Categories
Michael Novakhov's favorite articles

How Putin Turned a Western Boycott Into a Bonanza


Mr. Putin’s economic counterstrikes have helped to fortify support among the elites profiting from the war and to blunt the effects of Western isolation. While Ukraine is preoccupied with short-term imperatives like shoring up international support, the relative resilience of the Russian economy has enabled Mr. Putin to play a long game.

Previously undisclosed documents, financial statements and interviews with dozens of deal makers in Russia and across Europe — many of whom spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution — show that Moscow now micromanages practically every exit. Companies must navigate an opaque system to win approval to sell. In some cases, Mr. Putin’s friends have appealed directly to him to intervene.

“Those who are leaving are losing their position,” Dmitri S. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, told The Times. “And of course, their property is being bought at a serious discount and taken over by our companies, which are doing it with pleasure.”

Still, the wave of departing companies has stung. It has sent a global signal that Russia is a business pariah. The economy is strained and at risk of overheating. Mr. Putin’s handling of Western departures has only reinforced Russia’s image as a dangerous place to do business. Even some top Russian officials admit that decreased competition and foreign investment will hurt everyday Russians and the economy in the long term.

The Kremlin says it prefers that companies remain in Russia. But Mr. Putin scoffs at the notion that leaving will hurt. “Did they think everything would collapse here? Well, nothing of the kind happened,” he said this month. “Russian companies took over and moved on.”

“Zamestim,” Russian for “We will replace,” made out of the logos of Western companies on a display in St. Petersburg, Russia, in April 2022. Aleksey Smagin/Kommersant, via Alamy

Not every deal is a windfall. Some buyers will face steep obstacles to make their new businesses profitable.

Hanging over the exit process for Western firms is the threat of intimidation and force. The Russian authorities have investigated departing companies, interrogated workers and arrested local executives.

Last summer, Mr. Putin seized the Russian arm of the Danish brewer Carlsberg, along with roughly half a billion dollars in cash, and put them under the temporary control of one of his friends.

At least four other companies have similarly lost control of their operations this year to effective state seizures.

Today, Mr. Putin is at the helm of a fraught exit process that works to Russia’s advantage. But it began in the early days of the war with the urgent goal of simply keeping the Russian economy alive.

Blocking the Exits

Speaking from the White House two weeks after the invasion, President Biden boasted that the West was crushing the Russian economy. “The list of businesses and international corporations leaving Russia is growing by the day,” he said.

Things looked bleak for Mr. Putin. The stock exchange in Moscow was closed and the ruble had crashed. If Russia lost all the jobs, production and cash of Western companies, the effects would be devastating.

But Mr. Putin was preparing his financial rejoinder. He restricted the movement of money abroad and required that companies from “unfriendly nations” win approval before selling their businesses.

Mr. Putin was putting the brakes on just as Western executives faced pressure to accelerate. In the United States, there was perhaps no more vocal figure than the Yale University management professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld. He appeared on cable news programs, criticizing companies that remained in Russia.

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale University management professor, testifying in 2022 before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services. U.S. House Committee on Financial Services

Professor Sonnenfeld recalled that it was corporate boycotts — more than sanctions — that helped abolish apartheid in South Africa. He transformed his office into a sort of war room, with a Yale team grading companies on their efforts to sever Russian ties.

The question of who would end up with those companies was of little concern.

“If Putin thinks he can do better at the deep fryer, let him have at it,” he said in an interview. “We really don’t care. The important thing is to not have the endorsement of a renowned global brand.”

Professor Sonnenfeld’s list and others like it added to pressure from shareholders, Ukrainian activists and everyday consumers.

Some executives worried what would happen to their Russian employees, factories and technology if they walked away. Others were reluctant to abandon their investments over a war that might prove short-lived.

But some quickly announced intentions to go. Heineken and Carlsberg said that they would leave once they found buyers. The Canadian gold mining company Kinross did the same, and within days announced a deal for $680 million to sell its Russian operation to a local buyer.

OBI, a German hardware store chain, went a step further, saying that it would close all 27 stores in Russia until it found a buyer.

Mr. Putin’s government, though, was already erecting hurdles.

On March 17, 2022, the Russian Trade Ministry sent a letter to local OBI managers. The letter, reviewed by The Times, urged managers to defy the company and keep the stores open, citing consumer-protection laws. There was no “economic reason” for closing, the ministry wrote.

OBI, the ministry warned, needed to fulfill “obligations to its consumers, workers and counterparties, including suppliers.” That prompted a days-long cat-and-mouse game as local employees tried to reopen stores and executives in Germany tried to stop them.

