comment: >
  
  I wouldn't want to be the guy responsible for that. Would probably be charged with treason.
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.