The United States president, Donald Trump, claims to have “solved six wars in six months”. To determine if there was once any substance to his claims, The Dialog world affairs editors Sam Phelps and Rachael Jolley interviewed six instructional mavens on the ones areas to determine what Trump in truth did, and whether or not it made a distinction.
India-Pakistan armed battle in Would possibly 2025
Natasha Lindstaedt, a professor in executive on the College of Essex, stated that Trump and his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, have each claimed that they have been in a position to dealer some roughly peace deal between India and Pakistan, and that the United States were given without delay inquisitive about turning in peace.
“But this has been denied by India and Pakistan. They’ve rejected it, and they claim that it was resolved between themselves. We don’t have any way of really verifying it.”
India and Pakistan don’t generally tend to agree on so much, however they generally tend to agree on the concept that Trump was once now not the cause of some roughly finish of hostilities on Would possibly 10, and that it was once reached bilaterally with out a 3rd birthday celebration intervention, she stated.
They have been very transparent that they reached an settlement on Would possibly 7 with out a 3rd birthday celebration intervention, she stated.
She added: “Trump sees himself as a peacemaker, a deal maker. This is part of his identity, and he’s leaning into this, hoping that people are going to believe it.”
Verdict: Trump’s declare doesn’t rise up
Thailand-Cambodia border dispute in July 2025
Petra Alderman, supervisor of the London College of Economics and Political Science’s Noticed Swee Hock Southeast Asia Centre, stated Trump’s intervention within the Thailand-Cambodia battle helped push the 2 international locations against a ceasefire. However, in her view, long-term possibilities for peace are in no way assured.
“This is a multi-layered conflict that combines territorial, nationalist and dynastic grievances. At its heart is a colonial legacy of disputed border territories that have historical significance to both countries and have been used to stoke nationalist sentiments in Cambodia as well as Thailand.”
Alderman stated Thailand was once to start with immune to any mediation of the battle that claimed greater than 33 lives in 4 days and noticed masses of 1000’s of other folks displaced. The step forward got here when Trump phoned leaders of each international locations, successfully threatening a suspension of business talks.
“As both countries have export-dependent economies, neither could have afforded Trump’s ‘liberation day’ tariffs. Securing a trade deal with the US took precedence over the border conflict but did nothing to resolve its root causes. Future flare-ups are still possible.”
Verdict: Trump’s declare stands up (for now)
A global workforce of army representatives gazing the Thai-Cambodian border scenario.
Narong Sangnak / EPA
DRC and Rwanda’s long-running battle
Jonathan Beloff, a postdoctoral researcher on the division of conflict research at King’s School London, stated the US-brokered peace settlement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) ignores the historical past of the 2 international locations.
Beloff argued Trump’s declare that the settlement ends 30 years of preventing is traditionally misguided. After the tip of Rwanda’s 1994 genocide in opposition to the Tutsi, masses of 1000’s of Rwandans fled into japanese DRC. The refugees integrated components of the genocide regime who sought after to complete their genocide.
This resulted in the primary Congo conflict (1996-97) and 2nd Congo conflict (1998-2003). And whilst those wars have now completed, the DRC stays fractured with over 120 riot teams. “However, there have been periods of friendlier relations between the two countries. Thus, the Congolese situation should not be seen as a single war but instead as several conflicts.”
A loss of governance and correct financial methods within the DRC, Beloff added, could also be a breeding floor for riot forces. The settlement supplies scant information about easy methods to cope with those problems, which resulted in a up to date breakdown within the Congolese negotiations with the M23 riot crew.
“Fundamentally, Rwanda and the DRC were willing to have this relatively vague agreement to appease Trump, with at least the Rwandans sceptical of whether the Congolese will honour it. He did not end the war, but at best stalled the conflict for now.”
Verdict: Trump’s declare is overblown
Kosovo-Serbia battle avoided in summer time 2025
Stefan Wolff, a professor of world safety on the College of Birmingham, stated there have lengthy been regional tensions between Kosovo and Serbia. “Tensions have recently escalated again, so it’s far from a resolved situation.”
