Analysis: Russia Prepares To Seize Western Firms Looking To Leave (reuters.com) 191
"Russia is advancing a new law allowing it to take control of the local businesses of western companies that decide to leave in the wake of Moscow's invasion of Ukraine," reports Reuters, "raising the stakes for multinationals trying to exit."
The law, which could be in place within weeks, will give Russia sweeping powers to intervene where there is a threat to local jobs or industry, making it more difficult for western companies to disentangle themselves quickly unless they are prepared to take a big financial hit. The law to seize the property of foreign investors follows an exodus of western companies, such as Starbucks, McDonald's and brewer AB InBev, and increases pressure on those still there.
It comes as the Russian economy, increasingly cut-off due to western sanctions, plunges into recession amid double-digit inflation.... The bill paves the way for Russia to appoint administrators over companies owned by foreigners in "unfriendly" countries, who want to quit Russia as the conflict with Ukraine drags down its economy. Moscow typically refers to countries as "unfriendly" if they have imposed economic sanctions on Russia, meaning any firms in the European Union or United States are at risk.
The European Commission proposed toughening its own stance on Wednesday to make breaking EU sanctions against Russia a crime, allowing EU governments to confiscate assets of companies and individuals that evade restrictions against Moscow.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for submitting the story.
It comes as the Russian economy, increasingly cut-off due to western sanctions, plunges into recession amid double-digit inflation.... The bill paves the way for Russia to appoint administrators over companies owned by foreigners in "unfriendly" countries, who want to quit Russia as the conflict with Ukraine drags down its economy. Moscow typically refers to countries as "unfriendly" if they have imposed economic sanctions on Russia, meaning any firms in the European Union or United States are at risk.
The European Commission proposed toughening its own stance on Wednesday to make breaking EU sanctions against Russia a crime, allowing EU governments to confiscate assets of companies and individuals that evade restrictions against Moscow.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for submitting the story.
They already minimise their tangibles... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They already minimise their tangibles... (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Multinationals have policies to rent rather than buy, hire as many locals as possible but keep senior management "international," etc.. "
That was my thought. I doubt foreign companies own any "land" there and what assets are there that can be seized probably don't matter that much. Further, without mothership support (IT, finance, supply, training, etc, etc) I doubt Russia could continue to operate such businesses in any meaningful way.
Re: (Score:2)
and what assets are there that can be seized probably don't matter that much
It's not insignificant though it can be weathered by pretty much all. Companies with the largest risk tend to have insurance covering this kind of thing.
Companies will be careful to not leave any relevant IP or trade secrets in Russia, but many of those pulling out are taking huge writedowns. Oil companies leading the way with $5bn from Shell, bp even worse with it's $25bn thanks to Rosneft ownership, McDonalds wrote off $1.4bn, Citi $1.5bn, Société Générale $3.3bn, Carlsberg $1.4bn (I d
Re: (Score:2)
>"These companies will live on, but let's not pretend that such financial hits aren't meaningful. "
That is true. Those are still costs, and those costs will be passed onto consumers and investors, so it will still hurt us some. Piled on top of crazy inflation due to endless creation and spending of money we don't have.
I am far more worried about Taiwan...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will sanctions be enough? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No. That's already established. What could work is to cut off Russia's income from oil and gas, but that's probably be too costly for everyone else involved, too.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you deal with countries such as China and India who slurp up all the cheap Russian oil and gas?
And even locally, how long will the population put up with sky high oil prices and the inflation that follows, which will get worse if and when China opens back up.
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand, Chinese or Indian companies that deal with Russians can be sanctioned individually - for example, block their financial transactions, which will add delays and extra costs, making it. On the other hand, having to sell at a low price still hurts Russia's economy. Moreover, anything Russia needs from imports will be more expensive, as any sellers would use the opportunity to squeeze .
