Russia Strikes American Brands in Ukraine: Lawful Military Targets?

Introduction

Russian strikes affecting American brands in Ukraine have raised a specific question under international humanitarian law: can factories, restaurants, and commercial warehouses be lawful military targets? Such facilities are ordinarily protected as civilian objects. American ownership or branding does not make them military objectives, but it does not prevent them from acquiring that status if the legal requirements are satisfied. Under Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, their protection depends on their military function rather than the nationality of their owners (Additional Protocol I, 1977, art. 52).

Russian missile and drone attacks have damaged facilities associated with several major American companies. On September 3, 2026, Coca-Cola confirmed damage to its production facility in Brovary, Kyiv region, following a drone attack (Forbes Ukraine, 2026). PepsiCo had reported damage to a production facility in Mykolaiv Oblast on August 29 (Ukrainska Pravda, 2026). Later in September, an attack damaged a warehouse operated by a McDonald's logistics partner, prompting the company to introduce temporarily reduced menus across its Ukrainian restaurants (Interfax-Ukraine, 2026).

Other incidents involved industrial facilities. In February 2026, Reuters reported that a Russian missile had damaged Mondelez's Oreo-producing factory in Trostyanets, citing Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha (Reuters, 2026). Flex had previously confirmed that its manufacturing facility in Mukachevo was damaged during an August 2025 missile strike. The company stated that the affected plant manufactured consumer products and had no involvement in military or defense production (Flex, 2025).

The attacks have prompted allegations that Russia is deliberately targeting American commercial interests to discourage foreign investment or exert political pressure on Washington. Ukrainian officials and representatives of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine have expressed concerns about the repeated damage to U.S.-linked businesses (Hansler, 2026). Yet confirmed physical damage does not necessarily establish that a commercial facility was the intended target, much less that its American association motivated the attack. The available public evidence does not resolve those questions for every incident.

Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol I provides the principal legal test. An object qualifies as a military objective only when its nature, location, purpose, or use makes an effective contribution to military action and its destruction, capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage in the circumstances ruling at the time. Commercial importance or revenue generation, without a demonstrated military contribution, does not establish those requirements. Even an attack against a lawful military objective remains subject to the rules of proportionality and feasible precautions (Additional Protocol I, 1977, arts. 51–52, 57).

The American identity of the affected businesses raises a separate diplomatic question. Damage to U.S.-linked commercial property in Ukraine does not, by itself, constitute an armed attack against the United States under Article 51 of the UN Charter (United Nations, 1945). Assessing the legality of individual strikes requires evidence concerning the facilities' military status, the intended objectives, anticipated civilian harm, and the circumstances of the attacks. Any resulting responsibility of Russia for a breach of international law must be distinguished from the additional requirements for establishing individual criminal liability.

1. Russia Strikes American Brands in Ukraine

Russian missile and drone attacks have damaged several commercial facilities associated with American companies operating in Ukraine. The affected premises include food-processing plants, electronics manufacturing facilities, engineering offices, restaurants, and distribution warehouses. Their commercial activities differ substantially, as do the circumstances in which the damage occurred.

The incidents have attracted international attention because they involve recognizable American brands and established foreign investments. Yet their legal significance cannot be determined from corporate identity alone. Some companies have directly confirmed damage to their facilities, while other incidents are documented principally through statements by Ukrainian authorities or contemporary reporting. These sources establish different facts and do not necessarily reveal which objects Russian forces intended to attack.

The description of these businesses as American also requires precision. A U.S.-headquartered corporation may operate through subsidiaries incorporated elsewhere, while an American trademark may appear on property owned by a separate company. Coca-Cola's Ukrainian manufacturing operations, for example, belong to the Coca-Cola HBC corporate group, whose ultimate holding company is registered in Switzerland. Such distinctions are relevant to commercial ownership and diplomatic protection, although they do not alter the rules governing attacks on civilian property.

1.1 American-Linked Factories and Engineering Sites

On September 3, 2026, a Russian drone attack damaged a Coca-Cola production facility in Velyka Dymerka, Brovary district, in the Kyiv region. Andriy Bublyk, a representative of Coca-Cola Beverages Ukraine, confirmed the damage to Forbes Ukraine and reported that employees had not been injured. The company indicated that it was assessing the consequences of the attack while seeking to maintain supplies to customers (Forbes Ukraine, 2026).

PepsiCo reported a similar incident on August 29, 2026, when its production facility in Mykolaiv Oblast sustained damage during a Russian attack. The company confirmed that no one had been injured and stated that it was evaluating the damage and taking measures to restore product supplies. The incident affected an established food and beverage manufacturing operation, although the company's statement did not identify the intended military objective of the attack (Interfax-Ukraine, 2026).

Another American food manufacturer, Mondelez International, was affected in February 2026. Reuters reported that a Russian missile struck the company's Oreo-producing factory in Trostyanets, citing Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha. A production building was reportedly damaged, with no casualties identified in the initial account. The factory had previously suffered extensive destruction during Russia's occupation of the area in 2022, after which production was gradually restored. Mondelez had not immediately commented on the latest incident when Reuters published its report (Reuters, 2026).

