Russian social media are full of winking posts hinting that McDonald's will sell operations to a Russian company which it will still profit from "behind the scenes" (via offshore proxy or some other indirect way). They also hint that this will pave the way for other Western companies currently in limbo: split ownership between controllable proxy and Russian owner. And at the same time shout in Bloomberg how much you condemn Russian invasion to pacify Western public.
Can anyone confirm if it's possible? I hope it's Russian desinformation again, but I fear it's possible looking at how "well" Western "sanctions" work (Moscow feels great, ruble is much stronger than even pre-war).
Can't confirm and anyone who can, will not. Sanctions evasion is something OFAC frowns upon and comes down on rather heavily. Just few weeks ago banks that were 'offering options' to customers were smacked down[1]:
"The US Department of the Treasury in a statement said it put sanctions on Russian commercial bank Transkapitalbank, whose representatives it said serve several banks in Asia, including in China, and the Middle East, and have suggested options to evade international sanctions."
So.. yeah. It is possible ( even with total embargo it can happen as NK has shown ), but it comes with risk. If it will be done, it will be done very quietly with as few people knowing as possible.
Russian here. You have no point, check any exchange, in case of the accessibility Binance p2p
There was growing black market exchange once ruble fallen to the 115ish to usd, and the spread was about 20%, so you could buy green cash at 150ish, but since then those exchanges shrinked.
It's actually 64 RUB per USD, Tinkoff bank sells for 67 for example. Compare to 78 pre-war. This week Central Bank lifted another restrictions and you can get up to $50k out of the country. I think unfortunately Americans drank Biden's lying kool-aid of "devastating sanctions" and happily looked away prematurely.
I have seen a lot of people write this but I don't understand how. Shouldn't there be a black market rate in that case? Is there one? Some quick Googling gave no articles.
There is not much use for dollars in Russia right now other than hoarding them (you can buy goods, but many imports are sanctioned). And after initial panic subsided, trust in the banking system looks quite high so people are less keen on hoarding cash.
Also, if you are an oligarch who plans to load your private plane with suitcases of dollars and fly to the Cayman islands, you are probably sanctioned, so that is out of question too.
No problem flying to Dubai to Istanbul and using their banking system. Actually most of Russian and Belarussian elite are happily using it. You can meet all kinds of adult kids of Lukashenko, Yanukovich there or an odd Russian silovik.
There are black markets in the form of Telegram chats and bots where people exchange cash. They aren't so necessary right now because certain limitations have been lifted and while it's not easy, you can buy cash USD or send wires to other countries.
There are two things holding the ruble high:
1. All exporters have to sell 80% of their FX income in 3 days
2. The import has shrunk dramatically and it's hard for people to travel to other countries (so individuals and businesses don't need that much cash to begin with)
I am almost sure there is such market. If you visit Russia somehow, you are likely to exchange currency with citizen at beneficial rates. Chances are its very similar to pre iron curtain fall - people made fortunes in Poland on such exchanges. Same thing in Cuba, there were two currencies - one local, one for internationals(unsure how it is now).
No, Moscow is fine and you can buy foreign currency freely now. This is a delusion based on Western politians' loud promises which never came true. We were promised crushing sanctions that would reduce Russian economy to 1980's style rubble with black market of foreign currencies. It's all just a load of hype. It's important to set this clear because most of HN commenters seems to be under impression those sanctions actually had intended effect.
Yes. It's more expensive than before, but there's a thriving market on Telegram with prices fixed in EUR/USD. Also Chinese cars sales are growing and soon market will be flooded.
Where do you get that? You can actually buy dollars in Moscow from banks. Everything is mostly back to normal or even better (retail banks sell dollars cheaper than pre-war levels). There was a brief panic and tight controls in anticipation of more severe sanctions but they never came.
> McDonald's will sell operations to a Russian company which it will still profit from "behind the scenes" (via offshore proxy or some other indirect way).
so Huawei way of solving sanction issues...
let's all pretend Honor is now different entity bought by bunch of unrelated companies
Thats what GM(opel), IBM(dehomag) and Coca-Cola(fanta) did during WW2 in Germany. But I have a feeling it wont fly nowadays with social media and politicians hungry for grandstanding, especially in light of recently passed second Lend-Lease.
It's just one of the possibilities. It's not like corporations aren't full of “government relations” staff whose job is inventing creative names for bribing officials, and creative methods of doing so. Especially in “interesting” countries where it's easy to have an excuse that “everyone does that”.
There is technology that can be important for military industry; no doubt it is going to be tightly controlled. There are people who decided it was unacceptable to work in Russia; it was their choice. However, these corporations are not people, nor they are important in the arms race. If we skip the fact that Central Bank severed everyone's ability to do business to control the money flow out of the country, corporations that left Russia made statements about leaving it for the media picture. And flashy media picture is once again really important to hide the elephant in the room — what really powers Russian economy, and how. It's not McDonalds.
I'm not sure who downvoted you. It is a good question. McDonald's and other consumer goods type companies are not sanctioned, so the company can sell its assets. For that matter they could continue to operate as normal in Russia if they choose.
I'm not sure they really could easily continue to operate as normal. Their business units in Russia get paid by consumers in rubles, but due to the financial sanctions, they can no longer convert rubles to US dollars [1]. From the point of view of their non-Russian shareholders, this effectively means all that money is inaccessible. This would result in complications in reporting the revenue on their income statement. Plausibly (I am not an expert), this would mean they can't even recognize the revenue at all. At minimum, it becomes an open question whether or not the revenue will ever benefit the corporation or if it will be 'trapped' perpetually.
You're right, currently you can't get your revenue outside unless you're down to use a scheme involving exchange for trades inside Russia, move them outside and turn back to money. I've diagonally read the article linked and it depicts everything correctly.
In Russian "to read diagonally" means "to skim" in English. Like, you don't read left to right, top to bottom, but straight from one corner to the other.
Not sanctions, but Russian regulation. From your link:
>The Bank of Russia more than doubled the benchmark interest rate to 20%, a 19-year high, on Feb. 28 and also imposed capital controls, including a ban on foreigners’ selling of securities. Nabiullina said decisions to suspend some regulatory requirements amounted to a capital boost for banks equivalent to 900 billion rubles ($8.7 billion). Putin banned all Russian residents from transferring foreign currency abroad, hardening capital controls.
Interest rate is already back to 14%[1]. Russian economy recovered super fast. Ruble is already stronger than before war (around 64 RUB for USD). Basically sanctions are a joke made for Biden to shout once before American public attention shifts to Amber Heard trial or some other spectacle of the day.
If you read your article you'll learn they are cutting the interest rate back because of sanctions (to mitigate the effects), and inflation is still soaring. 20% is not sustainable, analysts have seen this coming as Russia tries to avoid a recession, in fact the drop by 300 bps was larger than predicted.
I think the problem is that they may not be allowed to bring the money outside Russia, as there are now capital controls on foreign currency.
That's why there a few foreign factories, like Renault who seemed to have "sold" them for like 1 ruble.
For context, Renault sold its majority stake in AvtoVAZ (Lada, 45k employees) today for 1 ruble to the Russian government, with the option to buy-back for the next 6 years:
But if you're running a huge consumer-brand corporation in the social media age, with the great majority of your sales in places where Russia's recent actions are very unpopular, then "could we legally continue...?" is not basis for your decision.
I used to love that story (about Pepsi's navy), but it actually doesn't seem to be true, unfortunately. There was a deal in place, but it never happened thanks to the 1991 breakup of the USSR. And even if it had, the small number of ships involved wouldn't even be close to the 6th largest fleet.
They won't be able to sell them at all. Putin has already said that any companies that leave Russian markets as a result of the current conflict will have all their assets nationalized. This is what happened to McDonalds in the Donbass -- they're still operating and called "DonMaks". The experience is extremely similar to a normal McDonalds. The only thing that is obviously different is the fries.
IANAL but Russia is legal to do business with with exception of certain corporate entities and individuals. There's a deny-list, not an allow-list.
Unfortunately, since the latest war the deny-list has grown substantially (making it a bit difficult to ensure you aren't accidentally servicing someone involved with a sanctioned entity), combined with political pressure this prompted some businesses to go an extra mile and cease operations in Russia completely.
Russia has uniformed soldiers in there conducting war -illegally, if wars are other than illegal, or at least not sanctioned by the UN and also committing war crimes.
But I don’t think it’s terrorism. Terrorism usually has a few criteria: not a regular army, and typically don’t use heavy military equipment but rely on guerrilla tactics and aim to terrorize because they are incapable of taking over a territory —because of a lack in numbers for control.
