🔗 Share this article

The US Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll, emerged as an unlikely envoy for the Trump administration newest proposal to end the conflict in Ukraine. Driscoll's strong relationship with Vice President Vance has positioned a key ally of the Eurosceptic vice-president at the center of President Trump's latest effort to settle the war.

Prior to his last week's visit to Kyiv, Driscoll was not known as a mediator or statesman, and his early attempts to sell the agreement to European policymakers were described as turbulent.

His close ties with Vance, with whom he studied and maintains a personal bond, signal the rising influence of the non-interventionist vice-president in negotiations to end the Ukraine war.

Vance's Involvement in Peace Efforts

This was Vance who intervened during Volodymyr Zelenskyy rocky initial trip to the Trump White House in March and demanded he show Trump more courtesy. Now, Ukraine is again resisting pressure from the US to accept a swift deal that local officials have called a capitulation.

Following a chaotic initial year in office, foreign policy actions in the White House are reportedly influenced by a handful of Trump's key advisers, including top aide Susie Wiles, conservative adviser Stephen Miller, diplomat 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, together with the Russian diplomat Kirill Dmitriev.

“Every objection of the peace framework the administration is developing either misunderstands the proposal or misstates some critical situation on the ground,” the VP wrote.

Early Attempts and European Reactions

Vance's initial efforts at hammering out a ceasefire agreement with Russia, while simultaneously seeking to renew relations with Moscow, were fruitless and left his camp feeling frustrated with their Russian interlocutors. Leaders in Europe, in turn, were angered by his early remarks, in which he accused them of ignoring their voters, who Vance said held restrictionist and conservative views similar to those of Trump's own supporters.

However, the recently published ceasefire proposal closely resembled his positions, 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 largely echoes Vladimir Putin's extreme terms.

In posts this past weekend, Vance asserted that a peace deal would have to produce a ceasefire that honored Ukrainian independence, be acceptable to both sides, and prevent the war from restarting.

“A ceasefire won’t be made by unsuccessful diplomats or politicians residing in a dream world,” he added. “An agreement might be made by smart people living in the actual situation.”

It was Vance who continued on the presentation of the ceasefire proposal in a conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had primarily instructed his team with securing a agreement on the peace deal before Thanksgiving this Thursday in the United States.

Rubio's Response and Private Doubts

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

Rubio was part of a US team that went 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 acceptable to leaders in Kyiv.

However, his first reaction to the deal was tepid:

“Stopping a complex and deadly conflict such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive discussion of substantive and pragmatic proposals,” Rubio wrote recently. “Furthermore, achieving a durable ceasefire will necessitate both sides to agree to challenging but essential concessions. This is the reason we are and will persist to create a set of possible ideas for resolving this conflict based on feedback from each party of this conflict.”

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 called lawmakers to explain that the agreement was just a initial offer from the Russians and not an initiative pushed by the administration.

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

Rubio acted swiftly to fall in line. “The peace proposal was written by the US,” he later stated. “The framework is presented as a solid structure for continuing negotiations. The proposal is derived from feedback from the Russian side. But, it is additionally informed by earlier and current input from Ukraine.”