The Russian authorities also demanded that OBI officials testify about their plans. Prosecutors visited a store and inspected its computer system, the company told The Times.

OBI struck a deal that spring, ultimately selling for the symbolic price of a few dollars.

A shuttered OBI store in Moscow in 2022. The company’s Russian business was ultimately sold for the symbolic price of a few dollars. Maxim Shemetov/Reuters

The buyer, a businessman named Josef Liokumovich, passed the company’s background checks and was not on any financial blacklists. But as OBI soon learned, Western companies have no control over who ultimately takes over their operations.

In less than a year, OBI’s Russia operation changed owners four times, ultimately landing with associates of the Russian senator Arsen B. Kanokov, who is under U.S. Treasury sanctions. At one point, an ally of the Chechen strongman Ramzan Kadyrov appeared in the ownership register.

Such redirection is why diplomats and experts say it is too early to understand the changing landscape. The true new owners of some businesses might not be known for years, if ever.

“These guys,” Urszula Nartowska, OBI’s top lawyer, said, “they have the power of what they want to take. And you have to accept that.”

In June, the Kremlin demonstrated what companies could expect: Moscow approved the Kinross gold mine sale, but with a stunning alteration. The sale price had been cut in half, to $340 million.

A complex at a gold mine in far-eastern Russia in 2012, when it was owned by the Canadian company Kinross. Elena Chernyshova/Panos Pictures, via Redux

The buyer, Highland Gold, would later be blacklisted by British officials who said that gold provided a “significant income stream for Russia’s war effort.”

“The government realized they could dictate who buys, and maybe use that power to reward connected buyers,” said Alan Kartashkin, a lawyer for Debevoise & Plimpton who spent decades in Moscow and has negotiated the exits of Western companies.

“I remember thinking,” Mr. Kartashkin added, “once they feel they have the power to control entirely private transactions, where the government has no equity interest, they’re not going to stop.”

‘This Business Is Already Russian’

The mood was celebratory in July when the Russian minister of industry and trade, Denis V. Manturov, appeared at a St. Petersburg elevator factory.

The plant had recently belonged to the world’s largest elevator company, the Connecticut-based Otis Worldwide. Now it belonged to a firm controlled by Armen M. Sarkisyan, who had made a fortune running the Russian lottery in part thanks to government connections.

Mr. Manturov bragged that Moscow had brokered special arrangements for the sale. He gushed about a new production line and robust demand for elevators in Russian high-rises. “This business is already Russian,” he said. It was now known as Meteor.

From left: Armen M. Sarkisyan of S8 Capital; the St. Petersburg governor, Alexander D. Beglov; and Denis V. Manturov, Russia’s trade minister, visiting an elevator factory in 2022, in a photograph released by Russian state media. Alexander Demianchuk/TASS, via Imago Images

Mr. Sarkisyan is an example of a unique creation of the war: a businessman who was politically connected enough to win such a prize and rich enough to close the deal — but not so closely linked to the Kremlin that he was subject to international sanctions.

Mr. Sarkisyan and others, almost overnight, absorbed huge corners of their markets.

When the Finnish elevator giant Kone tried to sell to its employees, the authorities rejected the deal. Once again, Mr. Sarkisyan’s holding company, S8 Capital, became the buyer.

S8 Capital also moved into the tire business, snapping up the Russian operation of the German company Continental, before buying the top Russian tire maker, Cordiant, and entering talks to purchase the Russian factory of the Japanese tire maker Bridgestone.

S8 Capital did not respond to requests for comment.

The elevator factory in St. Petersburg had belonged to Otis Worldwide, but firms linked to S8 Capital bought the business. It is now called Meteor. Aleksey Smagin/Kommersant, via Associated Press

By the summer of 2022, Russia’s economy had stabilized, the ruble had rebounded and Mr. Putin’s strategy shifted.

While early in the war, companies like McDonald’s had sold to local managers or local business associates, with an option to return to Russia later, such deals soon became more difficult.

Having climbed out of crisis, the government wanted to do more than just keep the doors open. It increasingly wanted to dictate the terms of every deal.

In August of that year, Mr. Putin issued a decree requiring that companies in key industries obtain his signature before selling their Russian assets. Scores of businesses, including divisions of Siemens and Caterpillar, were suddenly subject to the whims of Mr. Putin himself.

“The government was beginning to tighten up the process, and it was becoming a lot more challenging,” said Laura Brank, a lawyer at Dechert helping Western companies to exit. “I was telling clients we’d better get moving quickly.”

The Subcommission

For most companies trying to leave Russia, the gatekeepers operate out of a gray government building near Red Square. Eleven days after the war began, Mr. Putin empaneled a special “subcommission” there to review requests to sell.

