Boycott

All this talk of boycotting companies who refuse to close down their businesses in Russia - before deciding they're the devil incarnate, should we not see what the objective is and whether boycotts support the objective or not? It's not simply to hurt the companies - it's to hurt Putin and his henchmen.

No-one doubts we want to ensure the removal of Putin from power - or regime change, for want of better phrase - but what we certainly don't want is another totalitarian replacing him, so it's essential that the people of Russia are on-side. However, the people are not the main problem - the vast majority are unhappy with the Putin regime, which has robbed them of democracy. Putin has little internal support, except from a small hardcore.

So what are companies like Coca Cola, Starbuck's and McDonald's doing due to their presence in Russia?

1. They provide jobs to ordinary Russians who, generally. are not our enemy.
2. They take profit and repatriate that to the company HQs in America - that, albeit in a small way, drains money from Russia. With the current exchange rates, one can question whether it's even worth having a foreign-owned business in Russia that uses Russian currency.

Who is harmed if these companies withdraw from Russia?

1. The companies themselves through their bottom line.
2. The people they employ in Russia.
3. The Russian government, through taxes on both the companies and the staff.

What could happen if they do withdraw?

1. Putin could seize them anyway and change the brand to Putabucks, McMafia (home of the Big Vlad) and Poke.
2. A message would be given to the Russian public which, in conjunction with shortages and price rises, would signal that there are problems on the international stage. That would certainly dent Putin's image.
3. Satisfy the public outside Russia.

Certainly withdraw from buying Russian gas and oil, with the aim of denying the government itself any revenue. However, if that results in a crisis in a customer country because it can no longer guarantee heating for its citizens, then that has to wait until an alternative supply is secured. To do otherwise would result in their own people dying from hypothermia. The results of sanctions have to be asymmetric and not hit both sides equally.

Just as an aside, it seems Insulate Britain was on to something, although we only buy something like 4% of our gas from Russia. Germany buys far more. That's certainly turned out to be a mistake, but reversing this decision has to be balanced against the consequences for their own population.

To return to Coca Cola, et al, I believe my jury is out on the boycotting of these companies to make them reconsider their decisions. Have you noticed that when anyone but the right does it, the right call it Cancel Culture and mock it. When the right also does it, the right call it boycotting and praise it.

The last thing we want is to remove Putin and for him to be replaced by yet another populist who galvanises the resentment of a population that sees the West as unfriendly because it hurt them. Navalny, who enjoys Western support, is also a nationalist.

It can be argued that the people have to be brought to their knees in order to rise up, but it's not necessarily the people who are going to remove Putin - it will be his henchmen or the Army. They're already feeding him what he wants to hear and not the truth - they daren't feed him truth, which doesn't bode well for his level of control.

Seriously, is not being able to get a Coke, a coffee or a Big Mac going to influence anyone? The collapse of the rouble and the inability to import essentials will have infinitely greater impact on the population's perception of its leader. Will the workers at those companies blame Putin or the Americans? Well, Putin is in charge of the narrative and you can guess who he will blame. We've had experience of this in the UK, where great swathes blame the EU for the UK's ills through false narratives - four years after the Brexit vote and the myth still persists/ 

Perhaps a better idea for these companies is to retain their presence in Russia and pay their staff in dollars, not at the official exchange rate, but at the US dollar rate (supported by the US government), which will be worth a lot more than roubles. Putting foreign currency to the hands of ordinary people through foreign owned businesses will result in those employed by such businesses seeing the West as saviours, not enemies. It will also fuel a dollar-based black market, which will further undermine Putin and the rouble.

Imagine the PR value if you have to queue for hours and spend an arm and a leg to buy a loaf of bread, but you can get a Big Mac for free. It wouldn't exactly work with Starbucks or Coke though.

I'm willing to have my mind changed, but not by knee jerk rhetoric. Could it be justified on moral grounds? I think this is the strongest argument of a set of relatively weak arguments.

Stop Press: I wrote the above yesterday, but I've just heard on the news that several of these companies have closed their outlets in Russia and McDonald's continues to pay its staff. That's apparently 10% of McDonald's worldwide revenues up in smoke and probably a slightly smaller increase in costs. It says it was experiencing problems with supplies anyway. A better response than simply withdrawing, but will it achieve anything? If supplies are a problem, then they will be affecting Russian businesses too, so no difference there and not much of a statement, but continuing to pay their staff will not turn their workers against them and counter any false Putin narrative.

A quick note on the refugee situation. Priti Patel's decision to initiate visa processing centres away from Calais can only be to minimise the potential for Syrian residents of The Jungle to avail themselves of the route being set up. Patel's security concerns don't wash when you consider the Skripal poisoners came into the country by entirely legal means and were not stopped. Russians with known Kremlin links buying UK visas, if they had more than £1m to give, also gives a lie to this argument, although I hope that has stopped with the application of sanctions.