Nataliya Popovych  

Entrepreneur | International Communications Expert | Civic Activist | Founder at One Philosophy | Co-Founder at Resilient Ukraine | Chairperson of Ukraine House in Denmark

Jan 28, 2025

We saw many displays of power – from the inauguration of President Trump to Davos.

During President Trump’s inauguration it was difficult not to notice CEOs (all men :)) of the largest tech companies in a hurry to demonstrate loyalty to the man declaring the golden age for USA and putting US interests above all others. At the same time, on this image you can see more CEOs, men and women – those who could care less about the strategic interests of the United States or the lives of Ukrainians, those who support the Russian economy, US biggest ideological enemy of all times, and quickly move our world to the Dark Ages and times when laws do not matter but expropriations and neglect for intellectual property, human rights and so on is prevalent. They fit the definition by Samuel P. Huntington, a co-founder of the Foreign Policy, who called such leaders the “Davos Men”:

<<People who have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elite’s global operations”. «l

<<Davos Type Men» are not only cynical but also very short sighted. In the biggest war since WWII on the European continent these men demonstrate that lessons of the past did not register with them, they lead corporations that represent the US and G7 democratic countries, yet continue to cynically disregard the international law and grow complicity of their firms in the over 150 000 war crimes committed by the russian troops against the sovereign state of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.

In the new report by B4Ukraine you can read more about the Corporate Enablers of the russian war machine. When reading it, think about not only corporations but also their leaders because these corporations are not fully robotized (yet), they are led by human beings who live, have free conscience and families, children, reputation, legacy. Corporate umbrella brands may act as shields but those leading these businesses are people who will go down in history not only as “Davos Men” but as Collaborators of Evil.  They will not get away with it.  

bit.ly/B4U_2025

Johann Strobl, @yin tongyue Jacek Olczak, @masamichi terabatake, Andrea Orcel, Ramon Laguarta, Agathe Monpays, Poul Weihrauch, Michael Lewis, Sándor Sandyi, Jon Moeller, @Liao Lin, Dirk Van de Put, Jane Fraser, Alexander Knauff

#ExitRussia #StopFundingTheWar

…….

Comment from Tereza Dejlova

Viktor Tsyrennikov

As there are so many banks on the list of top tax payers, the US sanctions against Russia must not be working as well as one would hope.

N H.

We will never forget, who exactly did what to support Russia’s war of aggression. And, I am certain, many others will remember this too, long after, the last bullet was fired.

Gregor Smith

How do these companies survive once their systems have to comply to sanctions? It’s a big mistake…

Nataliya Popovych

Tobacco is not sanctioned, FMCGs – neither, but that does not mean that these leaders cannot make the only right decision, comply with UNGPs and leave unless they want to be expropriated and then lose both money and reputations of their businesses and themselves as leaders in one go.

Sean S.

Tania S.

What a disgrace for western managers, shareholders and companies keep financing a terrorist country, which invades, kills, rapes every day inocent Ukrainians. It makes them participants of all those crimes, as they were doing it by their own hands.

……..,,,,..

Nataliya Popovych

I remember very well that during the first weeks of the Russian invasion in 2022 I did not feel any taste. I did not have COVID. But the stress of waking up to the sounds of explosions in Kyiv, seeing my homeland under attack, the despair of having to leave my home and loved ones in imminent danger, the travel for hours and hours have left me without any appetite. For weeks, food lost all its appeal to me – no matter, sweet or sour.

Three years later, we can see that the appetite for profit was all that mattered for the global manufacturers of sweets who continue to do business with russia, the state that chose the path of unjust war and brutal aggression against Ukraine and its democratic allies.

“Not so sweet: Consumer goods giants in Putin’s service” is the rubric of the new B4Ukraine report that reveals the omnipresent and enduring presence of major Western household names — Mars, Mondelēz International, Nestlé, PepsiCo, and Procter & Gamble — that became deeply entrenched in Russia’s economy.

Their significant revenues and tax contributions not only bolster the Kremlin’s military budget but also normalize business-as-usual for Russian consumers and investors. Why revolt if global brands are undeterred by Russia’s illegal war and its impact on millions of Ukrainians like me?

Unilever (which used to be on this list of the shameless) has shattered the myth that leaving Russia is impossible. Despite operating eight plants and holding €775 million in assets (1.4% of revenue), Unilever exited in October 2024. This move proves that even large, complex businesses can leave Russia if they prioritize responsibility over excuses.

The takeaway is clear: companies have a choice.
It’s time to drop the keys and leave.

exitRussia #StopFundingTheWar

Read our new report: bit.ly/B4U2025

Comment from :

Ian Taylor

We should boycott with our wallets. Do NOT buy their products until they exit Russia.

Tibor Kovac

Nataliya, I understand your feeling of injustice.
Personally me, I do not consume the products of above mentioned brands.
At least the TM are not seen on products that I consume.

But spreading similar discutable info about mentioned Brands might be understood differently, like Kremlin propaganda supporting rising confusion among Ukrainians.

Why? The famous West companies do not follow sanctions.

Look, how it may happen. The tax payers are Russian economic entities producing since non-sanctioned past the goods on Russian soil. The production uses foreign licence recipes without approval from the homeland and does not pay any penny to the licensor because bank ties to mother companieswere interrupted.
So those are the Russians paying to Kremlin the profit tax collected from in Russia based production sites.
What do you think? Might be such scenario true?

Nataliya Popovych

If Russian managers of the production sites (expropriated or left by their western owners) continue to pay taxes to their motherland whom they support in the unjust war of aggression against Ukraine, it’s their problem. They will become accountable sooner or later in Russian war crimes in Ukraine and pay reparations to Ukraine. I don’t understand why Western managers and companies would want to be complicit in russia’s war crimes in Ukraine and also end up paying reparations. If the leave the russian market now and help the democratic allies of Ukraine to isolate russia, they can still avoid the eternal label of “collaborators in war crimes”. If not, they are no different than the russian business persons and entities who did nothing to leave or undermine the russian market, relocate their staff and production, stop contributing to the russian war machine.

Serhi Bolhov

Tibor Kováč : Dear Tibor! Don’t you think your question is manipulative? You indicate that it is up to the court to determine whether a person is an accomplice to war crimes. Formally, you are right, although you understand perfectly well the connection between taxes paid in Russia and the financing of Russian aggression. But let’s follow your approach. What difference does it make that Russian subsidiaries do not pay license fees to their parent companies? Have the Western companies in question retained ownership and control over their subsidiaries in Russia? Or have they lost them? The answer is obvious – they retained control.
But if you think that they have lost control, then they should at least stop accounting for their revenue and profit in their consolidated financial statements and make the appropriate disclosures. And at most, write off the cost of the lost Russian subsidiaries as losses.
Can you give a similar example from the 6 listed above? If not, then you shouldn’t come up with an abstract situation about them not receiving payment for using the recipes.