However, he stated, there was once no indication both now, or in 2020 when Trump or his envoy, Richard Grenell, brokered the so-called Washington settlement, of any actual risk of violent escalation of the type observed again within the Nineteen Nineties when a conflict broke out between the previous Yugoslav republics. However general, he added, not one of the underlying problems between the 2 international locations had but been resolved.
“Serbia still has a lot of domestic problems, which goes back to the collapse of the train station of Novi Sad and massive student protests and the heavy-handed crackdown by the Serbian government.” So, he added, there have been nonetheless numerous other shifting items within the area.
Wolff felt that it was once not possible to independently examine if Trump had completed the rest vital in 2025 to deescalate any roughly rising battle between Kosovo and Serbia. Alternatively, “it is true that he did get an agreement on the normalisation of economic relations between Kosovo and Serbia back in 2020”.
Trump signed bilateral agreements between the United States and Kosovo and between the United States and Serbia, which it was once was hoping to steer “economic normalisation” between the 2 Balkan states in addition to larger non secular freedoms and restitution of assets.
Wolff added: “If there really was something significant [in 2025], there would be more evidence.”
Verdict: the importance of any intervention is unclear
Armenia and Azerbaijan’s 35-year battle
Ayla Göl, a senior lecturer in world members of the family at York St. John College, stated the US-brokered peace framework between Azerbaijan and Armenia in early August marks a historical milestone on this 35-year battle.
“On paper, the draft deal offers a clear path to improved relations. But it has no concrete plan for the return of the over 100,000 Armenians who fled Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.”
Göl added that calls for through Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliyev, for amendments to the Armenian charter to “eliminate territorial claims against Azerbaijan” may toughen the Armenian opposition and derail the peace procedure.
The peace framework additionally features a pact to broaden a transit hall thru Armenia, connecting Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhchivan. The United States shall be given unique rights to broaden the path, which shall be referred to as the Trump Direction for World Peace and Prosperity, for “up to 99 years”. This can be a double-edged sword, says Göl.
“The Trump route could strengthen American security commitments in the region or create new geopolitical competition. It could, for instance, strain Armenia’s relations with neighbouring Iran, which views the transit corridor as a strategic threat.”
Verdict: peace deal now not but signed, nevertheless it’s a get started
Donald Trump joins palms with Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev and Armenian high minister Nikol Pashinyan throughout a signing rite within the White Area on August 8.
Nathan Howard / EPA
Israel-Iran battle summer time 2025
Scott Lucas, a professor of world politics at College School Dublin, stated that the query of who ended the Iran-Israel battle, which started in June 2025, must even be thought to be on the subject of the way it began.
“The fact of the matter is that when the Israelis attacked Iran, they effectively sidelined the US-Iran negotiations, which were ongoing. At that point, the Trump administration didn’t object to the fact that their attempt to deal with Iran’s nuclear programme had been completely undone by the Israeli assault. So to simply say that Trump ended the war between Israel and Iran ignores the whole 12 days and how that occurred.”
That Trump intervention, during which he informed Israel’s high minister Benjamin Netanyahu to restrict the moves, got here most effective after the Iranians and Qatar and the French had all been inquisitive about looking to deescalate the battle. “So you can’t claim credit for ending a war when you helped escalate that war in the first place,” stated Lucas.
He added: “The Iranian regime didn’t want a war with Israel, and right now they certainly do not want to go into confrontation with Israel. They’re trying to regroup after a series of effective defeats for their position in the region, in Lebanon, in Syria, and to an extent in Iraq. So they’re not spoiling for a fight, and they’ve got serious domestic issues that are going to occupy them. The open question here is whether Netanyahu would go back and launch another attack on the Iranians.”
Verdict: An previous Trump intervention can have have shyed away from battle
Total, whilst obviously Donald Trump’s 2nd management has completed some certain effects at the world level, the United States president’s declare to have solved six conflicts in six months does now not totally rise up.
