Has Donald Trump ended seven 'unendable' wars?

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

A happy place comes in many colors.

Whatever your color, bring happiness home with Certopro Painters.

Get started today at Certapro.com.

Each CertaPro Painters business is independently owned and operated.

Contractor license and registration information is available at Certapro.com.

Make money predicting football?

Now you can nationwide with CalSHI.

Calci is the only platform that lets you legally trade on real-world events in all 50 states.

states, from football to Bitcoin, the Oscars, and even politics.

If it matters, you can trade on it.

Trade on who wins each game, props, spread, and more, legally, nationwide.

Don't miss your shot.

Download the Calci app or go to kalshi.com.

Use code podcast and get $10 when you trade 100.

This is an investment that carries risk.

Calci.com.

Hello, and welcome to More or Less, the show that takes the A out of day to

leaving d.

Thanks to loyal listener Paula Craven for that one.

Email us on moreorless at bbc.co.uk if you can do better.

I'm Tim Harford.

This week, President Donald Trump is proud that he personally has stopped seven unendable wars.

We travel from Cambodia to Aberbidan to figure out if that's right.

The Chancellor Rachel Reeves says the UK has the highest growth rate of any G7 country in the first half of of this year.

That one might be more accurate, but we have questions.

The Daily Mail has reported a global cancer explosion, but might your risk of cancer actually be falling?

And Oxford and Cambridge are officially no longer the UK's top universities?

Some people might say that Cambridge never was, but what's going on with those rankings?

And the students agree.

But first, Donald Trump has done many things in his second term as president.

He's sent the National Guard into several American cities.

He's clamped down on immigration.

He's implemented tariffs, including just this week one that targets kitchen units.

But perhaps the achievements he's most proud of is that he has ended seven

unendable wars.

Wow.

Seven, you say.

In a period of just seven months, I have ended seven.

unendable wars.

They said they were unendable.

You're never going to get them solved.

Some Some were going for 31 years.

Two of them.

31, think of it, 31 years.

One was 36 years.

One was 28 years.

I ended seven wars.

And in all cases, they were raging with countless thousands of people being killed.

Okay.

Everyone says that I should get the Nobel Peace Prize for each one of these achievements.

If Trump truly has ended seven unendable wars, cast the ring back into the fire and diminished into the West, then he really would deserve that prize.

But is this a classic case of some trumped-up claims?

We spoke to Stefan Wolff, professor of international security at the University of Birmingham, about whether or not the President's claims were justified.

First things first, what is a war?

Normally, the way a war would be defined as a major military clash between the organized military forces of two countries lasting at least several days causing a significant military but potentially also civilian casualties.

One knows it's a war when one sees it.

Okay, let's go through them.

First.

Cambodia and Thailand.

This is a very long-standing dispute over the demarcation of the border between the two countries.

And it's particularly sensitive because it involves an ancient Hindu temple.

That sits in an area that was initially awarded to Cambodia in 1962.

However, Thailand has disputed this ruling ever since.

Tension erupted again around April and peaked in July.

So what did Trump do?

He spoke with the leaders of both countries and basically threatened them with his trade war, saying that he would impose tariffs unless they agreed to a ceasefire.

That was then achieved.

I think we have to be careful here how much we attribute to the US efforts here.

The meeting where the two sides agreed the ceasefire was held in Malaysia.

It was mediated by the country's Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim.

But there was co-facilitation by both the US and Chinese ambassadors to Malaysia.

So there definitely was US involvement.

Did it end the war?

Well, no.

We can be pretty certain about this one because the ceasefire between Thailand and Cambodia has already broken down, with clashes in the last week.

They are now literally firing guns at each other.

So it turns out ending an unendable war is tricky.

On to the next one.

Pakistan and India.

Trump clearly claimed on multiple occasions that he brokered a ceasefire.

It's not actually clear whether he had any personal involvement at all.

The Pakistanis do support Trump's claim that he played a pivotal role, but India very directly and explicitly rejected that claim.

It's not entirely clear whether there was actually any mediation necessary at the time when the conflict ended, because if you look at how it actually played out, by the time the two sides agreed their ceasefire, they basically had achieved what they wanted.

But they also noted that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the UK, the UN, China were also involved.

Ah, but is the war over?

It's definitely not a finished chapter.

Okay.

The third war mentioned is this.

Kosovo and Serbia.

It baffles me by this claim where it comes from.