Today, Russia is looting Ukraine of wheat, metal and anything they can get their hands on (including people ge
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully, still China and India are big enough that sanctions don't work as well as against smaller entities and Russia is currently making a lot of money on selling gas and oil. Even if they do have to take a 20% price hit, with current prices and I assume cheap to produce gas/oil, Russia is still doing well in some ways.
With luck the sanctions will work, I just can't see it being cut and dry.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they'd love to slurp up that cheap gas, but there are currently no pipes (to speak of) leading that way. You can't just carry gas across the border.
Re: (Score:2)
There's the Trans-Siberian pipeline for gas to China, which is ramping up, https://www.republicworld.com/... [republicworld.com]
India is receiving its first shipment of Russian LNG pretty quick, https://www.india.com/news/age... [india.com]
Both are ramping up receiving Russian oil, https://oilprice.com/Energy/Cr... [oilprice.com]
Re:Will sanctions be enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even the Uvalde PD could take on Putin. He's an old delusional man. His power comes from the people, and these people will give their power to the next Russian madman too. If you want to eliminate the threat, you have to take their power away or make them to use it responsibly. Stop this "head of state bad, people good" nonsense. It's never just the leaders, not in Russia, not in Uvalde, not in Texas, not in the US.
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Will sanctions be enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
His power isn't really from the people. The people could take it away, though unlikely in the current climate. His power comes from controlling the Duma, the oligarchs, and especially the press.
The Russian people are living in an information bubble. Many of them are solidly in the "my country right or wrong" mindset, just like the blowhards in the US, except without the possibility of dissent, protest, or alternative views. Most I think are just in a fantasy world that Putin and his propaganda engineers have created - they truly and honestly believe that Ukraine is being run by nazis, that Zelenskyy is in charge of genocide against Russians there, and this special military operation is a glorious battle for freedom and democracy against a terrible evil. It is ridiculous, but when that is the only story they have heard...
Remember in the US the zealousness to get weapons of mass destruction away from Saddam Hussein? Now imagine that again, but with a single united political party, and anyone arguing against invasion being jailed.
There is also a national Russian personality of cynicism. They may know or strongly suspect that deep down it was Putin who had the FSB blow up apartment buildings so that he could fight the fake terrorists and come to power. But on the other hand the cynic side says that at least crime is down and the economy is up, so they push down and suppress those negative thoughts about the dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
they truly and honestly believe that Ukraine is being run by nazis, that Zelenskyy
Zelensky the jew is leading a nazi nation? I get that that Russians might not have unlimited internet but sorry, once in a while you have to think for yourself. They know Zelensky is jewish. I would pity them were they not behind a brutal and entirely unnecessary invasion that is destroying a country and thousands of its citizens.
Sooner or later Russians will have to pull their heads out of their asses and step down from their "we beat Hitler (after supporting him for years)" pedestal which they think
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this becomes a world war, there will not be anything left.
If this punishment is just for invading the Ukraine, how exactly are you going do this? Russia is a nuclear power, it will not give that power up, and the attempt will probably result in nuclear war.
What you will end up with is a smoldering example of a planet.
Re: (Score:3)
As long as they are hurting Russia's ability to wage war, which they are since they impair their ability to get parts and such, they are useful. The Russians are responsible for their leadership so frankly any amount of collateral damage is acceptable to stop Russia from raping Ukraine.
Re: (Score:3)
>"As long as they are hurting Russia's ability to wage war, which they are since they impair their ability to get parts and such, they are useful."
Agreed.
>"The Russians are responsible for their leadership so frankly any amount of collateral damage is acceptable to stop Russia from raping Ukraine."
The reality is that they already have "raped" Ukraine and will continue to do so, regardless of sanctions. And they can escalate at any time and finish the takeover. If China steps in to supply aid and/or
Re: (Score:3)
The reality is that they already have "raped" Ukraine and will continue to do so, regardless of sanctions.
True and false respectively. Russia has withdrawn significantly and will likely continue to do so because they cannot afford to keep doing this. Defaulting on their debts is going to destroy their currency for real.
