If some foreign regime doesn't stand squarely with the United States with respect to the Ukrainian conflict, it is considered an enemy and will likely be hit with a strong case of economic sanctions. Just ask China.

It's no different, of course, with American citizens. Everyone is expected to fall into line. Those who don't are considered to be unpatriotic or, even worse, traitors. The New York Times points out this phenomenon in an op-ed today entitled "The Friend of Our Enemy Is Not a 'Traitor'" by Peter Beinhart. The article gives examples of how former Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard and Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson are being called traitors or Putin lovers for challenging or questioning U.S. foreign policy.

It was no different during the Cold War. Pentagon and CIA officials maintained that there was no room for friendship with the Soviet Union or even neutrality. They considered the Cold War to be a very real war to the finish, one in which there was going to be a winner and a loser. 

Anyone who didn't stand squarely with the United States was considered a wartime enemy and would be dealt with accordingly.

The democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, discovered what this meant. After being elected, he announced that he had no interest in siding with the United States in its Cold War against Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union. But he went further than neutrality. He actually established peaceful and friendly relations with the communist world.