Mr. Putin’s longtime finance minister, Anton G. Siluanov, leads the subcommission, which includes officials from the Kremlin, the central bank and key ministries.

They decide whether companies can leave and under what terms.

Once a company has struck a deal with a buyer, the negotiations often begin again — this time in secret, between the buyer and one of the Russian government ministries. The seller is largely excluded. That process, lawyers say, often ends with a lower sale price and at times a new buyer. The deal then goes to the subcommission. Sometimes, deals fall through after months of silence.

Internal minutes, reviewed by The Times, show that the subcommission scrutinizes even the smallest details. In one meeting last year, the panel approved the $59,000 sale of a tiny apartment owned by the Finnish tire company Nokian.

The subcommission wields enormous power. Minutes show that it rejected a proposal by the American electronics company Honeywell to sell its factories until an assessment proved that the Russian buyer was getting a 50 percent discount.

Despite the bureaucracy, businesspeople have jockeyed behind the scenes for the most lucrative assets, often appealing directly to Mr. Putin.

Such was the case in the summer of 2022, when Mondi, a British-Austrian paper company, found a buyer for one of Russia’s largest mills and sought government approval to sell.

As the deal came together, one of Mr. Putin’s old K.G.B. buddies, Sergei V. Chemezov, appeared. He wrote a letter asking that the president steer the mill toward a group of investors, including the state-owned firm he runs. He even suggested a way to structure the deal to get around Western sanctions. The Times reviewed a copy of the letter.

Neither Mr. Chemezov nor the state-owned company responded to requests for comment.

Mr. Chemezov’s deal never happened, but neither did Mondi’s original agreement. The subcommission put the mill in the hands of a Moscow property developer for significantly less than the original price.

Abroad, Professor Sonnenfeld and others kept up the pressure. More than 200 companies had earned “F” grades on his list. Professor Sonnenfeld testified before Congress in November 2022. Remaining in Russia, he said, was tantamount to supporting the government.


Categories
Michael Novakhov's favorite articles

‘Parroting Putin’s propaganda’: The business exodus over Ukraine was no Russian bonanza


GettyImages-1831274377-e1703088939404.jp

Sometimes, political reporters without a background in business journalism make egregious errors in their coverage of the business exodus from Vladimir Putin’s Russia–and even fall for the strongman’s Potemkin Village-like economic façade. A recent article, entitled How Putin Turned a Western Boycott Into a Bonanza, wrongly suggested that the historic business exits of over 1,000 multinational companies from Russia have somehow been a huge win for the Russian war effort, while paradoxically suggesting that multinational firms did not really exit. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We write not as mere spectators but as some of the leaders who helped catalyze this unprecedented business exodus from Russia. (Although the New York Times article names the first author extensively and egregiously omits the prominent role played by the Kyiv School of Economics (KSE) in chronicling the business exodus and continuing to encourage companies to exit today).

If the business exodus was so helpful to Putin, we would like to know why all four of us have been placed on Putin’s sanctions list, with the first author ranked #6 on that enemies list (even higher than Senator Mitch McConnell).

In addition to helping catalyze the business exodus, our research collaboration has helped counter Putin’s propaganda by showing the economic devastation wrought by his war. Russia is no longer remotely an economic power and has suppressed the minimum reporting of transparent national income statistics that is required to retain IMF membership. With industrial might below that of Chile, Putin’s Russia survives merely by seizing assets. The increasingly state-dominated economy is cannibalizing its own companies to maintain Putin’s war machine.

We are concerned that the authors of the NYT article may be falling for the same kind of Russian propaganda we have been so tirelessly debunking over the past two years. In fact, they back their critique by unquestioningly quoting Kremlin officials: Putin’s discredited spokesperson Dmitri Peskov, a Putin-picked Russian buyer of assets, as well as Putin himself. The last word is given to Dmitri Medvedev, the unhinged former Russian president who casually and regularly threatens to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. No wonder the Russian government is enthusiastically tweeting out the NYT article across official accounts.

In reality, the exits of over 1,000 global enterprises from Russia (out of 1,400 major global enterprises before the war) have had a crippling effect on business confidence, foreign investment, and the overall Russian economy. Even the Kremlin admits that “it prefers that companies remain in Russia,” as the article duly notes.

To support their erroneous thesis that the business retreats have paradoxically only helped Putin, the reporters focus on the costs incurred by multinational companies in leaving Russia, pointing to billions in asset write-downs and lost revenues. But this fails to capture the full picture.

