Amid all the White House buzz about “successful” diplomatic wins, a closer look shows a different picture. Many of the so-called “wars” they claim to have ended were barely active to begin with, or have since spiralled right back into instability
President Donald Trump’s repeated claims of having “ended eight wars” are facing intense scrutiny from international observers and diplomats, who argue that his administration’s focus on high-profile “dealmaking” is creating fragile ceasefires rather than lasting peace—a pattern now highlighted by renewed fighting and violated agreements across three continents.
Amid a flurry of White House announcements touting successful diplomatic interventions, a closer look at the key claims reveals that many of the supposed “wars” were either inactive or have since seen a rapid deterioration of stability.
Foreign policy analyst Arthur Boutellis said in a recent essay in IPI Global Observatory, the online publication of the International Peace Institute (IPI), that there is a fundamental difference between dealmaking and peacemaking, adding that Trump’s approach is “inherently transactional, zero-sum and contractual,” a model ill-suited for the complex, relationship-building work required for genuine conflict resolution.
The frailty of the peace claims was dramatically exposed this week.
Just days after the leaders of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda signed the “Washington Accords” on December 4, aimed at ending decades of conflict, DRC President Félix Tshisekedi accused Kigali of immediate violations.
Tshisekedi stated that Rwanda is “already violating its commitments,” alleging that Rwandan forces fired heavy weapons into Congolese territory the day after the signing. Furthermore, despite a previous US-brokered truce, the border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia has violently reignited.
Multiple reports confirmed intense fighting broke out on December 7 and 8, resulting in soldiers’ deaths and civilian casualties, which clearly calls into question the durability of the initial agreement.
Other agreements cited by the Trump administration as “wars ended” are proving equally precarious or controversial.
While the May 2025 ceasefire between India and Pakistan is technically ongoing, India has firmly maintained its stance, denying any third-party intervention, with observers doubting the US’s direct role. India has also clarified it has only paused its Operation Sindoor.
Similarly, the October 2025 Israel and Hamas ceasefire remains “extremely fragile,” with occasional Israeli military strikes being reported, and the June 2025 ceasefire between Israel and Iran is generally holding due more to Israel’s decision to halt military operations amidst other regional engagements than a definitive diplomatic resolution.
Finally, the White House’s list includes several disputes that were never active wars, suggesting the claims are more about achieving diplomatic “wins” than ending actual violence. This includes the claims related to Serbia and Kosovo, which focused on economic normalisation; the Egypt and Ethiopia (GERD Dam) dispute, where talks have stalled with no formal deal signed; and the Armenia and Azerbaijan agreement, where a framework was announced, but critics say the President’s credit for avoiding a full-scale war that was not active at the time is “a little exaggerated.”
End of Article
