I suppose it would come down to how one defines "treason." It would also necessitate defining the interests of these dictators, as well as the interests of the United States.
One thing that I try to keep in mind is that a lot of these dictators and other rogue nations turned out that way because they (for whatever reason) felt the need to defend against imperialism and/or aggression from either the US or countries which are aligned with the US. In a sense, pursuing US national interests over the years has created these situations where we've gotten into bed with some rather unsavory characters associated with unsavory regimes.
Still, if a US president wants to reach out the hand of friendship to former adversaries, I can't see this as an act of treason. Treason involves making war against the United States, but if one is working for peace, that's the opposite of war. (I don't know that Trump is actually working for peace, but I also don't know if he's really in bed with the Russians either.)
If you're talking about "national interests," then that's a can of worms which can be defined and spun in all kinds of directions.
Personally, I try to think outside the box when it comes to foreign policy.
When it comes to foreign interference in the electoral process, that's an issue we'll have to face as a country, as we try to straddle a line between xenophobia/isolation and the openness and globalism that so many have embraced in recent decades. If we really didn't want foreigners to influence America, we would have kept them off our internet and off our airwaves. But it can also be argued that the benefit of having an open society outweighs the risk.
As for our foreign policy overall, I think we need to be a bit more forward-thinking in our perspective on the world, yet so many of our policies tend to reflect Cold War era thinking which may be outdated in today's world. With all the scare-talk about the evil Russians, it's like it's the 1950s all over again. (What always floors me about this is that I encounter so many people, whose only study of Russia amounts to a pamphlet written by Joe McCarthy, think that they're somehow experts in "how Russians think" and what their "true agenda" is. Even if they've never even met a Russian in their lives.)
On a more practical level, I think Trump is making a serious mistake by alienating some of our Latin American neighbors. I think it would be in our better interests to forge stronger ties within our own hemisphere. That would be more practical from a logistical standpoint. We are vulnerable on that front, especially if the Russians and/or Chinese form more satellites in the region due to our own policies which appear unfriendly.
China appears to be more malignant in recent years, but if that's the case, then we will likely need the Russians on our side in the event of any confrontation with China. Despite whatever misgivings we may have about Putin and his regime, I think it's in our better interests to forge better ties with Russia. We need them as an ally, for the sake of US interests. Similarly, when it comes to dealing with countries like Iran or other troubles in that region of the world, we'd be far better off working with the Russians rather than against them.
That would be for our interests, not necessarily their interests - although there would undoubtedly be mutual benefit.
I don't know to what degree they influenced or interfered in the election, although it's an even greater risk when it comes from domestic sources. There's all kinds of shenanigans and corruption associated with the electoral process, so if this whole thing gets the powers that be to get to work and clean up the system and shore up our vulnerabilities on the technical front, then I would see that as a step in the right direction.
But it's too late to unspill the milk, so it's best to just move forward.