They would also qualify if they “export” terror by training, providing comfort and logistics to terrors groups. Maybe the latter applies more than the former. Though a few other countries could easily be labeled as such too.
There’s plenty of evidence though that the Russian army is seeking to terrorize civilians, including bombing hospitals / schools and leaving mines and booby trapping homes of civilians, specifically because they are having trouble taking over the territory. It would be weird to me that a military unit can do what terrorists do and not be labeled that way just because they are officially part of an army and have modern equipment. That’s not something a “normal” army does to protect its territory. https://ctmirror.org/2022/05/16/designate-russia-a-state-spo...
I think we need to be careful. Is it the stated goal and mission to terrorize or is that being carried out by rogue units? Most army and war operations do have rogue units —those doing things on their own. Just about any war has this aspect. If this is a criteria then we’ve all been terrorists and calling terrorism ceases to have a defining meaning.
But again it likely depends on how widespread and sanctioned or ignored by superiors these tactics are in the current conflict.
I understand the need to be careful but when you have widespread reports of execution and rape of civilians in all the areas being invaded by Russia (i.e. all 3 fronts) it seems to be more of a pattern than an exception.
Look, there is no denying war atrocities. But all conflicts have them to one degree or another. If we go by the definitions above, then most allies (and foes) have engaged in terrorism too, including ourselves and then the distinction the term provides disappears.
Let's look at it from another angle. In order to submit the people of Ukraine, has Russia taken out all the stops? Do they have other more lethal and effective options?
Have you misplaced your comment? It is obviously an ethically grey area, but the question was whether it violates sanctions or not. It isn't, as far as I know (if there's someone better informed I'm happy to be corrected).
According to Russia it’s a “SVO”, not a war. Which means they are not soldiers. Ukraine keeps treating them in a humane way, but technically they could be just shot on sight. Russia wouldn’t care anyway, they don’t even bother to pick up corpses.
This is a surprisingly well-written, engaging corporate statement. Most statements are pretty bland and purely to the point but after reading this I thought I was reading news coverage of their exit not their own statement.
In Germany this is called "Gratismut" (gratis bravery). It's the current thing to hate Russia, so they don't lose anything by doing a passionate write-up about it. McDonald's also wants to convince you that they have any values, but in reality they have no problem with horrendous human rights violations in other countries.
What changed here of course is that after Putin gave Aeroloft the go ahead to seize aircraft they were leasing, western business lost any appetite for the Russian market. When your assets can be taken over at any moment and its encouraged by the state, its best to cut your losses.
A similar but more drastic example are the various communist revolutions in the 20th century. It was standard practice for the new governments to cancel any debts or obligations the previous government had and seize all sorts of foreign owned assets in country. That inevitably destroyed its diplomatic relations with many nations for decades.
So as you note, its not because McDonald's or any other corporation has morals, they are amoral entities. Its all just business and right now business in Russia is bad.
Do not forget that there was a wave of seizures of russian-owned assets in the west.
I would not be surprised, if Aeroflot still had to pay the leases they owe, but the proceeds would be paid to subjects who had their assets seized abroad. Until it evens out 1:1.
I could be mistaken but with the exception of Germany seizing the gazprom terminal, I think all of the other seizures have been to specifically sanctioned individuals. Of course in Russia they have a oligarchy so they probably see sanctioning a person the same as sanctioning a company.
There is no such thing as a yacht owned by a person; even if you wanted to operate some small one, you would create SPE (=special purpose entity, i.e. a company) for it. So they were owned by companies. Yachts are operated as businesses, especially larger ones.
And it is not just about yachts and airplanes. There were freezed accounts in usd and eur, i.e. the primary motivator for switching sale of oil and gas to rubles. These were owned by companies too.
So in this regard, there's no difference. The famous Bismarck quote about Russians comes to mind.
I understand how the ultra rich operate. There is still a difference between seizing personal assets that are in shell companies for tax reasons or what have you and seizing capital of real companies that do real business.
It seems that McDonald's closed stores that operated directly under their control. As a result, only stores in westert part of Russia were closed (in Moscow, Saint-Petersburg). The stores in Siberia (i.e. Novosibirsk) and in Moscow airports continued operating as usual, as they are working under franchaising. Even the mobile app continued functioning.
So not much is going to change, I think. Hell, McDonalds is even open in DNR/LNR "republics" under the name "DonMac".
I think the suggestion is that they are going to remove the branding rights from the franchise owners “de-Arching” them. So there will be no McDonalds branded restaurants in Russia.
What will McDonalds do if Russian franchises/restaurants just keep using the golden arches, menu item names, etc?
Sure they might taste different - but what is McDonalds' recourse? Not sure they can do anything if they've decided to remove themselves from doing business in Russia. Seems similar in situation to the knock-offs in other countries that McD's doesn't do business in.
I assume there's a clause in the franchise agreement covering this sort of thing. If the franchisor decides to exit a market, the agreement probably provides a process to do so.
Not a McD franchisee, but I've been involved in franchise businesses before.
They never had an issue operating in Saudi Arabia despite the invasion of Yemen. They still maintain their Guantanamo Bay location. How is operating in Russia inconsistent with their values?
McDonalds is a symbol of US global hegemony. Exiting from Russia is maintaining that status quo. Protesting an ally of the US, or the US itself, would be a significant political statement, and probably contrary to their interests.
So their values have nothing to do with the humanitarian concerns they mention, just the ease of doing business in the country. Believable, but makes this press release sound like BS.
Not every comparison is pure whataboutism design to pull the discussion off-topic or complete off-track.
Perhaps the difference is so obvious to you that the question doesn't even need asking, but I think it is a valid question: what values does this invasion violate that the other situations do not, at least not to the extent that McD reacts by considering pulling out completely.
It would undeniably be whataboutism if it were McD being asked why they've done (or not done) something and they're point out something unrelated (or only tangentially related) that they have/not done or asking about what other bodies have/not done in that area of discussion. But as an outsider looking at McD, asking them to define their position more precisely, perhaps with reference to their position in what may be seen as similar circumstances, feels like a valid request rather than the fallacy of whataboutism.
Of course the question could be used purely to make McD look bad, particularly if the asker of the question as some axe to grind (against McD specifically, American corporates more generally, or big business even more globally), which flips the pendulum back in the direction of a logical error because the asker is not actually trying to gain perspective but is instead intending to impose that others take their perspective.
---
FWIW I think I have a fairly solid idea of what the difference is. If you remove the moral aspect and just look at the circumstances from the robotic PoV of a business doing business: while the sanctions don't directly affect McD their impact does affect their ability to efficiently do business in Russia. Such sanctions don't exist in a manner that affects them in the same way in those other situations. Moving away from purely robotic business related points, this is happening in Eastern Europe not the East so it is both closer to home to those making decisions and is getting a lot more attention in Europe and the US (meaning that there is more push from their customer base in the west).
""" Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another or the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one's own expressed moral rules and principles.[1] """
Something that has been bugging me for some time (genuine question, please forgive me lack of geopolitics/economy understanding) is this:
Supposing we want to hurt Russian economy - how are we hurting it by stopping selling them licenses/branding/machines to make and sell burgers and fries? Are we not ripping them off money if we sell to them? As in: we gain, they lose?
I understand we don't want to sell advanced technology, or weapons. And we also want to stop buying oil/gas or other goods produced in Russia. But burgers?
If you understand what's going on, please share it :-)
Well, McDonalds, Inc. is not necessarily doing this to hurt the Russian economy. They are doing it to save money.
The war and the Western sanctions have limited their ability to operate restaurants in Russia. Because of this, they have shut down their restaurants while continuing to pay staff, leases on their buildings, etc. This means they have a constant outflow of cash to Russia which they want to stop. Shutting down the business stops the bleeding.
Perhaps the question is: why would public policy makers in the West want to impose such broad sanctions? Why not continue to allow Western companies to profit in Russia (i.e., "rip them off")? The answer is primarily that voluntary economic business transactions like this are generally win-win for both sides. Yes, McDonalds earns money selling branding, etc., but the Russians on the other side of the transaction also earn money through the use of the branding and so on. By cutting off Western companies' financial access to the Russian market, it does hurt the Western companies, but it also hurts the Russians because it deprives them of whatever benefits they were obtaining from the Western companies.
The basic premise in market economies is that if a transaction occurs it is beneficial for both the buyer and the seller. This makes intuitive sense if you think about it - nobody forces you to buy McDonald's, you do so because you think a Quarter Pounder is worth the price you pay.
Sanctions work by preventing this transaction from happening, which means both the buyer and the seller are worse off compared to when they are allowed to trade.
The key point here is that although both the buyer and the seller are worse off, one party may be disproportionately impacted. This is the case with the Russian sanctions, as Western companies can usually find other markets (although less lucrative) but Russia is now having serious trouble sourcing certain components.
