🔗 Share this article

America's Army Secretary, Daniel Driscoll, was an unlikely envoy for the Trump administration latest proposal to end the Russian invasion in Ukraine. Driscoll's strong relationship with Vice President Vance has placed a close associate of the Eurosceptic vice-president at the center of President Trump's latest effort to conclude the conflict.

Before his recent trip to Kyiv, Driscoll was unrecognized as a mediator or diplomat, and his early attempts to sell the agreement to European policymakers were labeled chaotic.

His close ties with Vance, who he attended Yale and maintains a personal bond, signal the rising influence of the non-interventionist VP in talks to end the Ukraine war.

Vance's Involvement in Peace Negotiations

It was Vance who intervened during Volodymyr Zelenskyy rocky first trip to the White House in March and insisted he show Trump more respect. Now, Ukraine is once again pushing back against demands from the US to agree to a swift deal that local officials have described as a surrender.

Following a tumultuous first year in office, international actions in the White House are said to be influenced by a handful of Trump's top advisers, including top aide Susie Wiles, conservative adviser Stephen Miller, envoy Steve Witkoff, secretary of state Marco Rubio, and of course Vance.

Vance has been a vocal supporter of the recent proposal, which was developed by Witkoff and Trump's relative Jared Kushner, alongside the Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev.

“Every objection of the peace framework the White House is working on either misinterprets the proposal or misstates some critical reality on the ground,” Vance wrote.

Initial Efforts and EU Responses

Vance's early efforts at negotiating a ceasefire agreement with Russia, while simultaneously attempting to renew relations with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his team feeling disappointed with their Russian counterparts. Leaders in Europe, in turn, were angered by his initial remarks, in which he charged them of ignoring their voters, who Vance claimed held restrictionist and conservative views similar to those of Trump's own supporters.

However, the recently published peace deal closely resembled his stances, and he has been one of the most forceful spokespeople for the deal in the government, even as the US has been criticized for endorsing a ceasefire plan that mostly resembles Vladimir Putin's maximalist terms.

In posts 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 will not be made by failed negotiators or politicians living in a fantasy land,” he continued. “An agreement might be made by intelligent people operating in the actual situation.”

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

The Secretary of State's Response and Private Concerns

Vance's stance was a distinctly more full-throated endorsement of the plan than that given by the top diplomat and national security adviser, Marco Rubio, a more conventional hardliner in the administration who has transitioned from a shaky position inside the White House to more stable standing.

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

However, his initial reaction to the deal was lukewarm:

“Ending a complicated and violent war such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive discussion of substantive and pragmatic proposals,” Rubio stated recently. “Furthermore, achieving a durable ceasefire will necessitate each party to consent to difficult but necessary concessions. That is why we are and will persist to develop a set of possible ideas for ending this war based on input from both sides of this conflict.”

In private, he was reportedly much more skeptical of the proposal. The GOP lawmaker Mike Rounds stated 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 advocated by the White House.

“Rubio made a call to us this day and I believe he emphasized to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives,” said Rounds. “It is not our recommendation, it is not our peace plan.”

Rubio acted swiftly to align himself. “This ceasefire plan was written by the US,” he subsequently stated. “It is offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations. It is based on feedback from the Russian side. But, it is additionally informed by previous and ongoing contributions from Ukraine.”