• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    So far, we’ve seen a lot more practical tech deployed by Russia than by the west in the conflict. The dynamic with state owned industry and private contractors is very different. The whole set up in the west is a basically a scheme to siphon as much tax money out of the system as possible and transfer it into the hands of the people who own the war industry. That necessarily means making weapons that are expensive to produce and maintain. That’s how you make the most money. On the other hand, a state owned military complex sees costs as a negative and the pressure is to produce things that are cheap and reliable.

    • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Russian military complex is not quite state owned. It’s complicated. For instance, Kalashnikov is a private organisation now. Russian Helicopters (it’s the name of the company) is a joint stock company. Same is Rostec, iirc. Sukhoi construction bureau gets a lot of their systems from other orgs, many of them private. The government is issuing demands to crank up production, but is unwilling to cough some dough for the workers. It’s a mess

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I was under the impression that Rostec was state enterprise? And I recall reading that a lot of old Soviet infrastructure such as UralVagonZavod is still around and under state ownership. This kind of stuff seems to be the core of the military industry as most of the fighting is done by the artillery. I get that things are also messy, but it’s pretty evident that the mess in the west is on a whole different scale.