McDonald's is likely doing this for image reasons or to appease stakeholders rather than doing it to punish Russia directly, but the outcome is that Russians are slightly worse off than before.
For a globally recognizable brand like McDonald's, the move to leave the country has a symbolic meaning. It sends a message to the Russian people that something is deeply wrong with the direction taken by their government. Of course, some Russians will interpret the move differently, but that cannot be avoided.
I think trying to conduct transactions in a heavily sanctioned nation that's also fighting a war of aggression against a neighbor, and incurring heavy losses, is causing a headache for the bean counters, and it has finally become more trouble than it's worth, financially.
These enormous multinational behemoths - as an entity - don't give two shits about the people dying in Ukraine, Russian soldiers dying, or the Russian people enduring hardships. They care about profit.
It's no different than the stance on civil rights, or LGBQT+, or any other issue. If you look historically, these companies only bother to "do the right thing" once it has the potential of threatening profits. It may sound cynical, but the historical record is pretty solid.
Always disgusted me how two faced the vocal companies like Disney and Apple were about LGBTQ+ rights in the US yet all too happy to throw the same community under the bus when Russian, Chinese and UAE profits were on the table.
They're only interested in the community as a PR tool, not the actual lives of the people, it's gross.
The parent did not say that was the reason, they said McDonald's leaving has symbolic meaning - which it absolutely does in a huge way.
> These enormous multinational behemoths - as an entity - don't give two shits about the people dying in Ukraine, Russian soldiers dying, or the Russian people enduring hardships. They care about profit.
Of course they do care about the context, very obviously, precisely because it can affect their profits. Which is why so many companies rapidly bandied together and left Russia, even when they legally didn't have to. The stigma of being associated with Russia is brand damaging, which is ultimately profit damaging (and Russia isn't worth enough as a market for most corporate giants to warrant taking that brand hit). That's the clear corporate equation.
Thank you. Far too often people will jump in and cry "all corporations only care about profits!" which is about as interesting a statement as "all programming languages are Turing-equivalent".
Thanks for repeating Russian propaganda word for word.
In reality, Ukraine was nowhere close to entering NATO. Not in 2014, not in January 2022.
This wasn't (exclusively) about NATO, but about the gradual general Ukrainian drift towards the west and its institutions. Russia wouldn't be satisfied with Ukraine not entering NATO, it would require returning back into the Russian sphere of influence as its puppet state.
> Russia doesn't want missiles pointed at Moscow from only 500 km away
NATO membership doesn't mean US missiles on the territory. The easternmost nukes are still deployed in Italy, and the eastward expansion of NATO did not make any change in that.
If NATO wanted to place missiles close to Moscow and St. Petersburg, why not do that from Latvia and Estonia? Same or even shorter distance than from Ukraine. (but NATO didn't do that and there's still not NATO base in the Baltics)
> Thanks for repeating Russian propaganda word for word.
> In reality...
So, you are completely disregarding Russia's point of view, even though they stated it clearly, and are substituting your own interpretation of events. What makes you think that you understand Russian motivations any more than Russia itself?
From Russia's point of view, NATO is encroaching. How blind must one be to disregard that?
Yes, I am completely disregarding Russian propaganda talking points. Remember how all the way up to February 23rd Russian Foreign Ministry maintained that the West is hysterical and obviously there won't be any invasion?
> From Russia's point of view, NATO is encroaching.
So again, how does Ukraine fit into that when Ukraine was nowhere near being admitted to NATO?
> Yes, I am completely disregarding Russian propaganda talking points.
But falling hook line and sinker for the Western propaganda talking points? Your bias is showing.
> Ukraine was nowhere near being admitted to NATO?
At the 2021 Brussels summit [1] NATO stated that "We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process".
So the process has been in the works since at least 2008, and recently reiterated. I was able to find that with 2 minutes' googling knowing none of the important keywords.
Honestly, I have no side in this conflict. I don't live in Russia or Europe or any NATO country. I'm just concerned how passively people are taking the sides of their government and selectively disregarding some information yet accepting other information without question, depending on who is spoonfeeding it to them.
> But falling hook line and sinker for the Western propaganda talking points? Your bias is showing.
Such as?
> At the 2021 Brussels summit [1] NATO stated that "We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process".
And there wasn't any progress in this matter since 2008. It's still not even part of the MAP process.
> I'm just concerned how passively people are taking the sides of their government and selectively disregarding some information yet accepting other information without question, depending on who is spoonfeeding it to them.
Weird that you say that while repeating Russian propaganda word for word.
> "NATO has been aggressive in it's expansion towards Russia. Russia warned NATO to back off many times, and as late as January the two negotiated, Russia laid down the terms to either back off or it will invade, and NATO called Russia's bluff."
Fascinating to watch in real-time as somebody tries to convince us that Eastern European nations voluntarily joining NATO over 20 years was "aggression" and poor little Putin had no choice but to rain missiles and shells down on Ukrainian schools and hospitals.
>“McDonalds, evil American company, left our people without jobs and betrayed our trust”
You got me curious and I decided to check. They actually carried out reasons stated by McDnalds and respected the fact that through the whole process company has behaved responsibly towards employees and seeks their future employment as a condition for perspective buyers. I saw no signs of propaganda in the article.
Sure, but not everyone is convinced by the propaganda. Some people are just plain mad they don’t have something they used to have. We’ve tried appeasing a mad expansionist dictator in the past, didn’t go so well.
It's about removing sanction: denying the Russians - particularly the urban Russians - their veneer of civilization, affluence, westernization. The notion that they had accomplished something material positive in regards to moving forward in the world among nations after the Soviet collapse.
Sure they can clone brands, and sometimes they can clone products and services, you can also go to Walmart and buy Great Value brand products that are 85% as good as the brand goods. Most people still don't want to do that if they can afford not to.
People buy brands primarily (not exclusively) for social reasons of status, not because they're vastly superior to all alternatives (off brands, generics, house brands, etc). They don't need that Chanel or Louis Vuitton bag, or iPhone, they want it to show off.
Removing sanction is about the West no longer pretending Russia is a civilized nation, no longer pretending their culture is a civilized one (rather than a barbarous relic of the conquest-obsessed primitive past of the European great powers conflicts).
The scale of these delusions can only match the scale of Putin's delusions. How detached from real life should one be to reason about people as though they were homo economicus, pathetic humanoid consumers?
Linking “brands” to “civilization” is just a widespread publicist cliche that is only observed in various “analysis” in media. When you look at what people actually did, there is no trace of such feeling. Those who were critical of the state politics reacted to the news with “things are looking turbulent, better buy some buckwheat just in case”. Those who were supportive of the state politics reacted to the news with “things are looking turbulent, better buy some buckwheat just in case”. See, no one seriously cared about McDonalds® burgers or Apple® devices, but that didn't affect “economical prognoses” in the slightest. I can make my own: not even in most glorious America there is enough people to start an uprising over McDonalds being unavailable.
What's more important, outside of lucky industries like IT, not many people can even afford to care about brands. Those who make a lot usually work in export or budget spending (or “spending”) sectors, and they are the ones who perfectly understand that their wealth depends first and foremost on supporting any decision that comes from above, not following some capitalist dreams (even though this is a typical corporate manager situation). Those who make a lot more than a lot, and used to buy castles, villas, yachts, and so on in Europe and elsewhere, had zero problems with that for decades, despite the common knowledge that almost none of them had made those kind of money independently, and with hard work. One might even theorise that shooting down Boeing full of Europeans (as opposed to lesser people across the world routinely dying on TV screens) was Putin's particularly devilish plan of forcing his daughter to stop enjoying life abroad and move back home. Such are customs in modern “high society” of “successful people”. Have anyone noticed that when US arrested Abramovich's mansion, he seemed to get irritated, and made some un-business-like comments along the lines of “I'm no different from other people buying those, what's your fucking problem?” Might be the rare occasion of him telling some truth.
this is pure copium and old fashioned antimodernist ranting. if it helps you sleep at night, great, but it wont work on everyone. some people dont appreciate their nation becoming north korea 2.0
I wonder what made you think that criticizing current media spectacle is synonymous with supporting anything in Russian retrograde political system going on full steam into a dead end.