There's very little evidence that there has been any major involvement of the US in the region since Trump came back to the White House House in January.

Right.

And the fourth?

Egypt and Ethiopia.

Is a dispute over a dam.

It's not a war.

No.

At least not yet.

And I also don't quite see it heading into that direction.

Good.

Number five?

Aber Bajan and Albania, as an example.

It was going on for years.

What?

That's not a place.

Well, Albania's a place, but it's not at war with anyone, is it?

Especially Aber Bijan.

Right, let's try number five again.

Cambodia and Armenia.

It was just starting and it was a bad one.

Think of that.

Okay, they are real, but they're 4,000 miles or so apart, and they have countries such as Iran, Pakistan, India, and Burma standing in between them to hold them back.

Leave it, Cambodia.

They're not worth it.

I think that's him probably just getting a little excited about all the different countries that he has brought peace to in his imagination and maybe little shallow knowledge of geography.

Okay, let's back up slowly and here we are.

An Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Ah, the real number five.

We meet at last.

Third time lucky.

This war is also largely about one country trying to reclaim territory from another.

And it is the strongest contender for a Trump win.

What Trump ultimately managed is to basically put a couple of economic provisions on the table, in particular, what is called, I think, the Trump International Transport Corridor for Prosperity or something like that.

Catchy name.

Exactly.

Yeah,

very much so.

And I mean, I think it's important that it's named after Trump.

The claim that he actually made a peace agreement between them is slightly overstated in the sense that they had been working on this without Trump for many, many months.

But if it actually comes and if they formally sign a peace agreement, then I think Trump probably deserves some credit for having sort of pushed it across the finishing line.

Okay.

Next, number six.

Congo and Rwanda.

A vicious, violent war that was.

Now this war is a long and bloody one.

It's a mess.

One problem is the existence of paramilitary paramilitary groups such as M23, which allegedly have government backing.

There have been credible allegations that Rwanda didn't just support the M23 with equipment, but also deployed actually soldiers into the DRC.

We have another agreement signed between the sites in Washington that then promised further talks to lead to a permanent deal within three months.

Hmm.

So maybe Trump has a claim with this one.

It's certainly a real war.

There has been no news of a permanent deal being anywhere near conclusion.

And all sides are basically rearming, regrouping and preparing for the next bout for fighting.

Time for the final war.

Number seven.

Israel in Iran.

Can you actually say that you brokered a ceasefire?

between Israel and Iran when the conflict did quite clearly involve US military as well.

Hmm.

So a bit dicey, but is that war resolved?

Well, I think for now it it's resolved.

The conflict has been de-escalated, with a lot of bombing, which doesn't usually win you a peace prize unless your name happens to be Henry Kissinger.

You may have noticed that several other wars continue to rage.

In the last few days, the administration has announced a 20-point plan to help end the war in Gaza.

Trump has claimed that it will create eternal peace in the Middle East.

While this is certainly his typical brand of hyperbole, the framework does bring tentative hope for bringing an end to the horrific conflict, although it remains to be seen whether it will be a success.

So, has Donald Trump ended seven unendable wars?

No, I think he has made efforts to avert a number of crises that could potentially have further escalated.

But I think to say that he he has ended seven unendable wars flies in the face of the facts because what he has achieved are at best ceasefire agreements and ceasefire agreements are not the same as peace agreements, let alone permanent, durable peace.

Our thanks to Professor Stefan Wolf.

On Monday, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves was interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme ahead of her big conference speech.

In the interview, she defended Labour's record on the economy, pointing to good news on economic growth.

Our economy was the fastest growing in the G7 in the first half this year.

Quick economics brush-up for you all.

Economic growth is measured by looking at gross domestic product or GDP, which is the value of all the goods and services produced in an economy.

And the G7 is a forum of seven advanced and industrialized economies.

Can you name them all, team?

The USA.

The UK.

France.

Germany.

Italy.

Japan.

About Bajan.

No, one more.

Canada, you dunderheads.

Worst pub quiz team ever.

Anyway, back to the claim.

Is the UK the fastest growing economy in the G7?

in the first half of this year.

We went to friend of the program, the economist and author of Blood and Treasure, Duncan Weldon.

Well, if we look at the comparable numbers from the OECD that were published in September, then it is true.

I mean, the UK grew the fastest of any of that group of G7 big, rich, industrialised economies in the first six months of this year.

It might be true, but I'm not sure it's particularly meaningful or helpful for the public debate.

