🔗 Share this article

America's Secretary of the Army, Daniel Driscoll, was an surprising diplomat for the Trump administration newest initiative to end the conflict in Ukraine. His close connection with JD Vance has positioned a close associate of the Euroskeptic VP at the center of President Trump's recent push to conclude the conflict.

Prior to his last week's trip to Kyiv, Driscoll was unrecognized as a mediator or diplomat, and his initial efforts to sell the agreement to officials in Europe were described as turbulent.

Driscoll's strong ties with Vance, who he attended Yale and shares a close friendship, indicate the resurgence of the non-interventionist VP in negotiations to end the Ukraine crisis.

Vance's Involvement in Ceasefire Efforts

It was Vance who intervened during Volodymyr Zelenskyy disastrous first trip to the Trump White House in March and demanded he show Trump more courtesy. Now, Ukraine is once again pushing back against demands from the US to accept a quick deal that local officials have called a capitulation.

After a chaotic initial year in power, international decisions 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, envoy 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 peace framework the White House is working on either misunderstands the framework or misstates some key reality on the ground,” the VP wrote.

Initial Attempts and EU Responses

Vance's initial attempts at negotiating a peace deal with Russia, while also attempting to restore relations with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his camp feeling frustrated with their Russian counterparts. European officials, meanwhile, were angered by his initial speeches, in which he accused them of running from their constituents, who Vance claimed held restrictionist and right-leaning positions close to those of Trump's own supporters.

But, the new peace deal closely resembled his stances, and he has been one of the most assertive advocates for the agreement in the administration, even as the US has been under fire for endorsing a peace framework that mostly echoes Vladimir Putin's extreme demands.

In social media updates this past weekend, Vance asserted that a ceasefire agreement would have to establish a ceasefire that respected Ukrainian sovereignty, be acceptable to both sides, and prevent the conflict from resuming.

“A ceasefire won’t be made by failed diplomats or politicians 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 introduction of the ceasefire proposal in a conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had mainly tasked his team with obtaining a agreement on the ceasefire accord prior to Thanksgiving this week in the United States.

The Secretary of State's Response and Private Doubts

Vance's stance was a notably more enthusiastic endorsement of the proposal than that given by the secretary of state and national security adviser, Marco Rubio, a more conventional hawk in the administration who has gone from a uncertain stature inside the administration to more stable standing.

Rubio was part of a US team that went to Geneva this 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 tepid:

“Stopping a complex and deadly conflict such as the one in Ukraine requires an thorough exchange of substantive and realistic proposals,” Rubio wrote over the weekend. “Furthermore, achieving a lasting ceasefire will necessitate both sides to consent to challenging but necessary concessions. That is why we are and will continue to develop a list of possible solutions for ending this conflict based on input from each party of this war.”

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

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

Rubio acted swiftly to fall in line. “The peace proposal was written by the US,” he subsequently wrote. “The framework is presented as a solid structure for ongoing negotiations. The proposal is based on input from the Russian side. However, it is additionally informed by earlier and current input from Ukraine.”