6 ms·

MCD will be back once the war or situation stabilizes. Russia is a large economy that any global company would want to be a part of.

d82nsjk9 4y ago
Absolutely. Just a marketing move to help people forget they are selling cancer
ineedasername 4y ago
I think whether they go back will depend on what the country looks like after things stabilize. If Russia comes out of this still on belligerent footing then spending resources to reestablish a presence will be extremely risky. Even if leadership changes and makes conciliatory noises I would expect things to still take some years before the world can trust it's authentic.
- lnxg33k1 4y ago
  - eropple 4y ago
    > How is Russia going to not be belligerent if we are even thinking about letting Sweden and Finland in NATO? That's easy: by choosing to not be belligerent to countries exercising their sovereign autonomy. "You're making me hit you!" No.
    - lnxg33k1 4y ago
      Ask cubans about exercising sovereignity against the freest world, as said in my main message, we need to give up moral superiority and understand other countries needs
      - qwytw 4y ago
        For whatever reason you seem to be conflating the needs of the local dictators like Castro and Putin with the people they are ruling over. I'm not sure they are necessarily the same all the time.
      - eropple 4y ago
        And Sweden's needs? Finland's? Ukraine's? This is the failing of the tankie argument: "but but the evil US" (and to be clear, the US has done plenty of awful things) ignores that Russia's other problem here is that they do nothing to make anybody actually want to support them. And it just so happens that Russia doesn't have the friends they'd need to do what they want--who knew?--and that is a historical failing. Appealing to power politics only works when the parties attempting to exert power aren't bad at it. It's why the weirdos online have to insist that it's a "CIA op" making Sweden and Finland look at the aggressive power next door and go "hello, NATO": because reality has kneecapped the myth.
      - croon 4y ago
        > we need to give up moral superiority and understand other countries needs > How is Russia going to not be belligerent if we are even thinking about letting Sweden and Finland in NATO? And this is the argument you are making about what Russia needs. Maybe consider why Sweden and Finland wants to join NATO.
      - ineedasername 4y ago
        Who are "we" in your statements? And can you elaborate on which other country you mean, and what their needs are? Because it doesn't seem like Russia needed to invade a Ukraine that it already had very close political & economic ties to. When Ukraine decided it wanted a leader who would also be friendly to the West Russia couldn't handle it. They viewed expanding economic interests as a threat, and rather than try to win out on diplomacy and friendly trade deals or any other economic approach they chose war. So please, get away from your vague statements of "we" & "needs" and be specific. Otherwise it sounds like you're reading from a script of talking points without any deeper justification on your difference of opinion.
  - damidekronik 4y ago
    How is NATO going to not be belligerent if we are even thinking about letting Russia slaughter Ukrainians?
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    Why is it more important to listen to Russia than to listen to Ukraine, Sweden, and Finland? Or also Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia?
    - lnxg33k1 4y ago
      Because Russia has 10k nuclear warheads that yankees are apparently ignoring, and the expansion of NATO is happening on european soil at european stability expenses, which apparently EU leaders are ignoring, you guys seem to think that I come here to say these things because I am a fan of Mister Putin, I am not, but I am aware that actions have consequences and if Hilary Clinton and Obama tell a guy that he is Hitler, when the guy is at the head of a state with 10k nuclear warheads, then Clinton and Obama need to fuck off a stay out of European soil affairs, because it is ultimately European states that border with this state. I understand this is not an issue for you, as you don't border with it and don't have business and energy and companies depending on it, but we are, the wellbeing and stability of the continent depends on talking and dealing with Putin at the moment, so we need EU leaders to stop being US puppet and start keeping in mind european interests and lives
      - watwut 4y ago
        The thing is, Russia invasion and occupation (again) is not in interest of European countries around Russia.
      - jcranmer 4y ago
        You know, Eastern European leaders are even harder line against Russia right now than the US is, let alone Western Europe. I guess having living memory of having been invaded and occupied by Russia makes you especially eager to sign up to, and enforce, a pact that will commit a much, much larger power to go to war against Russia if you get invaded. I'm not worried about nuclear weapons, and this is why: nuclear weapons are the last form of escalation possible. If Putin uses nuclear weapons, there is nothing he can do to further deter NATO from invading Russia, and I strongly suspect that public opinion would be in favor of NATO doing so. I don't see any scenario where the use of nuclear weapons wouldn't harm Russian positions, let alone a scenario where nuclear weapons are actually helpful.
  - megous 4y ago
    Vladimir Pozner is not a scholar, right?
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    How does countries joining a defensive alliance threaten Russia?. Maybe if Russia stopped invading all its neighbours and all the prior USSR states, these states would stop joining NATO. The only thing NATO stops is Russian imperialism.
