🔗 Share this article

The US Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll, was an unlikely diplomat for the Trump administration newest initiative to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. Driscoll's close connection with JD Vance has placed a close associate of the Euroskeptic vice-president at the center of Donald Trump latest push to conclude the war.

Before his recent trip to Kyiv, Driscoll was unrecognized as a negotiator or diplomat, and his initial attempts to promote the agreement to European policymakers were labeled turbulent.

Driscoll's strong ties with Vance, with whom he attended Yale and maintains a personal bond, indicate the resurgence of the isolationist VP in talks to end the Ukraine crisis.

Vance's Involvement in Ceasefire Efforts

It was Vance who intervened during Ukraine's president's disastrous first trip to the Trump White House in March and demanded he show Trump more courtesy. Currently, Ukraine is once again resisting demands from the US to agree to a swift deal that local officials have described as a capitulation.

Following a chaotic 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, including top aide Susie Wiles, conservative adviser Stephen Miller, diplomat Steve Witkoff, secretary of state Marco Rubio, and finally Vance.

Vance has been a outspoken advocate of the recent 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 developing either misunderstands the proposal or misstates some key reality on the ground,” Vance wrote.

Early Efforts and European Responses

Vance's early efforts at negotiating a peace deal with Russia, while also attempting to renew relations with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his camp feeling frustrated with their Russian interlocutors. Leaders in Europe, in turn, were angered by his early remarks, in which he charged them of ignoring their constituents, who Vance said held anti-immigration and right-leaning views similar to those of Trump's own constituency.

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 peace framework that mostly resembles Vladimir Putin's extreme terms.

In social media updates this past weekend, Vance argued that a peace deal would have to establish a ceasefire that honored Ukrainian independence, be agreeable to each party, and stop the conflict from resuming.

“A ceasefire won’t be made by failed negotiators or officials living in a fantasy land,” he continued. “An agreement could be made by intelligent people living 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 primarily tasked his staff with obtaining a signature on the peace deal prior to Thanksgiving this week in the United States.

Rubio's Reaction and Internal Doubts

Vance's stance was a notably more full-throated endorsement of the proposal than that given by the top diplomat and national security adviser, Marco Rubio, a more conventional hardliner in the government who has gone from a shaky stature inside the administration to more stable footing.

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

However, his initial reaction to the deal was tepid:

“Ending a complicated and violent conflict such as the one in Ukraine demands an extensive exchange of substantive and realistic ideas,” Rubio wrote over the weekend. “And, securing a durable peace will require both sides to consent to difficult but necessary concessions. This is the reason we are and will persist to develop a set of potential solutions for ending this conflict drawing from input from each party of this war.”

In private, he was said to be 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 legislators to clarify that the agreement was merely a initial offer from the Russians and not an plan advocated by the White House.

“Rubio made a call to us this afternoon and I believe he made it very clear to us that we are the receivers of a offer that was presented to one of our officials,” stated Rounds. “It is not our recommendation, it is not our ceasefire proposal.”

Rubio acted swiftly to fall in line. “This ceasefire plan was written by the US,” he later wrote. “It is offered as a solid structure for ongoing negotiations. It is derived from feedback from the Russian side. However, it is also informed by earlier and ongoing input from Ukraine.”