🔗 Share this article

America's Army Secretary, Daniel Driscoll, emerged as an unlikely diplomat for the Trump administration newest proposal to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. Driscoll's strong relationship with JD Vance has placed a close associate of the Euroskeptic VP at the center of Donald Trump recent push to settle the war.

Before his last week's trip to Kyiv, Driscoll was not known as a mediator or diplomat, and his early attempts to promote the deal to officials in Europe were labeled chaotic.

Driscoll's close ties with Vance, with whom he attended Yale and maintains a personal bond, indicate the rising influence of the non-interventionist vice-president in negotiations to end the Ukraine war.

The VP's Role in Peace Negotiations

It was Vance who intervened during Volodymyr Zelenskyy rocky initial visit to the White House in March and insisted he show Trump more courtesy. Currently, Ukraine is again resisting demands from the US to agree to a quick settlement that local officials have called a surrender.

After a chaotic initial year in office, international decisions in the White House are said to be influenced by a small group of Trump's top advisers, such as top aide Susie Wiles, rightwing adviser Stephen Miller, envoy Steve Witkoff, State Department head Marco Rubio, and of course Vance.

Vance has been a outspoken advocate of the latest plan, which was crafted by Witkoff and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, alongside the Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev.

“Every criticism of the peace framework the administration is developing either misunderstands the framework or misrepresents some key situation on the ground,” the VP wrote.

Initial Efforts and European Responses

Vance's early attempts at hammering out a ceasefire agreement with Russia, while also seeking to renew ties with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his camp feeling disappointed with their Russian counterparts. European officials, in turn, were irritated by his initial speeches, in which he charged them of ignoring their constituents, who Vance claimed held restrictionist and conservative views similar to those of Trump's own supporters.

However, the recently published peace deal closely resembled his stances, and he has been one of the most forceful spokespeople for the deal in the government, even as the US has been under fire for endorsing a ceasefire plan that mostly echoes Vladimir Putin's extreme demands.

In posts this past weekend, Vance asserted that a peace deal would have to produce a truce that honored Ukrainian sovereignty, be acceptable to each party, and prevent the war from restarting.

“Peace won’t be made by failed diplomats or politicians living in a dream world,” he continued. “It might be made by intelligent people operating in the real world.”

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 staff with securing a signature on the peace deal prior to Thanksgiving this week in the United States.

Rubio's Response and Internal Concerns

Vance's stance was a distinctly more full-throated support of the proposal than that given by the top diplomat and national security adviser, Marco Rubio, a more traditional hardliner in the administration who has transitioned from a shaky stature inside the White House to more firm footing.

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

However, his first response to the agreement was tepid:

“Ending a complex and deadly war such as the one in Ukraine demands an extensive discussion of serious and realistic proposals,” Rubio wrote recently. “Furthermore, achieving a lasting ceasefire will require each party to consent to difficult but essential compromises. This is the reason we are and will continue to create a list of possible solutions for ending this conflict based on input from both sides of this war.”

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

“Rubio did make a phone call to us this day and I believe he emphasized to us that we are the receivers of a proposal that was presented to one of our officials,” stated Rounds. “The document is not our recommendation, it is not our ceasefire proposal.”

Rubio moved quickly to align himself. “This ceasefire plan was written by the US,” he subsequently wrote. “The framework is offered as a solid structure for ongoing negotiations. The proposal is derived from feedback from the Russian side. But, it is also informed by earlier and current contributions from Ukraine.”