    - eropple 4y ago
      It helps when you realize that to the online segment, imperialism is definitionally something the United States does.
    - lnxg33k1 4y ago
      This seems to ignore the last 20 years of NATO occupation of Iraq which has been attacked based on false reports of some nuclear warheads that have never been found, I am not sure if you guys have short memory, are constantly brainwashed by your partisan media or just not that smart, If I was surrounded by a bunch of countries depending on the will of some guys calling freedom fries to force other to join, creating fake news and reports to force others to invade, I would be scared too
      - jcranmer 4y ago
        Iraq was not a NATO operation, hence the term "coalition of the willing."
        thriftwy 4y ago
        This is laughable on the same level as Putin when he denied that Russian troops are in Crimea. "These are just some people who bought their uniforms in the military store" "That was not a NATO operation but an operation carried out by NATO countries" Meanwhile for the whole world, NATO has waged war in Iraq. Yugoslavia before that. Lybia after that.
        jcranmer 4y ago
        I find it funny that you managed to omit the only time NATO ever initiated an invasion in response to Article 5 from that list (Afghanistan).
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    NATO has always been a defensive alliance, a retaliatory deterrence against attacking any one member, especially weaker members that would be easy to pick off. NATO expansion has pretty much always been a reaction to Russian aggression, including the most recent accessions following Russia's takeover of Crimea and now their invasion if the Ukraine. Painting NATO expansion as an aggressive act that forces Russia to retaliate with their own belligerance is a reversal of cause & effect at best and a willful blindness or belief in propaganda at worst. The truth is that since the fall of the Soviet Union Russia has been free to participate in global affairs & economics as much or as little as it wants, and while geopolitical games are played on all sides there have been no efforts to prevent Russia's peaceful participation such things. The rest of the world has even turned a blind eye to some fairly brutal conflicts they waged to consolidate what power they could among former Soviet states. Such is that nature of realpolitik. Russian leadership's desire to take that to an entirely new level right now is of course scaring the shit our of other close neighbors who rightfully fear that they would be next on the list. US actions in, e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan are irrelevant "whataboutism". If you have a problem with US actions then complain about them, advocate for US sanctions or a NATO-like alliance against US aggression or whatever you thing is appropriate. But none of it excuses Russia's actions and the very reasonable response from other countries that now seek protection from becoming their next target. Complaining about NATO expansion as an instigator of Russian aggression is like complaining that a playground bully is justified in beating up kids just because a group of those kids decided they would defend themselves collectively if the bully went after them again.
    - lnxg33k1 4y ago
      I think whataboutism is just a very nice word that is being used more and more in order to retain some sort of moral superiority and no accountability for actions, like we need to use two weights and two measures just otherwise we are whatabouting No it's not whataboutism it's just to make sure that when we say that Russia is crazy and US is some sort of holy state, we are trusting the wrong people to tell us what is just and correct and what is not So I am sorry but when the US tries to tell us about criminals and that what it takes to be just, I think only that it is the most criminal country in the history of the world, the only one to drop nuclear bombs on cilivian target cities or killing kids in Iraq and Afghanistan then jailing journalists or try to get them extradited, or spying on citizens of the world or backing israeli regime killing kids and journalists. Just as a way to remember who is telling us to give up everything we have and our stability, to be aware of the interlocutor, somehow. So at this point, we realise that US is a criminal state pursuing his own interest at the expense of the rest of the world, once we've established that, and that they don't care about human rights and freedom of press, since they support countries against that around the world for their interests, would we give up that? So when Biden speaks to Europeans saying you need to give up Russian gas for the track record of Russia, why Europeans don't reply that US need to give up its relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel? Because the world is not unjust but european leaders are now pursuing US interests at their own expenses, and that is not good
GekkePrutser 4y ago
Indeed, I know of several companies that have said they will sell the business to a local entity, but keep the options open to come back when the situation changes. Probably whatever oligarch buys it will buy it for cheap and will cash in big time when McDonald's buys it back, so a big cash flow to supporters of the regime...
dncornholio 4y ago
> Russia is a large economy that any global company would want to be a part of When companies jump the ship this soon, makes you wonder how big of an economy Russia actually is.
- alaricus 4y ago
  those companies will be replaced by Chinese equivalents before the sun goes down.
wiseowise 4y ago
Large economy the size of Italy?

