What wars/squirmisses did trump solve

1. Gaza — a high‑profile ceasefire and a UN resolution, not a final peace

The administration helped negotiate a first‑phase ceasefire and hostage‑release arrangement between Israel and Hamas that halted large‑scale fighting and led to a UN Security Council resolution welcoming Trump’s 20‑point plan and authorizing an international stabilization force; yet violence and deaths continued after the ceasefire and Israel has signaled it will not move to later phases until conditions such as return of remains are met, so the deal is best described as a significant pause rather than a permanently solved war ^{[4] [5] [6] [7]}.

2. India–Pakistan (Kashmir) — a temporary truce amid deep‑rooted rivalry

U.S. engagement coincided with leaders of India and Pakistan agreeing to a ceasefire after intense exchanges over Kashmir, and Trump claimed mediation credit; peace researchers note the ceasefire was brief and underlying territorial grievances remain entrenched, with casualties recorded after the agreement, casting doubt on any claim of a durable settlement ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Cambodia–Thailand — a brokered pause that unraveled

Trump publicly said he pressed both Bangkok and Phnom Penh to stand down during a deadly border flareup and officials credited U.S. pressure for a ceasefire, but reporting and analysts show fighting later resumed and implementation stalled, illustrating the limits of short‑term diplomatic pressure in border disputes ^{[1] [8] [9]}.

4. Armenia–Azerbaijan and bilateral summitry — symbolic steps, fragile outcomes

The White House hosted leaders from Armenia and Azerbaijan and touted agreements meant to reduce hostilities; observers describe these as diplomatic efforts that can create useful frameworks but emphasize that decades‑old grievances and episodic violence mean such summits rarely translate into final, enforceable peace without robust follow‑through ^{[10] [3]}.

5. Rwanda–DRC and M23 — deals on paper, fighting on the ground

Trump’s administration highlighted accords between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo and other arrangements targeting militias like M23, but independent monitors and reporting documented subsequent offensives and mass displacement, leading critics to argue that the agreements were incomplete and sometimes undermined on the ground ^{[3] [11] [2]}.

6. Other listed conflicts and the problem of aggregation

The administration’s roster of “ended” conflicts has included a wide array of disputes — from Serbia‑Kosovo to Egypt‑Ethiopia and even references to Russia‑Ukraine — but reputable fact‑checks and scholars say some items were never full wars, many agreements were preliminary cease‑fires, and attribution to U.S. mediation is often debated; several outlets call the president’s numeric claims exaggerated and describe the pattern as performative peacemaking or “Potemkin” diplomacy ^{[2] [12] [8] [10]}.

7. Why experts push back — enforcement, root causes, and incentives

Peace researchers and foreign‑policy commentators argue that stopping shooting is different from resolving causes: short‑term cease‑fires, symbolic summits, and economic threats can pause violence but don’t address governance, territorial claims, or rebel incentives; critics and analysts cited in the reporting warn that some deals collapsed quickly and that U.S. economic leverage or publicity stunts explain part of the rapid agreements — raising questions about motive and sustainability ^{[3] [9] [8]}.

8. Bottom line: temporary pauses, contested credit, not six or eight wars solved

Across the reporting, the consistent finding is that the Trump administration played roles — sometimes central, sometimes marginal — in brokering cease‑fires or frameworks in several conflicts, but independent fact‑checks and experts conclude there is scant evidence that he “stopped six” or “ended eight” wars in any definitive sense; many deals remain partial, reversible, or disputed and attribution of success is contested ^{[1] [12] [2]}.