The “New North Korea!” journalistic chant also explains too little. What's more important, it is a smokescreen to hide the obvious: history repeats itself. When USSR discovered oil and gas, got drunk on them, and slowly rot for two decades while madly waving guns at the other half of the world, it formed quite stable relationship with Europe. With enough “Soviets BAD!” statements “democratic West” could easily turn the blind eye to a lot of things (including deviations from global sanctions) to keep the pipelines running. Putin might not be the best James Bond, but he worked abroad and had the general idea how those deals were prepared and made. You might have noticed that fairly recently Western Europe was also ready to start using Nord Stream 2 (and give the giant middle finger to Eastern Europe because, you know, peculia non olet) despite all the pressure from US — it was the genius of Russian leadership starting Ukranian Blitzkrieg right at the same time that buried the project.
Not my kitchen. We buy meat from a farm and render the fat trimmings to cook with.
That wasn't your point though.
Still, to actually refute your point I'd say that doesn't make it healthy, and my original point was about the many ways McDonald's food is unhealthy.
> This is 2022, we have to pack our food with some plastic.
No, we don't. Wax paper works fine.
The farm meat I get comes wrapped in butcher paper without the plastic per my request.
But my complaints are actually more about the types of plastics that are being shown more and more to leach pseudo estrogens into heated fats. No all plastics did this, but fast food containers do.
> It litery means that your food needs to be yummy.
I Cook yummy food, buy it's not literally designed to keep you eating more and feeling hungry shortly thereafter.
I also use to fry on fat, if there is enough fat on my kitchen. But usually it finishes very fast after appearing. Thank you for wax paper advice, I use it for salting a red fish using my friend's recipe who is a sailor. Will try to find some food with this kind of package.
> literally designed to keep you eating more and feeling hungry shortly thereafter
How on Earth is possible to design a high-calorie food (this is a promice of MacDo) which makes you feel hungry shortly? For me it works like a regular food.
> How on Earth is possible to design a high-calorie food (this is a promice of MacDo) which makes you feel hungry shortly? For me it works like a regular food.
Sugars and refined flour does this.
The foods spike your blood sugar and then cause a crash.
Don't let me misunderstood you, but you say that if I add some sugar or bread to my meal then I will feel hunger sooner. Seems like totally unreproduceble setup for an experiment, every my food intake tells me that the higher the calorage the more fuel.
Insulin responds to high blood sugar levels and tells all your cells to take in the sugar. Ghrelin triggers when you eat fatty foods and tells you you're full.
If you spike your blood sugar, then you spike your insulin, then your blood sugar crashes. The metric for that is glycemic load.
None of this requires such a high level experiment as you've mentioned, but it could be done.
From what I understand, it has nothing to do with morality or hurting Russia. The banking sanctions make it impossible to do financial transactions with the country, which effectively puts an stop on business relations.
There are a few things: it looks bad if McDonalds is still doing business with them.
also, for a lot of people having big brands makes you seem more legitimate - 20 years ago or so the small town near me got a McDonalds and it was a huge deal that made people think the town was more legitimate.
there is also the fact that doing business in russia right now may be more trouble than it is worth
and as far as hurting the economy, even though McDonalds corporate would make money from selling in Russia, they are paying the employees, distributors, utility companies and so on. So not getting that cut will hurt people. Yes, it probably won't hurt the rich or powerful but it may be part of death by a thousand cuts.
I would not underestimate how critical influence is.
Influence / knowledge how to operate big chains,.how to organize supplier how to do marketing etc.
If you are a smart modern person speaking English also makes it easier for you to stay in your country when you have appropriate job opportunities and a ecosystem which feels adequate.
It's not that I would miss McDonald's if it would disappear were I live bit if a lot more does, I would probably want to migrate away.
I think this is a bad sign for Russia. And IF they are able to recreate what they already had, it will take time and be costly.
The transaction can be mutually beneficial: We gain cash worth more to us than the licenses/branding/machines, they gain licenses/branding/machines worth more to them than the cash. For the classic example, see:
And I'll add "What changed here of course is that after Putin...." started getting his arse kicked, several western companies now dont wish to be seen as Russian-friendly (they still are, of course - they just don't wish to be seen as such).
Had the Ruskies taken the ukraine in a few days, as predicted, you can bet there'd be golden arches all-the-fuck over Mariupol right now.
*oh, and finland and sweden could get fucked, too. They didn't give a hoot until for quite several years.
If any western company actually gave a crap, they would have been out on day 1, or 7 or even 30...not 3 months later.
And, as for Renault being called out by Zelensky.....
Is your premise that when two parties trade, the selling party "wins" and the buying party "loses"? Ignoring the specifics of McDonald's, in general, the reason to make a trade is that both parties believe they will be better off. By not trading, it hurts both parties.
i think what’s going on is that lots of companies have collectively left on their own (not sanctions) and McDonalds is being “bullied” to leave too, possibly by their shareholders
the case here might be that they don’t want to devalue their brand, which is worth far more than their business in Russia
we can't let proprietary american advanced protein delivery technology to fall into the wrong hands, allowing them to use it to create an army of super soldiers
Closing McDonalds surely is a good for the general health of the populace. I'm against banning fast food but I see no downside. McDonalds is a symbolic offender in the sugar epidemic and the McPutin rippoff surely won't be as popular as the Big Mac.
It's about image. The most powerful weapon the west has isn't nuclear bomb but its culture and image. McDonald's business is a drop in the bucket in the tax revenue for the Putin regime. But if you (Putin) wants to claim that Russia is a powerful country, it needs to project an image of wealth, stability, etc.. McDonald, Starbucks, etc helps with that image.
Only a relatively wealthy population can afford fast food. The "convenience" of fast food is something that poor people (actually poor, not Western poverty) can't afford.
So yes, in the US/EU etc, McDonalds is seen as "cheap" food, but in places like Asian countries like Thailand, McDonalds is considered "middle class".
It's probably much simpler than that. If Putin's going to keep invading other countries for little or no reason, what's that nutbar going to do to your property? There's a $20 term for this but I forget what it is.
In addition to the reasons others here have said, of course.
Sanctions when applied properly can work. They need to actually impact directly on those who are politically powerful, while also imposing difficulties day-to-day on the general population, which encourages unrest and internal disputes.
Russia thought it had protected itself by having low foreign debt and large foreign reserves. What it didn't count on was that the US and EU reserve banks would freeze its foreign reserves, while also getting SWIFT and the MC/Visa payment networks to disconnect from the Russian banking system.
There currently is no alternative for foreign currency exchange and Russia has had to engage in much less efficient and expensive (because they are being made to pay through the nose) foreign exchange through China's nascient payment systems, which means they are exchanging rubles for yuan, instead of USD/EUR.
Bravo to McDonald's for that. My company (I'm an American working for an international one based in Germany) is doing the same thing. They're also building temporary small houses for our Ukrainian employees and families on corporate property in Poland and Germany. They also tried paying our Russian employees full wages too, until local Russian authorities and NATO/EU sanctions stopped that.
That, and they matched Euro for Euro employee contributions to any Ukrainian relief effort they donated to. Outstanding response, I think.
I remember the evening news on TV when the first McDonald's restaurant opened in 1990 at Pushkin Square. There was a huge crowd of Russians outside, wanting to try the burger.
It was a sign of a more open world, something resembling an end of the cold war.
There was a sense of optimism in the West about a peaceful future with Russia.
It does not matter that McD itself is closing in Russia, but it does tell us something about what the political and security-climate has reverted to.
One of my traumas from life in Russia during my childhood is the understanding that you live in a North Korea redux, and you have McDonalds, and other Western companies from democratic countries coming here, and feeding that regime.
US politicians kept droning how terrible Russia was through whole 200X, yet allow their companies to "wage business on the free world"
Can you imagine McDonalds in Pyongyang, and Don Thompson happily fellating political commissars in their boardroom? This is how I felt Western companies were behaving.
I'd be interested in your opinion on the alternatives. Would it have been better for you (and the country) if those businesses had decided in the noughties that Russia was not democratic enough and pulled out? Do you think it would have made a major impact at that time?
Or do you think it should have been tackled from an anti-corruption point of view with investigations into how those companies were conducting business?
>"One of my traumas from life in Russia during my childhood is the understanding that you live in a North Korea redux, and you have McDonalds, and other Western companies from democratic countries coming here, and feeding that regime."
A child traumatized by the thoughts about geopolitical issues?
> The Company intends to initiate the process of “de-Arching” those restaurants, which entails no longer using the McDonald’s name, logo, branding, and menu, though the Company will continue to retain its trademarks in Russia.
Obviously they'd want to keep the trademark, otherwise they have no way to prevent those sold restaurants from "re-Arching" after the "de-Arching" :)
> Obviously they'd want to keep the trademark, otherwise they have no way to prevent those sold restaurants from "re-Arching" after the "de-Arching" :)
If a country has gone sufficiently rogue to invade a neighbour, respect for property[0][1] - and by extension trademarks - appears to matter very little, at least for now?
