🔗 Share this article

The US Secretary of the Army, Daniel Driscoll, was an surprising diplomat for the Trump administration latest initiative to end the Russian invasion in Ukraine. Driscoll's strong relationship with JD Vance has positioned a key ally of the Eurosceptic VP at the forefront of President Trump's latest push to conclude the conflict.

Prior to his recent trip to Kyiv, Driscoll was unrecognized as a mediator or diplomat, and his initial efforts to sell the agreement to officials in Europe were described as turbulent.

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

Vance's Involvement in Peace Efforts

It was Vance who intervened during Ukraine's president's disastrous initial visit to the Trump White House in March and demanded he show Trump more respect. Now, Ukraine is again resisting demands from the US to accept a quick settlement that Ukrainian leaders have described as a surrender.

Following a chaotic first year in office, foreign policy decisions in the White House are said to be influenced by a handful of Trump's top advisers, including chief of staff Susie Wiles, rightwing advisor Stephen Miller, diplomat Steve Witkoff, State Department head Marco Rubio, and of course Vance.

Vance has been a outspoken advocate of the recent plan, which was crafted by Witkoff and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, alongside the Russian diplomat Kirill Dmitriev.

“All criticism of the ceasefire plan the White House is developing either misinterprets the proposal or misrepresents some critical reality on the ground,” Vance wrote.

Early Efforts and European Responses

Vance's early efforts at negotiating a ceasefire agreement with Russia, while also attempting to restore ties with Moscow, were fruitless and left his camp feeling disappointed with their Russian counterparts. European officials, meanwhile, were irritated by his early remarks, in which he charged them of running from their constituents, who Vance claimed held restrictionist and right-leaning positions similar to those of Trump's own constituency.

But, the recently published peace deal mirrored his positions, and he has been one of the most assertive advocates for the agreement in the administration, even as the US has been under fire for endorsing a peace framework that largely echoes Vladimir Putin's maximalist terms.

In posts this past weekend, Vance asserted that a ceasefire agreement would have to produce a truce that honored Ukrainian independence, be agreeable to both sides, and prevent the conflict from resuming.

“A ceasefire won’t be made by failed negotiators or politicians residing in a fantasy land,” he added. “It could be made by intelligent people living in the actual situation.”

It was Vance who followed up on the presentation of the ceasefire proposal in a conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had mainly tasked his team with securing a signature on the ceasefire accord prior to Thanksgiving this Thursday in the United States.

Rubio's Response and Internal Concerns

Vance's stance was a distinctly more full-throated endorsement of the plan than that expressed by the top diplomat and national security adviser, Marco Rubio, a more traditional hardliner in the government who has transitioned from a shaky position inside the White House to more firm standing.

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

But, his first response to the agreement was tepid:

“Ending a complicated and violent conflict such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive discussion of serious and realistic proposals,” Rubio wrote recently. “Furthermore, achieving a lasting ceasefire will require both sides to agree to challenging but necessary concessions. That is why we are and will persist to create a list of potential solutions for resolving this conflict drawing from input from each party of this conflict.”

Behind closed doors, he was said to be much more skeptical of the proposal. The Republican senator Mike Rounds stated recently at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had called legislators to explain that the agreement was just a preliminary proposal from the Russians and not an plan pushed by the White House.

“Rubio did make a phone call to us this afternoon and I believe he made it very clear to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives,” stated Rounds. “The document is not our suggestion, it is not our ceasefire proposal.”

Rubio moved quickly to align himself. “The peace proposal was written by the US,” he subsequently wrote. “The framework is presented as a solid framework for continuing negotiations. The proposal is derived from feedback from the Russian side. However, it is also based on previous and ongoing contributions from Ukraine.”