d82nsjk9 4y ago

Absolutely. Just a marketing move to help people forget they are selling cancer

ineedasername 4y ago

I think whether they go back will depend on what the country looks like after things stabilize. If Russia comes out of this still on belligerent footing then spending resources to reestablish a presence will be extremely risky. Even if leadership changes and makes conciliatory noises I would expect things to still take some years before the world can trust it's authentic.

lnxg33k1 4y ago
- eropple 4y ago
  > How is Russia going to not be belligerent if we are even thinking about letting Sweden and Finland in NATO? That's easy: by choosing to not be belligerent to countries exercising their sovereign autonomy. "You're making me hit you!" No.
  - lnxg33k1 4y ago
    Ask cubans about exercising sovereignity against the freest world, as said in my main message, we need to give up moral superiority and understand other countries needs
    - qwytw 4y ago
      For whatever reason you seem to be conflating the needs of the local dictators like Castro and Putin with the people they are ruling over. I'm not sure they are necessarily the same all the time.
    - eropple 4y ago
      And Sweden's needs? Finland's? Ukraine's? This is the failing of the tankie argument: "but but the evil US" (and to be clear, the US has done plenty of awful things) ignores that Russia's other problem here is that they do nothing to make anybody actually want to support them. And it just so happens that Russia doesn't have the friends they'd need to do what they want--who knew?--and that is a historical failing. Appealing to power politics only works when the parties attempting to exert power aren't bad at it. It's why the weirdos online have to insist that it's a "CIA op" making Sweden and Finland look at the aggressive power next door and go "hello, NATO": because reality has kneecapped the myth.
    - croon 4y ago
      > we need to give up moral superiority and understand other countries needs > How is Russia going to not be belligerent if we are even thinking about letting Sweden and Finland in NATO? And this is the argument you are making about what Russia needs. Maybe consider why Sweden and Finland wants to join NATO.
    - ineedasername 4y ago
      Who are "we" in your statements? And can you elaborate on which other country you mean, and what their needs are? Because it doesn't seem like Russia needed to invade a Ukraine that it already had very close political & economic ties to. When Ukraine decided it wanted a leader who would also be friendly to the West Russia couldn't handle it. They viewed expanding economic interests as a threat, and rather than try to win out on diplomacy and friendly trade deals or any other economic approach they chose war. So please, get away from your vague statements of "we" & "needs" and be specific. Otherwise it sounds like you're reading from a script of talking points without any deeper justification on your difference of opinion.
- damidekronik 4y ago
  How is NATO going to not be belligerent if we are even thinking about letting Russia slaughter Ukrainians?
- jcranmer 4y ago
  Why is it more important to listen to Russia than to listen to Ukraine, Sweden, and Finland? Or also Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia?
  - lnxg33k1 4y ago
    Because Russia has 10k nuclear warheads that yankees are apparently ignoring, and the expansion of NATO is happening on european soil at european stability expenses, which apparently EU leaders are ignoring, you guys seem to think that I come here to say these things because I am a fan of Mister Putin, I am not, but I am aware that actions have consequences and if Hilary Clinton and Obama tell a guy that he is Hitler, when the guy is at the head of a state with 10k nuclear warheads, then Clinton and Obama need to fuck off a stay out of European soil affairs, because it is ultimately European states that border with this state. I understand this is not an issue for you, as you don't border with it and don't have business and energy and companies depending on it, but we are, the wellbeing and stability of the continent depends on talking and dealing with Putin at the moment, so we need EU leaders to stop being US puppet and start keeping in mind european interests and lives
    - watwut 4y ago
      The thing is, Russia invasion and occupation (again) is not in interest of European countries around Russia.
    - jcranmer 4y ago
      You know, Eastern European leaders are even harder line against Russia right now than the US is, let alone Western Europe. I guess having living memory of having been invaded and occupied by Russia makes you especially eager to sign up to, and enforce, a pact that will commit a much, much larger power to go to war against Russia if you get invaded. I'm not worried about nuclear weapons, and this is why: nuclear weapons are the last form of escalation possible. If Putin uses nuclear weapons, there is nothing he can do to further deter NATO from invading Russia, and I strongly suspect that public opinion would be in favor of NATO doing so. I don't see any scenario where the use of nuclear weapons wouldn't harm Russian positions, let alone a scenario where nuclear weapons are actually helpful.
- megous 4y ago
  Vladimir Pozner is not a scholar, right?
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  How does countries joining a defensive alliance threaten Russia?. Maybe if Russia stopped invading all its neighbours and all the prior USSR states, these states would stop joining NATO. The only thing NATO stops is Russian imperialism.
