The US Army Secretary, Dan Driscoll, emerged as an unlikely diplomat for the White House's latest initiative to resolve the Russian invasion in Ukraine. His close relationship with JD Vance has positioned a close associate of the Euroskeptic vice-president at the forefront of President Trump's recent effort to conclude the war.
Prior to his last week's visit to Kyiv, Driscoll was unrecognized as a negotiator or statesman, and his early attempts to sell the agreement to European policymakers were described as chaotic.
Driscoll's strong ties with Vance, with whom he studied and shares a personal bond, signal the resurgence of the isolationist vice-president in talks to resolve the Ukraine crisis.
It was Vance who intervened during Volodymyr Zelenskyy disastrous first visit to the White House in March and demanded he show Trump more respect. Now, Ukraine is again pushing back against demands from the US to accept a quick deal that local officials have called 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 aides, such as chief of staff Susie Wiles, rightwing advisor Stephen Miller, envoy Steve Witkoff, secretary of state Marco Rubio, and of course Vance.
Vance has been a outspoken supporter of the recent plan, which was crafted by Witkoff and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, together with the Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev.
“Every criticism of the peace framework the White House is working on either misunderstands the framework or misrepresents some key reality on the ground,” the VP wrote.
Vance's initial attempts at hammering out a peace deal with Russia, while simultaneously seeking to restore ties with Moscow, were unsuccessful and left his camp feeling disappointed with their Russian counterparts. Leaders in Europe, in turn, were irritated by his initial speeches, in which he accused them of ignoring their voters, who Vance said held restrictionist and conservative views similar to those of Trump's own supporters.
However, the recently published peace deal mirrored his stances, 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 accepting a ceasefire plan that largely resembles Vladimir Putin's maximalist demands.
In posts this past weekend, Vance asserted that a ceasefire agreement would have to establish a ceasefire that respected Ukrainian sovereignty, be agreeable to both sides, and prevent the conflict from resuming.
“A ceasefire will not be made by unsuccessful negotiators or officials residing in a dream world,” he added. “It might be made by smart people living in the real world.”
Additionally, it was Vance who followed up on the introduction of the ceasefire proposal in a conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump had primarily instructed his team with obtaining a agreement on the peace deal before Thanksgiving this Thursday in the United States.
Vance's stance was a notably more enthusiastic support of the plan than that given by the secretary of state and national security adviser, Marco Rubio, a more traditional hardliner in the administration who has gone from a shaky position inside the administration to more firm standing.
Rubio was a member of a US team that went to Geneva this past weekend to meet with Ukrainian officials to help moderate the initial 28-point ceasefire proposal in order to make it more acceptable to leaders in Kyiv.
However, his initial response to the deal was tepid:
“Ending a complicated and deadly conflict such as the one in Ukraine demands an thorough exchange of serious and realistic ideas,” Rubio stated recently. “And, securing a lasting ceasefire will necessitate both sides to agree to difficult but necessary compromises. That is why we are and will persist to create a set of potential ideas for resolving this war based on input from each party of this war.”
In private, 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 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 made a call to us this afternoon and I think he emphasized to us that we are the receivers 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 moved quickly to fall in line. “This ceasefire plan was written by the US,” he subsequently wrote. “The framework is presented as a strong framework for continuing discussions. The proposal is derived from feedback from the Russian side. But, it is additionally informed by previous and current input from Ukraine.”
Milan is een ervaren opticien met een passie voor visuele technologie en klantgerichtheid.
