🔗 Share this article

The US Army Secretary, Daniel Driscoll, emerged as an unlikely diplomat for the White House's latest initiative to resolve the Russian invasion in Ukraine. Driscoll's close connection with Vice President Vance has placed a close associate of the Euroskeptic VP at the forefront of President Trump's latest effort to conclude the conflict.

Before his last week's trip to Kyiv, Driscoll was unrecognized as a mediator or statesman, and his early attempts to sell the deal to officials in Europe were described as turbulent.

Driscoll's strong ties with Vance, with whom he studied and maintains a close friendship, signal the rising influence of the non-interventionist vice-president in negotiations to resolve the Ukraine war.

Vance's Role in Ceasefire Efforts

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

After a chaotic first year in power, foreign policy actions in the White House are said to be shaped by a small group of Trump's key aides, 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 outspoken supporter of the recent proposal, which was crafted by Witkoff and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, together with the Russian diplomat Kirill Dmitriev.

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

Early Attempts and European Responses

Vance's initial efforts at negotiating a ceasefire agreement with Russia, while simultaneously attempting to renew relations with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his camp feeling disappointed with their Russian interlocutors. European officials, meanwhile, were angered by his early remarks, in which he accused them of ignoring their constituents, who Vance said held anti-immigration and right-leaning views close to those of Trump's own constituency.

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

In social media updates this weekend, Vance argued that a ceasefire agreement would have to establish a truce that respected Ukrainian independence, be agreeable to each party, and prevent the war from restarting.

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

Additionally, it was Vance who followed up on the presentation of the peace plan in a conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had primarily instructed his staff with obtaining a signature on the peace deal prior to Thanksgiving this Thursday in the United States.

Rubio's Response and Internal Doubts

Vance's stance was a notably more full-throated endorsement of the plan than that expressed by the top diplomat and national security adviser, Marco Rubio, a more traditional hawk in the government who has transitioned from a uncertain stature inside the administration to more stable standing.

Rubio was a member of a US delegation that traveled to Geneva this weekend to confer with Ukrainian leaders to help moderate the initial 28-point peace plan in order to make it more acceptable to authorities in Kyiv.

But, his first reaction to the deal was tepid:

“Ending a complex and deadly war such as the one in Ukraine demands an extensive discussion of substantive and pragmatic ideas,” Rubio stated recently. “And, securing a lasting ceasefire will require both sides to consent to challenging but essential compromises. That is why we are and will persist to develop a list of possible ideas for resolving this conflict drawing from input from each party of this conflict.”

In private, he was said to be much more doubtful of the proposal. The GOP lawmaker Mike Rounds stated recently at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had called lawmakers to explain that the deal was merely a initial proposal from the Russians and not an plan advocated by the White House.

“Rubio made a call to us this day and I think he made it very clear to us that we are the receivers of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives,” said Rounds. “It is not our suggestion, it is not our ceasefire proposal.”

Rubio acted swiftly to fall in line. “The peace proposal was written by the US,” he later wrote. “It is presented as a solid framework for continuing negotiations. It is derived from input from the Moscow. However, it is additionally based on previous and current input from Ukraine.”