🔗 Share this article

The US Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll, was an unlikely diplomat for the White House's latest proposal to resolve the Russian invasion in Ukraine. Driscoll's strong connection with Vice President Vance has positioned a close associate of the Euroskeptic vice-president at the center of Donald Trump latest effort to settle the conflict.

Before his recent trip to Kyiv, Driscoll was unrecognized as a negotiator or diplomat, and his early efforts to promote the agreement to European policymakers were described as chaotic.

Driscoll's close relationship with Vance, with whom he attended Yale and maintains a personal bond, signal the resurgence of the non-interventionist VP in negotiations to resolve the Ukraine war.

The VP's Role in Peace Negotiations

It was Vance who stepped in during Volodymyr Zelenskyy disastrous first 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 quick settlement that local officials have called a surrender.

Following a tumultuous initial year in power, foreign policy decisions in the White House are reportedly shaped by a handful of Trump's top advisers, including chief of staff Susie Wiles, rightwing adviser Stephen Miller, envoy Steve Witkoff, State Department head Marco Rubio, and of course Vance.

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

“All criticism of the peace framework the administration is developing either misunderstands the proposal or misstates some critical situation on the ground,” the VP stated.

Initial Efforts and European Responses

Vance's early attempts at negotiating a peace deal with Russia, while simultaneously attempting to renew relations with Moscow, were fruitless and left his camp feeling frustrated with their Russian counterparts. Leaders in Europe, meanwhile, were angered by his early speeches, in which he accused them of ignoring their constituents, 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 stances, and he has been one of the most forceful spokespeople for the deal in the administration, even as the US has been criticized for endorsing a peace framework that mostly echoes Vladimir Putin's maximalist demands.

In social media updates this weekend, Vance argued that a peace deal would have to produce a ceasefire that respected Ukrainian sovereignty, be agreeable to both sides, and stop the conflict from resuming.

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

It was Vance who followed up on the presentation of the peace plan in a conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had primarily instructed his team with securing a agreement on the peace deal before Thanksgiving this week in the United States.

Rubio's Response and Internal Doubts

Vance's stance was a notably more full-throated endorsement of the proposal than that given by the top diplomat and security advisor, Marco Rubio, a more traditional hawk in the administration who has transitioned from a uncertain position inside the administration to more firm standing.

Rubio was a member of a US team that traveled to Geneva this past weekend to confer with Ukrainian officials to help refine the original 28-point peace plan in order to make it more palatable to authorities in Kyiv.

But, his first response to the agreement was lukewarm:

“Stopping a complicated and deadly conflict such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive exchange of serious and pragmatic ideas,” Rubio wrote recently. “And, achieving a lasting ceasefire will require both sides to agree to difficult but essential compromises. That is why we are and will continue to develop a list of potential ideas for ending this conflict based on feedback from both sides of this war.”

Behind closed doors, he was said to be much more doubtful of the proposal. The Republican senator 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 plan advocated by the White House.

“The Secretary made a phone call to us this afternoon and I believe he emphasized to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was presented to one of our officials,” said Rounds. “It is not our suggestion, it is not our ceasefire proposal.”

Rubio moved quickly to align himself. “The peace proposal was written by the US,” he later wrote. “It is presented as a strong structure for ongoing negotiations. The proposal is based on feedback from the Moscow. But, it is also informed by previous and current input from Ukraine.”