comment: >
  
  A whole ton of American and European companies are still doing business there, with no plans to leave.
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.