‘He’s a terrible negotiator:’ Trump’s bogus claims of ‘solving’ world conflicts

Claims Analysis - The report analyzes claims made by Donald Trump regarding his success in resolving global conflicts, suggesting he has "solved" between six and ten wars [1][2][15] - The White House identified conflicts Trump claims to have resolved, including those between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, Cambodia and Thailand, Egypt and Ethiopia, and Serbia and Kosovo [4] - The report questions the validity of these claims, stating that some conflicts are far from over, some are merely paused, and others are not wars at all [5][12][14] Geopolitical Implications - The agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, facilitated by Trump, reopens transportation routes and creates a transit corridor, but the border remains closed, and the deal is not a peace treaty [6] - Conflicts such as those between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, and India and Pakistan, saw temporary agreements or truces, but underlying issues remain unresolved [7][8] - The conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia is a diplomatic dispute over a dam, not an armed conflict, and Trump's claim that the US paid for the dam is disputed [13] - The situation between Serbia and Kosovo involves normalized economic relations but not full recognition, and Trump's efforts are credited with preventing violence [14] Negotiation Style - The report suggests that world leaders may be nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize to get things done, legitimizing his actions [16] - Trump's approach is characterized as deal-making rather than genuine peacemaking, focusing on photo opportunities and personal interests [17] - Trump's negotiation style is described as win-lose, where someone has to lose for him to win, making him a "terrible negotiator" [22][26][27] - The report contrasts Trump's approach with the possibility of win-win real estate deals, which he seemingly rejects [26] Authoritarianism and Fragility - The report suggests that Trump's approach is based on authoritarianism and fear, which are inherently fragile [30] - The report draws parallels to historical examples, suggesting that resistance is more resilient than tyranny [29]