True enough, and I did find that. But "managing money for" is not the same as - or even comparable to - "owned by". Blackstone manages money across East Asia, but is owned (almost?) entirely by Americans.

You can tell a story where Schwarzman's involvement with Trump and the Russian Direct Investment Fund constitutes a shady link to Sibur, a state-tied petrochem company. Those statements are all true; the rebuttal would be something like "all big companies in Russia are in some ways intermingled with the state; all companies which invest in Russia are at most two removes from Kremlin shadiness". I think that is probably also true, but it doesn't make this a non-issue for me.

Bayrock's ties are messier, certainly. They're also lower level on both ends, particularly since Trump's total involvement with them seems to be <$100 million, which makes that "$560 million in debt" claim laughable.

More importantly: Do you have any actual source for the claims in the previous post? You've pointed to some other topics, but the "owned wholly" and "$560 million in debt" claims seem completely baseless, and that source list was just the names of major publication.