🔗 Share this article

America's Army Secretary, Daniel Driscoll, was an unlikely envoy for the White House's latest proposal to resolve the Russian invasion in Ukraine. Driscoll's strong relationship with JD Vance has positioned a close associate of the Euroskeptic vice-president at the center of President Trump's latest push to settle the conflict.

Prior to his recent visit to Kyiv, Driscoll was not known as a mediator or diplomat, and his early attempts to promote the agreement to officials in Europe were labeled turbulent.

His close ties with Vance, with whom he studied and maintains a close friendship, indicate the rising influence of the non-interventionist VP in negotiations to end the Ukraine war.

The VP's Involvement in Ceasefire Negotiations

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 once again pushing back against pressure from the US to accept a swift settlement that Ukrainian leaders have called a surrender.

Following a tumultuous initial year in office, international actions in the White House are reportedly influenced by a small group of Trump's key advisers, including top aide Susie Wiles, conservative adviser Stephen Miller, envoy Steve Witkoff, State Department head Marco Rubio, and of course Vance.

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

“All objection of the ceasefire plan the administration is working on either misinterprets the framework or misstates some critical reality on the ground,” Vance stated.

Early Efforts and EU Reactions

Vance's initial efforts at hammering out a peace deal with Russia, while simultaneously seeking to renew ties with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his camp feeling disappointed with their Russian interlocutors. European officials, in turn, were angered by his early remarks, in which he accused them of ignoring their constituents, who Vance said held restrictionist and conservative views similar to those of Trump's own supporters.

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

In social media updates this past weekend, Vance asserted that a peace deal would have to produce a truce that honored Ukrainian independence, be agreeable to both sides, and stop the war from restarting.

“A ceasefire won’t be made by failed diplomats or officials residing in a fantasy land,” he added. “An agreement might be made by intelligent people living in the actual situation.”

Additionally, it was Vance who continued on the introduction of the peace plan in a phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had primarily instructed his staff with securing a agreement on the ceasefire accord before Thanksgiving this week in the United States.

The Secretary of State's Response and Internal Doubts

Vance's stance was a notably more full-throated support of the proposal than that given by the top diplomat and national security adviser, Marco Rubio, a more traditional hawk in the government who has transitioned from a uncertain position inside the administration to more stable footing.

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

But, his initial response to the agreement was tepid:

“Ending a complex and deadly war such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive discussion of serious and realistic proposals,” Rubio wrote recently. “Furthermore, securing a lasting peace will require both sides to consent to challenging but necessary concessions. That is why we are and will continue to develop a list of potential ideas for ending this war drawing from feedback from both sides of this war.”

Behind closed doors, 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 contacted legislators to explain that the deal was just a initial proposal from the Russians and not an initiative pushed by the White House.

“The Secretary did make a phone call to us this afternoon and I think he emphasized to us that we are the receivers of a offer that was presented to one of our officials,” said Rounds. “It is not our suggestion, it is not our peace plan.”

Rubio acted swiftly to align himself. “The peace proposal was written by the US,” he subsequently wrote. “The framework is offered as a solid structure for continuing negotiations. The proposal is based on feedback from the Moscow. But, it is additionally based on earlier and ongoing input from Ukraine.”