Russia is party to several international treaties that allow it to be sued outside of Russian courts if it doesn't uphold intellectual property law, and if those suits do not go Russia's way, then it is now possible that Russian assets can be seized as compensation.
Or, to oversimplify it, if Russia decides that anyone can use McDonald's trademark, then maybe Gazprom's pipelines won't be Russian anymore.
You are a bit late to the party. Many Russian assets have already been seized, among them the Gazprom subsidiary in Germany.
We are in a weird spot where Russia is very much interested in economic relationships continuing more or less as is (exemplified by the conciliatory rhetoric from the Russian government, essentially they are saying "no hard feelings, return any time" to the departing companies) so will mostly respect property rights. OTOH the West sees financial and economic relationships as their main weapon in this war so most funky moves related to property rights will be initiated by the Western governments (e.g. many "sanctions" essentially are extrajudiciary property seizures).
> Many Russian assets have already been seized, among them the Gazprom subsidiary in Germany
Most Russian assets have been frozen, not seized. The German subsidiary made news for being an exception in that Germany took control of the subsidiary. But it’s still Gazprom’s property.
>> Are all of those mega yachts getting boarded not considered seized?
> That is my understanding. The property still belongs to the owners
IIRC, there are efforts being made to outright seize stuff like the yachts, sell them, and give the proceeds to Ukraine. I'm not completely up on the details, though. I think some criteria might be if the property is de-facto owned by the Russian state, or was acquired due to corrupt association with it.
That is a legal nuisance. Operational control is with the government. Profits (if there are any) won't be paid out. Thus who is listed as owner doesn't matter for any practical purposes. It however allows to give back control in case the situation is cleared. But that doesn't seem likely, thus the company will slowly be dismantled.
Hasn't the US already been seizing stuff somewhat randomly? I don't think there is a case that Russian yachts are contributing to the war effort, but there seems to be a push on to make off with them.
The claim is the Russian rich folk commit criminal acts. The method is civil forfeiture. The outcome is nothing need be proven, the assertion is sufficient.
“We are already working with our international partners to freeze and seize properties belonging to sanctioned Russian oligarchs worldwide,” said Attorney General Garland. “We will continue to work together to take all appropriate actions against those whose criminal acts enable the Russian government to continue its unjust war against Ukraine.”
> Russia is party to several international treaties that allow it to be sued outside of Russian courts if it doesn't uphold intellectual property law...
> The outcome is nothing need be proven, the assertion is sufficient...
There seem to be inconsistent messages in this thread. Do we need to prove anything to take stuff off the Russians or don't we?
> There seem to be inconsistent messages in this thread. Do we need to prove anything to take stuff off the Russians or don't we?
Isn't it like it has always been in human history? You don't need to prove anything if your goal is total destruction of your enemy and everything associated with them. Just do what you think will harm them the most. Until the total destruction of one or another side. Or the whole humanity.
The only thing I don't understand here is why some people act surprised when that same enemy fight back using the same or similar means? Like seizing property and assets of companies, citizens, and administration of one state, and then complaining that intellectual property of your administration, company, or citizens might not be respected in that same country?
Putin cares too much about his internal front. He will gladly throw any foreign property owned by the Russian state under the bus if he thinks giving the Russians the foreign brands they are accustomed to can quell any disobedience or unrest. Either Russia takes the nationalistic route and converts all of its fast food joints to Uncle Vania's, or it will surely reopen its McDonalds while violating their brands. I don't really think they give a damn anyway, their business relations with the West are gone for good and they won't be mended any time soon.
Russia makes most of its money from primary sector exports (grains, oil, gas, minerals, ...), and that's basically the only thing they care about. They are building new markets in Asia for that, in countries like China that definitely don't give a damn about Burger King's IP or whatever. They know that unless Putin is deposed tomorrow and Russia demilitarises the Europeans will switch to LNG and North African natural gas anyway, they are just playing ball with what they have.
Also, those properties in the West would probably get confiscated or sequestered very soon anyway.
I think you are right. I don't see many options for Putin. Russia's relationship to Western businesses is gone for at least a decade. Putin's best option is to confiscate any Western properties and businesses that won't play ball with him. Russia has become a pariah state, so it can just keep walking down that path anyway.
The problem with that is that Putin doesn't seem to care about the damage to Russias economy and hijacking the gas pipelines is likely to do just as much damage to the countries downstream. One of Gazproms local off shots managing gas reserves was recently seized in Germany, however without Gazprom delivering gas its tanks will just stay empty and they represent a not insignificant amount of our winter reserves.
That's true, but abandoning them will be a guarantee they won't be respected. At least there is some leverage and the ability to wage a lawsuit. But I agree there is little chance it will succeed.
Yeah, in the short term, any property rights of foreign organizations in russia is probably not something to rely on. On the other hand, regimes do fall and organization can survive long enough for the policy in russia to change. So it makes sense at least have a claim for trademark (because right now it is really a claim, not a property, since russia can take it away any time it wants)
It's like saying a prayer when your plane is about to crash and there's nothing else you can do. Probably won't amount to much, but what's the downside?
In McD's case, there's tremendous upside. Perhaps it will be feasible for them to operate there again someday.
Prior to the invasion Ukraine was breaking their treaty
Sure. The DPR is complete the same as Ukraine, right?
> By January 2015, the Minsk Protocol ceasefire had completely collapsed [f]ollowing the separatist victory at Donetsk International Airport in defiance of the Protocol, DPR spokesman Eduard Basurin said that "the Minsk Memorandum will not be considered in the form it was adopted"
Go to Taiwan to see how ostracism from the WTO order turns out: hint, Disney et al. copyrights and trademarks are universally used without fear or concern by just about everyone. What can the IP "owners" say: "We're going to sic the WTO on you!"?? The trivial answer: "We applied to the WTO and for political and diplomatic expediency they won't have us so we are not governed by the WTO"
EDIT: This turned out to be fake - sorry. Leaving the rest of the comment here for posterity.
A Russian restaurant chain "Uncle Vanya" has already filed for a trademark that looks very "inspired" by the McD arches. It is basically rotated 90 degrees and a line is added, so it looks like a "B" - which is like the letter "V" in Vanya in the cyrillic alphabet.
The cyrillic "Щ" (a W with a tail) is pronounced Shcha, I saw a shawarma restaurant in Russia using an upside-down McDonald's double arches, in the same yellow.
Could they still prevent it, though? What would they do, sue a state that's already started using "revoked" copyrights and is slowly starting to treat western laws the way many people treat the "fasten the seat belt" signs?
Wow thatt's pretty rough. Just recently I saw some old footage of when Russia opened to the West and all those 90's kids in Russia going to the first Mc Donalds opening there.
Then again McDonalds is a good example of a lot of things that are just plain wrong about western culture... so no loss for Russia I guess.
Regardless of what people think about McDonalds, this is a very symbolic move. People in the west remember those 90s scenes on TV of McDonalds opening in Russia, and it was symbolic of Russia opening up and a new prosperous relationship with the west. I would not be surprised if the US government nudged McDonalds to exit swiftly and publicly like this because the optics are very clear: Russia is going backwards.
Did McDonald's internationally do better over the last 20 years than it did in the US? Between 1990 and now, it seems to me that it lost a lot of cultural ground domestically, (and so did Pizza Hut, Gorbachev commercial and all). The few times I've gone into a McD's lately, every single time they've heavily pushed a "How did we do?" survey, as though they're a jilted lover wondering what went wrong. The optics in 1990 were as much for Americans as for Russians, but if it happened today, Americans wouldn't be impressed; they'd need something like opening a Chick-fil-A in Saudi Arabia.
McDonalds in non US countries is often very different from the US. Its still probably not the healthiest option, but it operates in a different market segment.
It makes sense that they adapt the menu slightly for each demographic. Also that they need to source meat etc in a competitive way, not from across another continent so just by that mere fact it may be slightly better (I think I'm not mistaken that US has really refined meat production to the extreme...).
The McDonald's on the Avenue des Champs-Élysées has triple cheeseburgers which aren't usually available even in the US, but it is certainly a bit "higher class" if you will, though that may be related to restaurants in general not being as frequented outside the US (only Italy comes close apparently).
I disagree. McDonalds in the US is gross. I've had McDonalds in Europe 4-5 times and each of those were pretty OK.
(Why am I eating McDonalds in Europe? Sometimes when you get off a train and don't have your bearings yet in a place, something fast that's a known quantity is the way to go even if it pales to other options you'll find soon).
The "Here" app loaded with a country has all the McDonalds, which are guaranteed (almost always) to have a restroom and wifi. Can be worth it's weight in gold.
