You can only commit treason against your own country, or at most against a coalition of allied forces. Since Ukraine is not a NATO member, he couldn't commit an act of treason against the NATO either (if that's even a thing), since the NATO has not formally allied with Ukraine either. They have sanctioned Russia and condemned the war, but have not openly declared Russia an enemy.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You see, that's exactly the technicalities I'm talking about. Nato is allied to Ukraine. They sent so much stuff, they are training their soldiers, they are providing real time intelligence and secret services are all in on this. They're not participating directly in the war, but they definitely are allies and it's hypocritical to deny it.

I don't know the difference in English between betrayal and treason though. But I'm pretty sure it'll be technicalities too.

[–] Surdon@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, the differences between most words are "technicalities," but that doesn't make them meaningless. It is the technicalities and nuance that makes them useful. Treason is an act of betraying or undermining a state that you belong to, and is not necessarily morally right nor wrong- but obviously extremely negative from the states perspective.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You just wrote that treason is betrayal in a specific case.

[–] Surdon@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Of course it is. Treason is a specific type of betrayal- a subset of betrayals if you will. That's why there is nuance- they aren't the same thing, because treason is more specific and doesn't apply in this case