I was asking the question in the context of my comparison with the cold war era. Doing business with Russia then wouldn't have been called just “doing business” either, especially if it happened in support of practices diametrically opposed to our own professed values like Democracy and Freedom.

How much of a sellout or a cynic do you have to be to call betraying those values for money merely “doing business”?

(edit: added last sentence)

Even during the cold war, Americans did business with Russia. No large computers or munitions, but Americans still ate Russian caviar. There was this call to boycott it at the same time as the Moscow olympics, but I don't think anyone called it "treason". https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1980/01/31/...

Nobody was actively participating in oppressing the russian population during the cold war. This attempt to dance around the issue is transparent.

The post you replied to is a direct answer to claims about trade between the US and Russia during the cold war.

The post I replied to is making false equivalence comparisons. There's nothing subtle about the issue being circumvented.

The equivalence comparison wasn't made by the post you replied to, but by it's parent.

> Even during the cold war, Americans did business with Russia

ie A false equivalence.

Me selling flags to Russians is doing business. That has nothing to do with the issue of what constitutes or can be construed as Treason which is certain kinds of business that ally against national interests.

When the United States have to choose between their professed values like Democracy and Freedom, and economical benefits in the US, what do you think took preference?

Spoiler: US-backed military leaders and dictators weren't pushed to power because they promised to support those values. US companies profited of that, and by that, the US economy.