🔗 Share this article

The US Army Secretary, Dan Driscoll, was an surprising diplomat for the Trump administration newest initiative to end the Russian invasion in Ukraine. Driscoll's close relationship with JD Vance has placed a close associate of the Eurosceptic VP at the center of Donald Trump latest effort to conclude the conflict.

Before his last week's trip to Kyiv, Driscoll was unrecognized as a negotiator or diplomat, and his early efforts to sell the deal to European policymakers were labeled chaotic.

Driscoll's strong relationship with Vance, with whom he attended Yale and maintains a personal bond, signal the resurgence of the isolationist VP in negotiations to resolve the Ukraine crisis.

The VP's Role in Ceasefire Negotiations

This was Vance who intervened during Volodymyr Zelenskyy disastrous first visit to the White House in March and insisted he show Trump more respect. Now, Ukraine is again pushing back against demands from the US to agree to a quick settlement that Ukrainian leaders have called a surrender.

Following a chaotic initial year in office, foreign policy decisions in the White House are said to be influenced by a handful of Trump's key aides, including chief of staff Susie Wiles, rightwing advisor Stephen Miller, diplomat Steve Witkoff, secretary of state Marco Rubio, and finally Vance.

Vance has been a outspoken supporter of the recent plan, which was developed by Witkoff and Trump's relative Jared Kushner, alongside the Russian diplomat Kirill Dmitriev.

“All objection of the peace framework the administration is working on either misunderstands the proposal or misstates some critical reality on the ground,” the VP stated.

Initial Attempts and European Responses

Vance's early efforts at negotiating a ceasefire agreement with Russia, while also attempting to restore relations with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his camp feeling frustrated with their Russian counterparts. Leaders in Europe, meanwhile, were irritated by his early speeches, in which he charged them of running from their voters, who Vance claimed 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 forceful advocates for the agreement in the administration, even as the US has been criticized for endorsing a peace framework that mostly resembles Vladimir Putin's extreme terms.

In social media updates this past weekend, Vance asserted that a peace deal would have to establish a truce that respected Ukrainian independence, be agreeable to each party, and prevent the conflict from restarting.

“A ceasefire will not be made by failed diplomats or politicians residing in a fantasy land,” he continued. “An agreement could be made by intelligent people operating in the real world.”

It was Vance who followed up on the introduction of the ceasefire proposal in a conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had mainly instructed his staff with securing a signature on the peace deal before Thanksgiving this week in the United States.

Rubio's Reaction and Private Doubts

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 conventional hardliner in the administration who has transitioned from a shaky position inside the administration to more firm footing.

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

But, his initial response to the agreement was tepid:

“Stopping a complicated and deadly conflict such as the one in Ukraine requires an thorough exchange of substantive and pragmatic ideas,” Rubio wrote recently. “Furthermore, securing a lasting ceasefire will necessitate each party to agree to difficult but necessary concessions. This is the reason we are and will continue to develop a list of possible solutions for ending this war based on feedback from each party of this conflict.”

In private, he was reportedly much more doubtful of the plan. The GOP lawmaker Mike Rounds said last week at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had called legislators to clarify that the deal was just a preliminary offer from the Russians and not an initiative pushed by the administration.

“The Secretary did make a call to us this afternoon and I believe he emphasized to us that we are the receivers of a proposal that was delivered to one of our officials,” said Rounds. “The document is not our suggestion, it is not our ceasefire proposal.”

Rubio moved quickly to align himself. “This ceasefire plan was written by the US,” he later wrote. “It is presented as a solid framework for continuing discussions. The proposal is derived from input from the Moscow. But, it is also informed by previous and ongoing input from Ukraine.”