Western companies must stop funding Russia’s war against Ukraine

CIUS weekly report on North American media coverage of Ukrainian affairs, 19–25 January 2025
Five publications (Foreign Policy, The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, The Washington Post, and The Globe and Mail) were selected to prepare this report on how Ukraine has been portrayed in the North American press during the past week. The sample was compiled based on their impact on public opinion as well as on their professional reputation, popularity among the readership, and topical relevance. These publications represent centrist viewpoints on the political spectrum.
This MMS report covers only the most-read and relevant articles about Ukraine, as ranked by the respective North American publications themselves in the past week. Its scope covers promoted articles on home pages and articles from special sections on Ukraine, with the hashtag #Ukraine, from the paper editions of the publications, and about Ukraine from opinion columns and editorials.
Topics this week
- The world and Ukraine: Ending Russia’s war against Ukraine is not easy; US should continue to arm Ukraine; Trump’s push for Ukraine negotiations meets indifference from the Kremlin.
- Russia at war: Peace in Ukraine should not mean Russia’s victory; Putin faces a dilemma as Russia’s war economy strains and public fatigue grows.
MMS summaries
It is difficult to end a war. Gideon Rose (Foreign Affairs) observes that contrary to expectations, President Donald Trump may continue his predecessor’s policy on the Russo-Ukrainian war and the war in Gaza. Although ending both wars was a key foreign policy pledge of President Trump during his bid for re-election, he may revert to the approach of the Biden administration, because “US interests and geopolitical realities don’t change with the election returns.” The US has three major interests in the European war: “Saving Ukraine, protecting Europe, and checking Russia.” A possible settlement now could achieve solid, albeit limited, results in all three areas, provided that post-war Ukraine receives adequate security guarantees and financial support. Without guarantees of Ukraine’s security, peace will only be a temporary truce: “These concerns could be addressed with strong post-settlement security guarantees, and the Trump administration should insist on them. It would be a terrible irony if the same war that finally brought Finland into NATO resulted in the simultaneous Finlandization of another, larger Russian neighbor farther south.” According to Rose, “The Trump administration should pursue peacemaking in both theaters […]. But it needs to be wary, since all the other players in the endgames have their own agendas and will fight the peace as grimly as they have the wars.”
Western companies must stop funding Russia’s war against Ukraine. Agathe Demarais (Foreign Policy) argues that economic arguments, if not moral ones, should force Western businesses to leave Russia. Most Western businesses and companies do not violate sanctions by operating in the Russian Federation. However, by paying Russia corporate taxes, these companies are funding Moscow’s ability to wage war against Ukraine. “First, around 60 percent of those global firms that operated in Russia before the full-scale invasion began in February 2022 still continue to do so. Second, Germany, the United States, and France are—by far—the top three countries of origin for Western firms that retain a presence in Russia, accounting for around half of them.” According to some estimates, over the three years of the war, Western firms transferred more than $16 billion to the Russian state treasury: “[That] is enough for Moscow to pay for around 5,300 Iskander missiles, 1,100 Kinzhal ballistic missiles, or 320,000 Shahed drones. For comparison, Russia’s massive attack against Ukraine last Christmas used 78 missiles of various types in addition to 106 Shahed drones and decoys. [Moreover], the amount Western firms have paid in Russian corporate taxes since the start of the war is roughly equivalent to Germany’s entire military, humanitarian, and financial support to Ukraine over the same period.” Doing business in Russia is extremely risky: “Only a few weeks into the invasion in 2022, the Kremlin outlawed transferring dividends to headquarters in ‘unfriendly countries,’ a category that includes the United States, European Union, and the United Kingdom. The ban has been relaxed a bit since then, but conditions remain stringent; the transfers cannot exceed 50 percent of the profits of Western firms in Russia.” Furthermore, Western businesses cannot be sure that they will be able to maintain control over their assets in Russia: “In August 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree ensuring that Western companies could not sell their Russian assets without government approval; those operating in energy or finance would even need permission from Putin himself. One year later, the Kremlin nationalized the Russian assets of French food maker Danone and Danish brewer Carlsberg, with both firms losing all but a fraction of their assets’ value.” According to Demarais, “In Russia, Western companies are running businesses that are not really theirs anymore. If the moral motivation was not compelling enough, the economic argument to leave Russia is now watertight.”
