Most economists would hold that in free market economics there is no room for moral statements. Betrayal, therefore, is left out of most standard text book economics courses. However, more advanced courses that include strategies based on so-called “game theory”, where actors may breach prior commitments, betrayal has entered economic science. A “tit-for-tat” strategy is frequently the best “game-theoretic” solution to such strategic behavior to deter also repetition of defecting on agreed rules or bargaining outcomes. For real world applications beyond the simple strategic advice, the maths involved are quite challenging. We’ll check soon, how AI is changing that game.
Another popular economic theory is one of “gift exchange”. You gift a sum of money (or weapons for self-defense to a country) with no explicit consent that the money should be repaid (through rare earths) in peace time. A betrayal occurs, if a country suddenly asks things in return for the previous gifts. For politicians that understand themselves as “market marker” and “deal maker”, there will be a tendency to claim back a gift in order to come to some kind of gift exchange rather than an altruistic donation.
William A. Galston wrote in the WSJ (2025-2-26) naming the US political action of the 2nd Trump administration a “betrayal of Ukraine and American values”.
If free markets mean making ruthless use of “tit for no possible tat” and “gifts are always a gift exchange”, we move back to mercantile and medieval practices, where settles could claim land at gun point.
What way out of this? Adam Smith, champion of classical economics, wrote before his famous book on “The Wealth of Nations” a lesser known, precursor book on “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”. Actually, he was convinced that the one would not work without the other.
Maybe, going back to classical economics is much better than a Trump administration version of neo-classical economics in a new era of political economy 3.0. 
EU Georgia
It is a moving image to see a hundred demonstrators at „Unter den Linden“ in Berlin just next to the Russian Embassy. The Georgian flag and Georgian people actively seek the association with the European Union and the values it stands for. Irrespective of a large majority of the people of Georgia‘s wish to become part of the EU they have to fight hard to be heard. Next to the Ukranian protests in Berlin it becomes very evident that these two nations fight for living standards and values which are so „self-evident“ for us European citizens that it is all to easy to forget about our neighbors who have to endure hardships with uncertain outcomes. The experience of having lived together under one roof with people from other countries allows to realize that we have so much more in common than what separates us. Our house and home of the EU has much to offer, more than we tend to believe in our daily routine. 
Conducter Careers
The careers of conductors during the 1930s and 1940s have been propelled by joining the NSDAP on Germany. Even if not too outspoken as conductors on Nazi discriminatory policies many openings arose only due to banning Jewish conductors and musicians from performing in public. The acceptance of vacancies due to such restrictions advanced the careers of Karl Böhm as well as Herbert von Karajan. A theatre play Böhm at the Deutsches Theater in Berlin takes up this topic and puts the professional career in perspective of an anti-humanist leadership style. Karajan has also come into critic, because of his role in selecting musicians who were conform to the prevailing Nazi-antisemitism. It is important to work on these biographies and their implications for hundreds of lives of other musicians. Many careers have been destroyed due to these two prominent conductors ready to do almost anything to advance their careers. It puts their interpretation of music in a different light knowing about their instrumentalist approach to music, their own careers and the disrespectful Nazi doctrines. Image New Berlin Philharmonic, View from Kunstgewerbemuseum 2020. 
Corrupt-2
New scientific evidence on corruption and stereotypes about corruption reveals surprising behavioural responses. Social psychologist classified corruption as a behavioural trait of a person. The new evidence of a study that includes country-specific stereotypes into a corruption experiment shows there are always two sides to consider: the corrupted as well as the corrupting person. Both hold stereotypes about the likelihood another person (from a specific country background) is likely to accept a bribe.
Using a widely accepted index from Transparency International on corruption in countries the experiment uses real payouts to test the probability that a person from country X is trying to bribe a person from country Y. Rather than a personal trait, the study finds that many persons become “conditionally corrupt”. This describes the behaviour to offer a bribe to a person occurs more often if you believe the probability that the person accepts corruption is high. Dorrough, Köbis et al. (Link publication) is cited in “nautilus” explaining this by, quote, “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”. Additionally, the stereotypes on corruption prevalence leads people to act more on what they believe is common practice rather than what is the basic legal or ethical standard.
From behavioural ethics we know the urge of people to find justifications for their unethical behaviour to themselves or to others. This is called “justified ethicality”.
Following this rationale, it will be easier to accept a bribe, if the person originates from a high reputation of corruption. In order to correct for such bias due to stereotypes it is important to pursue corruption vigorously and, just as important, communicate a lot about this behavioural change so that stereotypes begin to change in the mindsets of other persons as well. There are many ways to Rome and some turn out to be quite long. 