The August 21, 2025, missile strike on Flex's manufacturing facility in Mukachevo involved a different industrial sector. Flex confirmed that employees and contractors had been injured and that emergency procedures had enabled the evacuation of the premises. The company stated that the affected facility manufactured consumer and lifestyle products and had no past or present involvement in military or defense production (Flex, 2025).

Boeing's engineering operations in Kyiv were also reportedly affected by a Russian aerial attack in June 2025. According to information published by the Financial Times and subsequently reported by Reuters, a building used by Boeing sustained damage. A local company executive indicated that employees had not been injured and operations had not been disrupted. Reuters stated that it could not independently confirm the original account at the time of publication (Reuters, 2025).

These incidents illustrate why the activities of the particular establishment are more relevant to military-objective classification than the broader corporate portfolio. Flex manufactures advanced electronics, and Boeing operates in commercial aviation and defense-related industries. Neither fact establishes that every facility associated with those companies contributes to military action. The legal assessment requires information about the functions performed at the affected premises.

1.2 McDonald's Restaurants and Supply Warehouses

McDonald's facilities were affected by two separate incidents in September 2026. On September 15, a restaurant in Kyiv sustained damage during a Russian drone attack on the capital. Ukraine's National Police confirmed damage to a fast-food establishment, while Ukrainska Pravda identified the restaurant as McDonald's (Ukrainska Pravda, 2026).

The attack also damaged filling stations, warehouses, and other commercial property across Kyiv. Police reported one death near a filling station and eight injuries in another district. Those casualties were not reported as having occurred at the restaurant. The available information does not establish that the McDonald's premises were deliberately selected as an individual target rather than damaged during the wider operation.

A second incident occurred on September 25, when Russian drones struck a warehouse used by one of McDonald's logistics partners in the Kyiv region. McDonald's Ukraine confirmed that substantial product reserves had been lost and reported no injuries. The damaged warehouse formed part of the restaurant chain's commercial supply network, but its association with McDonald's did not establish direct ownership by the American parent corporation (Interfax-Ukraine, 2026).

On September 30, McDonald's announced temporary menu reductions at its restaurants throughout Ukraine because of the warehouse damage. Some restaurants had already experienced supply delays earlier in September owing to prolonged air raid alerts. The later warehouse attack created a separate, nationwide disruption, demonstrating how damage to a single logistics facility could affect commercial services across the country.

The company's account establishes the warehouse's ordinary distribution function and the consequences for its supply network. It does not establish what Russian forces knew about the facility, whether the warehouse itself was their intended target, or whether any military activity was associated with the premises. These questions remain distinct from the documented interruption to civilian food distribution.

2. Has Russia Deliberately Targeted American Companies?

The repeated damage to American-linked commercial facilities has prompted allegations that Russia is deliberately attacking foreign investments in Ukraine. Ukrainian officials have portrayed several incidents as attempts to damage the country's economy and discourage international businesses from maintaining operations. Representatives of American companies have expressed similar concerns, particularly as attacks have affected prominent consumer brands.

In February 2026, the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine raised the issue during discussions with visiting U.S. senators. Its president, Andy Hunder, described extensive damage suffered by member companies and alleged that Russian forces were directly targeting American businesses. The Chamber's public statement expressed the position of an organization representing affected investors; it did not disclose Russian military orders establishing a coordinated campaign against American-owned facilities (American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine, 2026).

Hunder returned to the issue in an October 13 interview with CNN, describing the recent attacks as particularly damaging to American commercial interests. Business representatives have interpreted the apparent concentration of incidents as a possible message to Washington and to companies considering investment in Ukraine. That interpretation is politically significant, but an alleged motive must be distinguished from an established targeting decision (Hansler, 2026).

A building may suffer damage without having been the intended object of an attack. Missile interception, falling debris, inaccurate weapons, or explosions near another objective can produce destruction at civilian premises. Conversely, a direct impact on an isolated commercial facility may provide evidence of deliberate targeting, especially when considered alongside weapon trajectories, repeated strikes, and the absence of nearby military installations.

Determining whether Russia deliberately selected American businesses requires more than identifying a series of damaged properties. Evidence concerning the intended aim points, intelligence available to military planners, operational orders, and the facilities' known functions would be particularly relevant. Even repeated attacks on recognizable brands do not, without further evidence, establish that American ownership motivated the selection of targets.

The documented incidents demonstrate that American-linked commercial operations have repeatedly suffered damage from Russian attacks. They do not establish a uniform explanation for every strike. A broader Russian campaign against Ukrainian industrial and economic infrastructure, deliberate attacks on particular civilian businesses, and incidental damage during other military operations remain analytically distinct possibilities.

The legal consequences would also differ. Deliberately selecting a civilian business because of its American identity would not create a special category of offense based solely on nationality. If the establishment was protected civilian property, the prohibition against intentionally directing attacks at civilian objects would apply regardless of whether its owners were American, Ukrainian, or nationals of another state.