Re: (Score:2)
The Putin regime's ego and pride will ensure the continued aggression, unless they are given some "saving face" compromise.
There isn't any way for Putin to save face that Ukraine & the West will agree to.
I expect him to pretend to save face by unfurling his Mission Accomplished banner and announcing annexation of the occupied territory. But there's one problem with that...
No, there are a lot of problems. After Bucha, Ukraine won't stop trying to liberate their occupied territories. The West won't remove their sanctions, and in fact will keep trying to squeeze harder. Finland and Sweden will join NATO - and Ukraine as we
Re: (Score:2)
I don't expect Putin to last much longer. He has simply cost Russia too much.
I wish that were true but every poll shows he's still very popular and the majority of the country isn't turning against the war. I think we underestimate Russia's willingness to send their sons to die. They lost 11 MILLION soldiers in WWII. What's a hundred thousand if the Nazis are really at the gate again? So far they're only down ~20k.
Unfortunately I think the only way out is to destroy Russia's armed forces via proxy war with Ukraine. Keep training and equipping Ukraine so that the industrial a
Re: (Score:2)
Yes fight them Russians to the last Ukrainian
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of countries don't care and don't sanction Russia.
A lot of countries? Not really. Any influential countries? Just China, but they're only going to provide limited help to Russia because they don't want them feeling their oats. China would like to roll over Russia in the future, empowering them now would be counter-productive.
Was the US sanctioned when they invaded Iraq, Afghanistan or Lybia?
Nope. The whole world sees that as a playground, of course not.
Or did Zelensky bribed hm via Hunter?
I think you took too much horse paste there bro
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They're definitely hurting the war effort directly.
I've seen multiple stories of arms factories ramping down or shutting down completely because they don't have access to foreign components.
Existing hardware that can't be repaired and maintained.
And while people signing up for the military might not have had many alternatives in the first place, they might think a little bit harder when the chance of losing a limb, or your life, allows your family to buy half what it did a few months ago.
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
S. Africa
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
South Africa boycotts weren't in full swing for 50 years. Many countries had no problem with apartheid and it wasn't in the minds of average citizens. It really wasn't until the horrors there ended up on a broader public consciousness that there were calls for boycotts, disinvestments, etc.
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:2)
By many countries you mean USA, and larger consciousness you mean fall of USSR. Let us not start white washing history just yet. It hasn't been that long.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia has a much larger economy and productive capacity.
Russia has a pathetic economy, about the same size as Australia, and once you take away oil and gas, and arms exports (they're using them all themselves), there's basically nothing left.
The blockade was what killed Germany in WWI and they had a very strong economy. Russia has, excluding the oil and gas cash cows, not much of an economy. Mind you most Russians are living in such poverty (look at the median net worth of a typical Russian) that they won't really notice how bad things are because they're alr
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Look at history. Have sanctions ever worked?
Yes.
The sanctions on Iran were so crippling that a decade ago they agreed to dismantle their nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, complete with international inspectors and full transparency.
That dismantling was well underway until Trump pulled out of the deal because lies and now Iran is building back up again.
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez, is there anything he didn't meddle with while he was there?
I heard he was busy playing golf but it turns out he had time to leave all sorts of little "gifts" for the world.
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, I remember one. The Swamp. He didn't get around to draining it.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, I remember one. The Swamp. He didn't get around to draining it.
I'm not going to say where I live, but you'd be surprised how many people in my state think he did just that. Also, most of them think that the price of gasoline will magically drop under $2 a gallon the day he becomes president again. Personally, I'm not sure that American democracy will survive a 2nd Trump term in office, but the Kool Aid is strong with his supporters.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he drained the swamp. You may have just not noticed since he then proceeded to fill it with his own sewage.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of draining the swamp he swamped the drain...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It wasn't that idiot, but the people around him who were somewhat more adept at not shooting themselves in the foot and not shooting their mouths off. Being the stable genius he was, he claimed Putin was a genius for invading Ukraine and even now is presenting a false choice between funding Ukraine and making schools safe, all because Valenskyy rebuffed his call for a crass political stunt of "investigating" Biden's son.
