This is the very definition of treason. What you’re talking about is messing with words. The bare fact is that musk betrayed the trust you could have with him or any business he has any power into.
In brief, it may not be a legal crime in your country, but it is the very definition of betrayal. He acted against the interests of nato and in favour of an enemy of nato. You can hardly deny that, but the law and this scumbag are about technicalities, not morale or justice.
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.
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.
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.
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
This is the very definition of treason. What you’re talking about is messing with words. The bare fact is that musk betrayed the trust you could have with him or any business he has any power into.
In brief, it may not be a legal crime in your country, but it is the very definition of betrayal. He acted against the interests of nato and in favour of an enemy of nato. You can hardly deny that, but the law and this scumbag are about technicalities, not morale or justice.
Treason =/= betrayal.
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.
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.
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.
You just wrote that treason is betrayal in a specific case.
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