🔗 Share this article

The US Army Secretary, Dan Driscoll, was an surprising envoy for the White House's latest initiative to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. His close relationship with JD Vance has placed a key ally of the Eurosceptic vice-president at the center of Donald Trump latest effort to settle the war.

Prior to his recent trip to Kyiv, Driscoll was not known as a negotiator or statesman, and his initial efforts to promote the deal to European policymakers were labeled chaotic.

His close relationship with Vance, who he attended Yale and shares a personal bond, indicate the resurgence of the non-interventionist VP in talks to end the Ukraine crisis.

Vance's Role in Ceasefire Negotiations

It was Vance who intervened during Ukraine's president's disastrous initial trip to the White House in March and demanded he show Trump more respect. Currently, Ukraine is once again resisting pressure from the US to agree to a swift settlement that local officials have called a surrender.

After a chaotic initial year in power, foreign policy actions in the White House are reportedly shaped by a handful of Trump's key aides, such as top aide Susie Wiles, conservative advisor Stephen Miller, diplomat Steve Witkoff, State Department head Marco Rubio, and finally Vance.

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

“Every objection of the ceasefire plan the White House is developing either misunderstands the proposal or misstates some key reality on the ground,” the VP wrote.

Initial Efforts and EU Responses

Vance's early efforts at hammering out a ceasefire agreement with Russia, while simultaneously attempting to renew relations with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his camp feeling frustrated with their Russian counterparts. European officials, in turn, were angered by his early remarks, in which he charged them of ignoring their constituents, who Vance claimed held anti-immigration and right-leaning positions similar to those of Trump's own supporters.

However, the new ceasefire proposal mirrored his stances, and he has been one of the most forceful spokespeople for the agreement in the government, even as the US has been criticized for endorsing a ceasefire plan that largely resembles Vladimir Putin's extreme terms.

In social media updates this past weekend, Vance argued that a peace deal would have to produce a ceasefire that respected Ukrainian independence, be acceptable to both sides, and prevent the conflict from restarting.

“Peace won’t be made by failed diplomats or politicians residing in a fantasy land,” he continued. “An agreement could be made by intelligent people living in the actual situation.”

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 securing a agreement on the ceasefire accord prior to 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 plan than that expressed by the secretary of state and security advisor, Marco Rubio, a more conventional hawk in the government who has transitioned from a uncertain position inside the White House to more firm standing.

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

But, his first response to the deal was lukewarm:

“Ending a complex and violent conflict such as the one in Ukraine requires an thorough discussion of substantive and pragmatic proposals,” Rubio wrote over the weekend. “And, achieving a durable peace will necessitate each party to agree to challenging but necessary concessions. That is why we are and will persist to develop a list of possible solutions for resolving this war drawing from feedback from both sides of this conflict.”

In private, he was reportedly much more doubtful of the plan. The GOP lawmaker Mike Rounds said recently at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had contacted lawmakers to explain that the agreement was merely a initial offer from the Russians and not an initiative advocated by the administration.

“Rubio did make a call to us this afternoon and I think he made it very clear to us that we are the receivers of a proposal that was presented to one of our officials,” said Rounds. “It is not our recommendation, it is not our peace plan.”

Rubio acted swiftly to align himself. “The peace proposal was authored by the US,” he later wrote. “It is presented as a strong structure for ongoing negotiations. The proposal is derived from feedback from the Moscow. But, it is additionally based on earlier and ongoing contributions from Ukraine.”