Vance.

Vance has been a vocal advocate of the recent proposal, which was crafted by Witkoff and Trump's relative Jared Kushner, alongside the Russian diplomat Kirill Dmitriev.

“All objection of the peace framework the White House is working on either misunderstands the proposal or misrepresents some critical reality on the ground,” the VP stated.

Early Attempts and EU Responses

Vance's initial attempts at hammering out a peace deal with Russia, while simultaneously attempting to restore ties with Moscow, were fruitless and left his team feeling frustrated with their Russian counterparts. Leaders in Europe, in turn, were irritated by his initial speeches, in which he accused them of ignoring their voters, who Vance claimed held restrictionist and conservative positions similar to those of Trump's own constituency.

However, the recently published peace deal closely resembled his stances, and he has been one of the most forceful advocates for the agreement in the government, even as the US has been criticized for endorsing a ceasefire plan that mostly echoes Vladimir Putin's maximalist demands.

In posts this weekend, Vance asserted that a ceasefire agreement would have to establish a truce that honored Ukrainian independence, be agreeable to each party, and prevent the conflict from resuming.

“Peace won’t be made by unsuccessful negotiators or politicians residing in a dream world,” he added. “It might be made by smart people operating in the real world.”

It was Vance who continued on the presentation of the ceasefire proposal in a conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had mainly tasked his staff with obtaining a signature on the ceasefire accord prior to Thanksgiving this week in the United States.

The Secretary of State's Response and Internal Concerns

Vance's stance was a distinctly more enthusiastic endorsement of the proposal than that given by the top diplomat and security advisor, Marco Rubio, a more traditional hawk in the administration who has transitioned from a shaky stature inside the administration to more stable footing.

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

But, his first response to the deal was lukewarm:

“Stopping a complex and violent conflict such as the one in Ukraine demands an extensive discussion of serious and pragmatic proposals,” Rubio wrote recently. “Furthermore, securing a lasting peace will require both sides to consent to difficult but essential compromises. This is the reason we are and will persist to develop a set of potential solutions for ending this conflict based on input from both sides of this war.”

In private, he was reportedly much more doubtful of the proposal. The Republican senator Mike Rounds said recently at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had called lawmakers to explain that the agreement was merely a initial proposal from the Russians and not an initiative advocated by the administration.

“Rubio did make a phone call to us this day and I think he emphasized to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives,” said 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 subsequently stated. “It is presented as a strong framework for continuing negotiations. It is derived from input from the Russian side. However, it is also based on earlier and current input from Ukraine.”