.

President Donald Trump is emerging from a recent flurry of diplomatic activity determined to promote himself as a global dealmaker. In comments this week, he claimed to have already ended six wars during his second term in office. On Monday at the White House, during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a group of European leaders, Trump also vowed advances on the Ukraine war. “I’ve done six wars — I’ve ended six wars,” Trump told reporters. “Look, India-Pakistan, we’re talking about big places. You just take a look at some of these wars. You go to Africa and take a look at them.”

The White House has already been running an advertising campaign touting Trump’s record on bringing “peace.” The president was issued a statement from the administration earlier this month that boasted of claimed accomplishments, including breakthroughs involving Armenia and Azerbaijan, Cambodia and Thailand, Israel and Iran, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt and Ethiopia and Serbia and Kosovo. In that regard, officials have also touted the Abraham Accords in Trump’s first term normalizing ties between Israel and several Arab states.

Deal or No Deal?

Some analysts note that Trump is doing little more than promoting ceasefires as historic peace deals while glossing over underlying tensions that continue to fuel the risk of future violence. In the case of Israel and Iran, for example, the two nations agreed to end a 12-day war, but the fundamental issue of Tehran’s nuclear program remains an active concern.

On some past peacemaking efforts, Trump’s limits in delivering solutions are also on display. His efforts to quell violence between Israel and Hamas foundered, while his first-term summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un also ended in failure and with Pyongyang emerging with a bigger nuclear arsenal.

In some instances, Trump has been able to announce symbolic breakthroughs. Last week, Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a declaration at the White House pledging to recognize borders and renounce violence. It also included a U.S.-backed transportation corridor, billed as the “Trump Route for Peace and Prosperity.” Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev called it “a miracle,” although the analysts say hardline territorial disputes remain.

Trump’s success in Southeast Asia also offers a glimpse into his methods of halting violence using economic leverage. When a border conflict between Cambodia and Thailand left 38 people dead, Trump threatened to suspend trade deals with both governments. After the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) helped negotiate the final deal, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet gave Trump much of the credit, even nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize for his “extraordinary statesmanship.”

In May, Trump inserted himself in a border dispute between India and Pakistan. Islamabad welcomed Washington’s role in mediating the deal, but New Delhi said the U.S. had not been central. The ceasefire is still fragile and the long-running Kashmir dispute remains as unresolved as ever and could yet erupt into new fighting.

Elsewhere in Africa, Trump has also claimed progress for his role in a deal between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which included recognition of borders and pledges to disarm militias. The M23 rebel group spurned it, raising questions over its viability. Analysts also see a U.S. strategic interest in the deal giving Washington an edge in competition with China for mineral resources across Africa.

His claims on Egypt and Ethiopia are related to their long-running standoff over a major Nile dam project. While Trump has pushed both for a compromise, the deal has not seen a binding agreement. In the case of Serbia and Kosovo, the administration points to measures that normalized relations first taken during Trump’s first term. The two states, however, are still at odds and recent talks have been largely driven by the European Union.

Peace Efforts at Risk

Trump’s preferred diplomatic style has favored bombastic pronouncements and personal branding over quiet negotiations, producing mixed results at best. Many of his other efforts in peacemaking roles have not panned out. Critics have said that his drastic downsizing of the State Department and budget cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development have hurt America’s ability to build on short-term deals and find durable peace.

That said, some Trump interventions have been effective, if quietly so. Celeste Wallander, a former assistant secretary of defense who is now with the Center for a New American Security, pointed out that Trump’s approach to soothing tensions between India and Pakistan was handled “in a professional way, quietly, diplomatically … finding common ground between the parties.”

Whether Trump’s record bodes well for lasting diplomacy or temporary fixes will now be tested in Ukraine. In that regard, his record so far offers both. His track record has been of headline-grabbing agreements that fall well short of permanent peace, even if his willingness to apply U.S. pressure on all sides has sometimes been able to stop conflicts from spiraling further. It remains to be seen if those results will last.