(I don't notice a ton of difference between USA McDonald's and other ones, though the taste can be slightly different, and I don't usually frequent McDonalds in dense urban areas in the USA.)
McDonalds in Russia and Ukraine has historically been better in quality and taste than anywhere else in the world. When I first came to US, I was very surprised to see how dirty it is and what garbage the food is.
The biggest takeaway (...) for me was the stats about how they are still growing by a decent amount. I haven't paid attention to them in a long time but
> expects... over 1,300 net restaurant additions in 2022.
From what I heard, at least at some time McDonalds profited more from trading real estate than from selling burgers. As in, buy a shop, wait for the district around to develop, sell the shop. So I would expect them to continue buying shops on the outskirts where cities are expanding.
For myself, I can't really imagine this whole operation with Mac selling now for some reason instead of a hundred years later—after all, presumably they still want to have burger joints in all those places. But maybe I don't understand too much about real estate.
Renault did that last month. They sold their car factories and operations building and selling more than 500,000 cars a year in Russia at a very significant profit for one rouble. The Russian state company who bought it promised that it will sell back the company for the same price when the sanctions are lifted, BUT for the "enhancements" they could make until then...
> George Alan Cohon, CC OOnt (born April 19, 1937) is an American-born Canadian businessman who is the founder and senior chairman of McDonald's Canada and McDonald's of Russia.
I visited the USSR in 1990 and ate at that first McDonald's in Moscow. People were deliriously happy. It was a hopeful time. And such a beautiful country. The most amazing architecture; shockingly incredibly museums.
We seem to have lost those times of hope. It's tragic.
> when a country has reached an economic development where it has a middle class strong enough to support a McDonald's network, it would become a "McDonald's country", and will not be interested in fighting wars anymore
It's amazing how persistent this basic idea is. "Once we reach a certain level of X, we won't fight wars anymore." X can be money, education, scale of war (WWI), etc. but the idea never proves true in the long run. Nations fight for the same reasons toddlers do, just at a much bigger scale and with far greater consequences.
I would keep the business open, add a 20% Ukraine war fee to all sales (call it special operation fee if needed), and give it to a Ukraine war relief fund.
It is regular thugs — sent by officials, secret police, mafia bosses, or persons taking more than one of those positions — who smash windows 9 times out of 10. However, your logic takes unwarranted turn to “power of propaganda” and “people of Russia”, probably because there's plenty of stereotypes of how “people” in any country behave to use.
Nah. You'll more likely get your window smashed if you gonna put some Z-swastika on it. No doubt a lot of population in Russian affected by propoganda, but primary goal of Putin's propoganda is to make people passive and not to have opinion on anything at all.
But yeah if you put anything Ukraine-related or anti-war related police will come to you immediately.
The thing that was always weird about that "theory" that there hasn't been a war between two countries that had McDonalds was even when it was created it was wrong. There was a war (depending on how you want to count a war, as it was just considered a "military action" to get rid of General Noriega) between the US and Panama in 1990. Both countries had McDonalds.
I don't really have much to add to the topic that hasn't already been said here. It will be interesting to see if this continues and what it does to Russia.
But on a tech side of things, why is the corporate section of McDonalds trying to request my location?!? Glad Safari prompted me and I blocked it but this is ridiculous.
Can anybody explain why the rouble is at a five-year high? Or is there something in the intricacies of currency pairings that means this high isn't quite like other "highs"?
Russia raised interest rates to 20% at the beginning of the war to support the ruble, they also had built strong foreign capital reserves to support their currency, they've also instituted capital controls. The average person in Russia can't buy dollars, and the average person outside of Russian unable to sell any of their shares or short any stocks.
Essentially, the Ruble suffers when people flee to USD, but since both the US and Russia are preventing this, the Ruble is stronger. This is then further supported by extremely high gas prices, which allows Russia to run a trade surplus, exporting expensive oil but unable to import anything.
People are claiming this as a win for Putin - but if you look below the surface there's an obvious fact: The Ruble is only strong because no one is allowed to sell it.
Russians are in fact allowed to buy USD (provided the bank actually has the physical dollar notes). The earlier prohibition on buying foreign currency has been relaxed.
They aren’t. They can buy virtual USD, but can only physically withdraw up to $10k per year. And if they receive USD, they are required by law to deposit 80% of it within three days.
On the contrary, tax was dropped for metallic (physical) gold operations in order to provide an alternative to dollar for ordinary people (whatever that means). But, given the current prices and trade rules for metallic gold (keep the documents from purchase, don’t scratch ingot, sell to the same bank you bought it from, otherwise price will be lower), it’s not a great alternative.
Besides, price of 1g of gold was around 7500 RUB when tax was dropped, and around 4500 RUB now, so, well, happy investing.
With the sanctions, imports have fallen but exports are still going strong. The Central Bank now requires all exporters to exchange at least 50% of foreign profits into roubles. So, there's a lot of demand for RUB, not so much for USD.
It is not free traded anymore. You can't buy USD/Euro in russia, you can't use rubbles outside russia. At this point they can set it anything they want, it's not a market rate.
>The Bank of Russia more than doubled the benchmark interest rate to 20%, a 19-year high, on Feb. 28 and also imposed capital controls, including a ban on foreigners’ selling of securities. Nabiullina said decisions to suspend some regulatory requirements amounted to a capital boost for banks equivalent to 900 billion rubles ($8.7 billion). Putin banned all Russian residents from transferring foreign currency abroad, hardening capital controls.
the difference is that for 30 years since McDonalds is in Russia, nobody said “We don’t need McDonalds”
they only left after the “special operation” started, but the propaganda will try to shift the blame and tell “whatever, we don’t need McDonalds anyways”
next thing you know: “we dont’t need bread, we don’t need bananas, we don’t need water, German cars are for fashists”, etc.
That is when it is suddenly closing and wont be available anymore. They like McDonald and it is closing, so they all want last burgers. And even people in that queue would tell you they dont need it, they would however tell you they like it a lot.
actually Russian propaganda interpreted this exact news as "McDonalds will be re-opened in mid June" [1] focusing on keeping jobs and suppliers and mentioning the rebranding
I don't think McDonalds & Co are such a big health-negative in other countries as it is in the US. I've never met someone who's obese from eating Maccas in Sweden, they're obese because they eat more calories than they burn.
Calling a food unhealty is quite silly to me, anything is unhealty if you consume it in unhealty amounts.
The above statements obviously exclude things like cyanide and other things designed to kill humans, I'd call them lethal.
IMO McDonalds was among the healthier and reliable choices when it comes to eating out in Russia. I could be reasonably sure I won't get food poisoning at a McD, for one.
IMO Russia doesn't have a very developed culture of eating out and strong traditions of safe meal preparation, so it's really hit or miss in cafes and restaurants. Accidental remnants of plastic packaging, undercooked meat, stuff like that even if you pay mid range prices. In fact, it could be safer to eat in a cheap local diner, but you really have to know one and they generally work limited hours. Without that option I'd go for McD if there's one.
You're opening for me to go off-topic and talk about drug abuse here. And my opinion is that the user is at fault for consuming unhealthy amounts of X, but that we as society should help out. (See the resemblance?) (Also note that society might have failed people and led them to abuse too, but the final decision is made by the person either way).
But closing the door for people who don't have issues with self-restraint feels like collective punishment. (Not that Maccas are in the wrong here, they can open and close restaurants wherever they want, I don't mind.)
> And my opinion is that the user is at fault for consuming unhealthy amounts of X, but that we as society should help out
We have different views here, even though I admit, I used to be ambivalent about that (and about drug legalisation) until very recently. I mean, I would certainly not criminalise drug possession and drug use like it unfortunately still is the case in my country (Romania), but I've started having very serious doubts about legalising distribution, and in so doing "normalising" said drug use.
Back to unhealthy food, unfortunately some people are too weak to resist eating above a certain healthy threshold. There were studies that blamed the food companies themselves for that, there are other people that blame the users themselves (like you seem to do), but in the end the unhealthiness wins. That's why if the unhealthy source goes away (like in this case with Russia and McDo) I see it as a positive, no matter who was at fault the rot source is gone, that's got to be good.
I don't think we soley disagree. I think it's essential to keep certain products out of the masses hands. These certain products are product with high "addictability" and high "abusabulity" (might be the same thing?). As a single example I'd put all opioids in that compartment. (There are more but I think this is one everyone agrees on)
Food on the other hand, while it's addictive it's also essential for literally everyone. I for example am such a lazy piece of shit that I haven't cooked in years, for me it would be devastating if the unhealty but calorie rich and affordable food went away.
That's an anecdote, but yes if access to high-calorie food is limited people are less likely to get/stay overweight.