3. Civilian Objects and Additional Protocol I Article 52

Hostilities between Russia and Ukraine constitute an international armed conflict governed by the Geneva Conventions, applicable customary international humanitarian law, and the treaty obligations binding the parties. The rules regulating attacks apply independently of the legality of Russia's resort to force under the United Nations Charter. A violation of the prohibition on aggression does not dispense with the separate legal requirements governing the conduct of hostilities.

Russia and Ukraine are parties to Additional Protocol I of June 8, 1977. The Soviet Union ratified the Protocol in September 1989, while Ukraine ratified it in January 1990. Russia's October 2019 withdrawal of recognition of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission's competence under Article 90 did not constitute withdrawal from the Protocol itself (ICRC, 2026).

Article 48 establishes the basic rule of distinction, requiring belligerents to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives. Article 52 develops the protection afforded to civilian property. It prohibits attacks directed against civilian objects and specifies the conditions under which an object may be classified as a military objective (Additional Protocol I, 1977, arts. 48, 52).

Commercial property receives protection according to its legal character, not its nationality or financial value. A factory owned by a Ukrainian business and an otherwise comparable facility operated by a foreign corporation are subject to the same military-objective test. Their ownership arrangements may become relevant under other branches of international law, but they do not independently determine whether an attack is permissible.

3.1 The Two Requirements for a Military Objective

Article 52(2) defines military objectives through two cumulative requirements. An object must, by its nature, location, purpose, or use, make an effective contribution to military action. Its total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization must also offer a definite military advantage in the circumstances ruling at the time (Additional Protocol I, 1977, art. 52(2)).

The first requirement concerns the object's relationship with military action. Military headquarters, ammunition depots, and installations used to conduct combat operations ordinarily meet the requirement through their nature or actual function. Civilian premises may also acquire military significance when used to store weapons, coordinate operations, or perform other activities contributing effectively to military action.

The second requirement concerns the advantage expected from neutralizing the object. Destroying a commercially valuable establishment does not qualify merely because the resulting financial losses would harm the opposing state. The anticipated advantage must be military in character and sufficiently definite in the circumstances existing when the attack is contemplated.

The distinction is particularly important for ordinary industrial production. A factory may provide employment, generate tax revenue, and contribute substantially to national economic activity without fulfilling either requirement. Its importance to Ukraine's economy cannot independently establish that destroying it would produce the military advantage contemplated by Article 52.

Military-objective status may change with the circumstances. A warehouse ordinarily distributing consumer products could acquire a military function if it began storing ammunition or supporting identifiable military operations. Its classification would then depend on the actual contribution and anticipated advantage, rather than on the building's original commercial purpose.

3.2 Civilian Use and the Presumption Under Article 52(3)

Factories, restaurants, offices, and distribution warehouses ordinarily perform civilian functions. Their commercial character is relevant when assessing whether they constitute civilian objects, but it does not establish permanent immunity from military operations. A building may change its legal status through its actual use or an intended military purpose satisfying Article 52(2).

Article 52(3) addresses doubt concerning objects normally dedicated to civilian purposes. Where uncertainty exists about whether such an object is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, the provision requires that it be presumed not to be so used. Its examples include dwellings, schools, and places of worship, without limiting the rule to those categories (Additional Protocol I, 1977, art. 52(3)).

The presumption must be considered alongside the obligation to verify proposed military objectives. An attacker cannot establish military status simply by identifying a conceivable military use for a civilian facility. The relevant assessment requires information about the object's actual or intended functions and the anticipated military advantage.

The precise treatment of doubtful targets is not identical in every state's interpretation of customary international law. Article 52(3), however, is directly relevant as a treaty obligation binding Russia and Ukraine. Its application cannot be displaced merely by invoking uncertainty about the military functions of an otherwise civilian establishment.

Corporate descriptions of ordinary manufacturing or commercial distribution may assist in determining the apparent civilian character of a facility. Such statements are relevant evidence rather than conclusive legal determinations. Any allegation that the affected premises were performing undisclosed military functions would require a factual basis capable of supporting the requirements of Article 52(2).

4. Dual-Use Facilities and Economic Targets

Industrial infrastructure sometimes serves both civilian and military functions. Factories may manufacture products for commercial markets while supplying components used in military equipment. Warehouses can distribute civilian goods alongside military supplies. These circumstances are often described through the expression dual-use objects, although international humanitarian law does not create an unrestricted targeting exception for property bearing that description.

The legal classification continues to depend on Article 52(2). A facility's possible usefulness to armed forces is insufficient without the required contribution to military action and the definite advantage anticipated from its neutralization. Nor does a civilian commercial function necessarily prevent an object from becoming a military objective through other activities.

The affected American-linked businesses illustrate the practical importance of these distinctions. Electronics manufacturing raises questions different from those associated with beverage production or restaurant logistics. The evidence required for a legal assessment must correspond to the activities actually undertaken at the particular premises.

4.1 Electronics Manufacturing and Military Production

Electronics manufacturing can involve products with both civilian and military applications. Communications systems, circuit boards, sensors, and related components may be used in consumer equipment or incorporated into military technology. Their technical adaptability alone does not establish the military status of every factory capable of producing them.

