🔗 Share this article

The US Secretary of the Army, Daniel Driscoll, emerged as an unlikely diplomat for the White House's newest proposal to end the conflict in Ukraine. Driscoll's strong relationship with JD Vance has positioned a key ally of the Eurosceptic VP at the center of Donald Trump recent push to conclude the conflict.

Prior to his recent visit to Kyiv, Driscoll was unrecognized as a mediator or diplomat, and his early efforts to sell the deal to officials in Europe were labeled chaotic.

His strong relationship with Vance, with whom he studied and maintains a personal bond, indicate the resurgence of the isolationist VP in negotiations to end the Ukraine crisis.

The VP's Involvement in Peace Negotiations

It was Vance who intervened during Ukraine's president's disastrous first visit to the Trump White House in March and demanded he show Trump more respect. Currently, Ukraine is again pushing back against demands from the US to agree to a quick deal that Ukrainian leaders have described as a capitulation.

Following a chaotic initial year in power, foreign policy actions in the White House are reportedly shaped by a handful of Trump's top advisers, such as top aide Susie Wiles, rightwing advisor Stephen Miller, diplomat Steve Witkoff, secretary of state Marco Rubio, and finally Vance.

Vance has been a vocal supporter 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 peace framework the administration is working on either misinterprets the framework or misstates some key situation on the ground,” Vance wrote.

Early Efforts and EU Responses

Vance's early efforts at hammering out a peace deal with Russia, while also seeking to restore ties with Moscow, were fruitless and left his camp feeling disappointed with their Russian interlocutors. European officials, meanwhile, were angered by his early remarks, in which he accused them of ignoring their voters, who Vance claimed held anti-immigration and conservative positions similar to those of Trump's own supporters.

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

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

“A ceasefire will not be made by failed negotiators or politicians living in a fantasy land,” he continued. “It could be made by smart people operating in the real world.”

Additionally, it was Vance who continued on the introduction of the ceasefire proposal in a conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had primarily instructed his staff with securing a signature on the peace deal before Thanksgiving this week in the United States.

Rubio's Reaction and Internal Doubts

Vance's stance was a notably more full-throated support of the proposal than that expressed by the top diplomat and national security adviser, Marco Rubio, a more conventional hardliner in the government who has gone from a uncertain stature inside the White House to more stable standing.

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

However, his first reaction to the agreement was lukewarm:

“Ending a complex and deadly war such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive discussion of serious and pragmatic ideas,” Rubio stated over the weekend. “Furthermore, securing a lasting ceasefire will require both sides to agree to difficult but necessary concessions. This is the reason we are and will continue to develop a list of potential solutions for resolving this conflict drawing from input from both sides of this conflict.”

Behind closed doors, he was reportedly much more doubtful of the proposal. The GOP lawmaker Mike Rounds said recently at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had called legislators to clarify that the agreement was merely a initial proposal from the Russians and not an plan pushed by the administration.

“The Secretary made a phone call to us this afternoon and I believe he emphasized to us that we are the recipients of a offer that was presented to one of our representatives,” stated Rounds. “It is not our suggestion, 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 offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations. The proposal is based on feedback from the Russian side. However, it is additionally informed by previous and current input from Ukraine.”