🔗 Share this article

The US Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll, emerged as an surprising diplomat for the Trump administration newest proposal to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. Driscoll's strong connection with Vice President Vance has placed a key ally of the Euroskeptic VP at the forefront of Donald Trump latest effort to settle the conflict.

Prior to his recent visit to Kyiv, Driscoll was unrecognized as a mediator or diplomat, and his initial efforts to promote the agreement to officials in Europe were labeled turbulent.

His close relationship with Vance, who he attended Yale and shares a personal bond, signal the rising influence of the non-interventionist vice-president in negotiations to end the Ukraine war.

Vance's Role in Peace Efforts

This was Vance who stepped in during Ukraine's president's rocky first trip to the White House in March and insisted he show Trump more courtesy. Now, Ukraine is once again pushing back against demands from the US to accept a quick settlement that local officials have called a capitulation.

After a tumultuous initial year in power, foreign policy decisions in the White House are said to be shaped by a small group of Trump's key advisers, such as chief of staff Susie Wiles, conservative adviser Stephen Miller, diplomat Steve Witkoff, secretary of state Marco Rubio, and finally Vance.

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

“All objection of the ceasefire plan the administration is working on either misinterprets the proposal or misrepresents some key situation on the ground,” the VP wrote.

Early Efforts and European Reactions

Vance's initial attempts at hammering out a peace deal with Russia, while simultaneously attempting to restore ties with Moscow, were fruitless and left his camp feeling frustrated with their Russian counterparts. European officials, meanwhile, were irritated by his initial speeches, in which he charged them of running from their voters, who Vance said held restrictionist and right-leaning positions close to those of Trump's own constituency.

However, the recently published peace deal mirrored his stances, and he has been one of the most assertive advocates for the agreement in the administration, even as the US has been criticized for endorsing a peace framework that mostly echoes Vladimir Putin's extreme demands.

In social media updates this weekend, Vance argued that a peace deal would have to produce a ceasefire that honored Ukrainian independence, be acceptable to both sides, and stop the conflict from resuming.

“Peace will not be made by unsuccessful diplomats or politicians residing in a fantasy land,” he added. “An agreement might be made by intelligent people living in the actual situation.”

It was Vance who followed up on the presentation of the peace plan in a phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had primarily tasked his team with obtaining a signature on the ceasefire accord prior to Thanksgiving this Thursday in the United States.

Rubio's Response and Internal Doubts

Vance's stance was a notably more full-throated endorsement of the plan than that expressed by the top diplomat and national security adviser, Marco Rubio, a more traditional hardliner in the administration who has transitioned from a uncertain position inside the administration to more stable standing.

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 palatable to authorities in Kyiv.

But, his initial response to the agreement was lukewarm:

“Ending a complex and violent conflict such as the one in Ukraine requires an thorough discussion of serious and pragmatic proposals,” Rubio wrote over the weekend. “And, securing a durable ceasefire will require each party to agree to difficult but necessary concessions. That is why we are and will persist to develop a list of potential ideas for resolving this war based on input from each party of this war.”

In private, he was reportedly much more skeptical of the plan. The Republican senator Mike Rounds stated last week at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had contacted lawmakers to clarify that the agreement was merely a initial offer from the Russians and not an initiative pushed by the administration.

“Rubio made a call to us this afternoon and I believe he made it very clear to us that we are the recipients of a offer that was delivered to one of our representatives,” stated Rounds. “It is not our recommendation, it is not our peace plan.”

Rubio acted swiftly to fall in line. “The peace proposal was authored by the US,” he subsequently stated. “The framework is presented as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations. The proposal is based on feedback from the Moscow. But, it is also informed by previous and current input from Ukraine.”