The decision by President Donald Trump to initiate peace talks with Russia and Ukraine has raised hopes that the brutal war may at last come to an end after more than three bloody years of fighting. Unfortunately, the main result so far has been frustration for those hoping that Trump’s interventi on would bring a quick resolution to the conflict. The fact that the U.S. president, as usual, has broadcast, indeed trumpeted, his activities in the global media on a constant basis, has both raised expectations among a portion of the global public and made the stalling of direct Russia-U.S. talks that much more dramatic. There are extremely good reasons why the best diplomacy, especially regarding war and other high-stakes conflicts, is invariably conducted in private. President Richard Nixon and his equally Machiavellian agent Henry Kissinger were masters of this ancient art, and achieved significant results. Reasonable observers may differ regarding the way the U.S. military’s departure from Vietnam was handled. Those who condemn should keep in mind that the communist revolutionaries were extraordinarily determined and fanatical in the sacrifices they would accept. Undeniable is that the approach of that administration gave our South Vietnam allies a fighting chance to survive after U.S. forces were completely removed, and avoided the humiliation of a rapid abandonment of our ally early in Nixon’s administration. Additionally, the diplomatic opening to China that Nixon and Kissinger achieved in 1972 greatly mitigated the political costs of our eventual strategic defeat in Vietnam, and opened the door to dialogue that remains extremely important in the current era of tensions between Beijing and Washington. The SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties) with the Soviet Union, also reached in 1972, further advanced international stability. Economic trade and investment spanning the Pacific provide powerful incentives for cooperation, mitigating tensions from China’s steady expansion as a regional and now global military power. In consequence, war between China and the U.S. has been, and remains, relatively unlikely. Regarding the horrors of war, the limited nature of the war in Ukraine can easily undermine awareness of the extraordinarily dangerous nature of war in east and southeast Europe. Both the First and the Second World Wars in Europe began there. In 1914, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian empire in Sarajevo by a Serbian nationalist sparked general mobilization in Europe.. Four years of the First World War followed. The unprecedented bloodbath led to the Russian Revolution, and the establishment of the Soviet Union, the first communist power. In September 1939, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union jointly invaded Poland, touching off the Second World War in Europe. That global conflict lasted six years in Europe and the wider Atlantic region, cost an estimated 55 million lives and continues to reverberate. In 2014, Russia seized Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Crimea was part of Russia until Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred the peninsula to Ukraine in 1954. Ukraine became independent from Moscow following the Russian Revolution. After the Second World War, the Soviet Union absorbed the nation. Independence followed the Soviet collapse. A principal lesson of this history is that limited war in this region can easily lead to general war involving the major powers. Nuclear weapons raise the stakes of war vastly higher. President Trump is to be commended for seeking peace in Ukraine, but success will depend on adopting disciplined, nonpublic traditional diplomacy that, so far, he has rejected. President Nixon and associates provide instructive lessons in success Arthur I. Cyr is author of “After the Cold War.” Contact acyr@carthage.edu ...read more read less