Exports to Russia persist nearly four years into the war
Finnish fireplace manufacturer Tulikivi has continued business activity in Russia and paid taxes into the Russian state budget despite earlier statements about winding down its presence following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. On December 20, Finnish public broadcaster Yle reported that materials for fireplaces and stoves were still being exported to Russia, generating revenues of about €2.5 million, according to customs data cited in Yle’s reporting.
The exported products are not subject to international sanctions, allowing the trade to continue legally. Tulikivi has stated that the closure of its Russian subsidiary is being carried out gradually, with the process expected to be completed next year.
Gradual exit raises questions over corporate commitments
The continued exports contrast with Tulikivi’s public assurances that it was reducing its exposure to the Russian market. Nearly four years into the war, critics argue that companies have had sufficient time to redirect sales to alternative markets, making prolonged “phased exits” increasingly difficult to justify.
Operating in Russia, even within the boundaries of sanctions, means paying taxes to the Russian budget. Those revenues contribute to state finances at a time when Moscow continues to fund its war against Ukraine and conduct hybrid operations against other countries, raising ethical and political concerns around ongoing commercial engagement.
Economic and legal risks for foreign businesses
The Russian authorities have repeatedly shown that foreign-owned assets are vulnerable to state intervention, including confiscation or forced transfers to local entities. This environment has increased the financial risks for companies that maintain operations in Russia, turning continued presence into not only a moral dilemma but also a potentially hazardous business strategy.
Despite these risks, some Western firms have opted to retain limited activity, arguing that a full exit is complex or costly. This approach has fuelled criticism that economic interests are being prioritised over stated values and public commitments.
Broader pattern among Western companies
Tulikivi’s case reflects a wider trend in which companies announce departures from Russia but continue operating in practice. In early December, the Financial Times reported that clothing brands linked to Spain’s Inditex group, which formally exited the Russian market in 2022, had reappeared in Russian retail outlets, highlighting similar discrepancies between declarations and reality.
Such cases weaken international efforts to apply economic pressure on Russia by sustaining an image of business continuity. Russian officials have repeatedly pointed to the ongoing presence of Western companies as evidence that sanctions have failed.
Implications for Finland and European unity
The issue carries particular sensitivity for Finland, which faces sustained political and informational pressure from Moscow as a NATO member bordering Russia. Continued commercial activity by Finnish firms in Russia risks clashing with Helsinki’s security interests and broader European efforts to isolate the aggressor economically.
As the war continues, pressure is growing for greater transparency and accountability from companies that remain active in Russia. The Tulikivi case illustrates how corporate decisions now carry not only commercial consequences, but also strategic and reputational implications in the context of Europe’s security environment.