The companies that exited Russia outperformed those that remained, according to our analysis of market data. As we noted last year, the increase in market capitalization of the exiting companies was more than double the value of asset write-downs–hardly surprising considering that for most companies, Russia represented no more than ~1-2% of their global revenues. Plainly put, exiting Russia was value additive, not value destructive, for global multinational companies. Looking only at the value of Russian asset write-downs ignores the financial and reputational benefits reaped across the rest of the world by the companies that exited Russia. 

As further evidence that the business retreats are helping Putin, The reporters focus on how the Kremlin is mandating companies sell their Russian assets for at least a 50% markdown as supposed evidence that Russian buyers are getting “good deals”–but conveniently ignore how the valuations of Russian assets have plummeted across the board since Putin’s invasion.

In fact, the total enterprise value of leading Russian state-owned companies has plummeted even lower. For example, Gazprom’s enterprise value shrank by 75%, far in excess of the valuation markdowns incurred by most foreign companies. The Times characterizes the Russian asset divestitures of global multinationals as a “huge transfer of wealth” to Putin’s cronies, but with valuations of even Russia’s top state-owned companies down so much, the real story is one of massive, unprecedented wealth destruction as Russian assets plummet, whether they’re owned by Russians or foreigners. 

It seems that to the reporters, businesses can do nothing right. In the same breath, they attack companies that have exited Russia for enabling a transfer of wealth to Putin cronies, they falsely claim “most foreign companies remain in Russia, unwilling to lose the billions they’ve invested there over decades.” The reporters note that companies leaving Russia were forced to pay $1.25 billion in taxes to fund Putin’s war effort–and ignore the 75% decline in the annual amount of taxes Putin received from foreign companies before the war as demonstrated by KSE. 

The NYT article also blatantly mischaracterizes the first author’s track record by claiming that “the question of who would end up with those companies was of little concern” to the first author. That is demonstrably false. Over the last 18 months, the first author has been a strong and consistent advocate for sanctioning Russians who take over Western companies and enable Putin’s war machine, and has spent considerable time advising the U.S. Treasury Department informally on individuals of sanctions interest, alongside colleagues such as Amb. Michael McFaul’s of the McFaul-Yermak Sanctions Working Group, as well as the co-authors of this Commentary piece from the Kyiv School of Economics. Together, we have been vocal in our shared frustration that tougher sanctions enforcement is needed, with KSE continuing to track sanctions gaps and efficacy daily.

The wave of nationalizations and asset seizures raised in the article reflect Putin’s weakness, not strength, as we’ve noted before. Russia is becoming a kleptocracy, with Putin cannibalizing the entire productive economy to fund his whims. The state is commandeering more of the economy to add to its cookie jar to fund the war. Business activity needs continuous investment  in capital, people, technology, and ideas to sustain itself. Putin can pad his coffers in the short-term with thuggish asset seizures and nationalizations, but he is setting the Russian economy on the path to ruin. Thanks to Putin’s seizures, no multinational firm can justify returning to, or increasing investment in, Russia as long as he remains in power. 

As the reporters should have noted, only Putin cronies are buying discarded Russian assets from exiting multinationals because nobody outside of Russia wants to invest a penny into the country. Even the Chinese are hardly rushing to snatch up discounted Russian assets. If Russian assets are really such a “good deal,” why is it that even Russia’s allies refuse to buy in? 

Although the Russian economy is struggling by any measure, with several sectors of the economy down by at least 90%, and energy export revenues down by half, it is fair to say that the initial potential of the Russian business retreats, paired with economic sanctions, to completely cripple the Russian economy is not being fully realized at the moment, with escalatory economic measures put on the back burner in favor of fighting it out militarily on the battlefields of eastern Ukraine. But to say that the Russian business retreats are somehow helping Putin is false. 

Simply put, when businesses pull out of Russia, Putin loses, no ifs, ands, or buts. The transfer of defunct or imploding assets to Putin’s cronies does not enrich Russia. There are no lines of eager diners around Moscow’s former McDonalds. And even as they stumble onwards in the short term, few Russian companies have a future without Western technology. In aviation, for example, the number of aircraft failures in Russia increased by 320% this year, and domestic commercial airlines have stopped offering many routes, with the S7 airline unable to operate at least 20% of its fleet due to difficulties in servicing Airbus planes. 

With U.S. funding for Ukraine potentially running out amidst our domestic political dysfunction and military setbacks on the battlefield in Ukraine, this may be the most perilous moment for Ukraine since Putin’s initial assault on Kyiv. 

Journalists have a responsibility to get their facts straight without parroting Vladimir Putin’s propaganda. Already, Putin has kidnapped the courageous young Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who has spent the last nine months in a Russian prison. Gershkovish’s only “crime” was to document the unraveling of Russia’s economy due to sanctions and mass business exits through his field research in Russia. 