A manufacturing establishment producing specialized components for military systems may qualify as a military objective where its activities make an effective contribution to military action and neutralizing it offers a definite military advantage. Relevant evidence would include the goods being manufactured, their intended recipients, production contracts, and the role of the facility within military supply arrangements.

Flex's Mukachevo factory illustrates the distinction between industrial capability and a particular facility's documented function. Following the August 2025 strike, Flex stated that the premises manufactured consumer and lifestyle products and had no military or defense-production role. Its statement provides direct information about the company's operations, although it cannot replace a complete examination of the circumstances surrounding the attack (Flex, 2025).

Flex Ltd. is headquartered in Austin, Texas, but incorporated in Singapore, as recorded in its 2026 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Its international corporate structure does not determine the military character of the Mukachevo premises. Nor does the company's technical manufacturing expertise establish that the damaged factory was contributing to military operations (Flex, 2026).

Boeing's engineering operations in Kyiv require the same facility-specific assessment. Boeing's participation in commercial aviation and defense-related industries cannot establish the military status of every office or engineering site associated with the company. The relevant questions concern the activities performed at the affected premises and their contribution, if any, to military action.

The publicly reported damage to Boeing's Kyiv premises does not provide sufficient information to answer those questions. A determination of lawfulness would depend on the actual functions of the establishment, the military objective claimed for the strike, and the circumstances considered by the attacking force.

4.2 Food Production, Warehouses, and Civilian Supply

Food production and distribution ordinarily serve civilian needs. Beverage plants, food-processing facilities, restaurants, and commercial warehouses provide products and services for everyday consumption. Their contribution to economic activity does not independently make them lawful military targets.

Military use may nevertheless alter the classification of particular premises. A warehouse storing ammunition or operating as part of a military logistics system could satisfy Article 52(2) if its activities contributed effectively to military action and its neutralization offered a definite military advantage. By contrast, the ordinary sale of food to the public, including occasional purchases by military personnel, does not by itself establish those requirements.

The publicly documented operations of Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Mondelez concerned food or beverage manufacturing. McDonald's described the damaged September warehouse as part of its commercial distribution network. The available public accounts do not establish that these particular facilities were storing weapons or operating as military logistics installations.

Additional Protocol I provides special protection for objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. Article 54(1) prohibits starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. Article 54(2) addresses attacks, destruction, removal, or disabling of essential objects for the specific purpose of denying their sustenance value to civilians or the adverse party, regardless of the underlying motive (Additional Protocol I, 1977, art. 54).

The provision identifies foodstuffs, agricultural resources, livestock, drinking water installations, and irrigation systems among the protected categories. It also recognizes limited exceptions where objects are used exclusively to sustain members of the armed forces or, under specified conditions, directly support military action. Article 54(3) prohibits reliance on the latter exception where the resulting deprivation could be expected to starve civilians or force their movement.

Article 54(5) contains a further narrowly framed derogation concerning imperative military necessity in the defense of national territory against invasion, subject to the territorial conditions specified in that provision. These exceptions do not displace the general rules on civilian objects and proportionality.

The mere presence of food products in a damaged warehouse does not establish that the specific requirements of Article 54 were violated. Its application depends on the character and use of the objects, the purpose of the conduct, and the conditions prescribed by the provision. The prohibition against directing attacks at civilian objects remains applicable independently of whether the additional requirements concerning deprivation of sustenance are satisfied.

4.3 Economic Infrastructure and War-Sustaining Activity

The treatment of infrastructure supporting a belligerent's economy presents a disputed question in the interpretation of military objectives. Industrial production, commercial exports, and public revenues may indirectly help a government maintain military operations. States and legal commentators have disagreed about when such contributions satisfy the requirement of an effective contribution to military action.

The United States has adopted a comparatively broad interpretation. The Department of Defense's Law of War Manual, updated in July 2023, recognizes objects contributing effectively to an adversary's war-fighting or war-sustaining capabilities as potential military objectives. Under this interpretation, a facility need not necessarily contribute to a specific immediate military operation, although its neutralization must still offer a definite military advantage (U.S. Department of Defense, 2023).

The ICRC adopts a narrower understanding of the relationship between an object's economic function and its contribution to military action. Its interpretation emphasizes that the military-objective definition cannot be extended indiscriminately to civilian economic activities merely because they strengthen the adversary's general capacity to sustain a war (ICRC, 1987).

The disagreement concerns the meaning and limits of an effective contribution to military action. It does not eliminate the other requirements governing attacks. A facility's classification must still be justified under the applicable legal standard, and any attack remains subject to proportionality and precautionary obligations.

The U.S. position is relevant evidence of national legal interpretation, but it is not a binding interpretation of Additional Protocol I for Russia and Ukraine. The United States is not a party to that Protocol, although it recognizes important rules concerning distinction and military objectives as customary international law. Its manual cannot be treated as establishing universal acceptance of a broad war-sustaining category.

