In a world increasingly marked by complex and protracted conflicts, the role of peacemakers has come sharply into focus. From global leaders and international organizations to grassroots activists and local mediators, the pursuit of peace is a relentless, multifaceted endeavor—one that has become more urgent as crises escalate from Eastern Europe to the Middle East and beyond.
Recent reporting by Info Petite Nation, ABC News, and Arab News paints a vivid picture of both the necessity and the immense challenges of peacemaking in 2025. Whether it’s the ongoing war in Ukraine, the entrenched violence in Gaza, or Lebanon’s struggle to reclaim its sovereignty over decisions of war and peace, the efforts of peacemakers are proving as vital as ever.
According to Info Petite Nation, peacemakers serve as the linchpins in mediating disputes, facilitating dialogue, and promoting understanding among warring parties. Their work is essential in preventing the escalation of violence and fostering reconciliation. The article highlights the recent involvement of international bodies like the United Nations and the European Union in mediating the Eastern European crisis, as well as the ongoing diplomatic initiatives aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But it’s not just the big players—grassroots movements across the globe are stepping up, with local peacemakers working directly within communities to address grievances and build sustainable peace from the ground up.
The challenges, however, are daunting. Mistrust, unmet conditions for peace, and external pressures often complicate negotiations. In places like Myanmar and Ethiopia, deep-seated internal divisions and outside influence have repeatedly derailed progress. Yet, as Info Petite Nation notes, the landscape is also evolving: digital platforms and social media now offer new avenues for dialogue and amplify the voices of those advocating for peace. Still, the core principles—empathy, active listening, and a steadfast commitment to finding common ground—remain unchanged.
ABC News, in a detailed analysis published on August 17, 2025, delves into the mechanics of ending wars, using the Israel-Gaza conflict and the Russia-Ukraine war as case studies. The article underscores that peacemaking is anything but straightforward. The Korean War armistice, for example, took more than 150 meetings over two years to achieve, while the Western Sahara conflict has dragged on since the 1970s with no end in sight.
Paul Dziatkowiec, director of mediation and peace support at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, told ABC News that mediators must be trusted and, ideally, impartial. “You see the US president trying to play this kind of role, pushing and prodding and using sanctions and economic incentives to try to force a result,” Dziatkowiec explained, referencing Donald Trump’s recent mediation efforts. Yet, as he points out, peace talks are “highly technical” and “incredibly difficult,” often requiring mediators to keep tempers in check behind closed doors, where “people insult each other and swear at each other.”
What drives these conflicts, Dziatkowiec says, often boils down to basic human needs and fears—security, respect, economic opportunity, and dignity. These are the levers mediators must work with. But compromise is key, as Dr. Damien Kingsbury, professor emeritus of politics and security at Deakin, told ABC News. “If you come out with a 50-50 compromise, you end up with only half of what you want. But it’s half of something, rather than 100 percent of nothing.” Kingsbury’s experience with the 2005 Aceh peace talks—where both sides were locked in a “hurting stalemate” after decades of brutal conflict—demonstrates that a willingness to negotiate, often spurred by external shocks like natural disasters, is critical to breaking deadlock.
But peace talks can also fail spectacularly. Without political will from the top, as seen in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, negotiations stall. Spoilers—be they rogue commanders, terrorist groups, or even factions within negotiating parties—can derail progress by undermining agreements or launching new offensives. When official diplomacy falters, “private diplomacy” often takes over: secret talks with actors governments might not want to be seen engaging, in hopes of finding creative entry points and building trust, Dziatkowiec explained.
External actors have always played outsized roles in peace processes. Henry Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy” in the Middle East after the 1973 Arab-Israel war is a case in point. Today, the US, Türkiye, Gulf states, and potentially China are all attempting to mediate between Russia and Ukraine, each bringing unique strengths to the table. Dziatkowiec notes that China, in particular, could wield significant influence over Russia should it choose to do so. But there are concerns about the Trump administration’s approach, especially the use of tight ceasefire deadlines. “Tight deadlines rarely bring lasting breakthroughs in these situations,” Dziatkowiec warns. Sustained commitment, not quick fixes, is what’s needed.
Meanwhile, in Lebanon, the struggle for control over decisions of war and peace has reached a pivotal moment. In an interview with Arab News on August 17, 2025, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam declared, “These decisions are now being taken in Beirut, at cabinet, not anywhere else. No one is making dictates to us, not from Tehran or Washington.” Salam emphasized the right to protest but condemned the blocking of main roads, especially those leading to critical infrastructure like Beirut’s only operational airport. He acknowledged that while the government is united, not all 24 cabinet ministers agree on every issue—disputes are resolved by vote and constitutional measures.
Salam discussed the government’s recent adoption of a “Lebanonized” version of a peace proposal presented by US special envoy Tom Barrack. This proposal, which received input from the President and parliament Speaker, includes goals such as an immediate end to hostilities, complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territories, the return of displaced persons, the release of Lebanese detainees, reconstruction, and an international donor conference. “No one is opposed to the first article on ending the hostilities immediately. No one is opposed to the complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territories. No one is opposed to the return of the displaced people to their villages in the South,” Salam stated. He challenged critics to identify any point of genuine opposition, arguing that the uproar is more about Lebanon’s shifting position in the regional balance of power than the content of the proposals themselves.
Salam made it clear that Lebanon’s decisions are no longer subject to external influence, referencing past claims about Tehran’s sway over Arab capitals. “I believe that that time is over. Lebanon’s decisions are being taken from Beirut, at cabinet, not anywhere else. No one dictates to us what to do; not from Tehran or Washington.” He also addressed relations with Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, expressing a desire for balanced, mutually respectful ties based on non-interference. On internal affairs, Salam highlighted the government’s ongoing war on corruption and the need for reforms to rebuild the country.
Through all these stories runs a common thread: peacemaking is an arduous, often thankless task that demands patience, creativity, and unwavering commitment. Whether at the highest levels of international diplomacy or in the heart of local communities, peacemakers remain indispensable to the hope of a more peaceful future.