Peace in Ukraine should not mean Russia’s victory. David Shimer (Wall Street Journal) insists that it is in the USA’s interests to continue its support for Ukraine. Despite the politicization of this topic, there are a number of objective reasons why Washington should continue to provide military assistance to Kyiv. First, Ukraine is an effective partner that is degrading the Russian military and, in the process, strengthening its position for future negotiations: “Ukraine is imposing extraordinary costs on Russia, which is suffering an average of 1,500 casualties a day. It’s an open question whether Moscow can continue to recruit enough soldiers to replace its staggering losses, estimated at more than 700,000 casualties overall since 2022.” Second, with the help of the US, Ukraine can push Russia to engage in constructive negotiation: “Maintaining military aid for Ukraine while simultaneously applying economic pressure on Russia would increase the likelihood of a durable peace.” Third, helping Ukraine to succeed remains fundamental to US national security interests: “If Russian aggression isn’t halted in Ukraine, then Moscow could become emboldened to threaten the eastern-flank members of [NATO], and aggressors around the world would become more likely to imitate Russia’s behavior.” Fourth, support for Kyiv also benefits the US defence industry, economy, and technological competitiveness. According to Shimer, “Ukraine can enter a future negotiation with strength and reach an acceptable outcome to this war, but only if the U.S. continues to support the Ukrainian military and apply economic pressure on Russia. Now is the time to finish the job.”
US should continue to arm Ukraine. Jack Keane and Marc A. Thiessen (Washington Post) argue that a lasting peace can only be achieved by continuing to arm Ukraine. Washington’s assistance to Kyiv has not been an act of charity: “Stopping Putin from subjugating Ukraine was, and remains, in the United States’ vital national security interest. And most of the military aid money has been spent right here at home—reinvigorating our dangerously atrophied defense industrial base, creating good manufacturing jobs and modernizing our military as we send Ukraine older weapons and replace our stockpiles with more advanced versions.” However, American taxpayers cannot and should not subsidize Ukraine’s defence indefinitely. It is time to turn Ukraine from a recipient of aid to a consumer of defence equipment: “This is the only sustainable way to build a lasting defense cooperation between Washington and Kyiv.” According to the authors, there are two instruments that can ensure such interaction between Kyiv and Washington. First, Western countries should allow Ukraine to use frozen Russian assets to purchase American weapons: “Let Russia pay to create jobs for American workers building Abrams tanks and Stryker combat vehicles in Ohio; Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs, Bradley fire-support team vehicles and Hercules recovery vehicles in Pennsylvania; extended-range Joint Direct Attack Munition glide bombs in Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma; and 155mm artillery shells in Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Iowa, California and Texas, among countless other American communities producing weapons systems for Ukraine.” Second, to provide Kyiv with loans secured by natural resources: “Ukraine possesses some of the largest reserves of 22 of the 50 strategic minerals identified as critical to the U.S. economy and national security, including the largest reserves of uranium in Europe; the second-largest reserves of iron ore, titanium and manganese; and the third-largest reserves of shale gas.” According to Keane and Thiessen, “The time has come to end the war in Ukraine and to secure a just and lasting peace. The only way to do so is to make sure that Ukraine is armed with weapons made by American workers — without requiring U.S. taxpayers to bear the cost.”