I know what he can do to make schools safe. Promote soping up the untold number of guns
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To put a finer point on it, Cramer, the gov. of N. Dakota when asked about passing gun restrictions, complained he'd get de-elected if he did so. So he values his continuing political career more important that kids lives. I think that says all we need to know about his moral compass.
I actually point the finger at the moral compass of the voters. He is just reacting to them.
.45 under their pillow than they do the lives of little
Millions of cowardly Americans choose sleeping with a nickel-plated Colt
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
Each time I har about these cowards its invariably they were bullied/ignored/ostracised by their peers as someone and most early slashdot users who were bullied. I can guess like me you came home and felt like building a laser and slicing off the bullies genitals, I believe it or not had access to guns but would have preferred to use a "nerds" weapon, Lucky for the bullies I couldn't afford the parts. never did it occur to me to kill an innocent, not even harm one.
As far as I am concerned these are "coward kills", the act of a coward who won't face the real enemy instead kills unarmed and physically weaker children.Why else attack elementary schools. If the media started calling these people what they are "cowards" and referred to these events as "coward killings" I think you would find a drop in the number of shootings quickly.
If you think this is wrong you might be surprised to learn it worked for "King Hits" https://www.abc.net.au/news/20... [abc.net.au]. Since this change occurred in the media people stopped getting credit for a king hit instead got labelled a coward. Not even the Bullied want to called a coward
Re: (Score:2)
Here in New Zealand there was general trend to never use the name of the Christchurch shooter. If you look at the Prime Minister's speeches you will note that Jacinda Ardern never uses the shooter's name.
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:2)
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Have a culture which doesn't glorify guns. It works for 95% of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
> We can have self defense but also limit teenagers to not buy assault weapons
If you are old enough to fight and die in the army, you are also old enough to drink, drive, and buy assault weapons.
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't even own a gun, but I'm not a fan of repealing the 2nd amendment - governments trend towards tyranny; history has shown us this time and again. And while I agree that a guy with a rifle is not going to be able to keep an organized army from taking whatever land they wish, he can make KEEPING that land a living hell. No, the answer to this is much simpler. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So, as the amendment states, well regulate it. Guns are a constitutional right, but there can be exams and training required to get one, licensing fees and background checks to purchase one, and ongoing assessments to keeping one. I think a really easy solution to this (well, with the GOP nothing is easy) is just to say that anyone who has a gun has to be part of a militia. The militia is licensed and insured. One of your militia members goes nuts and shoots up a mall, the militia is on the hook for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I consider New Zealand better democracy than the US, it still could do a lot better, like single transferable vote, so people could actually vote for the party they wanted instead of being scared of wasting their vote. Binding referendums. Removal of Maori sets, a real democracy is everybody gets an equal say. Also a constitution would be good.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So, as the amendment states, well regulate it.
But that's not what the amendment states.
To understand a historical document you need to know what the language meant, at the time, to the person(s) who wrote it and the audience they were writing it for. (The branch of scholarship involved is called "historiography".)
The word "regulated" in the Second Amendment is part of the then-common phrase "well regulated". It did NOT mean "micromanaged by law". It meant "functions well because it is in good adjustment". A "well-regulated" clock kept good time. A "well-regulated" double-barreled gun, at a particular point of aim, hit the same spot with either barrel. A "well-regulated" militia fought well and worked well together.
Guns are a constitutional right, but there can be exams and training required to get one, licensing fees and background checks to purchase one, and ongoing assessments to keeping one.
Exactly the opposite. These would all be "infringements" - as would anything else that would, in any way, make it harder for people to exercise their right to arm themselves and train themselves to shoot well or to work well together with their neighbors if they needed to go to war.
