<h1>Legal questions over presidential claim of ending cross-border war via trade threats, attribution, coercion, and prize credibility</h1> The US President publicly claimed credit for ending a cross-border conflict between two nuclear-armed countries by threatening trade sanctions and repeatedly asserted eligibility for the Nobel Peace Prize; he also predicted resolving other conflicts. These statements contrast with the official position of one of the states that attributes the ceasefire to direct military-to-military talks between senior officers. Legally, the dispute raises issues about attribution of diplomatic outcomes, the role and limits of unilateral economic coercion in international relations, and potential reputational or evidentiary conflicts if prize committees or states assess factual claims.