Well, why is it not helpful?

I mean, GDP growth is not the only thing, but it does matter.

It is a target of this government.

The G7 is a reasonable comparator group.

And,

you know, what what else are you going to look at?

No, the G7 is a perfectly reasonable comparator.

GDP growth is a big target for this government.

It's a meaningful number.

The problem really I have here is the time period of saying in the first six months of this year.

To start with, six months isn't a particularly long time.

And the first six months of this year were a bit unusual with Donald Trump introducing all of those tariffs, winding some of them back, winding some of them back up again.

That had an impact on the US numbers.

It had quite a big impact on the Canadian numbers.

But more generally,

the thing about GDP data is it's quite frequently revised.

And the data we have for the first six months of this year is far from finalised across those seven countries.

So it may be true that the UK grew the fastest in the first six months of this year, as we are currently talking now.

Whether that will still be true in four or five months' time, you know, is anyone's bet.

And, you know, I mean, a more meaningful measure, most economists would argue, I think, would be to, you know, rather than just looking at the first six months of this year, look at the first six months of this year with the second half of last year.

So you're looking at a full year.

And if you do.

The UK comes joint third with growth of around 1.2%.

So, you know, top half of the table, but not quite at the top.

Yeah, I mean, joint third of seven, I think, is pretty much bang in the middle of the table.

But okay, fine.

You know, I think there are so many measures out there, and you can choose your time periods very carefully.

You know, these sorts of comparisons are always a bit of a choose your own adventure.

And obviously, the Chancellor has chosen the adventure where the United Kingdom looks the best.

That's fine.

So that's the last year,

or the last four full quarters, I should say, from the last two quarters of last year, the first two quarters of this year.

What about 2024 as a whole?

Well, in 2024, on the OECD numbers, the UK grew 1.1 percentage points.

Right up there at the top is the United States with 2.8.

We were just behind France, which was on 1.2.

So there's a really big gap between the United States and everyone else.

And actually, I mean, that's sort of the broader point here, isn't it?

That whether we are coming top or second or third, you know, growth of 1.1, 1.2%.

It's not a great number, even if it is comparable to other advanced economies.

Of course, Rachel Reeves didn't have much to do with the performance of the economy over the whole of 2024, as she only became Chancellor halfway through.

But whatever way you look at it, the economy could do with a sustained boost in growth sometime soon.

In recent years, the growth rate for the British economy has been around 1 to 1.5%

per year.

So it's fairly standard that we've got used to over the last decade.

Now, of course, if you go back 25 years, you know, we'd be hoping the British economy would be growing more like 2.5%, 3%.

So it's poor relative to our

medium-term history, but it's about normal for the last decade.

Our thanks to friend of the program, Duncan Weldon.

If you've been reading the Daily Mail, you might have come across this recent headline.

Global cancer cancer explosion.

Deaths are set to soar 75% by 2050.

A bleak sounding prognosis, with the article stating that new cancer cases had more than doubled since 1990, according to a damning new global report.

The report in question, published in The Lancet, was an attempt to quantify the changing burden of cancer on the world, in terms of treatment and deaths, using the high-quality data available in some countries and and filling in the gaps for others by using statistical extrapolation.

Dr.

Lisa Force is the lead author.

She's an assistant professor at the University of Washington and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.

I asked her if the way the Daily Mail wrote up the research was accurate.

I would say that we did estimate that cancer cases and deaths were estimated to increase from 1990 through 2023 and then we did estimate that they would continue to increase at least through 2050.

So technically there is an increase.

I think it sounds like there's clearly an interpretation on the newspaper side of how

bad those numbers may be with the use of terms like explosion or SOAR.

Yes, I suppose one person's explosion is another person's steady increase.

But actually, there is a really important point to be clear about.

So you were describing the total number of deaths, deaths,

but the world population is increasing and the world population is also aging.

So what's the rate of cancer deaths as a proportion of the population?

Or to be a bit fancier, the age standardized mortality rate.

So what are the rates of cancer given the age profile of the population?

Did you come to any conclusions about those things?

Yes.

So although we found that cancer cases and deaths were increasing over the last several decades and forecasted to continue to increase, that is only part of the story.

We also found that age-standardized mortality rates for cancer declined by about 24% globally from 1990 through 2023.

That sounds like a piece of good news.