"Shall not be infringed" is the strongest prohibition on power in the Constitution as amended. It doesn't just declare a right that might be balanced against others. It prohibits, not just outright denial of the right, but any impediment to it at all. ("not even meddling with the very fringes") It doesn't just prohibit federal legislation and enforcement of gun bans, but can be read to prohibit interference with the right by states and even non-governmental entities and private individuals. (But It can be read to enable, and even require, the federal government to make and enforce law to enable individuals to arm themselves and/or aid them in doing so.)
If you ever think the Second Amendment might be read to leave the federal government any power to restrict private ownership, carrying, or ability to obtain guns, consider the context: It was passed by people who had just fought a successful revoltionary war against their "legitimate" government gone tyrannical, using their privately-owned weapons and self-organized into fighting units. These people were now setting up governmental rules with an eye to keeping their NEW central government from similarly going bad, and maintaining the ability, if it did, to kick IT out and try yet again.
If one of the purposes of keeping the people armed is to fix or throw out their government if it goes bad, giving that government ANY ability to disarm the population (or an anti-government subset of it) would be self-defeating. If it starts to go bad, disarming its opposition is one of the first things it will do, to enable itself to move on to nastier things without troublesome opposition.
All those things you mention can, and have, been used to restrict firearms ownership:
exams and training required to get one
One class a year, off in a mountain, during working hours, with a limited attendance, pre-announced and full of government cronies with reservations before the general public even knows where to apply for a slot? New York did something like that, as I recall.
Questions requiring you to parrot false - to - fact political propaganda about guns to get a "right answer" mark? (Even decades back the first California test for hunting license qualification had a question like that - not just warning about risks from improperly-stored hunting weapons, but requiring you to agree to a false claim of mass casualties among toddlers who got hold of them.)
Or just arbitrary bull excrement: (Like the "literacy tests" for voting, with Blacks given theirs in Chinese, before the Supreme Court struck that down.) "I'm the instructor and I thin
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Supreme Court can go back and say that Roe Vs. Wade was wrongly decided, than it can go back and say any cases you might cite were wrongly decided.
It won't happen for gun control, of course, because the current Supreme Court is made up of hacks who were chosen not for their ability to analyze and interpret laws, but for loyalty to a political viewpoint.
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that's how you got Roe, inventing a new "right" from shadowy emanations of something they thought implied by an actual constitutional right. The judges weren't selected for partisanship until the crazy liberals took it over and you can't blame people for fighting back in kind when you start that fight.
Still doesn't change the fact that Roe is well-settled law; nor does it change the fact that at least three sitting Justices lied under oath to Congress regarding their personal interpretations of Roe and Casey's status as Settled Law, and that Stare Decisis applied to both Roe and Casey.
Nor does it change the fact that Justice Thomas should be in Impeachment Hearings for blatantly violating virtually the only Professional Conduct Rule for Supreme Court Justices.
Yeah, quite the Supreme Court we have there. . .
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In a decent democracy the judicial system is separate from the political system. In countries that care about the quality of their democracy and their judicial systems have independent bodies that appoint judges at the different levels. Politicians have no say in the process. Same for voting boundaries, gerrymandering is not a thing in countries with decent democracies as politicians have no say in the process.
I can't agree more!
Re: (Score:3)
In 2008 the SCOTUS basically dropped half the 2nd amendment to turn gun ownership into an individual right.
No, they didn't drop it. They just got around to saying: "Hey, guys! Time for your remedial English lesson: The second half is the only part that defines the constitutional prescription, and the first half is just an explanation of ONE of the important reasons for it."
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:2)
That whole bit about organized and unorganized militia is entirely interpreted - there's no such language in the constitution - and such rulings could certainly be overturned in the future. Apparently this is the era of ignoring inconvenient precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
That whole bit about organized and unorganized militia is entirely interpreted - there's no such language in the constitution - and such rulings could certainly be overturned in the future. Apparently this is the era of ignoring inconvenient precedent.
