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

[Emrys]

BY Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, Tymofiy Mylovanov, Nataliia Shapoval and Steven Tian


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.

https://fortune.com/2023/12/20/parroting-putin-propaganda-business-exodus-ukraine-russia-bonanza-sanctions-economy-international-politics/

[Voltaire2]

1. Non sequitur fallacy.

The fact that Putin has initiated retaliatory sanctions against these individuals doesn’t prove that the economic sanctions against Russia are working. It’s irrelevant.

The sanctions should be strengthened, but that is because they really haven’t been effective.

[Emrys]

2. Did you read the whole article? n/t

[Igel]

3. People can post up to 4 or so paragraphs before running afoul of copyright rules.

The problem is that they usually post the paragraphs 1-4, while very often what's really important might show up in paragraphs 1, 2, 6 and 9 and 1-4 contain the takeaway and then background, human interest, history, so the actual argument and analysis and anything more insightful about the sound-bite conclusion are buried.

I often don't do more than read the "hook," but if I'm going to post about content (instead of a meta-post like this one) I must read and ponder and even check out references or other tangents to the entire article itself.

[Emrys]

4. Yes, those are the parameters within which we have to work

Last edited Sat Dec 30, 2023, 08:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I think they can be more of a problem in this subforum than others because the works posted about are usually long-form and more complex. In the past when posting an OP here, I've chosen some key paras that weren't necessarily the first four, or posted the subheadings in the article if I thought the first four weren't sufficient introduction or didn't summarize the contents well and suggest why someone might want to read the whole thing.

In this case, I thought these four introductory paras did a good enough job of letting someone know if the content might be something they wanted to read without having to intervene. The fact that one of those paras seems to have raised a bone of contention doesn't detract from that. I think the authors ably make their case in the rest of the article from their unique perspective, and it's an issue that keeps being raised in discussions on DU, New York Times be damned.

[Voltaire2]

5. I simply pointed out that one of the arguments

made in the posted excerpt was obvious nonsense.

This:
“ 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). ”

Is intentional bullshit. I said nothing at all about the rest of the article. Nor did I bother to read the entire piece. I generally stop when it becomes clear that the authors are being deliberately misleading.