comment: >
  
  Huh, TIL McDonalds and Starbucks directly funded the Iraq War. Their leadership should be put in jail for 10 years with no chance for parole.
  See how dumb that sounds?
context: What an article!
  
  The MRA report warns that just 17 of the world’s 122 largest companies have fully exited Russia, as it claims 59 remain “stuck in the middle” while a further 46 are still entirely in.
  City businessman Mark Dixon (...) claimed top companies “often get credit before they have left.”
  “Some company announcements are not worth the paper they are written on. You read the statement and it sounds like the company is doing something real – but often it is just a promise that the company will be able to tear up.”
  The report warns that a plethora of the world’s largest companies, including BP, have pledged to sell their Russian assets but have failed to actually offload them yet.
  “If it manages to delay a sale until it is less embarrassing to work with Russia, it can avoid doing anything at all,” Dixon said.
  
  Not that I'm surprised by any of this. >
  
  We pledged to sell our assets, not our fault if nobody wants to buy! >
  
  That might be the actual problem?  Does selling assets mean giving the assets to Russia for nearly free?
  Can one keep the assets but shut down the operations instead so that no one in Russia profits? >
  
  A lot of companies did just that, they closed. They took a financial hit with this of course, but it was the right thing to do. >
  
  Not really an option for BP though. As far as I know their main assets in Russia are jointly owned with Russian oil companies, so they can't shut anything down. >
  
  Jointly owned and jointly operated? If so, couldn't BP just stop contributing to the operation and leave the marooned assets. I'd consider that exited.
  But if they're still operating those assets in some way (finance, man power, administration, maintenance, knowledge, etc.) then they could be doing more to exit. >
  
  Disable all the computers and automated systems on the way out. >
  
  I wouldn't want to be the guy responsible for that. Would probably be charged with treason. >
  
  That's why I suggested electronic means of disabling the equipment since it can be done from outside Russia. >
  
  Gas plants generally don't have systems controllable from outside the premises because that would leave them extremely vulnerable to cyber-security threats. The ones I've worked around have their own secure network, only controllable by the operations room inside the plant. 
  Joint-venture plants also generally only have the major stakeholder running operations too, which would likely be the Russian oil & gas operators in this case, BP would just be collecting profits to recoup their investment, whether that be in IP, engineering assistance, partial ownership of fossil fuel reserves .etc
  It wouldn't be worth it for BP to give up their stake in these investments, because they'd essentially just lose the income for nothing, better for them to keep siphoning from the profits of Russian oil & gas oligarchs. I think it's the lesser of two evils. >
  
  What?!!! HSBC, the bank that money-laundered for drug cartels and Al-Qaeda, is still doing business in Russia?!!
  I am shocked, shocked!!!! >
  
  Playing devils advocate a bit, I can understand how companies whose business revolves around multi-year financing can’t completely exit a country in a year. It’s absurd to expect them to. It would probably require them to break the law. >
  
  Surely their contracts are written so that they can legally break them if the client, or the country they're resident in, is put on an international sanctions list. >
  
  I don't know about contracts but their client/shareholders money can be in those "contracts" and assets.
  Some USA's pension funds or just citizens probably have some stakes in it (or any countries in the world). It's not because it is in Russia that it is Russia's money. >
  
  Well then those client/shareholders should be taking the financial hit. 
  Investing carries risk. >
  
  Only if you're an individual. Otherwise you are too big too fail so we'll print more money to bail you out. >
  
  Didn't the government make a shit ton of money from bailing out banks? >
  
  There's a mix of things here.
  There were direct bailouts through the Treasury, which I think the government ended up making back.
  There was also stimulus in the form of printing money, a lot of which was used to buy bonds, I think. That was quantitative easing done by the Fed.
  I'm not enough of a finance nerd to say what the final balance of QE was. >
  
  So did Adidas, Nike, DKNY, Levi and others. Do you really think that corporations give a shit about some war? It was all for a show to not get them cancelled. AFAIK the only companies that truly left were Starbucks and McDonnalds.
  Here is a legit reporter going to a mall in (Moscow, I think) showing off you can buy all the new merch from all the companies that "left". >
  
  
  ”Tasty and that’s it”
  
