Putin threatens to 'throttle' Western firms remaining in Russia
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday threatened to "throttle" Western firms remaining in Russia and acting against its interests, as part of Moscow's effort to beef up domestic software development.
"We need to throttle them. I completely agree, and I say this without hesitation," he said in response to a businessman's call to curb the activities of U.S. tech companies Zoom and Microsoft, which currently provide only limited services in Russia.
Many Western firms left Russia or significantly wound down their activities in the country after Moscow launched its military offensive on Ukraine, prompting a barrage of economic sanctions from Ukraine's allies.
"We haven't kicked anyone out ... we have provided the most favorable conditions for them to work in our market, and they are trying to throttle us," the Russian president said at a meeting with entrepreneurs, without providing details on how the Western companies were damaging Russia.
"We must respond in kind, mirror their actions," added the Russian president, who has significantly tightened exit conditions for companies seeking to leave Russia, forcing many to sell their assets at steep discounts.
There has been growing media speculation that some companies might consider a comeback amid U.S. President Donald Trump's efforts to reset relations with Russia and achieve a fast peace in Ukraine.
Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund and Putin's special envoy on economic cooperation, said in April that his fund received a lot of requests from U.S. firms wishing to come back. So far, no major Western company has publicly announced plans to return to Russia.
Some businesses secured buyback options after selling their assets to the local management, leaving the door open for a potential return to the country.
The companies that have left Russia completely, like U.S. fast food chain McDonald's, won't receive a warm welcome if they decide to come back, Putin said.
"They (McDonald's) have put everyone in a difficult position, left, and now, if they want to come back, are we supposed to roll out the red carpet for them? No, of course not," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
10 hours ago
- Japan Times
'Aces up the sleeve': Ukraine drone attacks in Russia shake up conflict
Ukraine managed to not only humiliate the Kremlin by boasting of taking out more than a third of all Russian missile carriers in a spectacular drone attack but also to rewrite the rules of modern warfare, analysts say. Despite being outnumbered and outgunned, Kyiv used inexpensive drones at the weekend to destroy Russian nuclear-capable bombers worth billions of dollars in an operation carried out after months of planning. "Spider's Web" dealt a blow to Russia more than three years after its invasion of Ukraine, and the operation will now be studied closely by militaries around the world as a new strategy in asymmetric warfare. Ukraine said it destroyed $7 billion worth of Russian aircraft parked at airbases thousands of kilometers across the border, mainly Tu-95 and Tu-22 long-range strategic bombers. While the attacks at Belaya deep in Siberia and Olenya on the Kola Peninsula in the Arctic circle are unlikely to change to course of the war, they will limit Moscow's ability to launch long-range missile strikes against Ukraine. Yohann Michel, a researcher at the French university Lyon-3, said the loss of the aircraft was "a serious blow to Russian offensive capabilities." "The main impact could be felt in several weeks' time with a reduction in the number of sorties by the rest of the fleet" due to difficulties in finding spare parts for the Soviet-era planes, which are no longer in production, he said. Maxim Starchak, a fellow at the Center for International and Defense Policy at Queen's University in Canada, said it would take Russia a long time to replace the lost aircraft. "Russia is extremely slow and inefficient in developing new aircraft for its nuclear forces," he said. New way of waging war The drones, launched from trucks in the immediate vicinity of air bases deep inside Russia, destroyed or damaged aircraft parked in the open. Congratulating Ukraine's security service chief Vasyl Malyuk, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said it had taken 18 months of preparation for the 117 drones to be concealed inside trucks close to the airbases, and that all the Ukrainian agents had safely left Russia. A satellite image shows pre-strike and post-strike images of the Ivanovo Airbase east of Moscow. | 2025 PLANET LABS PBC / via AFP-Jiji Michael Shurkin, a former CIA officer, said Ukraine's operation was likely to have struck fear into militaries across the world, adding that potential targets for such drone attacks could include refineries, ballistic missile silos or military bases. "This technology is akin to stealth technology: The threat is difficult to detect both because it emerges near the target and is too small and too low to be picked up by sensors designed to catch aircraft or missiles," said Shurkin, director of global programs for the consultancy 14 North Strategies. Ukrainian military analyst Oleksii Kopytko said anyone delivering a pizza or driving a horse-drawn cart could present a danger. "The organizers and main perpetrators are essentially untraceable," he said. A French arms manufacturing executive said Ukraine could even have trained AI algorithms to recognize aircraft or guide the drones in case of jamming. "New tools are forcing us to completely rethink defense systems and how they are produced," said the executive, who asked not to be named. "It opens up possibilities that we hadn't even imagined." Zelenskyy "just proved that he and Ukraine are more than able to pull aces out of their combat fatigue sleeves," said Timothy Ash, an emerging market economist focused on Russia. 'Did not help' The attacks exposed Russia's air base vulnerabilities, in a massive morale boost for Kyiv after months on the backfoot in the conflict. "The protection of military air bases does not meet security requirements," said Starchak. "The dispersal of military aircraft across different airfields did not help either." Russia's vast size is also a disadvantage here. "Usually, the vastness of Russia's territory is an advantage; you can hide your bombers thousands of kilometers away where they would be safe," said Michel. "The problem is that this means you have to monitor thousands of square kilometers, which is simply impossible." The attacks dealt a blow to Moscow's nuclear triad of ground, sea and air-launched missiles, said Starchak. If it was possible to target an airbase it is also possible to hit bases hosting nuclear submarines, Starchak said. "An attack on long-range aircraft bases is a potential threat to the entire nuclear triad, which can be easily hit, thereby weakening it to the point that it cannot respond with a nuclear strike." John Herbst, senior director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, said that Ukraine's operation gave U.S. President Donald Trump leverage against Russia's Vladimir Putin in search of a settlement. "It is a strong counter to the dubious 'common wisdom' that the war is moving inevitably in Moscow's favor," wrote the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.