Norway has a thing for this to reduce candy intake, they have a sugar tax. And while I'm not all for the government taking all my money, in a socialist society I think it makes perfect sense to tax something that'll cause a significant amount of people health issues to pay for it in advance. Same with cigarettes, they're super expensive in Norway, so that you've hopefully somewhat paid off your lung-cancer treatment once/if you get it.
There's no one size fits all for this, but there are definitely things we should keep out of peoples hands. I do not however think food is one of those.
I think whether they go back will depend on what the country looks like after things stabilize. If Russia comes out of this still on belligerent footing then spending resources to reestablish a presence will be extremely risky. Even if leadership changes and makes conciliatory noises I would expect things to still take some years before the world can trust it's authentic.
NATO has always been a defensive alliance, a retaliatory deterrence against attacking any one member, especially weaker members that would be easy to pick off.
NATO expansion has pretty much always been a reaction to Russian aggression, including the most recent accessions following Russia's takeover of Crimea and now their invasion if the Ukraine.
Painting NATO expansion as an aggressive act that forces Russia to retaliate with their own belligerance is a reversal of cause & effect at best and a willful blindness or belief in propaganda at worst. The truth is that since the fall of the Soviet Union Russia has been free to participate in global affairs & economics as much or as little as it wants, and while geopolitical games are played on all sides there have been no efforts to prevent Russia's peaceful participation such things. The rest of the world has even turned a blind eye to some fairly brutal conflicts they waged to consolidate what power they could among former Soviet states. Such is that nature of realpolitik.
Russian leadership's desire to take that to an entirely new level right now is of course scaring the shit our of other close neighbors who rightfully fear that they would be next on the list.
US actions in, e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan are irrelevant "whataboutism". If you have a problem with US actions then complain about them, advocate for US sanctions or a NATO-like alliance against US aggression or whatever you thing is appropriate. But none of it excuses Russia's actions and the very reasonable response from other countries that now seek protection from becoming their next target.
Complaining about NATO expansion as an instigator of Russian aggression is like complaining that a playground bully is justified in beating up kids just because a group of those kids decided they would defend themselves collectively if the bully went after them again.
I think whataboutism is just a very nice word that is being used more and more in order to retain some sort of moral superiority and no accountability for actions, like we need to use two weights and two measures just otherwise we are whatabouting
No it's not whataboutism it's just to make sure that when we say that Russia is crazy and US is some sort of holy state, we are trusting the wrong people to tell us what is just and correct and what is not
So I am sorry but when the US tries to tell us about criminals and that what it takes to be just, I think only that it is the most criminal country in the history of the world, the only one to drop nuclear bombs on cilivian target cities or killing kids in Iraq and Afghanistan then jailing journalists or try to get them extradited, or spying on citizens of the world or backing israeli regime killing kids and journalists. Just as a way to remember who is telling us to give up everything we have and our stability, to be aware of the interlocutor, somehow.
So at this point, we realise that US is a criminal state pursuing his own interest at the expense of the rest of the world, once we've established that, and that they don't care about human rights and freedom of press, since they support countries against that around the world for their interests, would we give up that?
So when Biden speaks to Europeans saying you need to give up Russian gas for the track record of Russia, why Europeans don't reply that US need to give up its relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel?
Because the world is not unjust but european leaders are now pursuing US interests at their own expenses, and that is not good
When you use bad actions by the US as justification for bad actions by Russia then you can call it whatever you want-- ditch "whataboutism" for you favored rationalization of choice, it's still a fundamentally flawed argument that avoids addressing the issue at hand in favor of hand waving non sequiturs and distractions.
It shows either a fundamental disinterest in or inability to argue the issue on its own merits, and you continue that flawed course of arguments in your above comment. By all means condemn the US for any actions you believe are wrong. Argue for the same sorts of sanctions or other measure that you believe are merited if you think the US should be held to account for those things.
But don't mistake your criticisms of the US or anyone else as coming anywhere close to a valid argument for why Russia is justified in its current course of actions. Don't mistake them for a valid argument against new NATO applicants fearful that they are next on Russia's hit list. No, instead you need to understand that you are defending Russia's actions as though they are a necessary response, when nothing could be further from the truth. In the wake of the Soviet breakup the remaining Russian Federation was extremely well poised to break out of its isolation and contribute significantly to the world with its rich culture & strong scientific tradition instead of just its commoditized natural resources. Instead it was coopted by oligarchical kleptocrats that stifled its vast potential. The world is poorer for Russian leadership's self-interests & self-dealing, and their short-sightedness now requires it to response with force to situations it could have managed to the net benefit of itself and its partners.
Russia is not the victim here. Russia is not justified in its actions. It's been outplayed in economics & geopolitics only because its leadership never considered cooperation as a first-line stance on the world stage. If it feels "forced" into violence now it is only because its leadership has always extended the mailed fist instead of trying the velvet glove first. So it is no surprise that countries would flee that approach in favor the velvet glove that offers prosperity through cooperation before it extends the threat of force.
The result is a military failure the will achieve every strategic horror it thought to fight against. It is severely weakened militarily, unable to defeat an enemy it should easily have bested even with the light weaponry aid provided to Ukraine, much of which only made it there after their initial failed invasion. This has shown the world how poorly prepared it is to project military power beyond its own borders, except by nuclear threat. From here on out, it can do very little militarily without resorting to threat of nuclear war. It now has almost not option in-between minor skirmish & nuclear bombs because its weak logistics and untrained troops are revealed to the world.
In the broader geopolitical game it has reversed a decades-long decline in the relevance of NATO, a long sought strategic goal of theirs, and instead injected new life into the organization making it more relevant and stronger than it has been for a very long time. Just a few years ago there was strong support among many in the US to dismantle NATO or at least gut it by withdrawing, but now you'd be hard pressed to find more than a slim minority who believe NATO has outlived its purpose.
Russia, by taking steps that you seem ready to support & justify, has weakened itself in every conceivable way. Point fingers at other awful things done by other countries all you want, you cannot get around this. You cannot avoid the fact that, even if Russia's actions were even minimally justified (they're not) they are a strategic disaster that will leave its unfortunate population worse off for at least a generation.
This seems to ignore the last 20 years of NATO occupation of Iraq which has been attacked based on false reports of some nuclear warheads that have never been found, I am not sure if you guys have short memory, are constantly brainwashed by your partisan media or just not that smart, If I was surrounded by a bunch of countries depending on the will of some guys calling freedom fries to force other to join, creating fake news and reports to force others to invade, I would be scared too
Im not sure what a war in Iraq that didn't even involve NATO has to do with Russia raping and pillaging across Ukraine, but the real question is how many countries does Russia get to rape and pillage in your world until the world decides maybe the rapists should be stopped?.
There were roughly 50 countries in the coalition, but only about 20% were NATO members, and those only represented about half of the actual NATO members at the time.
It was an ill-conceived conflict yes, but not an actual NATO conflict. In fact the lack of support from key NATO allies led to a very acrimonious relationship with founding NATO members that did not participate. To characterize Iraq military operations as a NATO operation in the face of these facts is simply ridiculous, especially when the actual contributions by NATO members that did join the coalition, with the possible exception of the UK, were very small. (Though their soldiers should still be honored for their willingness to serve and sacrifices made) It was not approved by NATO and if the US had officially sought Article 5 support for the conflict it very well may have been denied, a likely reason why they didn't invoke it to avoid embarrassment. After the country fell to US & coalition forces, only then did NATO send humanitarian assistance & resources to help rebuild, and they were strictly limited in scope.
The Iraq invasion was no more a NATO operation than the Suez Crisis was, with both giving their countries black eyes on reputation and credibility.
As for the other conflicts you mention, NATO's intervention with Yugoslavia was brutal & likely excessive, but it did stop a genocide in its tracks. It's rightfully criticized for its methods but it's difficult to fault their involvement itself. Libya on the other hand I agree was a complete mess. Regardless, none of that justifies Russia's own actions.
And Italy, and Czechia, poor us italians, we were told after Nassiriya that our sacrifice would not have been forgotten, now we don't even get quoted in the occupants list
Ask cubans about exercising sovereignity against the freest world, as said in my main message, we need to give up moral superiority and understand other countries needs
This is the failing of the tankie argument: "but but the evil US" (and to be clear, the US has done plenty of awful things) ignores that Russia's other problem here is that they do nothing to make anybody actually want to support them. And it just so happens that Russia doesn't have the friends they'd need to do what they want--who knew?--and that is a historical failing.
Appealing to power politics only works when the parties attempting to exert power aren't bad at it. It's why the weirdos online have to insist that it's a "CIA op" making Sweden and Finland look at the aggressive power next door and go "hello, NATO": because reality has kneecapped the myth.
