I'm not pleased about that. We pay taxes in Russia that helps the war.
In the long shadow of war, a global confectionery giant finds itself caught between two imperatives it cannot reconcile: the moral demand to withdraw from a nation waging brutal aggression, and the pragmatic fear that withdrawal would only deepen the harm. Mondelez CEO Dirk Van de Put has chosen to remain in Russia, arguing that abandoning its factories would hand the Kremlin a windfall, while simultaneously doubling down in Ukraine, rebuilding bombed plants and protecting the livelihoods of workers under fire. It is a position that satisfies no one fully — not the seventy-plus British MPs demanding a clean break, not the Ukrainian civilians whose suffering is financed in part by the taxes Mondelez pays to Moscow, and perhaps not Van de Put himself, who admits he is not pleased by what his company's presence enables.
- A company generating up to $1.4 billion annually from Russia cannot easily claim neutrality — every ruble of tax paid flows into a state budget at war.
- Over seventy UK MPs have drawn a hard line, arguing that no business rationale can be weighed against the killing of civilians and the abduction of thousands of Ukrainian children.
- Van de Put's counter-argument is not comfort but containment: leave, and the Kremlin seizes the assets and pockets the profits anyway, with no moderating hand left on the lever.
- Meanwhile, in Ukraine, the same company has rebuilt bombed factories twice over, doubled employee salaries, and refused to lay off a single worker — a costly, concrete act of solidarity conducted under active bombardment.
- The unresolved tension is whether staying in Russia truly limits harm or simply allows Mondelez to sustain a lucrative market while claiming moral cover — a question lawmakers are pressing with growing urgency.
Dirk Van de Put, chief executive of Mondelez — the company behind Cadbury, Philadelphia, and Toblerone — has publicly defended his decision to keep operating in Russia more than four years into the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Speaking to the BBC, he framed the choice not as indifference but as damage limitation: if Mondelez walked away, he argued, the Kremlin would simply seize its factories and redirect the profits to the war effort. By staying, the company at least retains control, having frozen new investment and suspended advertising since 2022.
Van de Put did not pretend the position was clean. He acknowledged that Mondelez's Russian tax payments — drawn from revenues of between one and 1.4 billion dollars annually — were helping to fund the war, and said plainly that he was not pleased about it. More than seventy British MPs, organized through the All Party Parliamentary Group on Ukraine, have demanded the company sever ties entirely, with the group's chair arguing that no definition of normal business could justify continued operations in a country responsible for mass civilian casualties and the abduction of thousands of children.
Yet Van de Put's moral accounting did not stop at Russia. On the day he spoke to the BBC, a building in Ukraine had just been struck. Mondelez runs two manufacturing plants there — one near the Russian border, one close to Kyiv — and both have been hit repeatedly. One facility had been damaged and rebuilt twice, each time at a cost of tens of millions of dollars. The company doubled its Ukrainian employees' salaries when the war began and has not laid off a single worker.
The CEO presented this dual commitment as a coherent, if painful, logic: stay in Russia to prevent worse outcomes, invest in Ukraine to stand by those under attack. Critics remain unconvinced, questioning whether the company's Russian presence truly constrains harm or simply preserves a profitable market behind a moral argument. Van de Put's answer, in essence, was that there were no good choices available — only the least damaging ones he could find.
Dirk Van de Put, the chief executive of Mondelez, sat down with the BBC to explain a decision that has drawn fire from lawmakers and activists across the Western world: why his company, which makes Cadbury chocolate, Philadelphia cream cheese, and Toblerone, continues to operate in Russia more than four years after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began.
The answer, Van de Put insisted, was pragmatic rather than callous. Staying in Russia, he argued, was "the right decision"—not because the company wanted to be there, but because leaving would be worse. If Mondelez abandoned its Russian operations, he reasoned, the Kremlin would simply seize the factories and continue selling the company's products anyway, funneling the profits directly into the war effort. By remaining and maintaining control, at least Mondelez could limit the damage: it had frozen new investment, suspended advertising spending, and kept the business on life support rather than growth mode. The alternative, in his view, was to hand Moscow a gift.
