🔗 Share this article

The US Army Secretary, Dan Driscoll, was an unlikely envoy for the Trump administration latest initiative to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. Driscoll's strong relationship with Vice President Vance has positioned a close associate of the Euroskeptic vice-president at the center of President Trump's recent push to settle the war.

Before his recent visit to Kyiv, Driscoll was not known as a negotiator or diplomat, and his early efforts to promote the deal to officials in Europe were labeled turbulent.

His strong ties with Vance, with whom he studied and maintains a close friendship, signal the rising influence of the non-interventionist vice-president in talks to resolve the Ukraine war.

The VP'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 respect. Now, Ukraine is once again pushing back against demands from the US to agree to a swift settlement that Ukrainian leaders have described as a surrender.

After a chaotic first year in power, foreign policy actions in the White House are reportedly influenced by a handful of Trump's key advisers, such as chief of staff Susie Wiles, conservative adviser Stephen Miller, diplomat Steve Witkoff, State Department head Marco Rubio, and of course Vance.

Vance has been a vocal advocate of the latest plan, which was developed by Witkoff and Trump's son-in-law 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 misstates some key situation on the ground,” the VP wrote.

Initial Attempts and European Responses

Vance's early attempts at hammering out a ceasefire agreement with Russia, while also seeking to restore ties with Moscow, were fruitless and left his team feeling frustrated with their Russian interlocutors. Leaders in Europe, meanwhile, were irritated by his early speeches, in which he accused them of running from their constituents, who Vance claimed held restrictionist and conservative positions similar to those of Trump's own constituency.

However, the recently published peace deal mirrored his positions, and he has been one of the most forceful advocates for the deal in the administration, even as the US has been under fire for endorsing a peace framework that mostly echoes Vladimir Putin's maximalist demands.

In social media updates this past weekend, Vance argued that a ceasefire agreement would have to produce a ceasefire that respected Ukrainian sovereignty, be agreeable to each party, and stop the war from resuming.

“A ceasefire will not be made by failed diplomats or politicians living in a fantasy land,” he continued. “It could be made by intelligent people living in the real world.”

Additionally, it was Vance who followed up on the introduction of the ceasefire proposal in a phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had primarily tasked his staff with securing a signature on the peace deal prior to Thanksgiving this week in the United States.

The Secretary of State's Response and Internal Doubts

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

Rubio was part of a US team that traveled to Geneva this past weekend to meet with Ukrainian leaders to help refine the original 28-point ceasefire proposal in order to make it more acceptable to leaders in Kyiv.

However, his initial response to the deal was lukewarm:

“Ending a complex and deadly war such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive exchange of serious and realistic proposals,” Rubio wrote recently. “And, securing a lasting peace will necessitate both sides to consent to difficult but necessary compromises. This is the reason we are and will continue to create a list of potential ideas for resolving this war based on feedback from each party of this war.”

In private, he was said to be 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 preliminary offer from the Russians and not an initiative advocated by the White House.

“The Secretary did make a phone call to us this day and I believe he made it very clear to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was presented to one of our representatives,” said Rounds. “The document is not our suggestion, it is not our ceasefire proposal.”

Rubio acted swiftly to align himself. “This ceasefire plan was written by the US,” he later stated. “The framework is presented as a strong structure for ongoing negotiations. The proposal is based on feedback from the Moscow. But, it is also based on earlier and current contributions from Ukraine.”