  Surprisingly accurate and honest. >
  
  In russian this name with little effort easily transforms to "taste of the arse". I'm not joking, it's top tier meme for anyone speaking language.
  Edit: maybe more accurate will be "asshole flavor" >
  
  What’s that in Russian? >
  
  It's "Вкусно и точка", and I barely understand what the lad above you means with his translation. >
  
  Yeah I was trying to figure out why changes he’s talking about that makes it sound like arsehole taste >
  
  Вкус** * *очка >
  
  Considering HSBC is a known money launderer and even if they left completely would still use proxies to do it, it’s not a surprise. >
  
  It’s literally what HSBC was founded for. I’m not sure why this surprises anyone >
  
  Such fine upstanding companies as those three? 
  Never!
  Next you'll be telling me that Nestlé are a pack of scumbags too! >
  
  Nestle still sells products in Russia. >
  
  A whole ton of American and European companies are still doing business there, with no plans to leave. >
  
  Pretty much. On youtube there are a ton of russian youtubers who love to show those 'life in russia now' videos because everyone is hoping to see chaos of what the sanctions bring but so far it looks like stuff seems normal except price of goods have risen and more local brands are prominent. But there are a bunch of international (US/EU) brands still in the Russian shopping centres. >
  
  A good percentage of those Russian YouTubers are professional Russian propagandists who collect YouTube money as a bonus. One of the most famous, ‘Eli from Russia’, comes to mind. 
  Most of those international brands are smuggled in through countries like Turkey to give the impression that nothing is wrong in Russia because they can still buy most of what they could before the invasion. >
  
  Is Google still paying out monetization for those channels? >
  
  Likely. There’s no hard proof that they work for the Russian government. One of them admits he was a propagandist, but swears he doesn’t do it anymore, all while he posts videos about how strong Russia is and how the sanctions don’t affect him, with top-notch editing work that is in the same style the rest of them have. I remember in March that ‘Eli from Russia’ whined that sanctions had affected her way to cash out her YouTube money. I assume she’s found a way around it, because she went on several international vacations with her film crew last year. >
  
  Because they never intended to. >
  
  We tried nothing and we're all out of ideas! >
  
  So does Coca Cola, which allegedly left Russia. But… it just changed russian department’s name to “Multon Partners» and now there is a «Добрый Кола» >
  
  Here’s a quick letter from Coca Cola Hellenic explaining what they did/are doing. >
  
  For those who migh not know: brands of Unilever include Ben and Jerry's ice cream, Dove, Vaseline, Knorr, 7th Generation, and so much more while BP also includes ampm and amoco. I'm just mentioning since I know it's easy for us all to say we're going to boycott some company not doing what we want, but the reality is that it's easier said then done. And I bring all that up because I have talked to several people since the war broke out who made boycotting claims of certain chains and brands...but didn't really "get" that those chains and brands are connected to other chains and brands that are all owned by the same few companies. It's definitely interesting to listen to people who discuss boycotting certain places for certain reasons, especially if those same people are fine with the damage a brand/company they really like is doing in their home country. >
  
  Honestly surprising for Unilever to not be more on top of this - they've always seemed supportive of Ben and Jerry's activism, ad well as their own initiatives for things like sustainability (hint: war isn't sustainability). >
  
  In regards to B&J… both Ben and Jerry sit on the board of directors for Uni. That side of the business kind of has a pass to “do whatever they want”. For example… when they condoned the Israeli attacks on it’s neighbors a couple of years back and didn’t sell ice cream to Israel. Uni was mad but respected their wishes. 
  I wouldn’t take general B&J marketing as the wholistic wishes of Uni.
  For sustainability… the wholistic employee base is VERY much in favor of sustainability. However, it is incredibly costly to do so. With the cost pressures from the last couple of years; they’ve had to cut back some of their initiatives. It also doesn’t help that people are leaving in droves. >
  
  You said condoned when I think you meant that B&J condemned Israeli actions and wanted to stop selling ice cream to them. >
  
  Ah yes, sorry about that. Still need more coffee…. Haha >
  
  “There’s a big surprise.  I think I’m gonna have a heart-attack and die from that surprise.” —Iago the Parrot >
  