I mean, if I interpret that correctly, what we're saying is if you

I'm slightly simplifying, but if you just took a random person of a particular age, you said, okay, we're going to have a random 70-year-old or we're going to have a random 50-year-old, then that person is less likely to die of cancer than somebody of the same age would have been back in 1990.

Right, exactly.

Okay.

So cancer deaths have increased quite a lot, but also the risk of cancer death for somebody of a given age has fallen.

Correct.

The chance of getting cancer increases with age.

Not everyone who develops cancer is elderly, but the elderly certainly are more at risk.

So as the global population ages, partly because people aren't being killed by other diseases, the global cancer burden increases too.

Add onto that the increasing population and you get very big numbers, even though the risk at every age is decreasing.

At the same time, when the researchers made a projection for the next 20 years, they reckon that this decreasing risk might flatten out.

It looks like some of the age standardized mortality rate progress that's been happening over the last several decades may start to plateau.

All of which means the world does need to prepare for very large numbers of cancer cases.

While we do think that the growing cancer cases and deaths over the last several decades and into the future are related to population aging and population growth.

It is quite important for health service planning and ensuring that health systems are prepared to adequately care for those that need it, that the cancer cases and deaths are increasing.

Thanks to Dr.

Lisa Ford.

HR sales and marketing teams.

And commercially safe AI powered by Firefly lets them create confidently so your brand always shows up polished, protected, and consistent everywhere.

Learn more at adobe.com/slash go slash express.

Make money predicting football?

Now you can nationwide with Cal Shi.

Calci is the only platform that lets you legally trade on real-world events in all 50 states.

From football to Bitcoin, the Oscars, and even politics.

If it matters, you can trade on it.

Trade on who wins each game, props, spread, and more.

Legally, nationwide.

Don't miss your shot.

Download the Calci app or go to kalshi.com.

Use code PODCAST and get $10 when you trade 100.

This is an investment that carries risk.

Calci.com.

Earlier this month, Students across the country were enjoying that bittersweet autumn feeling as the mists and mellow fruitfulness of the season signalled the onset of university terms and some may have been feeling particularly excited.

Students heading off to Oxford and Cambridge, two universities that have long enjoyed dominance at the top of university league tables.

But then came a bombshell.

Oxford and Cambridge pushed out of top three UK universities for first time.

Heaven forfend, what have we come to?

The The ancient universities languishing behind the likes of recent upstarts such as Durham and St Andrews?

Never mind that the top place was taken by the London School of Economics.

Whatever would Sir Humphrey say?

Before we get carried away, this was only the case in one of the rankings, the Times and Sunday Times Good University Guide.

The other high-profile rankings, the Guardians and the Complete University Guide, both had Oxford and Cambridge in their top three.

So why did they drop in one table, but not the other two?

How do these rankings work?

Should we even be paying attention to these rankings and changes within them in the first place?

To find out the answers, I spoke to David Kernahan.

He's deputy editor at Wonkey, which is not a type of donkey, but an online news and analysis site for higher education policy.

I started by asking David whether these league tables are all the same or whether they differ.

They are all trying to do the same thing, which is to illustrate which ones they think are the best universities and which are the not so good universities.

But in an important way, they are all different.

They draw on similar data, but they make particular choices and they use particular weightings, which means that we have three different rankings every year rather than one.

So a particular league table might place more important on research or on student satisfaction or on entry requirements or on anything else.

So what were the Times thinking when

they didn't put Oxford or Cambridge in the top three?

You're attributing there a lot of intention, a lot of conscious thought to the Times ranking.

It is not like if you go to a league table steering group meeting and full disclosure, I should mention I'm on the steering group of the Guardian League table.

It's not a matter that we just sit there with a whiteboard and we think, okay, who's going to be top this year?

It is all determined by the numbers and the way they are weighted so one of the issues that cambridge and oxford have historically had is

their national students survey results they tend not to do especially well on these and you can see that in the fine detail of the times table you've got cambridge uh giving a percentage mark of 75.7 percent oxford giving a percentage mark of seventy three point four percent which is a lot lot lower than the kind of early to mid-80s rankings in the rest of the top 10.

So I would say that that was absolutely going to be something that would be causing problems in this particular ranking.

And the other two main rankings did have Oxford and Cambridge in the top three.

So why did they reach a different conclusion?

What was it about the weighting or the rankings that led them in a different direction?

So the Times is probably the lead table that you'd expect to produce this kind of result because it offers a lot more of the total mark.

It's just under a third, in fact, to stuff that comes from the National Student Survey.

