Complicity in what, exactly? Democracy? Personally I'm less concerned about Facebook staying neutral in 2016 and more concerned about their election sabotage in 2020:
I don't have a duty of care to every corrupt foreign country with complex, long-running border disputes and interests orthogonal to my own. Does that answer your pointed question?
You can tell Russia whatever you want, but you can't threaten the existence of the Russian state with American military might backed by the credible threat of nuclear weapons. That has a significant chance of provoking a nuclear Russian response.
For a foreign head of state in the White House on a state visit sitting next to the President in front of cameras, you mean? Or did you mean someone else in an entirely different context?
The first Trump administration lifted Obama's ban on lethal aid to Ukraine and supplied and trained Ukrainians on Javelin anti-tank missiles, night vision devices, counter-battery fire radar systems, and secure battlefield communications equipment among other things. The proposition that Trump is an appeaser does not bear scrutiny. Neither does the speculation that Russia might be capable of or interested in a wider war with Europe, let alone the USA.
Calling the recently-elected Vice President of the United States "bitch" in Russian, on camera, in the White House, was probably not the right way to appeal to the American people.
You're right, he won 49.7% of the popular vote compared to Kamala Harris' 48.4%. Many states like Arizona and California took weeks to finish counting and I had not checked the final numbers.
If you're curious how most Americans feel now, you can read about Trump's approval ratings here; currently his poll results are net-favorable:
You don't speak for all or even most Americans. A majority of US voters selected Donald Trump as their President. I'm pleased with the President's pushback on the disrespectful, high-pressure bargaining tactics Zelensky tried to use today in front of the press at the White House.