I came here to post this after reading the article. These clickbaity headlines using ill-conceived methodologies are going to doom us all to the pits of misinformation.

There are notable ceasefires still in effect in the middle east, eastern europe, and asia that have been going on for years (if not tens of years).

Of course, ceasefires, like medication for a psychological illness, are merely a treatment of symptoms and not a cure for the cause. But they do create stable living conditions for the civilians in an area.

And, perhaps equally as importantly, they open up the opportunity for diplomacy to find that cure that will lead to a longer, more lasting peace.

I just want to point out that I'm living in a country (Israel) that has ceasefires lasting tens of years (with Syria for example) even when the other region is in internal conflict.

I'm not saying ceasefires are great but there are plenty of examples where ceasefire treaties have ended wars. The dataset is extremely skewed.

Although we might refer to the 1953 agreement between North & South Korea as an Armistice (and North Korea claims to have invalidated that in 2013), it is really just a

_glorified ceasefire with a Nuclear Power!_

So I hope that one works..

> Israel is the last example I would use for successful cease fires

Because some of Israel's ceasefires have not been successful the successful ones shouldn't be used as examples of successful ceasefires? I'm not sure I follow the logic there....

Agreed 100%, and I'd go even further: Even the most honest attempt at finding "failed ceasefires" seems likely to over-emphasize ceasefires followed by offensive campaigns.

Ceasefires that become formal armistices that become peace treaties generally don't continue to be referred to as "ceasefires", for a start..

And those which do end, of course, generally end in an offensive, otherwise they wouldn't be worth ending. The question is whether that offensive would have been impossible without the ceasefire.

Basically, this work shows that if you're involved in a ceasefire, you had better not stop digging holes and filling sandbags in the interim.

How much are you increasing the odds of it failing by digging those trenches? (Or are you decreasing the odds? Both seem possible to me.)

So, my perspective comes from over a decade fighting wars as an infantry soldier, so you'll have to keep in mind that my perspective is one-sided. I think that the success of a ceasefire depends on the people sent to the round table, not the people on the battlefield. And the failure of a ceasefire depends on the people on the battlefield, not the people sent to the round table. This is an oversimplification, but I think you won't be provoking ceasefire failure by continuing to build out your defenses and digging in to hold the ground you have. Or preparing for defense in depth, or whatever. Maybe the terms of the ceasefire would have some special rules which make diplomats happy, but I think to every man on the ground with a gun, a ceasefire only means literally to cease fire, and you should not expect anything else. Clearly, from the numbers presented here, one should be prepared for the near certainty that if the ceasefire fails there will be an attack. It sounds reasonable to me to continue digging in while the ceasefire takes place. And certainly, as an infantry veteran, I fully expect the enemy to be making similar defensive preparations, as well, and planning for the tactical situation on the battlefield to reflect those kinds of changes upon the resumption of hostilities. The infantryman's motto: "Hope for the best, plan for the worst".

> I think that the success of a ceasefire depends on the people sent to the round table, not the people on the battlefield. And the failure of a ceasefire depends on the people on the battlefield, not the people sent to the round table.

This makes a lot of sense.

I think decreasing the odds. The more "expensive" it is to attack you the more likely the ceasefire will hold.

Extremely good defense stops wars before they start.

Wow. I mean no offense to you when I say this, but I really thought that you had to be taking that out of context in some way.

What on earth was the author of this article thinking?

105 failed ceasefires, and one that worked, is still one that worked. We shouldn't judge the concept on the basis of average successes or failures. Just because something doesn't work 90% of the time doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Stopping a war is something you try again and again no matter the odds.

To think, all the author has to do is add "These " to the front of the title.