Not in the Constitution; but definitely in the U.S. Code.
But you are right: At this point, about half of the Supremes need to go!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very optimistic view of "the Iran deal".
Re: (Score:2)
Whose facts?
https://apnews.com/article/don... [apnews.com]
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/i... [cbsnews.com]
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, what's your solution for getting all of those Russians out of the country and having them compensate and make whole all the Ukrainians whom they've harmed?
I get the point you're trying to make. But at the end of the day, we're talking about a vicious pack of thieves and murders who marched into another people's country... starting all the way back in 2014, mind you... to plunder and slaughter. The final say must be had by Ukraine, of course. But how would it be in any way fair and just to allow them
Re: (Score:2)
However the simple fact is the damage done to Ukraine is huge and I doubt the Russians will ever be made to do anything to help rebuild the country later. Having seen the damage already done to places I have personally visited in the past I find
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at history. Have sanctions ever worked?
Has appeasement ever worked?
Not many actually want actions against Russia, but the world is where it is. Sounds trite, but insane and paranoid leaders arise occasionally.
So even without official sanctions, much of the world will drift away from dealing with a criminal government naturally.
These things have a starting place, and an ending place. You start out with a little pressure, like sanctions. You hope they work, even if not likely. Then if you must, you curbstomp.
Whatever horrors WW2 presented, it seared some facts into the collective knowledge of many shakers and movers. Especially in the military.
You don't appease, and once you are in a situation, you don't allow the criminals to gain strength. Possibly the most important lesson gleaned from WW2.
Putin is ex-cold war warrior KGB, and while turned to an oligarch, not much else has changed. He is inculcated with the same mentality that desired to take over Europe, just like old Uncle Joe Stalin wished. This is not up to debate, post WW2 history shows the plan.
The people of Ukraine understand fully the history of what Russia does. They know the Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] which outlines exactly how Russia thinks of them. They figure if they are going to die, at least they will go down fighting.
So we help them. So sanctions are a shot across the bow. Putin has shown some sword rattling belligerance. Equipping the people of Ukraine is a huge shot across the bow, splashing water. The decision on what to do next is up to Putin. He isn't going to "win" the way he planned. Will he attempt to win by making the mistaken assumption he can do it by using the one card he has left? Or will he decide that this is not 1948 any more?
Re: (Score:2)
The choices are: war, sanctions, do nothing, appeasement, or cooperation. Most people don't want war, mostly because of the specter of nukes. So sanctions is the next strongest action. There are a few who want the "do nothing" phase (probably Trump, he honestly does not see Ukraine as a friend, and probably still has a crush on Putin). A tiny number under the appeasement and cooperation side (at least until they get a media backlash and claim they were misunderstood).
But as the war goes on, and the atro
Re: Will sanctions be enough? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking of, the podcast Behind the bastards [behindthebastards.com] recently did six episodes about Henry Kissinger and all the atrocities he is responsible for.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a city that is very likely on Russia's first strike list. I am thankful that my family and I will not be aware of a nuclear war beyond perhaps a matter of some minutes before we are vaporized.
Very dramatic and full of pathos, but almost certainly inaccurate unless you live right next to the SPECIFIC BUILDING being targeted. Modern ICBMs, according to public domain sources, have CEPs in the region of a couple of hundred meters. Strategic warheads in use by Russia have, again according to public domain sources, yields around 750kt. Very little of your city will get "vaporized" - though there will be extensive thermal damage, of course. While it is possible you could get lucky and be right under th
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Historically, sanctions work pretty well, but only over the short term. If they drag on much more than a year then they're not much good for regime change. The target population adapts. It still wrecks their economy though.
Re: (Score:3)
Whilst I support any form of leverage other than direct military engagement, I wonder whether the sanctions will actually dethrone the number 1 cause of the Russian war with Ukraine. Sanctions are hurting the economy and the people of Russia as a whole, but are they hurting the Dictator Putin? Or the Russians?
