Trump’s heir decides the war in Ukraine: Vance or Rubio

The disturbed Europeans were already talking about how much this resembled a massacre. They viewed with concern some concessions to Vladimir Putin, an unexpected and shocking gift from Trump. Then Marco Rubio arrived. The Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor, who had been absent until that moment from the preparation of the document and in those communications, came to fix things. His arrival changed the temperature in the room: the imposition of the order gave way to more open and slow negotiations. According to a number of diplomats present, this was the first time in days that the possibility of reaching an agreement that would not force Ukraine to accept its surrender, with concessions yes, but not out of reach, was announced.

Peace in Ukraine — which Trump has so fiercely resisted — has become the stage on which the new hidden rivalry between Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio is being measured. In fact, it was Vance’s team that promoted that 28-point plan, which many viewed as a list of unchanged Russian demands. On the networks, the vice president himself described it as a sincere attempt “to end a four-year conflict in Eastern Europe” and was angry at those in his party who opposed it.

The extent of the failure of the failed plan is enormous. Mediators close to Vance, such as Driscoll, came to the negotiating table, joining the efforts of Steve Witkoff – a personal friend of Trump and a real estate tycoon with no diplomatic training – and Rubio himself.

Peace without Ukrainians

Everything indicated that the Vice President was seeking to deliver a quick peace agreement to the President, adding to the list of accomplishments that fuel the idea of ​​deserving a Nobel Prize in a nomination that should already be closed. But it soon became clear that this was a peace without the Ukrainians and at the expense of the Ukrainians. When the list of demands directed at Zelensky was leaked, Vitkov incorrectly suggested, in a letter he thought was private, that the Russians must have leaked them.

Conflict in Three-Dimensional Reality: War in Ukraine; And the internal power struggle in the White House, and the silent campaign leading up to 2028, when Trump must relinquish power. Tensions have been on the table for some time. It was Vance who harshly berated Zelensky in the Oval Office in February for “not saying thank you,” while Rubio remained seated on the couch, oblivious to the embarrassment, almost resigned to the spectacle.

In those months, many assumed that Marco Rubio’s days in charge were numbered. It was the same “establishment”: 14 years in the Senate and unanimous confirmation in the Senate, even Democrats celebrated respectfully. Vance was the complete opposite. His short time in the Senate – just two years, from 2023 to 2025 – was controversial, making him a target of suspicion, especially after his dramatic shift from calling Trump “Hitler” to becoming his most loyal ally. In this context, the person responsible for pressuring Kiev to accept the plan was Driscoll, whose main asset was not his rank, but his personal relationship with Vance.

Silent power

But Rubio was the winner. He demonstrated to Trump the discipline, caution and institutional stance that was beginning to be appreciated in both Washington and European capitals. He stayed out of the turmoil caused by Elon Musk — who is close to Vance — and took on more responsibilities, including leading the National Security Council and even becoming an archivist. He is now, de facto, the official with the most power in foreign affairs since Henry Kissinger. In contrast, the office of vice president is usually, at best, a minor foreign policy actor, limited to specific tasks and a representative role that rarely changes the real course of the government.

Vance and Rubio see each other almost daily and coordinate in many areas. But they are two different spirits within the Republican Party. Rubio, heir to classical conservatism: a foreign policy hawk, and a staunch defender of Ukraine, Taiwan and the transatlantic alliance. On the other hand, Vance embodies contemporary isolationism: Europe as a problem, Ukraine as a burden, and the conviction that the United States should not cede anything beyond its borders.

The elaboration of the controversial 28-point plan confirms this division. Witkov traveled to Miami to meet with Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund and the Kremlin’s special envoy. There were three days of conversations, some of them at Witkoff’s house. There the central elements of the text are placed. It was Vance who personally called Zelensky to clarify the terms. Driscoll then sent to Kyiv to warn of military collapse. The message was clear: we had lost the war, and Kiev had to surrender.

On November 18, while Mohammed bin Salman was in the White House, Rubio received a copy of the plan. Hours later, digital media outlet Axios revealed its presence. The document raised eyebrows. Why did the White House present a plan that carries all the Kremlin’s aspirations? Why was it written with phrases and constructions typical of a mistranslation from Russian? Amid the confusion, Rubio decided to travel to Geneva.

Before he summoned several senators. According to one of them, Mike Rounds, Rubio explained to them that the text “was not the administration’s plan,” but rather “the Russians’ wish list.” He said this in a serious, almost warning tone, emphasizing that the United States could not assume that it was its own document that appeared to be designed by Moscow. He later corrected himself publicly and said the plan was “prepared by the United States.” With Russian and Ukrainian contributions. The turn shows domestic tension and confirms that Rubio was trying to redirect foreign policy toward positions consistent with congressional and NATO allies.

Republican path

In Geneva, Rubio sat next to Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, and Andy Pecker, deputy director of the Department of Homeland Security and Vance’s right-hand man. The first thing to do is suspend the Thanksgiving deadline. He then reduced the 28 demands to 19, leaving any territorial issues in the hands of the presidents. “It’s just a draft,” he insisted.

His intervention was received with great satisfaction by European and NATO diplomats. Two of those sources told ABC the process had become “slower” and “better”. One said: “For the first time since Wednesday, Rubio is in control of the negotiations.” But they also warned that there is no clear line in Washington. Witkoff, Kushner, and Driscoll acted with remarkable independence, making the final course difficult to predict.

Faced with the vice president’s plight, his allies are already mobilizing, fearing that the Republican Party will remain in Rubio’s hands. After the assassination of its leader, Charlie Kirk, the influential organization Turning Point USA is placed under the management of his widow, Erika. She announced this week that she would support Vance in future primaries and that this was the late founder’s will.

Rubio remains in his institutional role, taking care of the relationship with Europe, with the Capitol – which Trump depends on for his budgets and reforms – and with party structures. Any peace deal, if reached, would have to pass through the Senate, a body that is typically tougher on Russia than the White House. For many senators, Rubio is the trustworthy figure who can put the terms of negotiations back on a reasonable footing.

In the end, reality will force Trump to make a choice. A line close to Moscow’s initial demands, represented by the Miami Plan, and defended by the Vance Circle; Or a strategy closer to Kyiv and the European allies, promoted by Rubio. Although he doesn’t say so publicly, the Senate has made it abundantly clear: Rubio today has more institutional credit, while Vance combines the enthusiasm of Trump’s grassroots.