Trump takes credit for India-Pakistan ceasefire, but this Trump truce may not herald lasting peace | CNN

Trump announced on his Truth Social platform that the United States had brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan on May 10, 2025, claiming the nuclear-armed neighbors agreed to a “full and immediate” halt to fighting. This announcement contradicted Vice President JD Vance’s statement just days earlier that the conflict was “fundamentally, none of our business.” The ceasefire followed a terror attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 people, subsequent Indian airstrikes, and Pakistani claims of shooting down five Indian jets—assertions Indian officials denied but which CNN evidence suggested were partially accurate.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that he and Vance had pressured both India and Pakistan’s political and military leadership to agree to the ceasefire before escalation worsened. The announcement came just hours after India struck Pakistani military bases, prompting a Pakistani retaliation with rockets, artillery, and drone strikes across Indian territory. India downplayed the US role in negotiations, insisting the neighbors had worked “directly” together on the truce, while Pakistan credited American involvement—conflicting accounts that underscore disagreement over who deserves credit for the deal.

Trump framed the ceasefire as a diplomatic victory comparable to deals he hoped to broker in other conflicts, particularly the Ukraine-Russia war ongoing for nearly three and a half years. The intense India-Pakistan fighting lasted only three and a half days before the ceasefire, allowing Trump to claim rapid success in foreign policy mediation. However, neither India nor Pakistan had strategic incentive to continue the escalating conflict, meaning Trump’s administration was “pushing on an open door” rather than achieving a breakthrough requiring diplomatic skill.

Violations of the ceasefire emerged within hours, with reports of explosions in Indian-administered Kashmir and allegations of ongoing cross-border attacks. The immediate truce violations demonstrate the fragility of the agreement and its susceptibility to collapse under continued tensions. Trump’s claims of ending the war contradicted his own indecision and lack of concrete information on the matter, as reflected in his characterization of the situation as merely “settled” rather than resolved.

The ceasefire agreement fails to address the fundamental dispute over Kashmir’s status—a Muslim-majority region claimed by both India and Pakistan with an active separatist movement—meaning the underlying grievance driving decades of conflict remains entirely unresolved. Without resolution of Kashmir’s political status, the current ceasefire represents a temporary pause rather than lasting peace, and confrontation over the territory is likely to resurface with renewed intensity.

(Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/10/india/analysis-us-role-india-pakistan-ceasefire-latam-intl)