Ever consider the fact that Russian civilian deaths will eventually be considerably larger than any Ukrainian battlefield due to an entire planet starving them into non-existence?
There is a saying - "Fuck around and find out".
This is firmly in the hands of Putin and his minions. Withdraw, and the sanctions end. They have zero need to be in Ukraine, they've failed there. They've created exactly what they were trying to prevent, which is countries joining NATO.
Putin has essentially failed.
A rational mind would come up with a face saving exit of some sort. But sorry, they world doesn't want to support countries that are trying to re-live old WW2 fantasies. Ukraine has aligned it
Won't work very well... (Score:2)
Most western companies are selling product that Russia can't reproduce. If you take over Ikea or Apple stores you basically can't reproduce the product line within Russia. Perhaps they can keep running McDonalds, though it wouldn't shock me if they can't even figure that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the only 3 foods at McD that don't contain sugar are the fries, the salad (sans dressing) and the diet coke, I think the menu would be awfully short.
Re: (Score:2)
I think even the fries have sugar in them. It's not used for flavouring but more for browning - the sugar caramelizes to give that nice brown coloring.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much everything on the menu would be better for you without the sugar and, aside from the ice cream and apple pies, would likely taste better too. And that goes double for Starbucks. I mean... dear god... the last time I had a frappuccino, I felt like my next stop should have been a trip right to my dentist. Closing out all of the McDonalds and Starbucks in the country is doing a *favor* to them, not a sanction.
No supply chains for you (Score:2)
Most western companies are selling product that Russia can't reproduce. If you take over Ikea or Apple stores you basically can't reproduce the product line within Russia. Perhaps they can keep running McDonalds, though it wouldn't shock me if they can't even figure that out.
Exactly. Foreign companies will be no more useful to them than Russian companies when none of them have a supply chain.
As Russian Central Bank chief Elvira Nabiullina said recently, the manufacturing plants, where “practically every product” depended on imported components, were beginning to run out of supplies, while reserves of imported consumer goods were dwindling, too. “We are entering a difficult period of structural changes,” she told parliamentary deputies. “The pe
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure everywhere that's not the USA has figured that out already. I don't recall ever ordering a soft serve product at a McDonalds and being told their machine was broken.
"Conflict" (Score:2)
"conflict with Ukraine" - it is not a conflict, it is blatant aggression on a sovereign state in the aim of total destruction and genocide, with the safety lining, now becoming clear: let them go clean, otherwise they will proceed arranging campaign of hunger in the world. While these terrorists still do find some bodies in Europe to buy this! Cynical kagebist bastards. Stop being soft to them, it's laughable.
Analysis: Short sighted as anything Russia does .. (Score:5, Interesting)
Keeping the analysis short:
1.) Multinationals will pull out -> must be -> reputation
2.) Assets will be seized / most assets are rented -> meaning leave some furniture and in case of industry some production facilities
3.) After war and so on: getting those companies back - that actually helped their own economy -> hard to achieve -> trust demolished
Why 3? Because Russia is not the US and is economically speaking a lightweight.
Cutting your own flesh to surprise the opponnt has also gone wrong with the recent nat. gas delivery stops ( Finland, Poland) and will further drive big nat. gas importers (foremost Germany, ..) to a further accelerated exit from Russian imports.
Why? Because: Reliance - even in times of crisis which Russia claimed from early on - was tainted/contradicted by its own president and its own actions.
Short: Dumb, short sighted - but actually good for the West, because an economically weak Russia will have an equally weak rebuilt of their heavy hit military, and the Russian federation being put under internal pressure(*) and can lead to parts striving for independence, also having the advantage of strengthened soldiers (from live battle experience right now)
(* ask which Russians are fighting mostly in Ukraine -> not west Russians, mostly "Lesser Russians" -> yes this is how the west Russians look at the people from the east)
Compensation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The multinational companies will request compensation for their (undoubtedly inflated) losses. Seize the assets of the Russian kleptocrats and give it to them. Give what is left to help rebuild Ukraine and replace the weapons we have given them.
