🔗 Share this article

The US Secretary of the Army, Daniel Driscoll, was an unlikely diplomat for the White House's latest proposal to end the conflict in Ukraine. Driscoll's close connection with Vice President Vance has placed a close associate of the Euroskeptic VP at the center of President Trump's recent push to conclude the conflict.

Before his last week's trip to Kyiv, Driscoll was not known as a negotiator or statesman, and his early efforts to promote the deal to officials in Europe were described as chaotic.

His strong relationship with Vance, with whom he studied and maintains a close friendship, signal the rising influence of the non-interventionist vice-president in talks to end the Ukraine war.

Vance's Involvement in Peace Negotiations

This was Vance who stepped in during Ukraine's president's rocky first visit to the Trump White House in March and demanded he show Trump more courtesy. Currently, Ukraine is again resisting demands from the US to accept a swift deal that Ukrainian leaders have called a capitulation.

Following a tumultuous initial year in power, foreign policy decisions in the White House are reportedly influenced by a small group of Trump's top advisers, such as chief of staff Susie Wiles, conservative advisor Stephen Miller, diplomat Steve Witkoff, State Department head Marco Rubio, and of course Vance.

Vance has been a outspoken supporter of the latest plan, which was crafted by Witkoff and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, alongside the Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev.

“All criticism of the ceasefire plan the White House is developing either misunderstands the framework or misstates some key situation on the ground,” the VP stated.

Initial Efforts and European Reactions

Vance's initial attempts at negotiating a peace deal with Russia, while also attempting to restore relations with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his team feeling disappointed with their Russian counterparts. Leaders in Europe, in turn, were angered by his initial speeches, in which he accused them of running from their voters, who Vance claimed held anti-immigration and right-leaning positions similar to those of Trump's own supporters.

However, the recently published ceasefire proposal closely resembled his positions, and he has been one of the most forceful advocates for the agreement in the government, even as the US has been under fire for accepting a ceasefire plan that mostly echoes Vladimir Putin's maximalist demands.

In social media updates this past weekend, Vance asserted that a ceasefire agreement would have to establish a truce that honored Ukrainian sovereignty, be agreeable to both sides, and stop the war from resuming.

“Peace won’t be made by failed negotiators or officials living in a fantasy land,” he continued. “It could be made by intelligent people operating in the actual situation.”

Additionally, it was Vance who continued on the presentation of the peace plan in a phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had mainly tasked his team with obtaining a signature on the peace deal prior to Thanksgiving this Thursday in the United States.

Rubio's Response and Internal Concerns

Vance's stance was a notably more full-throated support of the proposal than that expressed by the top diplomat and security advisor, Marco Rubio, a more conventional hawk in the administration who has transitioned from a uncertain position inside the White House to more firm footing.

Rubio was part of a US team that traveled to Geneva this weekend to meet with Ukrainian officials to help moderate the original 28-point peace plan in order to make it more palatable to authorities in Kyiv.

However, his initial reaction to the deal was tepid:

“Ending a complex and violent conflict such as the one in Ukraine demands an extensive discussion of substantive and realistic proposals,” Rubio wrote recently. “Furthermore, achieving a durable ceasefire will require both sides to agree to challenging but necessary concessions. That is why we are and will continue to create a list of potential solutions for ending this conflict based on feedback from each party of this conflict.”

In private, he was reportedly much more skeptical of the plan. 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 just a preliminary proposal from the Russians and not an plan pushed by the White House.

“Rubio did make a call to us this day and I believe he made it very clear to us that we are the receivers of a proposal that was presented to one of our officials,” stated Rounds. “The document 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. “The framework is offered as a strong framework for continuing negotiations. The proposal is derived from feedback from the Russian side. But, it is additionally based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine.”