For the American-linked businesses affected in Ukraine, the distinction has direct consequences. A commercial establishment cannot be classified as a military objective merely because destroying it would reduce production, interrupt private investment, or diminish tax revenues. A broader economic theory of targeting cannot dispense with the need to demonstrate a legally sufficient military contribution and definite military advantage.

5. Proportionality, Civilian Workers, and Precautions

Identifying a military objective does not establish that every attack against it is lawful. International humanitarian law separately regulates the anticipated consequences of military operations for civilians and civilian property. These obligations apply even where the intended object satisfies the requirements of Article 52.

Article 51(5)(b) prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental civilian deaths, injuries, or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. The assessment concerns expected civilian harm and military advantage, rather than the financial value of the establishment being attacked (Additional Protocol I, 1977, art. 51(5)(b)).

Civilian employees ordinarily remain protected against direct attack even if their workplace becomes a military objective. A person's status cannot be inferred solely from employment at an industrial facility contributing to military production. Under Article 51(3), civilians lose protection against direct attack only for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

The ICRC's 2009 Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities distinguishes direct participation from more general contributions to a war effort, including ordinary industrial and economic activities. The Guidance represents the ICRC's institutional interpretation and is not itself a legally binding treaty or universally accepted statement of every interpretive detail (ICRC, 2009).

The continued protection of civilian workers has practical consequences for target selection. An attack against a qualifying military objective may foreseeably kill or injure employees who are not participating directly in hostilities. Their anticipated deaths or injuries must be considered in the proportionality assessment, along with foreseeable damage to surrounding civilian property.

The relevant circumstances may include the number of workers present, operating hours, nearby residential buildings, and the characteristics of the weapons available. A missile attack against an occupied factory may present civilian risks different from those associated with an otherwise comparable facility when no workers are expected to be present. Such differences affect the anticipated consequences, although they do not independently determine lawfulness.

Article 57 imposes further obligations on those planning or deciding attacks. They must do everything feasible to verify that proposed targets are military objectives, take feasible precautions when selecting weapons and methods of attack, and refrain from operations expected to cause excessive incidental civilian harm. Attacks must be canceled or suspended when it becomes apparent that the objective is unlawful or that the expected incidental harm would be excessive (Additional Protocol I, 1977, art. 57).

Effective advance warning must also be given for attacks that may affect civilians unless circumstances do not permit. The provision does not require warnings that are impossible in the prevailing conditions, but the availability of feasible protective measures forms part of the legal assessment.

Indiscriminate attacks raise a related but separate issue. Article 51(4) prohibits attacks that are not directed at a specific military objective, employ methods or means incapable of being so directed, or produce effects that cannot be limited as required by humanitarian law. The existence of a military objective somewhere within a commercial or residential area does not authorize treating the surrounding civilian property as a single target.

Evidence of destruction after an attack is important, but the resulting damage cannot alone establish the information available when the operation was planned. Assessing compliance requires consideration of the intended objective, the anticipated military advantage, foreseeable civilian harm, and feasible precautions. The consequences recorded afterward may illuminate those questions without replacing the legal assessment of what was reasonably knowable at the time.

6. Does an American Brand Make It an Attack on the U.S.?

An attack damaging a business associated with an American corporation does not automatically constitute an armed attack against the United States. International law distinguishes injury to private commercial interests abroad from an armed attack against a state. Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, the right of individual or collective self-defense arises in the event of an armed attack, subject to the applicable requirements of international law (United Nations, 1945).

The distinction requires attention to how multinational companies operate. Corporate headquarters, place of incorporation, ownership of subsidiaries, trademark rights, and legal title to particular assets may belong to different entities. A familiar American brand does not establish that every associated factory, restaurant, or warehouse is property of a corporation possessing United States nationality.

Coca-Cola's Ukrainian beverage operations illustrate this complexity. Coca-Cola Beverages Ukraine Limited belongs to the Coca-Cola HBC group, whose ultimate holding company, Coca-Cola HBC AG, is registered in Switzerland. The American origin of the Coca-Cola trademark does not displace the separate legal identity of the businesses operating its production facilities.

Flex presents a different arrangement. Although the company maintains its principal executive offices in Austin, Texas, Flex Ltd. is incorporated in Singapore. Its U.S. headquarters and American commercial connections do not independently determine its nationality for the purposes of diplomatic protection (Flex, 2026).

McDonald's Ukraine Ltd. is reported as being wholly owned by MCD Europe Limited, a company based in the United Kingdom. The warehouse damaged in September 2026 was operated by a logistics partner rather than identified as property directly owned by the American parent corporation. These arrangements demonstrate why identifying the injured legal person requires more than recognizing a trademark (Interfax-Ukraine, 2026).

Corporate nationality may become relevant where a state seeks to exercise diplomatic protection. In Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), the International Court of Justice rejected Belgium's claim to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of Belgian shareholders for injury to a Canadian company resulting from measures taken in Spain (ICJ, 1970).

The Court distinguished rights belonging to the company from the direct rights of its shareholders. It recognized the general principle that diplomatic protection concerning injury to a corporation belongs to the company's national state, while acknowledging qualifications involving direct shareholder rights and exceptional circumstances. The judgment does not establish an absolute rule governing every corporate structure or every possible avenue of international redress.