There is historical precedent, Ford asked for compensation for damage by Allied bombing to its factories in Germany. Others simply cashed in after the war on products created there, such as Fanta.
Russian management. (Score:2)
Re: Russian management. (Score:2)
Good, investing in Russia is social treason. (Score:2)
Russia is an enemy society not a society with an enemy government. Western investors deserve to lose everything for supporting the NeoSoviet empire.
Short Sighted (Score:2)
Seizing what few assets these companies have in Russia will probably won't affect their decision making much because they don't want to legally be in violation of sanctions, nor be boycotted by consumers for appearing to side with the aggressor.
Eventually this war will end, and the sanctions will be removed or at least reduced.
Russia will be known as a country, that when push comes to shove, will nationalize your assets, so if and when a company chooses to return or open a new branch there, that risk will b
Will they take hostages, too? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be concerned that they'd take non-Russian citizens hostage if they try to leave Russia.
I wouldn't. Especially not affluent executives. Russia has gone to great lengths to *not* go to "war". They have been very careful to keep their so called "special military operation" contained to the Ukraine with only a pointless banter coming close to antagonising the rest of the west. If they start effectively kidnapping western citizens things would escalate very quickly.
If it were me... (Score:2)
I'd blow my business up rather than let the Russians take it. I'd rig it to blow shortly after I left. Destroying all the stock, the machinery, whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
They grabbed the leased planes... (Score:2)
They made sure to grab hold of all five or six hundred leased commercial aircraft before they could be flown out of the country, so why should it surprise anyone that they'll do this with anyone else trying to flee from under their thumb?
Re: (Score:3)
Those planes are going to fly for about 6 months, max, without factory maintenance support.
Then they will be worth their weight in scrap.
Russians are not smart people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Patrisse story has already been debunked:
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Repeating right wingnut stories from right wingnut rags doesn't prove shit.
That's a mighty tall stretch from Russia seizing farmland to LBGQ and AOC. Is this another Tucker Carlson invention or did you invent this yourself?
Re: (Score:3)
The comment you replied to was talking about this mansion purchase [msn.com] (see also this follow-up [dailymail.co.uk]), not Khan-Cullors's previous real estate purchases, which is what that "fact check" addresses.
Personally, if I were a fact-checker, I would be more curious about where an activist got $3.2M for real estate, why they would need to buy four houses in roughly as many years, why Khan-Cullors resigned a month after the $3.2M binge made the news, and whether that was funded by extravagant payouts [washingtonexaminer.com] to her family and friends
Re: Ukraine remembers Holodomor (Score:5, Informative)
Where did she get the money? The GPs article points out she has 2 book deals including a new york times best seller, and a production deal with warner brothers. Those alone are probably enough to get the job done, but she also does public speaking, owns a gallery, has some sort of deal with YouTube, and is a teacher at a private college. It also says she's been paid a total of 120k from BLM between 2013 and 2019, with nothing since 2019.
Why does she need that many homes? I don't know, why does anyone? Probably some mix of vacation homes and investment properties.
Why did she resign? Probably the same reason many people resign when they attract negative publicity to their organization. If she hasn't been paid since 2019, then she's not actively doing a whole lot for them anymore other than acting as a magnet for these unsubstantiated accusations.
Re: (Score:2)
The Patrisse story has already been debunked:
Y'all are getting two things that aren't related, conflated. There was indeed the Holodomor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It had nothing to do with BLM or LGBTQ+ or anything other than a planned genocide by nice old Uncle Joe Stalin. While there is some dispute over it being a genocide - largely by Russia - it does fit the Stalinesque playbook to a T, as there was a Ukrainian independence movement he wanted to crush, and he did have a propensity for killing.
The Ukrainians certainly believe it was