Days after publishing the evidence of shuttered factories, mass talent flight, and the halt of investment in Russia, the Russian authorities arrested that brave American reporter. But Putin cannot hijack the truth–unless we let him.

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld is the Lester Crown Professor in Management Practice at the Yale School of Management. Tymofiy Mylovanov is the President of the Kyiv School of Economics and a former minister in the cabinet of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine. Nataliia Shapoval is the Vice President for Policy Research at the Kyiv School of Economics and Chair of the KSE Institute. Steven Tian is Research Director at the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute.

  • Economic pessimists’ bet on a 2023 recession failed. Why are they doubling down in 2024?
  • COVID-19 v. Flu: A ‘much more serious threat,’ new study into long-term risks concludes
  • Access to modern stoves could be a game-changer for Africa’s economic development–and help cut the equivalent of the carbon dioxide emitted by the world’s planes and ships
  • The U.S.-led digital trade world order is under attack–by the U.S.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.


Categories
Michael Novakhov's favorite articles

Fact Check: NYT headline on Ukraine being conquered by Putin is fake


Fact Check logo

A screenshot appearing as a New York Times headline about Russian President Vladimir Putin having “conquered” Ukraine is fake. The headline image has been altered from an authentic Times opinion piece published in late December on Ukraine not needing “all its territory to defeat Putin”.

The screenshot is dated Dec. 27, with The New York Times logo printed across the top of the image. The headline reads: “Putin May Have ‘Conquered’ Ukraine But All Its Women And Children Have Gone. Without The Financial Backing Of Prostitution And Child Porn Production, The Country Is Doomed, And Therefore His ‘Victory’ Meaningless. And That’s A Good Thing. Here’s Why.”

One user shared the image on X with a caption that reads: “ Sooo………Ukraines economy was built on prostitution and child pornography ? That’s what Biden has been funding to protect? Make it make sense !!!!!”

Another said: “American press admitting Ukraines child porn production!! And these are the good guys??”

The headline in the image is not authentic, however. A spokesperson for The New York Times said in an email that the “headline is fabricated” and sent Reuters the authentic article published by the same author on Dec. 27.

The real headline reads: “Ukraine Doesn’t Need All Its Territory to Defeat Putin.”

There is no record of the inauthentic headline in archives of the New York Times’ homepage or opinion page saved on Dec. 27, nor is there a record of it published on the outlet’s social media channels.

The earliest iteration Reuters found of the fabricated headline image was posted by an X account titled “Tired Meme Clown”.

False. The image is altered from a real New York Times headline published by the same author on Dec. 27, titled “Ukraine Doesn’t Need All Its Territory to Defeat Putin”.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.


Categories
(@mikenov) / Twitter

@mikenov: IS NYTIMES BOUGHT BY PUTIN?



Categories
(@mikenov) / Twitter

@mikenov: #News #Times #NewsAndTimes #NT #TNT #Israel #World #USA #POTUS #DOJ #FBI #CIA #DIA #ODNI #Mossad #Putin #Russia #GRU #Ukraine #SouthCaucasus #NewAbwehr https://t.co/7SjBPAcCWL IS NYTIMES BOUGHT BY PUTIN? That’s ZI Question! FBI, go fetch! https://t.co/hbdSSTxQhR https://t.co/J30n8FoveR



Categories
(@mikenov) / Twitter

@mikenov: #News #Times #NewsAndTimes #NT #TNT #Israel #World #USA #POTUS #DOJ #FBI #CIA #DIA #ODNI #Mossad #Putin #Russia #GRU #Ukraine #SouthCaucasus #NewAbwehr https://t.co/7SjBPAcCWL IS NYTIMES BOUGHT BY PUTIN? That’s ZI Question! FBI, fetch! https://t.co/hbdSSTxQhR https://t.co/sFUVJubTrN



Categories
(@mikenov) / Twitter

@Robert4787: RT by @mikenov: South Korean intelligence sounds the alarm! Kim Jong Un plans to disrupt 2024 U.S. and South Korean elections with military…



Categories
(@mikenov) / Twitter

@mikenov: IS NYTIMES BOUGHT BY PUTIN?



Categories
(@mikenov) / Twitter

@anders_aslund: RT by @mikenov: This excellent article debunks the pro-Putin propaganda of the @nytimes. What a shame that the NYT is following the trad…



Categories
(@mikenov) / Twitter

@sentdefender: RT by @mikenov: The German Minister of Defense, Boris Pistorius recently stated that the Removal of Conscription from German Law in 2011…