Diplomatic protection is also distinct from military self-defense. Damage to a foreign subsidiary or commercial asset situated in Ukraine does not, by itself, establish the conditions for treating the incident as an armed attack against the United States. Nor does American investment in Ukrainian businesses automatically make Washington a party to the armed conflict.

The United States may pursue diplomatic representations or other lawful responses concerning injury to commercial interests. Potential compensation claims require separate consideration of applicable legal obligations, corporate identity, jurisdiction, and available remedies. None of these issues changes the rules determining whether the property was a lawful military objective.

7. War Crimes, Evidence, and International Responsibility

An attack deliberately directed against a protected civilian object may violate international humanitarian law. Under specified conditions, the same conduct may constitute a war crime. The distinction is essential because an unlawful attack does not automatically establish the individual criminal responsibility of a military commander, political official, or other person.

The destruction of commercial property may result from different forms of conduct. A facility may be deliberately selected as the object of attack, damaged incidentally during an operation against another objective, or struck through an indiscriminate method of warfare. Establishing which occurred is necessary before applying the corresponding legal prohibitions.

State responsibility operates under a separate framework. The International Law Commission's 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts identify attribution to a state and breach of an international obligation as the general elements of an internationally wrongful act. Where those elements are established, the consequences may include cessation and reparation. Individual criminal responsibility requires a distinct inquiry into the elements of a particular offense (ILC, 2001).

7.1 Intentional Attacks Under the Rome Statute

Article 8(2)(b)(ii) of the Rome Statute concerns intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects during international armed conflicts. The offense requires proof of the relevant elements, including the protected character of the object and the perpetrator's intention to make it the object of attack. Damage to a civilian building, considered alone, cannot establish those requirements (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 8(2)(b)(ii)).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) addresses attacks launched with knowledge that the expected incidental civilian deaths, injuries, or damage would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. Although related to the humanitarian-law principle of proportionality, the criminal provision contains specific material and mental elements that must be established independently.

These distinctions are relevant to industrial facilities where the intended objective may be disputed. If a factory was deliberately selected despite being known to have no qualifying military function, evidence of that decision could support an investigation into intentionally directing an attack against a civilian object. Where the attack was directed at a military objective, questions of proportionality and precautions would require a different assessment.

Evidence of the attacker's knowledge may be particularly important. Military orders, target assessments, communications, intelligence reports, and information about the facility's actual use could assist in establishing whether the relevant criminal elements were satisfied. Neither the American identity of the business nor the monetary value of the damage replaces such proof.

The Rome Statute also provides for responsibility of military commanders and other superiors under defined conditions. Article 28 addresses failures to exercise proper control over subordinates where its requirements concerning authority, knowledge or awareness, and necessary and reasonable preventive or punitive measures are satisfied. Senior rank alone does not establish criminal liability for every attack conducted by subordinate forces.

7.2 ICC Jurisdiction and Investigations of Infrastructure Attacks

The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over qualifying crimes committed on Ukrainian territory within the applicable limits of the Rome Statute. Ukraine initially accepted the Court's jurisdiction through declarations under Article 12(3). Its second declaration, submitted in 2015, accepted jurisdiction concerning alleged crimes committed on Ukrainian territory from February 20, 2014, onward (ICC, 2015).

Ukraine deposited its instrument of ratification of the Rome Statute on October 25, 2024, and became a State Party on January 1, 2025. The change formalized Ukraine's treaty participation following its earlier acceptance of the Court's territorial jurisdiction (ICC, 2025).

Ukraine's ratification included a declaration under Article 124. For seven years following the Statute's entry into force for Ukraine, the declaration states that Ukraine does not accept the Court's jurisdiction concerning Article 8 crimes when it is likely that the alleged perpetrator was a Ukrainian national. This declaration qualifies the jurisdictional position concerning that category of alleged perpetrators and must be distinguished from the Court's jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed by Russian nationals on Ukrainian territory (United Nations, 2024).

Russia is not a State Party to the Rome Statute. Its non-membership does not, by itself, prevent the ICC from exercising jurisdiction over qualifying crimes allegedly committed by Russian nationals within territory covered by the Court's jurisdiction. Jurisdiction remains separate from questions of admissibility, arrest, surrender, and the establishment of individual criminal responsibility.

The Court's proceedings concerning attacks on Ukrainian electricity infrastructure provide a relevant example. On June 24, 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber II issued arrest warrants for Sergei Shoigu and Valery Gerasimov in connection with alleged attacks on Ukrainian electricity installations between October 2022 and March 2023 (ICC, 2024).

The alleged offenses included intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects under Article 8(2)(b)(ii), causing excessive incidental harm or damage under Article 8(2)(b)(iv), and inhumane acts as crimes against humanity under Article 7(1)(k). The Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe the suspects bore responsibility for the alleged conduct. That preliminary finding supported the issuance of arrest warrants; it did not constitute a conviction or final determination of guilt.