  I’m surprised you’ve read Othello. >
  
  Othello? I am talking about the parrot from Aladdin. >
  
  Gilbert Gottfried was acclaimed for his Shakespeare, so it's an easy mistake >
  
  True his voice has that soothing renaissance timbre. >
  
  FYI, a lot of western companies who exited Russia have clauses in contracts of sale with the option to re-purchase their assets in the near to mid future at a similar sell price. A lot of them are actively looking for real buyers for their ‘sold’ assets as in many cases it was simply a local management takeover for very cheap. >
  
  We interrupt this broadcast for a special bulletin: greedy corporations exist. We now return to our regular programming. >
  
  That is the regular programming. >
  
  Wow, it’s almost as if a bank responsible for the Chinese Opium wars, an oil company responsible for the gulf oil disaster, and whatever unilever did besides soap, doesn’t care about where their money comes from as long as they are profiting. Who woulda thought >
  
  Most companies that claimed to have “left Russia” actually haven’t, rather they just transferred the name  over to pre-existing franchise owners in the country. >
  
  Public naming of these companies is necessary so we can boycott their asses! >
  
  Yeah.. good luck. Like 5 companies own everything. They've made themselves pretty much unboycottable to most of the world. 
  Time to go back to growing our own food and sewing our own clothes. >
  
  So does Apple,nike,addidas. They still sell everything there. >
  
  Yeah Adidas is never leaving Russia >
  
  I lf they left, Russians would have killed Putin a long time ago. Adidas Tracksuits > Putinko >
  
  Can't slav squat and smoke cigarettes without them. >
  
  HSBC were helping the Sinaloa cartel launder 800 million whilst thousands of innocent people were dying and people were getting their heads chopped off with machetes and chainsaws. Why would they leave Russia? >
  
  For those who’d like to see the list, there you go: MRA >
  
  This should have been the article. Thanks for posting. >
  
  Except they gave BP great ratings which are in direct contradiction to this article and the summary. Doesn't seem like a reliable source. >
  
  This is the source they are citing in the article though… Moral Rating Agency… ¯_(ツ)_/¯ >
  
  Mmm, gotta love how Unilever claims they support social justice while not leaving a country that actively commits the highest degrees of crimes against humanity. >
  
  Failed or chosen not to leave? >
  
  Wouldn’t be the first time HSBC ignored regulations/sanctions >
  
  Was it an actual legal requirement to do so? >
  
  That list is a classic roll call of dodgy companies. >
  
  I know that this barely matters but I haven’t bought any gasoline from BP stations since their 2009 Gulf of Mexico disaster. Horrible company ran by absolute degenerates >
  
  BP stations might not even be BP, mostly they are franchised as per the “normal” agreements >
  
  And BP products can be sold at nonBP gas stations as well. I still don’t want to support their franchisees, they didn’t have to partner with BP and I can easily choose a different gas station for whatever reason I want >
  
  When the oil spill happened, most of the local franchises here switched to a different company. That’s the bare minimum all they should have done, so if it’s still a BP there’s no way I’m stopping. >
  
  Name a bank that's more synonymous with terrorists, drug dealers, and dictators, then HSBC. Didn't they pay a fine for actively storing cartel money? From an article I recall they were setting up giant dropboxes for the cartel guys to drop boxes of cash off throughout the United States >
  
  Coca-Cola, Dow and MGM collaborated with Hitler
  Same thing. >
  
  Well, the war won't last forever, so I doubt they'll be willing to give up their entire investment in Russia. I'm more surprised by the fact that 17 corporations have managed to fully exit.
  Unless Russia somehow turns into a supersized North Korea, which would probably be a low chance thing, they should be able to resume business after the war. >
  
  Succesfully failed the task: The good ol' We tried
  
  “If it manages to delay a sale until it is less embarrassing to work with Russia, it can avoid doing anything at all,” Dixon said. >
  
  BP not surprised. They are pure scum. >
  
  “Breaking news, oil companies choose profits over human rights!!!”
  Whaaaaa?!?!? Who would have thought? >
  
  “Profit over Peace” the slogan for the people in power since the beginning of time. >
  
  In a just world, their assets would be seized and nationalized and their CEOs and boards of directors would be put in jail for ten years without opportunity for parole. >
  
  Yikes...that's a little much. Doing business in a country isn't the same thing as actively supporting a war effort. >
  
  When you are directly funding said war, how is that any different? >
  
  Unilever selling food to Russian citizens isn't directly funding the war >
  
  Paying taxes to the Russian government directly funds the war.