By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite claims of targeting only military sites, Russia’s strikes in Ukraine have repeatedly hit civilian infrastructure, including American businesses. Notably, the Mondelēz International Oreo cookie factory in Trostianets was struck, alongside other American facilities like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Philip Morris International, and Flex. These attacks, which have damaged or destroyed facilities and injured employees, undermine Moscow’s purported desire for economic partnership with the United States, suggesting a broader objective of destruction rather than adherence to military strategy.
Read the original article here
Russia’s continued targeting of businesses in Ukraine, with the recent bombing of a Mondelēz factory marking the latest incident, raises serious questions about the nature of this conflict and the priorities of international actors. It’s a stark illustration of how far the war has reached beyond traditional military objectives, now impacting the operations of major American corporations and, by extension, American economic interests. The notion that a facility producing widely recognized snacks like Oreo cookies could become a target speaks volumes, especially when juxtaposed with warnings issued by the US government to Ukraine regarding attacks on Russian oil infrastructure that could affect American investments.
The current situation highlights a peculiar double standard, where Ukraine’s actions to disrupt Russian energy flows, impacting US-linked financial interests, are met with official admonishment. Meanwhile, Russia’s strikes on American-owned assets within Ukraine seem to elicit a much quieter, less forceful response from the US administration. This has led to a perplexing dynamic where the US appears more concerned about the potential economic repercussions of Ukrainian defensive actions on its businesses than it is about Russia directly damaging American corporate interests on Ukrainian soil. It leaves one wondering about the true depth of protection offered to American businesses operating in a war zone.
The bombing of the Mondelēz factory, a household name in snack production, is particularly telling. While the importance of maintaining morale, even through familiar treats, is acknowledged, the strategic rationale behind targeting such an establishment by Russian forces, especially when Ukraine is actively striking Russian energy infrastructure, becomes highly questionable. It suggests a pattern of Russian aggression that doesn’t necessarily adhere to conventional wartime logic aimed at military victory, but perhaps seeks to exert pressure through alternative, more disruptive means.
The stated US government position, as articulated by spokespeople in the past, suggested that the presence of American businesses could act as a deterrent to Russian aggression. The bombing of these very businesses now directly contradicts that premise, revealing a fundamental flaw in the assumed deterrent effect. This outcome is not only damaging to the businesses themselves but also undermines the credibility of the underlying strategy that predicated their continued operation on a presumed safety net of American ownership.
Furthermore, the fact that Mondelēz is also among the companies that have not withdrawn their operations from Russia adds another layer to this complex situation. This decision, presumably made with the belief that their presence might offer some form of protection or neutrality, appears to have been an incorrect assessment. The retaliatory nature of such strikes cannot be ignored; they seem to be a direct response to actions perceived as detrimental to Russian interests, such as Ukrainian attacks on its oil infrastructure where American companies have significant stakes.
The notion of “poetic justice” is often invoked in such scenarios, and while the situation is dire, the irony of American businesses becoming direct targets for actions that were perhaps intended to protect broader American economic interests is striking. The fear and uncertainty experienced by individuals working for these American companies in Ukraine are palpable, especially knowing that their workplaces are specifically being targeted. This escalates the conflict beyond geopolitical strategies to the immediate, personal danger faced by those on the ground.
The broader implication of these attacks is the signaling of control and influence by Russia. The absence of significant, impactful consequences for Russia’s actions against its adversaries, coupled with the US administration’s apparent hesitancy to strongly condemn or counter these attacks on its own businesses, creates an environment where such tactics can persist. It raises the uncomfortable question of whether the US is prioritizing its investments in Russia over the safety of American assets and citizens in Ukraine, or even over actively hindering Russian aggression.
The targeting of civilian infrastructure, including factories like Mondelēz, is a well-documented aspect of the conflict, and these strikes are often more “effective” against less defended civilian targets than against heavily fortified military installations. This approach allows Russia to inflict damage and sow disruption, even if it doesn’t directly contribute to battlefield gains in a traditional sense. It is a strategy that leverages the inherent difficulty of defending every civilian asset from attack.
The current geopolitical climate, where the US administration appears to be navigating a delicate balance, possibly influenced by investments and economic ties, leads to a situation where Ukraine’s ability to defend itself and strike back effectively might be constrained by the economic interests of the US. This creates a scenario where American businesses could be perceived as being used as a shield, inadvertently or otherwise, and where the US administration’s response is seen as more focused on mitigating economic fallout than on decisively countering aggression. The ongoing bombing of American businesses in Ukraine is not just an attack on corporate assets; it is a calculated move that exposes the complex and often contradictory nature of international relations in times of conflict.