🔗 Share this article

America's Army Secretary, Daniel Driscoll, was an unlikely diplomat for the White House's newest initiative to end the conflict in Ukraine. His close connection with JD Vance has positioned a key ally of the Euroskeptic VP at the forefront of Donald Trump latest push to settle the conflict.

Prior to his recent visit to Kyiv, Driscoll was not known as a negotiator or statesman, and his initial attempts to promote the agreement to officials in Europe were labeled chaotic.

His close relationship with Vance, who he attended Yale and shares a personal bond, indicate the rising influence of the non-interventionist vice-president in negotiations to end the Ukraine war.

The VP's Role in Peace Negotiations

It was Vance who stepped in during Volodymyr Zelenskyy rocky first trip to the White House in March and insisted he show Trump more respect. Now, Ukraine is again resisting pressure from the US to accept a swift settlement that local officials have called a surrender.

Following a chaotic first year in office, foreign policy actions in the White House are reportedly influenced by a small group of Trump's key advisers, including chief of staff Susie Wiles, conservative adviser Stephen Miller, envoy Steve Witkoff, State Department head Marco Rubio, and of course Vance.

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

“Every objection of the peace framework the administration is working on either misinterprets the proposal or misstates some critical reality on the ground,” the VP stated.

Early Efforts and European Responses

Vance's initial efforts at negotiating a ceasefire agreement with Russia, while simultaneously attempting to restore ties with Moscow, were fruitless and left his team feeling disappointed with their Russian counterparts. Leaders in Europe, in turn, were irritated by his early remarks, in which he accused them of running from their constituents, who Vance said held restrictionist and right-leaning positions close to those of Trump's own supporters.

However, the new peace deal mirrored his positions, and he has been one of the most forceful advocates for the agreement in the administration, even as the US has been criticized for endorsing a peace framework that largely resembles Vladimir Putin's extreme terms.

In posts this weekend, Vance asserted that a ceasefire agreement would have to establish a truce that honored Ukrainian sovereignty, be acceptable to both sides, and stop the conflict from restarting.

“Peace will not be made by failed diplomats or officials living in a dream world,” he continued. “An agreement might be made by intelligent people operating in the actual situation.”

It was Vance who followed up on the presentation of the peace plan in a phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had primarily tasked his team with obtaining a signature on the ceasefire accord prior to Thanksgiving this week in the United States.

The Secretary of State's Reaction and Internal Doubts

That was a distinctly more full-throated support of the plan than that given by the secretary of state and security advisor, Marco Rubio, a more traditional hardliner in the government who has gone from a uncertain position inside the White House to more firm footing.

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

But, his initial reaction to the agreement was tepid:

“Stopping a complex and deadly conflict such as the one in Ukraine demands an thorough discussion of serious and realistic proposals,” Rubio wrote over the weekend. “And, achieving a durable ceasefire will require each party to consent to difficult but essential compromises. That is why we are and will persist to create a set of possible solutions for resolving this war based on input from both sides of this conflict.”

In private, he was said to be much more skeptical of the plan. The GOP lawmaker Mike Rounds said last week at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that Rubio had called lawmakers to explain that the agreement was merely a preliminary proposal from the Russians and not an initiative pushed by the White House.

“Rubio did make a phone call to us this afternoon and I think he emphasized to us that we are the receivers of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives,” stated Rounds. “The document is not our recommendation, it is not our peace plan.”

Rubio moved quickly to align himself. “The peace proposal was written by the US,” he later stated. “The framework is presented as a solid structure for ongoing discussions. The proposal is based on feedback from the Moscow. However, it is also informed by previous and ongoing contributions from Ukraine.”