Foreign Policy Brief #222 | Inijah Quadri | November 22, 2025
Policy Issue Summary
In political discourse, the language of peacemaking is often employed for its potent rhetorical value, yet the terms used can obscure the reality on the ground. A critical distinction must be drawn between a ceasefire and a peace settlement. A ceasefire, or an armistice, is a military and temporal arrangement. It is an agreement to stop active hostilities, to put down the weapons, often temporarily and along existing lines of control. It is a pause. It does not resolve the underlying political, economic, or social grievances that ignited the conflict. A peace settlement, by contrast, is a comprehensive political and legal resolution. It is a formal treaty or agreement that ends the state of war by addressing the root causes—such as sovereignty, borders, justice, and security guarantees—and attempts to build a framework for a new, sustainable relationship.
This distinction is central to evaluating the foreign policy legacy of President Donald Trump, who has built a brand on being a “dealmaker” who “settles” intractable conflicts. These claims demand rigorous scrutiny, particularly as they are applied to new and ongoing wars. An examination of the key conflicts he cites—from the Middle East and Afghanistan to his current overtures on Ukraine—reveals a consistent pattern of conflating temporary de-escalations, transactional realignments, or a victor’s imposition with the arduous, multi-generational work of genuine peace. The core policy issue is whether these interventions are substantive resolutions or dangerous illusions that entrench the very power imbalances that fuel conflict.
Analysis
A critical analysis of these “settled” wars shows that none have resulted in a genuine peace settlement, and the model itself is deeply flawed. The 2020 Doha Agreement with the Talibanin Afghanistan is a primary exhibit. This was never a peace treaty for the Afghan people; it was a withdrawal agreement for the United States. The accord explicitly bypassed the sitting Afghan government, and as of late 2025, the war has not ended. It has merely transformed. The nation is gripped by a humanitarian and economic catastrophe, women’s and girls’ rights have been severely curtailed (including bans on secondary and university education, sweeping restrictions on most employment, and limits on movement without a male guardian—with only narrow exceptions), and the country faces renewed armed conflict from groups like ISIS-Khorasan. This is not peace; it is abandonment.
The celebrated Abraham Accords followed the same transactional logic. These accords were a significant diplomatic realignment, announcing normalization with four Arab states (the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan), though Sudan’s agreement was never ratified and full ties weren’t established. However, this was a deal built on avoiding the central conflict: the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. By bypassing the question of Palestinian self-determination, the accords did not “settle” the Middle East. The catastrophic Gaza war of 2023-2025 and the new, fragile “Gaza accord” of October 2025 are testaments to this failure. The new accord is a ceasefire, not a settlement. It has halted the most intense bombing, but it does not address the occupation, the blockade, or the right of return. It has merely put a lid on a boiling pot.
Similarly, the diplomatic overtures with North Korea were pure spectacle. The summits produced photo-ops but no tangible denuclearization. Today, in late 2025, North Korea is more brazen than ever, testing advanced solid-fuel ICBMs and hypersonic missiles, and has declared its nuclear status “irreversible.” The “peace” was purely rhetorical. The same is true in the Balkans, where a “Serbia-Kosovo” economic deal did nothing to resolve the core sovereignty dispute, which continues to flare up with Serbian-backed hybrid warfare and requires a NATO peacekeeping presence.
Likewise, the Thailand-Cambodia border dispute remains unsettled. Although large-scale military clashes over the Preah Vihear Temple (Khao Phra Wihan) have subsided since the major confrontations in 2008 and 2011, the core sovereignty issue has never been fully settled. Despite President Trump’s declaration of peace following his involvement in an October 2025 accord, tensions have since reignited, with both nations increasing their military presence in contested areas. This situation underscores the critical difference between a temporary ceasefire and a durable political resolution.
Now, the elephant in the room: the Russia-Ukraine war. President Trump, who recently admitted his campaign-trail “24 hours” settlement claim was “a little bit sarcastic,” is now actively attempting to broker a deal. This situation provides the clearest possible illustration of the ceasefire-versus-peace-settlement-fallacy. The administration’s plan, as reported, is not a peace settlement. It is an attempt to force a ceasefire by pressuring Ukraine to halt its fightand, according to multiple sources, to surrender its claim to the Donbas and Crimea. This is not diplomacy; it is the imposition of a victor’s terms on the victim. A “peace” that rewards Russian imperial aggression by allowing it to keep the territory it conquered through war and occupation is not a settlement. It is a violation of international law and a betrayal of Ukrainian sovereignty. It would be a temporary, amoral truce that guarantees future conflict by validating the principle that might makes right.
Policymakers must critically distinguish between a temporary ceasefire and a genuine peace settlement. The analysis shows that branding transactional withdrawals (Afghanistan) or diplomatic realignments (Abraham Accords) as “peace” creates a dangerous illusion. These approaches do not resolve underlying conflicts; they bypass core grievances, abandon allies, or entrench power imbalances, leading to predictable future crises (e.g., the 2023-2025 Gaza war).
Engagement Resources
- Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) (https://ucdp.uu.se/): A leading academic resource for data on organized violence and armed conflicts. It provides the empirical data necessary to distinguish between active wars, ceasefires, and genuine peace.
- Crisis Group (https://www.crisisgroup.org/): An independent organization providing in-depth field research, analysis, and recommendations on current and emerging conflicts. Its reports are essential for understanding the complexities on the ground, beyond official government narratives.
- Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) (https://ips-dc.org/): A progressive research and advocacy center that critiques US foreign policy and militarism. It offers analysis that connects foreign interventions with domestic priorities and advocates for non-militarist solutions.
- Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) (https://fmep.org/): A nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It provides resources, analysis, and grant-making that center international law and human rights.
- Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Global Conflict Tracker (https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker): A comprehensive, interactive guide that monitors the status of dozens of ongoing conflicts worldwide, clarifying their background, current intensity, and prospects for resolution.