Ukraine’s National Corruption Prevention Agency added major food corporations PepsiCo and Mars to the “international sponsors of war” list on Sept. 1.

      • hypelightfly@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t see why it would. It’s not like they’re in a position to not buy from wherever they can.

          • hypelightfly@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            It doesn’t affect it one way or the other. What does is their continuing operations in Russia, who started and is continuing the war.

                • zephyreks@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Because China (and Mexico, India, Southeast Asia, South America, Africa, and the Middle East) have not really introduced sanctions (except against military equipment)? These companies are following their government’s policy, which is more than can be said for companies like PepsiCo and Mars (both American).

                  International trade is dictated by countries, not by companies. If a company is breaking the policy of the country it operates from, that’s obviously very bad. These companies aren’t trying to pick sides: their government hasn’t picked a side and so there is no reason for the company to.

              • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The sponsors of war list is a list of companies circumventing everyone else’s efforts to place a defacto embargo on Russia to show that their actions have consequences. When companies cross that picket line, they undermine the entire exercise, making it easier for Russia to continue operations. The idea, for the rest of us, is to in turn boycott the companies on the list so they’ll also experience their actions have consequences.

                We have that luxury right now. Ukraine does not. So the idea is that we can help Ukraine by not doing business with companies that are making extra special bonus money by selling their products with a defacto monopoly in Russia right now

                • zephyreks@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Who’s efforts? From what I can see, only North America and Europe have joined in this so-called international embargo. In fact, not even Mexico has any sanctions against Russia.

                  What’s the motivation for including companies based in countries that haven’t called for trade restrictions?

                  Sure, I agree fully that countries based in Europe or North America should follow government policy or relocate, but I’m not expecting companies to behave outside of the policy detailed by their government.

      • DrM@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If you buy a drone for lets say 1000$ from Xiaomi via AliBaba, 100$ of those go to AliBaba maybe 1$ goes to Russia. from the 900$ left for Xiaomi, 600 are gone for the production. 300 left, 3 go to Russia. 4$ for Russia. But if this drone helps invalidate only one russian soldier, that 4$ are easily worth 100000$. If it helps invalidate a tank, it goes to the millions. Thats easily worth it if there is no alternative

    • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not how you spell “imprison the C-suite of”. Last time I read the Constitution, giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies was treason.

      • viking@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah but America is not at war with Russia. Ukraine is. They might not be allies, and not on friendly terms whatsoever, but there’s still a line to be crossed before considering them as actual enemies.

        • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Could’ve fooled me. I was under the impression we were sending weapons and trainers to one of our allies who are fighting them. Sounds like an enemy to me.

          • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because you’re going by feelings and not actual definitions. Which is fine when speaking colloquially, but if you want to take country-level actions, you better have some law to base that on.

    • Firestorm Druid@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      FYI: the “the” before Ukraine is superfluous. You can just type “like Ukraine just accused you of.”

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, no. They can earn millions with Russia, so they do. Spend half on that in good PR, and you still earned millions in blood money.

      And if people get pissed? The news cycle means they’ll forget about this in about 3 days so you’re good

    • AssholeDestroyer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pepsi has a history in Russia. They once traded the USSR soda in exchange for a fleet of naval ships. IIRC at the time Pepsi had the 4th largest navy in the world. They sold the ships to Norway.

  • wAkawAka@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    “international war sponsor” what a nice title, I think every company operating in US should have it!

      • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because most international conflicts that the US enters are due to threats (or potential windfalls) to the profitability of our largest companies.

        Or at least that’s the joke/context

      • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can we not be as stupid as redditors when they downvote people for asking questions?

        • Dkarma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No one is downvoting for asking questions they’re downvoting for asking trolling questions that are either obvious or can be answered by a quick Google search.

          Only a troll is “unaware” the us has committed war crimes itself often at the direction of corporations.

          Eg: the dole company in South and central America etc.

          • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Maybe give them the benefit of the doubt, not everyone is from the USA or obsessed by it here, and good answers can teach people efficiently, I’m pretty sure you learned things this way yourself.

            • Dkarma@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, everyone has access to Google. This is a cop out that allows trolls to appear to be legitimate question askers. They are not. Do not entertain the notion.

          • Nythos@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Asking the question promotes discussion.

            Which is exactly what Lemmy needs to show to newcomers it’s not a barren wasteland of nothing.

            • Dkarma@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Asking a dumb question promotes ridicule…always has. Lemmy is no different.

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This explains why LinkedIn was sending out surveys today asking “What do you think about PepsiCo?”, “What are the top reasons you would want to work at PepsiCo?”, to a bunch of people. The whole thing was extremely weird, and obviously a PR campaign

  • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just another reason to not drink the diabetes piss water that is Pepsi. They lost the cola wars for a reason. Come sucks too, but fuck Pepsi even harder.

          • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            They are easily riled and while I doubt there is intentional coordination in place, due to their fervour, they can come across like a brigade. If you speak up against them - cue the hexbears flocking to this comment no doubt - they can get quite vicious, as my comment history will witness.

        • mihor@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hexbear sounds like a sigma male hangout. It sure is gay to defederate such a place.

      • Asymptote@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Increasingly, “tankies” seem to cover any infraction against the approved anti-russian fervor;

        • if you are not convinced Russia blew up Nord Stream
        • if you are not convinced that Russia blew up a farmer and a tractor in Poland
        • if you are not convinced that Ukraines summer offensive is going all that well
        • if you believe normal Russian people are not evil monsters
        • if you are not convinced that Putin ordered the downing of Prigozhins plane
        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I have been called one just for being critical of the US military, it’s a catch all term for anyone that isnt strictly for capitalist imperialism. I consider it a soft resurgence of the red scare, I cringe each time I see it just like when I see the term lib.

          Both the pro Russian and the pro america-no-matter-the-cost crowds just stink of stupidity imo

        • set_secret@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          so given 90% of the planet believe normal Russian people aren’t evil monsters, the default position is tankies?

        • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not really. It’s someone who claims to be liberal or progressive or a way left thinker willing to use force to make the world what they want

          People who diminish or refute Tiananmen Square 1989 are tankies

          • twelve20two @slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s original definition doesn’t include liberals. I consider myself relatively left. I’ve had people ridicule some of my viewpoints for being too liberal (I guess too center for them). Those people were tankies, but they weren’t tankies because they’re more left than me. It’s because they consider themselves to be very left leaning while still praising authoritative regimes and being apologists for them. That’s the tank part. They’re alright with military dictatorships of the past and even consider them to have been successful. They also rarely are able to admit the flaws of those regimes (including the genocides), and even if they do, there’s a “reason” for it (X might have been bad and did this, but at the same time, it also did Y which was somewhat good)

    • Malgas@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      They did also have the sixth largest naval fleet in the world for a brief period in 1989.

      As a direct result of trading with Russia, even.

  • Bipta@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ll definitely be checking what I buy from these companies and making adjustments to my habits.

    Slava Ukraine.

    • sneezymrmilo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Man disappointing seeing how many companies I recognize on that list. Boycotting all these companies would be difficult considering how a lot of the companies on here own 20+ brands.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah Proctor & Gamble is the toughest one for me. They kinda have a lock on some industries like laundry detergents.

        I guess we just do our best. Russia is a small market, so it doesn’t take to much of hit to these bastards in the bigger markets before they abandon Russia.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          In Europe Unilever or Mondelez is probably the hardest for me.

      • root_beer@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s a reason they say that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. This isn’t to say we should just throw our hands up and give in, but do whatever the hell you can.

        For instance—sorry if you already know to do this—it may not apply for a lot of these companies, in that the goods are consumed, but whenever you can, buy secondhand to reduce not just waste, but also profits for whoever produces the product you buy. Also, sorry if it sounds trite, but I like to think that every little step helps in some way.