Top Foreign Taxpayers in Russia All US Co's

According a treport in Newsweek, the ten largest foreign taxpayers in Russia are all large American businesses. The article also provides record figures on which companies continue to operate in the country and the West's thoughts on this matter.
As Newsweek writes, citing a study by B4Ukraine and the Kyiv School of Economics (KSE), Americans paid Russia $1.2 billion in income taxes – more than any other foreigner.
These include Philip Morris (tobacco giant) - $220 million, PepsiCo (soft drinks) - $135, Mars (confectionery) - $99, Procter & Gamble (health and hygiene products) - $67, and Mondelez (conf investment bank Citigroup - 53, agricultural company Cargill - 50, pharmaceutical Johnson & Johnson - 42, soft drink Coca-Cola Hellenic - 34, oilfield services company Weatherford - 32.

Lets recall that In 2022 The US government and those of the other members of the G7 imposed sanctions on Russia since then they have increased the number of them 14 times and they amount to around 20 thousand people,companies and entities across all of Russia and in all sorts of sectors.They also urged their companies to leave Russia and stop doing business in the country.
There were thousands of foreign companies doing business in Russia employing hundreds of thousands of people in every convceiable area of business and commerce from retail to finance,engineering and manufacturing. So what is the situation today?

Now before I continue I would like to make an appeal,if you like and enjoy my videos you can help me fund the channel and my websited sco brics insight .com and to further develop it. You can do this by making a small donation which you can do by clicking on the thanks button at the bottom of the video screen. Everybody who donates does get a personal thank you from me.

However, many have gone into hiding, and some have even changed their minds: the losses are too great.Total losses for Western businesses have exceeded $107 billion, Reuters calculated based on business documents and reports.Thus, BP lost 25 billion - a huge sum even by the standards of transnational corporations.The transfer of production and logistics chains is a colossal expense, not everyone was ready for this.
As the Financial Times noted in mid-2024, companies that had initially intended to leave the country began to rethink their decision. This shift was also influenced by measures implemented by Moscow.
Specifically, a mandatory 50 percent discount was introduced on assets owned by unfriendly countries when selling to Russian buyers. Additionally, a "tax on departure" of at least 15% was implemented. These measures contributed to a significant influx of revenue to the Russian treasury, totalling $385 million in the first quarter of last year alone.
It is evident that divesting assets is a highly unprofitable endeavour. Various administrative barriers, including the need to obtain permits for transactions and capital withdrawal, further compounded the situation.
In February 2023, Philip Morris International CEO Jacek Olzak revealed to the British newspaper Financial Times that he had abandoned the sale of the Russian business due to the financial consequences. Other companies have also quietly abandoned similar sales.
According to the Kyiv School of Economics, more than 2,100 Western companies have chosen to maintain their presence in the Russian market.
A study by the Yale School of Management's Executive Leadership Institute found that 123 large American firms continue to do business in the country to some degree. When including small and medium-sized businesses, the figure rises to 328, according to KSE data.
In order to maintain their share in the profitable market, they launched a reorganization and rebranding project.
For instance, Coca-Cola ceased its deliveries. However, this was taken up by the giant's "daughter" in the region, Coca-Cola Hellenic, in which the Americans own 21% of the shares. In August 2022, Hellenic established the company "Multon Partners", which specialises in the production of "Dobry Cola".
In September 2024, Citigroup announced: "We are closing almost all of our system banking business, except for operations necessary to meet our remaining legal and regulatory obligations." Despite this announcement, the company has not yet fully exited the sector.
Some have cited humanitarian considerations as the reason for their prolonged presence. For instance, Avon initiated the sale of its Russian business and received offers, but ultimately decided against accepting them.
PepsiCo, Mars, Procter & Gamble, Cargill and Weatherford have confirmed that they have scaled back operations, but that production and sales are continuing.
B4Ukraine has expressed strong concern over the disparity in financial contributions to Ukraine by various companies.
PMI allocated ten million dollars to Kyiv, while paying 220 million in profit taxes in Russia, while the figures for Mars Corporation were 22.5 and 99 million, respectively.
The evident rationale underlying this decision is as follows: what incentive would there be to divest a highly profitable business, meticulously cultivated over years, for a nominal sum, particularly when there is a divergence of opinion with the Russian government? This transaction would necessitate the disbursement of 'compensation' to Moscow, resulting in the forfeiture of brand and market share, the termination of long-term contracts with Russian partners, and the potential loss of substantial profit.
The minimum discount on asset sales has meanwhile been increased to 60%, and the contribution to the budget to 35%. Consequently, a foreign owner wishing to divest their assets will receive a mere 5% of the market value of the enterprise. Furthermore, transactions involving the exit of companies worth more than 50 billion rubles are now subject to presidential approval. Finally, the tax on all income of foreign organisations has been raised from 20 to 25%.
Furthermore, many US companies operating in Russia perceive a clear inconsistency in the US government's position, which urges them to leave Russia while continuing to conduct business there and investing billions of dollars in Russian products such as enriched uranium, a dependency of the US for 35% of its energy needs, and Russian fertilisers for the agricultural sector.
As Newsweek points out, the US has called this "a disgrace and immoral behaviour." They are calling for tougher sanctions. However, if we are to believe Mondelez, which remains in Russia, investors "care little."
Michael McFaul, former US Ambassador to Russia, described this position as "shameful"; however, he did not call on them to urgently leave Russia.
Furthermore, it has been revealed that many of those who vocally condemned Russia's actions, to the approval of the Western community, have discreetly re-entered through alternative channels. Many companies with American capital, such as McDonald's, formally sold their businesses to Russians "at a symbolic price", but with the condition of buying back the sold assets within 15 years. Recently, information emerged that McDonald's filed over 50 trademark applications with Rospatent at the end of 2024, indicating plans for a formal return. Likewise, Ford, a US corporation that exited a joint venture with Russian investors following the onset of the SVO, incorporated a right to repurchase assets within a five-year timeframe into its agreement.
According to the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, many American firms have "rebranded" themselves and continue to operate under new names. Others have discreetly and formally transferred the rights to their assets to their "daughters" registered in "friendly countries," including China.
In the context of the anticipated major agreement between the US and Russia, Europeans are experiencing a mounting sense of uncertainty. Ulf Schneider, the head of the consulting company Schneider Group, told the Berliner Zeitung newspaper that "BMW, Mercedes and Audi want to return to the Russian market as early as 2025." European airlines are eagerly awaiting the opening of Russian skies, as it is critical for them to "regain their most important competitive advantage." Meanwhile, IKEA has expressed concerns about extending the registration of its trademarks until August 2033.
Plus of course the conflict will soon be over and it will be back to business as usual