Yet Van de Put did not shy away from the moral weight of his position. "I'm not pleased about that," he said, referring to the fact that Mondelez's Russian tax payments were helping to finance the war. The company generates between one billion and 1.4 billion dollars annually from Russia—a substantial sum that, whatever the company's intentions, flows into a state budget consumed by military spending. Over seventy British MPs, organized through the All Party Parliamentary Group on Ukraine, had signed a letter demanding that Mondelez sever ties entirely. Alex Sobel, who chairs the group, was blunt: continuing to operate in a nation responsible for killing countless Ukrainian civilians and abducting thousands of children "cannot be justified under any definition of 'business as usual'." The pressure was real, and Van de Put knew it.
But the CEO's calculus extended beyond Russia. On the morning he spoke to the BBC, an office building in Ukraine had been struck by an attack. "Everybody's safe," he said, almost as an aside. Mondelez operates two manufacturing plants in Ukraine—one near the Russian border in Trostyanets, another close to Kyiv in Vyshhorod—and both have been hit repeatedly. One plant had been damaged twice and rebuilt twice, each reconstruction costing tens of millions of dollars. When the conflict began, the company doubled the salaries of its Ukrainian employees and committed to rebuilding every facility that was damaged, no matter how many times. Not a single worker had been laid off.
This was the other side of Van de Put's moral equation: a commitment to the country being invaded, made tangible through continued investment and payroll even as missiles fell. The danger was constant and inescapable for the people who worked there. Yet Mondelez had chosen to stay, to rebuild, to double down. Van de Put framed this as consistency—the same logic that kept the company in Russia applied here too, but in reverse. Abandoning Ukraine would mean abandoning the people who depended on those jobs, leaving them without income in a war zone.
The tension was impossible to resolve. By staying in Russia, Mondelez was funding the war. By leaving Ukraine, it would be abandoning a country under attack. Van de Put's defense was that he had chosen the least bad option: maintain control in Russia to prevent worse outcomes, and pour resources into Ukraine to support those caught in the fighting. Whether that calculation was sound—whether the company's presence in Russia truly prevented greater harm, or whether it simply allowed Mondelez to have it both ways—remained the question that lawmakers and critics were asking. The company's answer was that there were no good choices, only necessary ones.
Citas Notables
I think we did the right thing for our people in Russia. Can we be criticised for that? Yeah, of course. We pay taxes in Russia that helps the war. I'm not pleased about that.— Dirk Van de Put, CEO of Mondelez
Continuing to operate in a nation responsible for the deaths of countless Ukrainian civilians and the abduction of thousands of children cannot be justified under any definition of 'business as usual'.— Alex Sobel, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Ukraine
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
When you say staying in Russia was the "right decision," right for whom exactly?
Right for the employees in Russia who would have lost their jobs, and right for Ukraine—because if Mondelez had left, the Kremlin would have taken the factories and kept selling the products anyway. The money would have gone to the war effort either way, but at least this way the company maintains some control.
But the company is still paying taxes that fund the war. How is that not complicity?
Van de Put admits he's not pleased about it. The point he's making is that the alternative—confiscation—would likely generate more revenue for the Kremlin. It's a lesser-evil argument, not a claim of innocence.
And Ukraine? Why stay there if the plants keep getting hit?
Because people there need those jobs, especially in a war zone. The company doubled salaries when the fighting started and has rebuilt twice after attacks. It's a different kind of commitment—one made visible through investment and payroll.
So the company is essentially saying it can't win, so it's trying to lose as slowly as possible?
Something like that. Van de Put seems to believe that any exit from Russia makes things worse, and any exit from Ukraine abandons people who are already suffering. The logic is consistent, even if the position is uncomfortable.
Do you think lawmakers will accept that reasoning?
Probably not. Over seventy MPs have already called for the company to leave Russia. The argument that staying prevents worse outcomes is hard to prove and easy to dismiss as self-serving.