How do peace researchers distinguish between a ceasefire and an end to a war, and which conflicts cited for Trump’s list meet the scholarly criteria?
Executive summary
Peace scholars distinguish temporary cessations of hostilities from genuine war termination by looking for durable cessation plus political settlement, verified implementation, and post-conflict transformation; many of the agreements President Trump has cited resemble ceasefires or diplomatic pauses rather than clear, scholarly "ends" to war [1] [2] [3]. Independent reporting and fact-checking find that Trump played a role in several ceasefires but that most were incremental, contested, or lacked the long-term guarantees scholars require to call a war ended [2] [3] [4].
1. How peace researchers define “end of war” vs. “ceasefire”
Peace research literature treats a ceasefire as a suspension of fighting—often narrow in scope, time-limited, or fragile—whereas an end to war requires a negotiated political settlement or durable mutual accommodation, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, and observable decline in battle deaths and organized violence over time; PRIO’s commentary emphasizes that reported agreements can range from “armed warfare to diplomatic tensions,” highlighting the analytic difference between pauses in fighting and conflict termination [1].
2. Concrete criteria scholars use to judge termination
Scholars typically ask whether hostilities have halted sustainably, whether combatants have agreed on political arrangements resolving core grievances, whether credible third-party monitoring and enforcement exist, and whether indicators such as battle-related fatalities and mobilization decline over months to years—criteria reflected in expert assessments used by fact-checkers, which caution that short-lived or poorly implemented accords rarely signal a true end to war [2] [3].
3. The Gaza/Israel–Hamas case: a high-profile ceasefire with contested durability
The October ceasefire that involved an exchange of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners was widely reported as a brokered pause for which Trump and others received credit, but press and analysts described it as a “ceasefire” rather than a final peace settlement and noted ongoing fatalities and concerns about Hamas’s capacity to regroup—features that undercut claims of a war’s end under scholarly standards [5] [4].
4. Israel–Iran and the nuclear strikes episode: lull or termination?
The U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and subsequent diplomatic shuttle reportedly led to a cessation in direct exchanges, which media framed as moving the conflict toward a close; fact-checkers note these developments look like ceasefires or de-escalation mediated by third parties (Qatar), not comprehensive political settlements that resolve the underlying state-level hostility—thus falling short of scholarly criteria for war termination [2].
5. India–Pakistan and border flare-ups: ceasefires amid continued violence
An agreement between India and Pakistan following strikes over Kashmir resulted in a declared ceasefire, yet PRIO and dataset evidence show significant violence persisted afterward (almost 400 killed in July per Uppsala Conflict Data Program referenced by PRIO), and Indian officials denied U.S. mediation claims—features consistent with a fragile pause, not an academic-standard end to war [1] [2].
6. Cambodia–Thailand, Armenia–Azerbaijan, Rwanda–DRC: agreements with gaps
Ceasefires or understandings were reached in bouts of fighting between Cambodia and Thailand, and diplomatic accords were signed involving Armenia–Azerbaijan and Rwanda–DRC, but reporting highlights recurrent violations, incomplete implementation, and pending ratification or economic interests tied to the deals—conditions that make these accords look like incremental, interest-driven pauses rather than durable conflict termination as scholars would require [1] [2] [4].
7. Overall assessment of the conflicts on Trump’s list against scholarly criteria
Independent and fact-check reporting converges on a cautious conclusion: Trump had a visible role in brokering or publicizing several ceasefires and de-escalations (notably Gaza/Israel–Hamas, parts of India–Pakistan, and Armenia–Azerbaijan), but most of the cited cases lack the comprehensive political settlements, monitoring/enforcement, and sustained reduction in violence that peace researchers demand to call a war ended—only in very limited senses (short-term cessation or hostage exchanges) do some meet partial criteria, while none (per available reporting) clearly meet the robust scholarly standard for war termination [5] [2] [3].
8. Competing narratives and implicit agendas to note
Analysts warn that political actors may conflate tactical de-escalation with decisive peace for PR benefit; PRIO flagged possible economic and diplomatic incentives behind U.S. mediation in some deals, and fact-checkers emphasize disputed claims by affected governments (for example, India’s denial of U.S. mediation), suggesting that partisan or strategic agendas shape claims of “ending” wars even when the underlying conflicts remain unresolved [1] [2] [6].