Who are "we" in your statements? And can you elaborate on which other country you mean, and what their needs are? Because it doesn't seem like Russia needed to invade a Ukraine that it already had very close political & economic ties to. When Ukraine decided it wanted a leader who would also be friendly to the West Russia couldn't handle it. They viewed expanding economic interests as a threat, and rather than try to win out on diplomacy and friendly trade deals or any other economic approach they chose war. So please, get away from your vague statements of "we" & "needs" and be specific. Otherwise it sounds like you're reading from a script of talking points without any deeper justification on your difference of opinion.
For whatever reason you seem to be conflating the needs of the local dictators like Castro and Putin with the people they are ruling over. I'm not sure they are necessarily the same all the time.
Why is it more important to listen to Russia than to listen to Ukraine, Sweden, and Finland? Or also Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia?
Do you think you are capable of listening to those countries?
Take Kazakhstan. It's a country which is in several bloc-like agreements with Russia: СНГ, ОДКБ, ЕАЕС. How are you going to listen to it? I will tell you how the West do it every time:
You are going to find some opposition crackpot who will badmouth Russia and crap on Kazakhstan regime, and you will ignore all other voices.
The one who may as well be on some Western "free press" aid program and therefore not really speaking for themself but for you. You are only going to listen to yourself.
> Do you think you are capable of listening to those countries?
Honestly, no. But that doesn't mean they aren't worth listening to, it just means we need to find someone who is capable of listening to them.
And it's equally worth pointing out that listening to Kazakhstan through a Russian filter is as dangerously misguided as listening to it through a Western filter.
I don't have to understand those countries to believe they should have the right to make their own sovereign decisions. Let Russia try to influence by diplomatic means, let the west do the same, let the country decide what it wants. You just seem to be arguing that these countries should be Russian proxies instead of Western proxies, which is absurd. Let them be neither. Russia's problem is that it's primary mode of influence is force. The west focusses much more on economic influence. And yes, lest you try for a simplistic "what about", they do use force too, but the focus is overwhelmingly on economic and diplomatic influence first.
Countries can have a booming trade without being a client state. You are under the misapprehension that 1) A small country must make itself subservient to a larger more powerful one. And 2) It cannot have close ties with more than one large world power.
Germany for example has very strong economic interests with both the US & Russia, and until the Ukrainian invasion there wasn't too much of a problem with that. The US warned that Russia would use its fossil fuel exports as a political weapon (as it turns out, correctly, but the US wields economic influence in similar, if more subtle ways) but Germany was still free to enter into an agreement despite that, and it did so, along with many other European countries to a lesser extent.
Finland & Sweden were perfectly content to "be neither" for three quarters of a century! But now, faced with a belligerent Russian regime, they're driven to the extreme of knowing they could be next on Russia's list. Russia has brought this on itself, and if more countries are choosing a closer alliance to the west it is in no way through pressure or threats of violence by the west (or the US in particular) but instead due to fear of violence from a their neighbor to the east. Russia has created a situation where "we don't need to pick a side, we can be neither" is now a choice that risks annihilation of national sovereignty.
Kazakhstan has at least threeway close ties and it does not cause problems. They are also not subservient. They're just profiting from having stable relations with larger neighbours.
I think that supports what I'm saying? Countries do no have to pick a side, they can have have (or should be allowed to have) prosperous relationships with Russia, US, Europe, China, etc.
Ukraine got on the bad side of Russia because it was trying to do just that. It gained leadership that was willing to develop stronger ties with the West and Russia perceived it as a threat, annexing Crimea as stage-1 in their plan to eliminate Ukrainian sovereignty.
Instead they might simply have played nice, continue being the region's key supplier of natural gas/oil/etc., Used those proceeds to develop other areas of it's economy... You get the idea. Their leadership's nostalgia for empire building is, ironically, getting in the way of them building an economic empire. Their scientific tradition should have them at the forefront of new breakthroughs alongside other large nations. Instead, we get a fruitless invasion and another generation of isolation.
Ukraine tried to pick a side by dumping Russia. If they stayed reasonably multi-vectored and out of the discussions to join the EU/NATO, they'd be swimming in Russian money to that day.
"Continue being the region's key supplier of natural gas/oil/etc" is not enough for Russia.
It doesn't seem like they were trying to dump Russia. No, they were simply trying to also improve relationships with the West. Either way, it's their right to choose their economic partners. A military invasion by Russia is not an acceptable response.
Because Russia has 10k nuclear warheads that yankees are apparently ignoring, and the expansion of NATO is happening on european soil at european stability expenses, which apparently EU leaders are ignoring, you guys seem to think that I come here to say these things because I am a fan of Mister Putin, I am not, but I am aware that actions have consequences and if Hilary Clinton and Obama tell a guy that he is Hitler, when the guy is at the head of a state with 10k nuclear warheads, then Clinton and Obama need to fuck off a stay out of European soil affairs, because it is ultimately European states that border with this state. I understand this is not an issue for you, as you don't border with it and don't have business and energy and companies depending on it, but we are, the wellbeing and stability of the continent depends on talking and dealing with Putin at the moment, so we need EU leaders to stop being US puppet and start keeping in mind european interests and lives
You know, Eastern European leaders are even harder line against Russia right now than the US is, let alone Western Europe. I guess having living memory of having been invaded and occupied by Russia makes you especially eager to sign up to, and enforce, a pact that will commit a much, much larger power to go to war against Russia if you get invaded.
I'm not worried about nuclear weapons, and this is why: nuclear weapons are the last form of escalation possible. If Putin uses nuclear weapons, there is nothing he can do to further deter NATO from invading Russia, and I strongly suspect that public opinion would be in favor of NATO doing so. I don't see any scenario where the use of nuclear weapons wouldn't harm Russian positions, let alone a scenario where nuclear weapons are actually helpful.
I don't know what you're talking about. Obama famously tried to reset the US relationship with Russia back to something more cordial and Vladimir Putin used that as an opportunity to spit at their feet, as if it were a sign of weakness. Because the only thing Putin seems to respect as a potential limit on his power are overt physical threats.
Indeed, I know of several companies that have said they will sell the business to a local entity, but keep the options open to come back when the situation changes.
Probably whatever oligarch buys it will buy it for cheap and will cash in big time when McDonald's buys it back, so a big cash flow to supporters of the regime...
No, this was the case until now but the point of the article is that they're selling all assets and letting everyone go. They promised to help them get employed by another company, but themselves they are pretty much quitting the country.
It's a big move for McD, they are probably the only foreign chain that actually owns most of its restaurants rather than just franchising them out.
Edit: I did hear some McD locations got 're-branded'. I'm not sure whether those were the franchised restaurants that turned or someone actually expropriated McDonalds' assets.
I don't understand why anyone would call it "good". Cheap and convenient maybe, appeals to kids, somewhere to stop on a long journey in the middle of the night. There are so many options that are tastier, more interesting and more nutritious. It's not even in the top 5 best burger franchises in my town.
[apologies if you're joking, and even if you aren't you're still entitled to your opinion]
What kind of health problems would you expect from going there once in a while? There was no mention of frequency. Going there once every month or two is not going to do much.
It’s a statement about social class disguised as one about health. Note that the insecurity tells you that they’re on some level concerned that they’ll be confused with the kind of person who eats a lot of McDonald’s. Any time you see performative hatred of something ask who the performance is for.
I ate it every day for around 9 months or so. I lost weight. It’s just about as unhealthy as any other 700-ish calorie lunch, and if it’s your biggest meal of the day and you don’t otherwise overeat, what’s the problem?
Has Putin not seen the fate of Beria in the film "The Death Of Stalin"? How long will it take before the Red Army takes him out into the back yard and shoots him?
Edit: Usual Putinista downvotes. Get a life. Why do you support this evil man?
Based on what? I'm sure they could exit anywhere they wanted, but since Canada isn't actively committing war crimes and having sanctions placed on it, what positive would come from leaving Canada?
If people crash their car, should we blame Toyota? McDonald's doesn't force anyone to eat their food. If your fellow Canadians want to eat McDonald's, that's their choice. If they all stopped, McDonald's would either have to make healthier food or exit the country. But unless they're force feeding helpless Canadians food, it doesn't seem like them exiting because "people here are getting fat" is a rational suggestion.
Russia is a vassal state of china and shows the direction emperor Xi wants to go, but can't afford to. They wanted to show that dictatorships are more powerfull and efficent than democracy but even the market (inkl Mc. Donalds) showed that they aren't. I wonder if humanity will survive the next maybe indiect conflict with China...
Dictatorships are much more enjoyable for the elite and top class. Especially, when they have free access to all goods, services, and progress created in free countries.
