🔗 Share this article

The US Secretary of the Army, Daniel Driscoll, was an surprising envoy for the White House's latest proposal to resolve the Russian invasion in Ukraine. His strong relationship with JD Vance has positioned a close associate of the Eurosceptic vice-president at the forefront of Donald Trump recent effort to settle the conflict.

Before his last week's visit to Kyiv, Driscoll was not known as a negotiator or statesman, and his early efforts to sell the agreement to European policymakers were described as turbulent.

His close relationship with Vance, with whom he attended Yale and shares a close friendship, indicate the rising influence of the non-interventionist vice-president in talks to resolve the Ukraine crisis.

The VP's Involvement in Peace Negotiations

It was Vance who intervened during Ukraine's president's rocky first trip to the White House in March and insisted he show Trump more respect. Currently, Ukraine is again pushing back against pressure from the US to accept a swift settlement that Ukrainian leaders have called a capitulation.

After a tumultuous first year in office, international actions in the White House are said to be shaped by a handful of Trump's key aides, such as top aide Susie Wiles, rightwing adviser Stephen Miller, diplomat Steve Witkoff, secretary of state Marco Rubio, and finally Vance.

Vance has been a vocal advocate of the latest proposal, 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 misunderstands the proposal or misstates some critical reality on the ground,” the VP stated.

Early Efforts and European Reactions

Vance's initial efforts at negotiating a ceasefire agreement with Russia, while also seeking to renew relations with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his camp feeling disappointed with their Russian interlocutors. Leaders in Europe, in turn, were angered by his early remarks, in which he charged them of running from their constituents, who Vance claimed held restrictionist and conservative positions close to those of Trump's own constituency.

However, the new peace deal closely resembled his stances, and he has been one of the most forceful spokespeople for the agreement in the government, even as the US has been criticized for endorsing a peace framework that mostly resembles Vladimir Putin's maximalist terms.

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 each party, and stop the conflict from resuming.

“Peace will not be made by unsuccessful diplomats or politicians residing in a dream world,” he continued. “An agreement might be made by intelligent people operating in the actual situation.”

Additionally, it was Vance who followed up on the introduction of the peace plan in a conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had mainly tasked his team with securing a signature on the peace deal prior to Thanksgiving this week in the United States.

Rubio's Reaction and Private Concerns

Vance's stance was a distinctly more full-throated endorsement of the plan than that given by the secretary of state and national security adviser, Marco Rubio, a more traditional hawk in the administration who has transitioned from a uncertain position inside the White House to more stable standing.

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

But, his initial response to the deal was tepid:

“Ending a complicated and deadly war such as the one in Ukraine demands an thorough exchange of substantive and pragmatic proposals,” Rubio wrote recently. “Furthermore, achieving a lasting peace will necessitate both sides to agree to difficult but essential compromises. That is why we are and will persist to create a set of potential ideas for resolving this war drawing from feedback from each party of this war.”

In private, he was reportedly much more doubtful of the proposal. The GOP lawmaker Mike Rounds stated last week at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had contacted legislators to explain that the agreement was merely a preliminary proposal from the Russians and not an initiative advocated by the administration.

“The Secretary 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 officials,” stated Rounds. “It is not our suggestion, it is not our peace plan.”

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