  - eropple 4y ago
    It helps when you realize that to the online segment, imperialism is definitionally something the United States does.
  - lnxg33k1 4y ago
    This seems to ignore the last 20 years of NATO occupation of Iraq which has been attacked based on false reports of some nuclear warheads that have never been found, I am not sure if you guys have short memory, are constantly brainwashed by your partisan media or just not that smart, If I was surrounded by a bunch of countries depending on the will of some guys calling freedom fries to force other to join, creating fake news and reports to force others to invade, I would be scared too
    - jcranmer 4y ago
      Iraq was not a NATO operation, hence the term "coalition of the willing."
      - thriftwy 4y ago
        This is laughable on the same level as Putin when he denied that Russian troops are in Crimea. "These are just some people who bought their uniforms in the military store" "That was not a NATO operation but an operation carried out by NATO countries" Meanwhile for the whole world, NATO has waged war in Iraq. Yugoslavia before that. Lybia after that.
        jcranmer 4y ago
        I find it funny that you managed to omit the only time NATO ever initiated an invasion in response to Article 5 from that list (Afghanistan).
- ineedasername 4y ago
  NATO has always been a defensive alliance, a retaliatory deterrence against attacking any one member, especially weaker members that would be easy to pick off. NATO expansion has pretty much always been a reaction to Russian aggression, including the most recent accessions following Russia's takeover of Crimea and now their invasion if the Ukraine. Painting NATO expansion as an aggressive act that forces Russia to retaliate with their own belligerance is a reversal of cause & effect at best and a willful blindness or belief in propaganda at worst. The truth is that since the fall of the Soviet Union Russia has been free to participate in global affairs & economics as much or as little as it wants, and while geopolitical games are played on all sides there have been no efforts to prevent Russia's peaceful participation such things. The rest of the world has even turned a blind eye to some fairly brutal conflicts they waged to consolidate what power they could among former Soviet states. Such is that nature of realpolitik. Russian leadership's desire to take that to an entirely new level right now is of course scaring the shit our of other close neighbors who rightfully fear that they would be next on the list. US actions in, e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan are irrelevant "whataboutism". If you have a problem with US actions then complain about them, advocate for US sanctions or a NATO-like alliance against US aggression or whatever you thing is appropriate. But none of it excuses Russia's actions and the very reasonable response from other countries that now seek protection from becoming their next target. Complaining about NATO expansion as an instigator of Russian aggression is like complaining that a playground bully is justified in beating up kids just because a group of those kids decided they would defend themselves collectively if the bully went after them again.
  - lnxg33k1 4y ago
    I think whataboutism is just a very nice word that is being used more and more in order to retain some sort of moral superiority and no accountability for actions, like we need to use two weights and two measures just otherwise we are whatabouting No it's not whataboutism it's just to make sure that when we say that Russia is crazy and US is some sort of holy state, we are trusting the wrong people to tell us what is just and correct and what is not So I am sorry but when the US tries to tell us about criminals and that what it takes to be just, I think only that it is the most criminal country in the history of the world, the only one to drop nuclear bombs on cilivian target cities or killing kids in Iraq and Afghanistan then jailing journalists or try to get them extradited, or spying on citizens of the world or backing israeli regime killing kids and journalists. Just as a way to remember who is telling us to give up everything we have and our stability, to be aware of the interlocutor, somehow. So at this point, we realise that US is a criminal state pursuing his own interest at the expense of the rest of the world, once we've established that, and that they don't care about human rights and freedom of press, since they support countries against that around the world for their interests, would we give up that? So when Biden speaks to Europeans saying you need to give up Russian gas for the track record of Russia, why Europeans don't reply that US need to give up its relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel? Because the world is not unjust but european leaders are now pursuing US interests at their own expenses, and that is not good

GekkePrutser 4y ago

Indeed, I know of several companies that have said they will sell the business to a local entity, but keep the options open to come back when the situation changes. Probably whatever oligarch buys it will buy it for cheap and will cash in big time when McDonald's buys it back, so a big cash flow to supporters of the regime...

dncornholio 4y ago

> Russia is a large economy that any global company would want to be a part of When companies jump the ship this soon, makes you wonder how big of an economy Russia actually is.

alaricus 4y ago
those companies will be replaced by Chinese equivalents before the sun goes down.

wiseowise 4y ago

Large economy the size of Italy?