NHK
15 hours ago
- NHK
Ukrainian civilians engage in defending the nation
In Ukraine, national defense awareness is expanding - and is increasingly drawing in not only adults but also children, who are learning how to give first aid and fly drones.
Japan Times
16 hours ago
- Japan Times
Welfare demands put pressure on Starmer's commitment to defense overhaul
A revamp of defense policy by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer intended to show both U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that the U.K. is serious about maintaining its role as a key power in Europe and NATO. But Starmer's failure to explain how and when he'll find billions of pounds of extra spending to pay for the new weapons and personnel has left him facing doubts about the U.K.'s commitment to follow through. The plans must also survive rising pressure from Labour lawmakers, who want to prioritize domestic issues blowing back on the left-leaning party at the ballot box, such as controversial benefit cuts. The U.K. government on Monday released a long-awaited blueprint to move the country's depleted military to a position of "war-fighting readiness.' Among other things, the Strategic Defense Review called for building as many as a dozen new attack submarines as part of the AUKUS partnership with Australia and the U.S., investing £15 billion ($20 billion) in nuclear warhead development and expanding domestic production of drones, munitions and long-range missiles. Still, Starmer has repeatedly sidestepped questions about when he'll firm up his "ambition' to expand defense spending to 3% of economic output in the next parliament, compared with 2.3% now and a planned 2.5% in two years' time. That risks undermining U.K. leadership on European security issues, with NATO leaders expecting to commit later this month at the Hague to an expenditure target of 3.5% to appease Trump's demands on the alliance. "The key question remains: what's the planned pathway from 2.5% in 2027 to 3% in 2034, itself short of a likely new NATO target?' said John Foreman, former U.K. defense attache to Moscow and Kyiv. "Without that, any plans are worthless.' Starmer is vying to reverse decades of decline in the British military as Whitehall policymakers directed resources toward health and social programs while enjoying the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella. The U.K.'s inability to credibly defend its interests at home and abroad led then-Defense Secretary Ben Wallace, a Conservative, to declare that the military had been "hollowed out' since the end of the Cold War. The last defense review — drafted under former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2021 — was more focused on force projection and naval power, with a shift toward the Indo-Pacific. Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and Trump's return to power upended those plans, forcing the U.K. to turn its attention to security concerns closer to home. Since taking power last year, Starmer has sought to put the U.K. at the heart of European security, helping forge a "coalition of the willing' of nations supporting Ukraine and striking a defense pact with Brussels. For the Labour leader, who opposed leaving the EU, it was a chance to reassert British leadership on the continent without relitigating Brexit. "The threat we now face is more serious, more immediate and more unpredictable than at any time since the Cold War,' Starmer told workers Monday at BAE Systems's Govan shipyard in Glasgow. "A new era in the threats we face demands a new era for defense and security, not just to survive in this new world, but to lead.' Yet military experts warned that the prime minister's lofty aims contrast with what he has been willing to commit to spending on defense, and look in danger of appearing out of pace when compared to commitments being made by other NATO members. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte is pushing for members to pledge to spend 3.5% of gross domestic product on core defense activities by 2032, with another 1.5% going toward adjacent projects such as cybersecurity and border control. That's an effort to assuage Trump, who has called on NATO countries to spend 5% of GDP — a goal the U.S. itself doesn't meet. Asked for a clearer statement about when his 3% spending goal would be met, the prime minister declined to give what he called an "arbitrary date,' insisting he would only set out plans for further spending once the economic and fiscal situation allowed. The lack of clarity prompted criticism from left and right, including the now-opposition Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Starmer will be expected to provide answers to NATO leaders when he attends the organization's summit in the Netherlands. While the prime minister has so far avoided the sort of criticism that Trump has directed at other allies about their security commitments, it remains to be seen how the U.S. leader will respond to the U.K.'s spending plans. There was at least one potential boost for U.K.-U.S. relations in Monday's announcement: Britain indicated it would consider buying F-35A fighter jets capable of firing tactical nuclear weapons, made by Lockheed Martin Corp. The international context was laid out at a meeting of eastern European and Nordic leaders in Vilnius on Monday, where Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen suggested that NATO's target for 3.5% of core defense spending should be brought forward to sooner than 2032. Former Defense Secretary Grant Shapps similarly said Starmer should commit to spending 3% of GDP on defense by 2030 to ensure the U.K. maintains its position at the fore of NATO. "That figure isn't decorative — it's the entry ticket for modern kit, a resilient industrial base and credibility with our allies. Anything less is theater,' said Shapps, a Conservative who left office last year. "Moscow can spot the difference between a slogan and steel.' Starmer's backers argue that he has already proved his intent by lifting projected defense spending earlier this year, and accuse his Tory predecessors of handing him a poisoned inheritance including a threadbare military and overstretched public finances. Ultimately, Starmer has decided where government expenditure should be focused — choices that are in the spotlight again at next week's spending review. With the Labour government struggling for popularity less than a year into power, and Nigel Farage's right-wing Reform U.K. party surging in the polls, the party's lawmakers have already forced a reversal on a plan to cut cold weather payments for pensioners and are pushing for him to increase benefits for parents. Simultaneous calls from international allies to raise defense spending and from Labour lawmakers to raise welfare spending pose an obvious challenge for Starmer's under-pressure Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves. She may soon be forced to decided whether to bow to demands from within her party to loosen her fiscal rules or compromise on Labour's campaign pledges not to raise broad-based taxes. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies think tank, told Times Radio that he expected "some really quite chunky tax increases.' That, Johnson said, is "the only choice that is available.'
