By Matt Underwood Denmark’s Rockwool says Russia has seized four of its factories, and the situation immediately sparks a complex reaction. It’s a mix of “well, tough luck,” and a clear sense of, “you brought this upon yourselves.” The general sentiment among Danes seems to be a collective shrug and a feeling that Rockwool should have shut down operations in Russia long ago. Operating in a country with high political risk inevitably comes with the possibility of consequences like this, and many feel it was just a matter of time. The timing of the announcement is also raising eyebrows, especially with a meeting about Greenland scheduled for today. Some anticipate this will be used as leverage by others, possibly highlighting the complexities of international relations. The company’s stated intention to defend its legal rights through the bilateral investment treaty between the two countries seems to be met with a general lack of optimism.
Good luck seems to be the operative phrase, with many pointing out this isn’t an isolated incident. Numerous other foreign companies still operating in Russia have faced the same fate, highlighting the risks involved. The prevailing thought is that Rockwool had ample warning, the writing was on the wall. They made a conscious choice to remain, so any negative outcomes are essentially self-inflicted. There’s also a strong belief that Rockwool was motivated by greed and should have pulled out years ago. The fact that the same material used for growing marijuana can be used for building insulation doesn’t seem to be helping them either. There’s a prevailing opinion that seizing Russia’s frozen assets could be a viable move.
It’s clear that many hold the view that Rockwool is entirely to blame for its current predicament. The sentiment is overwhelmingly unsympathetic; some even hope the company gets nothing back. The accusations are harsh, highlighting Rockwool’s perceived complicity in the war by continuing business with Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. There’s a clear moral judgment at play, with people saying they have zero sympathy. The feeling is that Rockwool was funding Putin’s war crimes and they deserve what they got. The question is repeatedly asked: Why were they still operating in Russia after all these years? And why didn’t they withdraw when the war started?
Rockwool’s past actions are being scrutinized, with many recalling the company’s past dealings. It’s noted that Rockwool was even labeled an “International Sponsor of War” by Ukraine for selling products to the Russian Ministry of Defence. This further fuels the feeling that Rockwool knew the risks and continued anyway. Some accuse them of having the “wool over their eyes” as to what was happening in Ukraine. It appears that the company’s financial contributions to a “rebuild Ukraine” fund after the fact seem to be perceived as a form of “trolling.”
The fact that it took the Russian authorities “years” to notice also seems to be viewed with some amusement. There’s a clear acknowledgment that the company was well aware of the risks involved in operating in Russia and chose to ignore them. The general consensus appears to be that building factories in Russia is like giving them away on a long-term loan. Some speculate that the Russian military has been a client of Rockwool’s for years, which adds another layer of complexity to the situation. It all boils down to the persistent question: Why the heck were you still in Russia?
The attitude is, “Good.” The overwhelming reaction suggests a lack of empathy and a sense of “karma” catching up with Rockwool. The company is painted as “dumbasses” who didn’t heed warnings. The sentiment is, “why are you still operating in Ruzzia?” The focus seems to be on Rockwool’s continued operations in Russia even after other companies left, and how they’re now feeling the consequences of those choices.
There’s a shared view that the situation serves as a lesson for other western companies considering doing business in countries with unpredictable regimes. The lesson, simply put, is that you can’t assume your property rights will be respected. When sanctions are imposed or the political climate shifts, your assets can be seized. There’s a certain level of disbelief about why anyone would still have factories in Russia.
The discussion then takes a dark turn, highlighting the global situation and the state of the world. The mention of war, conflict, and societal issues underscores the weight of the moment. The situation is seen as a sign of where we are as a species. The call to “destroy your governments” is a strong sentiment.
The underlying frustration is, essentially, you were told to leave Russia four years ago. The conclusion is that being greedy as a corporation has its consequences. Some express a clear sense of satisfaction that Rockwool is facing this situation. They did not leave when everyone else did.
There’s a query about how Rockwool continued to operate under the sanctions. The question lingers: what were they doing in Russia in 2026? The overall feeling is clear: Rockwool’s actions were unwise.