The proceedings concerned specified attacks on electricity infrastructure. They did not establish findings about the facilities associated with Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Mondelez, Flex, Boeing, or McDonald's. Applying the same criminal provisions to those incidents would require evidence concerning the individual facilities and the operations that damaged them.

An investigation could examine authenticated impact imagery, weapon characteristics, facility records, military-use information, operational orders, and the anticipated consequences of each strike. Evidence connecting decisions to identifiable individuals would be necessary for criminal attribution. The absence of publicly available targeting records limits the conclusions that can presently be drawn about the responsibility of particular commanders or officials.

These evidentiary limits do not prevent the assessment of potential violations of international humanitarian law. They do, however, require a distinction between documented civilian damage, a legally supported finding of an unlawful attack, and the proof necessary to establish an individual's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Trump's Response and the Diplomatic Consequences

Russian attacks affecting American-linked businesses have also attracted attention because of President Donald Trump's response to incidents involving U.S. commercial interests in Ukraine. Representatives of American investors have questioned the administration's public reaction, particularly following the September 2026 strikes involving Coca-Cola and McDonald's.

The administration's response has not been one of uninterrupted silence. On August 22, 2025, Trump was questioned about the Russian strike on Flex's manufacturing facility. He stated that he had told Russian President Vladimir Putin he was unhappy about the incident, while also expressing broader dissatisfaction with the war. His remarks demonstrated that an attack affecting an American-linked factory had previously received direct presidential attention (CNN, 2025).

The response to later incidents became a subject of criticism. In an October 13, 2026, investigation, CNN journalist Jennifer Hansler reported that the administration had remained publicly silent concerning recent Russian strikes affecting American businesses. Andy Hunder, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine, expressed concern about the repeated attacks and the absence of more specific public condemnation (Hansler, 2026).

CNN also reported criticism from Democratic lawmakers seeking greater attention to damage suffered by American companies. The White House responded with a broader statement emphasizing Trump's commitment to ending the war rather than addressing each commercial incident individually. The reporting establishes the character of the administration's public response, but it does not exclude the possibility of private diplomatic communications.

The controversy occurred as Washington was pressing Ukraine to reduce attacks on Russian oil refineries. CNN reported that the administration had expressed concern about the economic consequences of Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy infrastructure, including effects on American consumers. Representatives of businesses affected in Ukraine questioned the contrast between that pressure and the relatively limited public criticism of Russian attacks on their facilities (Hansler, 2026).

The diplomatic comparison does not establish that attacks on Russian refineries and Ukrainian commercial premises are legally equivalent. Energy installations may raise distinct questions concerning military use, contribution to military action, and anticipated military advantage. Each operation must be assessed under the law applicable to its own circumstances.

For American businesses operating in Ukraine, repeated attacks have consequences beyond physical reconstruction costs. Damage to manufacturing and distribution facilities can interrupt production, increase operating expenses, and complicate commercial planning. These effects may influence investment decisions, although their magnitude cannot be established solely from the number of reported strikes.

Washington's possible responses include diplomatic representations, public condemnation, restrictive measures authorized under applicable law, and support for efforts to establish responsibility. Potential compensation claims would require consideration of the legal identity of the injured entities and the relevant grounds of international responsibility. Such responses remain distinct from the conditions permitting military force.

The United States' political reaction cannot determine whether a Russian strike complied with international humanitarian law. A commercial facility's protection depends on the relevant legal rules and facts, regardless of whether the incident receives presidential condemnation or becomes a diplomatic priority. American investment may increase political attention, but it does not create a separate standard for the protection of civilian objects.

Also read

• Russia Targets Ukrainian Data Centres: When Can the Strikes Be War Crimes?

• US Strikes Iranian Oil Tankers: Military Objectives and Economic Warfare Under IHL

• The Principle of Proportionality in International Law

• Diplomatic Protection in International Law

Conclusion

American ownership, recognizable trademarks, and commercial importance do not independently make factories, restaurants, or warehouses in Ukraine lawful military targets. Under Additional Protocol I, an object must make an effective contribution to military action, and its destruction, capture, or neutralization must offer a definite military advantage in the circumstances ruling at the time. Even where those requirements are satisfied, attacks remain subject to the rules of distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions.

Russian attacks have damaged several American-linked commercial operations, including production facilities and civilian supply infrastructure. The documented incidents establish physical and economic consequences, but the available public information does not permit a definitive determination of the intended objective or legality of every strike. Allegations that Russia deliberately selected facilities because of their American associations require evidence beyond the identity of the affected businesses.

Deliberate attacks against protected civilian objects are prohibited regardless of their ownership. Where unlawful conduct is attributable to a state, international responsibility may arise; individual criminal liability requires proof of the elements of the relevant offense. The decisive legal questions concern the functions of the damaged facilities, the military advantage anticipated, the foreseeable civilian consequences, and the circumstances in which the operations were planned and executed.

