You should get out of Russia

“Divestment dilemmas” (March 2nd) gave an impression of Western companies being stuck in Russia, facing “no pretty choices”. Such framing removes any agency and responsibility from the Western businesses that chose to remain in a country that shows no respect for human or investor rights. Companies that are willing to leave the Russian market do indeed face mounting risks, but it is imperative to understand how they allowed themselves to be in this precarious situation in the first place.

Russia’s war on Ukraine began in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and the occupation of parts of Donbas, so foreign companies still operating in Russia have had ten years to make decisions based on sound risk assessment. Because of its lawlessness, the Russian government already de facto controls the assets of all remaining businesses. The list of companies expropriated by the Kremlin extends far beyond the cases of Danone and Carlsberg, to include firms such as Uniper and Fortum, as well as attempts to arrest the assets of the Russian subsidiaries of Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and others. As of November 2023, the Russian courts imposed 93 seizures on the assets of foreign firms.

Values matter too. It has been two years since the invasion of Ukraine and 125,000 war crimes have since been committed by the Russians. The remaining Western firms are facing the consequences of their short-sightedness and greed. Foreign companies in Russia have always had a choice and they still do now. Instead of trying to remain and navigate Russia’s state-controlled chaos, they should drop their keys and leave, writing off the losses and maybe taking their cases to international arbitration. Fortum, a Finnish utility, has done this. NATALIIA POPOVYCH Co-founder B4Ukraine Coalition Copenhagen America’s Republicans have floated the idea of converting economic assistance to Ukraine into a loan (the idea came from Donald Trump). Overloading Ukraine with more debt would jeopardise the IMF’s Extended Fund Facility stabilisation programme, which is a loan. An American loan in lieu of direct economic assistance would significantly burden Ukraine’s precarious fiscal outlook, complicating the IMF’s debt-ratio guidelines for further lending.

Moreover, this idea sends the wrong signal to other donors to Ukraine, who might follow the American example of offering more loans and fewer grants. If America and Ukraine’s allies are serious about “unlocking the value” of nearly $300bn in Russia’s frozen assets (Free exchange, March 2nd) they should abandon this unhelpful loan option and accelerate efforts to confiscate the assets in order to help Ukraine before it’s too late. Congress should pass the REPO for Ukrainians Act now.

GREG WILSON

Former deputy assistant secretary at the US Treasury Department

Estero, Florida