Trump pressures Putin to negotiate on Ukraine as Kyiv warns of risky concessions. Mark MacKinnon (Globe and Mail) reports that US President Donald Trump and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin appear to be moving toward potential negotiations on Ukraine, but skepticism remains over whether any deal would lead to lasting peace. Trump has shifted his rhetoric on ending the war, now saying it could happen within 100 days rather than his earlier claim of resolving it in 24 hours. Meanwhile, a Reuters report citing anonymous sources suggests that Putin is “increasingly worried” about Russia’s overheating economy and failure to achieve key military objectives, including weakening Ukraine’s armed forces and securing a land corridor to Crimea. However, the sources did not indicate whether Moscow would abandon demands such as imposing limits on Ukraine’s armed forces (or what Russia calls “demilitarization”) and rejection of its NATO membership. Trump has attempted to pressure Putin into negotiations, warning on social media that he would impose “new taxes, tariffs, and sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States” if the Kremlin refuses to make a deal. Despite this, the Kremlin dismissed Trump’s remarks, with spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stating that Moscow remains open to “equal dialogue,” but did not acknowledge the Reuters report. Ukraine and its allies view the diplomatic push with both hope and concern. While many in Kyiv want an end to the war, officials fear that any deal negotiated between Trump and Putin without President Volodymyr Zelensky could lead to unacceptable concessions. A Ukrainian security official told the author that: “Personally, I don’t believe that our interests are the same as the real interest of the United States—and they will follow their interests.” A potential settlement envisioned by US Vice-President J.D. Vance would freeze the war along current battle lines, effectively leaving Russia in control of nearly 20 percent of Ukrainian territory. Zelensky has rejected any deal that limits Ukraine’s military capabilities or legitimizes Russian territorial claims. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, he called for 200,000 Western troops to enforce a ceasefire, a proposal that Russia immediately rejected as a step toward “uncontrollable escalation.” Experts remain skeptical that economic concerns will change Putin’s stance, with Tatiana Stanovaya of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center arguing that for the Russian leader, the war remains “an existential conflict” in which “he must achieve his goals at any cost.”
Putin faces dilemma as Russia’s war economy strains and public fatigue grows. Andrei Kolesnikov (Foreign Affairs) argues that in the face of mounting challenges, Russian President Putin confronts an increasingly difficult balancing act between maintaining his grip on power and facing growing dissatisfaction within Russia. While he maintains an outwardly optimistic stance, emphasizing the success of what he calls a “special military operation” in Ukraine and the economic resilience of Russia, the reality paints a more complex picture. The military budget has skyrocketed, while other sectors, like the consumer economy, stagnate and inflation continues to outpace wage growth. Despite this, ordinary Russians largely seem to accept the hardships, with “performative or genuine support for the special operation” holding steady at around 75 percent. Yet the cracks in this facade are beginning to show, particularly in the military’s strained resources and the erosion of public safety and morale. At the same time, Putin’s foreign policy vision, grounded in a revanchist restoration of imperial Russia’s global influence, faces setbacks. The loss of influence in regions like Syria and Armenia signals a growing divide between Russia’s ambitions and the realities of international relations. Even long-standing partnerships, such as those with Azerbaijan and Turkey, have soured as Russia finds itself increasingly sidelined, according to Kolesnikov. Putin’s attempts to expand Russia’s influence have also faltered, as Armenia and even Russian-occupied territory of Abkhazia in the South Caucasus, increasingly turn to the West. All these cases, according to the author, illustrate a broader failure to maintain Russia’s former stature, with a once-proud Russian empire increasingly fragmented both internally and externally. The expansion of Russia’s military and political power, envisioned by Putin as part of a broader geopolitical strategy, has instead made his nation more isolated and vulnerable. Lastly, Kolesnikov writes, the toll of war and economic hardship is becoming more evident inside Russia. The labour force is shrinking, and vital sectors such as construction and healthcare are experiencing critical shortages. These challenges have led to a shift in public opinion, with many Russians showing signs of war fatigue. Despite ongoing support for the war, surveys indicate that a majority now favour peace talks, with 57 percent expressing support in late 2024. However, the conditions for peace remain complex, with Putin’s regime unwilling to compromise on territorial gains or acquiesce to NATO enlargement. As Putin’s war continues into 2025, the key challenge he faces is how to maintain the illusion of victory while navigating the mounting pressures of internal dissatisfaction and external isolation. Ultimately, Kolesnikov opines, the situation is a delicate one and “ending the war would be just as dangerous as waging it.”
Trump’s push for Ukraine negotiations meets indifference from the Kremlin. Matthew Luxmoore and Thomas Grove (Wall Street Journal) remark that despite President Trump’s threat to increase economic pressure on Russia through sanctions, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed the warning: “We don’t see anything new here,” he said. Russia, though facing economic strain due to the war, feels confident in its ability to continue fighting, with Russian forces steadily advancing in Ukraine’s Donetsk Oblast. Moscow sees Trump’s comments more as a political gesture aimed at bolstering his position at home than as a serious attempt at negotiation. The Kremlin’s focus remains on securing a “Yalta 2.0” settlement that reshapes the geopolitical landscape to Russia’s benefit while continuing to sideline Ukraine’s sovereignty.