The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is intensifying. The Ukrainian media suddenly broke the news that the Google Maps service began to provide satellite images of all Russian military and strategic facilities at maximum resolution on the 18th, including various ICBM silos, command posts, secret shooting ranges, etc. .
But Google was quick to deny the claim and said it had not changed how it reviewed Russian satellite imagery.
Some US media said that those images could be seen on Google Maps in the past.
Frankly speaking, even if this revelation is true, the impact on the situation in Russia and Ukraine is minimal. Today's military satellite technology is very mature, and many large-scale military facilities are originally transparent and do not require "additional technical support" from Google.
This rumor has received high attention because it echoes a concern and concern that the confines of conflict or war have now been greatly expanded, far beyond traditional military contests, diplomacy, trade, finance, information , public opinion and other fields are intertwined.
In this process, the role played by multinational giants has become increasingly apparent.
According to US media statistics, since the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, in addition to large energy companies such as Exxon Mobil and aviation giants such as Boeing, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Twitter and other technology giants have also stepped down and participated in different forms of pressure on Russia.
In other words, U.S. multinational corporations, especially Internet giants with vast amounts of information and data, are at significantly higher risk of being "weaponized".
"Let politics belong to politics, and business belongs to business", this sentence has been regarded by many people as a glamorous veil of "American values" in the past.
It may be an ideal state, but the reality is far more skinny.
From this selection of multinational companies, we can see a clear picture - almost without exception, US multinational companies have maintained a high degree of consistency with the US government.
But it cannot be said that these multinational corporations are willing to become Washington's political tools. To be more precise, they are forming a "political binding" relationship. Of course, there are many reasons for this.
In recent years, some executives of American multinational corporations have shown a keen interest in geopolitics, frequently exposing their words and deeds that "crossed the line".
Perhaps the success in business and technology has strengthened their self-confidence in the ideological field, and of course, commercial interests are not excluded.
For example, after the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, Google took a series of restrictive actions against Russia, and the Google Translate program once suggested changing "Dear Russians" to "Dead Russians".
Obviously, these will not have much impact on the situation in Russia and Ukraine. To a large extent, it shows a political gesture in order to gain the recognition of the Western world by "choosing sides".
In the context of Washington's increasing emphasis on competition and confrontation, some multinational corporations have been regarded by Washington as an ideal tool to achieve geopolitical goals, although they have struggled to avoid "taking sides" in the great power game.
Bezos, the founder of Amazon, once said unequivocally: "If large technology companies ignore the US Department of Defense, then the United States will be in trouble." A typical example is the rules of social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. , is always conducive to adding fuel to the domestic political turmoil in "non-democratic countries", and is even inextricably linked with "color revolutions".
In this Russia-Ukraine conflict, the scale and depth of active or passive involvement of US and Western multinationals can be described as unprecedented.
Although American soldiers were not stationed on the battlefield in Ukraine, Washington was waving its tentacles in different dimensions like an octopus, exerting influence on the war in all directions.
From the military output of weapons and intelligence sharing, to the long economic sanctions front, to the information warfare and psychological warfare offensives in public opinion, multinational enterprises have played an important role in it.
In this geopolitical duel in which the United States has mobilized all available resources and used all available means, Western multinational corporations have been coerced by Washington, intentionally or unintentionally, and tied to the co-pilot who is pushing the world into division superior.
Of course, this does not mean that Washington can mobilize these resources indefinitely forever, because such an approach is essentially reversing economic globalization.
Forcibly and excessively consuming these multinational corporations, turning them from the main economic force promoting globalization to the political "accomplices" that divide the world, will not only damage the long-term interests of multinational corporations, but will also have a huge backlash against the United States itself.