They've got one on student satisfaction, they've got one on teaching quality.

That's substantially higher than the other two main lead tables.

It's about 20% from the National Student Survey in The Guardian, about 19%

on the complete university guide ranking.

The thing that really lets Oxford and Cambridge down is their student experience figures.

Now, some might think that student experience is measuring the vibe, were the sports facilities impressive, was the nightlife lively, was being at university fun.

Actually, the student experience questions are about things such as IT resources, the library, whether feedback is listened to, and what you thought of how your student union represents you.

you.

Oxford and Cambridge do particularly badly on the question about student unions.

And it's not clear what that really tells us, since a lot of activity that in most universities would be organised by a central student union in Oxford and Cambridge is organised college by college by decentralised student organisations.

These metrics though, the underlying data that are being fed into these rankings, I mean should we trust them?

Is it good data?

I would say in the main yeah.

The underlying data is pretty much all official stats.

So it's got the seal of approval of the Office for the Statistical Regulator.

It is done to the highest possible public data standards.

A lot of them use data from the National Student Survey, which is a survey conducted every year of students in their third year of undergraduate study.

It is a serious population-level survey with a response rate of around seventy percent, which is quite outstanding as these things go.

Seventy percent is an extraordinarily good response rate, although we have heard of a university department that encourages replies by offering vouchers if enough students fill in the survey.

Although they're not influencing what answers are given.

I'm curious as to how seriously you feel we should take the rankings overall.

I mean, one thing that springs out is that they they've got a lot of of latitude to pick and choose.

And they know that if, for example, they weight financial resources and the staff-student ratio heavily, that's going to favour places such as Oxford and Cambridge.

If they weight student satisfaction heavily, that's going to favour different places.

So are we basically just measuring the preferences and prejudices of the committees that are putting together these rankings in the first place?

No, not really.

As much as I'd love to be the person that blows the lid off the university rankings scam, there's not really one.

It is just people deciding what they particularly value in a university and then running the numbers.

There's never any particular attempt, as far as I can see,

to ensure that a particular kind of university ranks highly or a particular kind of university ranks not so well.

Our thanks to David Kernahan from Wonki.

That's all we have time for this week.

But please keep your questions and comments coming in to more or less at bbc.co.uk.

Our most recent Saturday podcast was about missing data in the United States.

If you want to listen to that, just search BBC Sounds for more or less behind the stats.

We will be back next week, and until then...

Goodbye.

More or less was presented by me, Tim Harford.

The producer was Tom Coles with Nathan Gower and Lizzie McNeil.

The production coordinator was Maria Ugundali.

The programme was recorded and mixed by Gareth Jones, and our editor is Richard Varden.

Hello, I'm Amol Rajan and from BBC Radio 4, this is Radical.

We are living through one of those hinge moments in history when all the old certainties crumble and a new world struggles to be born.

So the idea behind this podcast is to help you navigate it.

What's really changed is the volume of information that has exploded.

And also by offering a safe space for the radical ideas that our future demands.

Go to the chancellor and say, radically, cut the taxes of those with children.

Telling our stories is powerful and a radical act.

Listen to Radical with Amo Rajan on BBC Sounds.

With markets changing and living costs rising, finding a reliable place to grow your money matters now more than ever.

With the WealthFront Cash Account, your uninvested money earns a 3.75% APY, which is higher than the average savings rate.

There are no account fees or minimums, and you also get free instant withdrawals to eligible accounts 24-7.

So you always have access to your money when you need it.

And when you're ready to invest, you can transfer your cash to one of WealthFront's expert-built portfolios in just minutes.

More than 1 million people already use Wealthfront to save and build long-term wealth with confidence.

Get started today at Wealthfront.com.

Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC, member FINRA SIPC.

Wealthfront Brokerage is not a bank.

Annual percentage yield on deposits as of September 26th, 2025 is representative, subject to change, and requires no minimum.

The cash account is not a bank account.

Funds are swept to program banks where they earn the variable APY.

Make money predict in football?

Now you can nationwide with CalSHI.

Calci is the only platform that lets you legally trade on real-world events in all 50 states, from football to Bitcoin, the Oscars, and even politics.

If it matters, you can trade on it.

Trade on who wins each game, props, spread, and more.

Legally, nationwide.

Don't miss your shot.

Download the Cal Shi app or go to kalshi.com.

Use code PODCAST and get $10 when you trade 100.

This is an investment that carries risk.

Calci.com.