Trump and Putin: Is this Treason?

After the American Century

Since starting his second term as President, Mr. Trump has given little support to Ukraine - far less than either Denmark or Sweden or Britain. He has pretended to seek a negotiated peace, but his negotiators have spent more time talking with Russia than with Ukraine. Mr. Trump has even adopted Russian talking points.

All that has been clear for some time. Now, however, Mr. Trump has openly taken sides, choosing to break the sanctions imposed by the US Congress, and support Russia economically. He has also chosen to buy diesel fuel from Russia. 

One wonders at the timing of this decision. It is two weeks before the midterm elections. Most Americans do not support Putin. It is difficult to see this as a way to garner more votes for the Republicans. The more logical explanation is that Trump would like to provoke protests so he can send in troops to quell the unrest and then try to stop the elections from being held at all. But there may not be any rational explanation.

Meanwhile, Putin is supporting the Iranians against the US in its war with Iran. Russia has engaged in repeated hydrid war attacks on the United States and its European allies. Making a deal withMoscow right now looks a lot like treason. He is giving aid and comfort to Russia. The Constitution states the following:

Article III

Section 3, Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Is Trump giving "aid and comfort" to Russia? I leave the reader to ponder this issue, and suggest the following two readings.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies concluded in 2025 that
"Russia is engaged in an aggressive campaign of subversion and sabotage against European and U.S. targets, which complement Russia’s brutal conventional war in Ukraine. The number of Russian attacks in Europe nearly tripled between 2023 and 2024, after quadrupling between 2022 and 2023."

NATO declared in September, 2025, "Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 have fundamentally changed the security environment in Europe, and its hostile actions towards NATO members and partners – including airspace violations, cyber attacks and acts of sabotage – are increasing in frequency. NATO has responded by significantly strengthening its readiness to protect and defend all Allies"

There are many other sources one might cite, but Russia would seem to be an enemy. 

First through inaction and now through treachery, Trump has ensured the deaths of thousands of Ukrainians, many of them women and children. He now has threatened the peace of Europe and on his biography he has written his name in blood.

What next for Snowden in the limbo of Moscow? Asylum or disapperance?

After the American Century                                                                                                                   

What will happen to Mr. Snowden, still  in  Moscow?

One possibility is that he retains one or two big revelations as bargaining chips, in hopes that he can use them to gain a safe harbor. Moscow does not seem to be exactly that sort of place, given the treatment of journalists there, and the continuance of the Tsarist tradition of sending critics to prison. Putin-land is surely not the ideal location for a whistle blower. He might want to trade secrets for security in Russia, but other nations could be interested, depending on what he might have.

South American destinations have been in the news, more likely Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru or Bolivia than Chile, Argentina, or Brazil. Considering these possibilities underlines the nature of the problem. A large and important country is not likely to burden itself with the difficulty of entertaining Mr. Snowden. A small country probably would not likely think the risk had any payoff. Only a small to medium-sized nation that is somewhat independent of the US, probably with a left-leaning government (Venezuela comes to mind), is a likely safe haven.  Back in the Cold War, there were a few nations in Europe that might have been possible. Yugoslavia would have been ideal and Finland or even Sweden might then have been possible.

Assume, for the moment, that Mr. Snowden does find permanent asylum. Then what? He will  be a fish out of water. He will need to learn the language and the culture. He will need a job, perhaps not a difficulty since he has real computer skills. He presumably will also need protection. Soon, his knowledge of US National Security will be out-of-date and of no interest to any foreign power. He will then be of only symbolic value to the host nation, someone that they can point to as proof that they are tolerant, freedom-loving, and critical of Uncle Sam. 

Presumably Snowden hoped for more when he decided to give up his well-paying job in Hawaii and become a whistle-blower. Surely he imagined that the revelations he brought would be so shocking that major powers would come to his rescue. Perhaps they are, albeit behind the scenes. One could imagine that Germany or France might quietly prefer to have a chance to talk with him. (Since writing this he has met with the Germans.) But if so, this is all likely behind thick veils of secrecy. 

Snowden might have expected a groundswell of popular support, which in part has materialized both inside the US and abroad. The US officially wants him captured and brought back to stand trial, but does Obama really want such a media circus? A trial would delight the Republicans and erode the unity of the Democratic Party, because those on the left would tend to see Snowden as a martyr. Indeed, the best thing for Obama might be to have Snowden end up in some banana republic where he could be depicted as a fugitive from justice, and where he could then gradually fade from public attention. 

Following this line of thought, it is perhaps not entirely disagreeable to Obama to have Snowden malingering in Moscow. Where are the Russian whistle-blowers, after all, but in prisons? Snowden without assistance can neither escape nor fade conveniently away. But the latter is actually what Putin and perhaps Obama might eventually prefer. Give the man a facelift, new identity, exile, and anonymity. If he disappears without a trace, he would have little incentive to reappear on the world stage.

Snowden's disappearance would not be justice, and it would would not reconcile the massive security he uncovered with the ideals of democracy. But it has a certain noir elegance worthy of a novel.