🔗 Share this article

America's Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll, was an surprising diplomat for the Trump administration latest proposal to end the conflict in Ukraine. His strong connection with Vice President Vance has positioned a close associate of the Euroskeptic VP at the forefront of President Trump's latest push to conclude the conflict.

Prior to his last week's visit to Kyiv, Driscoll was not known as a mediator or diplomat, and his initial attempts to promote the agreement to officials in Europe were labeled turbulent.

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

Vance's Involvement in Ceasefire Negotiations

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 respect. Currently, Ukraine is once 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 power, international actions in the White House are said to be shaped by a small group of Trump's top advisers, including chief of staff 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 relative Jared Kushner, together with the Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev.

“Every criticism of the ceasefire plan the White House is developing either misinterprets the framework or misrepresents some key situation on the ground,” the VP wrote.

Early Attempts and European Reactions

Vance's early efforts at negotiating a peace deal with Russia, while simultaneously seeking to restore ties with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his team feeling disappointed with their Russian interlocutors. Leaders in Europe, meanwhile, were irritated by his early remarks, in which he accused them of ignoring their constituents, who Vance claimed held anti-immigration and right-leaning positions close to those of Trump's own supporters.

But, the new peace deal mirrored his stances, and he has been one of the most assertive spokespeople for the deal in the government, even as the US has been criticized for endorsing a ceasefire plan that largely resembles Vladimir Putin's maximalist demands.

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

“A ceasefire won’t be made by failed negotiators or officials residing in a dream world,” he added. “An agreement might be made by intelligent people living in the real world.”

Additionally, it was Vance who continued on the introduction of the peace plan in a conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had primarily tasked his staff with securing a agreement on the ceasefire accord before Thanksgiving this Thursday in the United States.

Rubio's Response and Internal Concerns

Vance's stance was a notably more full-throated support of the proposal than that given by the top diplomat and security advisor, Marco Rubio, a more conventional hardliner in the administration who has gone from a shaky position inside the White House to more stable standing.

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

But, his initial reaction to the agreement was lukewarm:

“Ending a complicated and violent conflict such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive exchange of substantive and pragmatic proposals,” Rubio wrote recently. “And, securing a lasting peace will require each party to consent to difficult but essential concessions. This is the reason we are and will persist to create a list of potential solutions for resolving this war based on feedback from each party of this conflict.”

In private, he was reportedly much more skeptical of the proposal. The GOP lawmaker Mike Rounds said recently at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had contacted legislators to explain that the deal was merely a initial proposal from the Russians and not an initiative advocated by the White House.

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

Rubio acted swiftly to align himself. “The peace proposal was written by the US,” he subsequently stated. “The framework is offered as a solid structure for ongoing discussions. The proposal is derived from feedback from the Moscow. However, it is additionally informed by previous and ongoing input from Ukraine.”