References

American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine (2026) ‘AmCham Ukraine President Andy Hunder Briefed U.S. Senators on the Destruction and Devastation that Russia Continues to Inflict on Ukraine’, 17 February [online]. Available at: https://chamber.ua/news/amcham-ukraine-president-andy-hunder-briefed-u-s-senators-on-the-destruction-and-devastation-that-russia-continues-to-inflict-on-ukraine/ (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

Charter of the United Nations (1945) Signed 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

CNN (2025) ‘CNN News Central: Trump Takes Questions During Oval Office Announcement’, transcript, 22 August [online]. Available at: https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cnc/date/2025-08-22/segment/08 (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

Coca-Cola HBC Ukraine (n.d.) ‘Privacy Notice’ [online]. Available at: https://ua.coca-colahellenic.com/en/privacy-notice (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

Flex Ltd. (2025) ‘Missile Strike on Ukraine Hits Flex Facility’, 21 August [online]. Available at: https://investors.flex.com/news/news-details/2025/Missile-Strike-on-Ukraine-Hits-Flex-Facility/ (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

Flex Ltd. (2026) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2026. Austin, TX: Flex Ltd. Available at: https://s202.q4cdn.com/732614612/files/doc_financials/2026/ar/FLEX-2026-Form-10-K-FYE-3-31-2026-for-Web-bookmarked.pdf (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

Hansler, J. (2026) ‘Trump admin silent as Russia hits American businesses with “drones and missiles” in Ukraine’, CNN, 13 October [online]. Available at: https://kesq.com/news/national-politics/cnn-us-politics/2026/10/13/trump-admin-silent-as-russia-hits-american-businesses-with-drones-and-missiles-in-ukraine/ (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

International Committee of the Red Cross (1987) Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Edited by Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmermann. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/introduction/commentary/1987 (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

International Committee of the Red Cross (2009) Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross. Available at: https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/external/doc/en/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0990.pdf (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

International Committee of the Red Cross (n.d.) ‘Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977: States Parties’, ICRC International Humanitarian Law Databases [online]. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/state-parties (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

International Criminal Court (2015) ‘Ukraine Accepts ICC Jurisdiction over Alleged Crimes Committed since 20 February 2014’, press release ICC-CPI-20150908-PR1146, 8 September [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/ukraine-accepts-icc-jurisdiction-over-alleged-crimes-committed-20-february-2014 (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

International Criminal Court (2024) ‘Situation in Ukraine: ICC Judges Issue Arrest Warrants against Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu and Valery Vasilyevich Gerasimov’, press release, 25 June [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-sergei-kuzhugetovich-shoigu-and (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

International Criminal Court (2025) ‘ICC Welcomes Ukraine as a New State Party’, 2 January [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-welcomes-ukraine-new-state-party (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

International Court of Justice (1970) Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Second Phase, Judgment of 5 February 1970, ICJ Reports 1970, p. 3. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/50 (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-Third Session, UN Doc. A/56/10, Chapter IV. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

Interfax-Ukraine (2026a) ‘McDonald's Cuts Ukraine Menu Items Following Supplier Warehouse Attack’, 30 September [online]. Available at: https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/economic/1212268-amp.html (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

Interfax-Ukraine (2026b) ‘PepsiCo підтвердила пошкодження виробництва у Миколаївській області’ [PepsiCo Confirms Damage to Production Facility in Mykolaiv Region], 30 August [online]. Available at: https://interfax.com.ua/news/general/1197220.html (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

Kryzhnyi, A. (2026) ‘Russian Morning Attack on Kyiv Hits McDonald's Restaurant – Photo’, Ukrainska Pravda, 15 September [online]. Available at: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/09/15/8053524/ (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (1977) Adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978, 1125 UNTS 3. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/assets/treaties/470-AP-I-EN.pdf (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

Reuters (2025) ‘Russian Air Attack Damaged Boeing Offices in Ukraine, FT Reports’, 15 June [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russian-air-attack-damaged-boeing-offices-ukraine-ft-reports-2025-06-15/ (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

Reuters (2026) ‘Russian Missile Strikes Oreo Factory in Ukraine, Foreign Minister Says’, 22 February [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/russian-missile-strikes-oreo-factory-ukraine-foreign-minister-says-2026-02-22/ (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) Adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002, 2187 UNTS 3. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=18&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&src=TREATY (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

Tarasovskyi, Y. and Antoniuk, T. (2026) ‘Coca-Cola підтвердила російський удар по виробництву на Київщині’ [Coca-Cola Confirms Russian Strike on Production Facility in Kyiv Region], Forbes Ukraine, 3 September [online]. Available at: https://forbes.ua/news/coca-cola-pidtverdila-rosiyskiy-udar-po-virobnitstvu-na-kiivshchini-03092026-41732 (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

United Nations (2024) ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Ukraine—Ratification’, Depositary Notification C.N.440.2024.TREATIES-XVIII.10, 25 October. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2024/CN.440.2024-Eng.pdf (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

United States Department of Defense (2023) Department of Defense Law of War Manual. Originally issued June 2015, updated July 2023. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense. Available at: https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/dod-law-of-war-manual-june-2015-updated-july%202023.pdf (Accessed: 14 October 2026).