🔗 Share this article

The US Army Secretary, Dan Driscoll, was an unlikely diplomat for the White House's newest proposal to resolve the Russian invasion in Ukraine. His strong relationship with JD Vance has positioned a key ally of the Euroskeptic vice-president at the forefront of Donald Trump recent effort to settle the conflict.

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

His strong relationship with Vance, with whom he attended Yale and shares a personal bond, indicate the rising influence of the non-interventionist VP in negotiations to resolve the Ukraine crisis.

Vance's Role in Ceasefire Efforts

It was Vance who intervened during Ukraine's president's disastrous first visit to the White House in March and demanded he show Trump more courtesy. Now, Ukraine is again resisting demands from the US to agree to a swift settlement that Ukrainian leaders have called a surrender.

After a tumultuous first year in office, foreign policy actions in the White House are said to be influenced by a handful of Trump's top advisers, such as top aide Susie Wiles, rightwing adviser Stephen Miller, diplomat Steve Witkoff, State Department head Marco Rubio, and of course Vance.

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

“Every objection of the peace framework the administration is developing either misunderstands the framework or misstates some critical situation on the ground,” the VP wrote.

Initial Efforts and European Reactions

Vance's early efforts at negotiating a ceasefire agreement with Russia, while also seeking to restore relations with Moscow, were fruitless and left his team feeling frustrated with their Russian interlocutors. European officials, meanwhile, were angered by his early speeches, in which he accused them of running from their voters, who Vance claimed held anti-immigration and right-leaning views similar to those of Trump's own constituency.

However, the recently published peace deal mirrored his stances, and he has been one of the most forceful advocates for the agreement in the administration, even as the US has been under fire for accepting a peace framework that largely echoes Vladimir Putin's maximalist demands.

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

“Peace will not be made by failed diplomats or politicians residing in a dream world,” he added. “An agreement could be made by smart 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 primarily instructed his staff with securing a agreement on the peace deal before Thanksgiving this Thursday in the United States.

Rubio's Reaction and Internal Doubts

That was a distinctly more full-throated endorsement of the plan than that expressed by the top diplomat and security advisor, Marco Rubio, a more traditional hardliner in the administration who has gone from a shaky stature inside the administration to more firm footing.

Rubio was a member of a US team that went to Geneva this past weekend to meet with Ukrainian officials to help refine the initial 28-point ceasefire proposal in order to make it more acceptable to leaders in Kyiv.

But, his first response to the agreement was lukewarm:

“Stopping a complex and violent war such as the one in Ukraine requires an thorough exchange of substantive and pragmatic ideas,” Rubio stated over the weekend. “Furthermore, achieving a durable ceasefire will require both sides to agree to challenging but essential compromises. That is why we are and will persist to create a set of possible ideas for resolving this war based on input from each party of this war.”

In private, he was reportedly much more skeptical of the proposal. The GOP lawmaker Mike Rounds stated last week at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had called legislators to explain that the deal was just a initial proposal from the Russians and not an plan advocated by the White House.

“The Secretary made a phone call to us this day and I think he made it very clear 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 ceasefire proposal.”

Rubio moved quickly to fall in line. “This ceasefire plan was written by the US,” he subsequently wrote. “It is offered as a solid framework for ongoing negotiations. It is based on feedback from the Moscow. But, it is additionally based on previous and current input from Ukraine.”