Military Review

To the peculiarities of the modern Russian military-technical policy

32
To the peculiarities of the modern Russian military-technical policy



Modernization of the Russian economy is a priority strategic task for the country's leadership. An important direction of this activity is the development of the domestic defense industry, the state of which, to put it mildly, leaves much to be desired. The problems that have accumulated over the past decades only cannot be rectified with abundant financing. A systematic approach to assessing the state of affairs and making decisions at all levels is required. The author of the article, removing from the eternal Russian question “Who is to blame?”, Offers his answer to “What is to be done?” Today with the “defense industry”.

2012 is nearing completion, a very important year for modern Russian stories. This is the first year of the office of the elected President of Russia, the second year of the implementation of the not quite new State Armaments Program (SPO) and the Federal Target Program for the Development of the Defense-Industrial Complex of the Russian Federation, aimed at retooling the Armed Forces in 2011 – 2020 and finally change the team of "reformers" in the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff.

Today, only a lazy person does not throw a stone in the garden of the retired Anatoly Serdyukov and Nikolai Makarov. Pre-warning the readers beforehand: “Where were you before, why were you silent”, I should note that the main goal of this article is not to criticize the military-technical decisions of recent leaders, but to try to answer the question “What should I do?” To be more favorable for the rearmament program conditions.

As is known, the policy of modernizing the Russian economy, defined by the Concept of the Long-Term Socio-Economic Development of the Russian Federation before 2020, requires ensuring its transition from an expert-raw material to an innovative socially oriented type of development. The solution of this strategic task is impossible without the modernization of high-tech industries, the leading place among which is occupied by the military-industrial complex.

The state and level of development of the defense industry depends not only on ensuring the national security of the state and solving the tasks of technical re-equipment of the Russian Armed Forces and other troops (which is much spoken about lately), but also social and political stability in many regions of Russia (which is less , but this problem is no less acute).

We often hear that the complex issues of defense industry are inseparable from the problems of the state and society, and their solutions lie primarily in the economic sphere. They say that defense officials and industrialists only need to take into account a number of objective factors and conditions that have a direct impact on the state of "defense."

I can not agree with this statement. Practice (especially in recent years) has shown: in the field of formation of the state defense order, the use of organizational and technological procedures for the direct creation of weapons and military equipment (IWT) at all stages, from the technical assignment to the acceptance for service of finished products, the creation of an appropriate regulatory and legal framework base promotion weapons to the international markets, the training of highly qualified personnel, and much more — a lot of subjective, artificially applied ones appeared, which, with sufficient political will, must be eliminated literally in the coming days.

This is mainly due to the very “specific” behavior of the main customer in relation to the state defense contractor. Judging by individual decisions, it can be concluded that the Ministry of Defense has ceased to perceive the defense industry as an equal partner in ensuring the country's military security. Certain reasons for this far search is not necessary. But the full and unconditional acceptance of such a position without a differentiated approach to various economic subjects is completely unacceptable.

Of course, the Russian defense industry is far from being “white and fluffy,” and the situation that has developed in relations with the main subjects of military-technical policy is the fruit of the efforts of both sides of the procurement process. However, this does not justify the desire of the military to minimize, sometimes even to absurd values, the cost of government contracts, their unwillingness to finance research, development and technological work (R & D). It is alarming that the Defense Ministry is focused on the preferential implementation of the off-the-shelf procurement policy, that is, those that have already been created and preferably gained experience in the operation of weapons and military equipment. All the more unacceptable is the situation when the developers of technical tasks for a significant number of weapon systems are guided by the ideological postulates developed abroad. Such a policy, of course, deprives the national industry of a long-term perspective.

Who in Russia today does not know that the state plans to fully provide the State Weapon Program in the amount of 20 trillion rubles plus spend almost three trillion on the development of the defense industry? These colossal numbers sound so often from television screens and appear in print that one involuntarily thinks about why it is done in an environment that is not very conducive to openness. I remember the old army saying: did - report, but did not and hide - report twice.

This was confirmed by the recent problem of lack of funds for the technical re-equipment of defense enterprises in the amount of 440 billion rubles for 2013 – 2015 years, in connection with which the Ministry of Finance proposed to attribute these costs to a later period. As you know, the problem was solved by replacing these funds with loans from state banks. Conclusion: there is really a bit of money in the budget (remember, as in the army logistics officers, in the well-known joke: everything is there, but not enough for everyone). This time, the government decided to finance the expenditures on account of the funds that the budget will receive in the future, and today it will only compensate interest rates on state-owned bank loans.

Another rather common policy of the Ministry of Finance on financing the last LG is not encouraging, when the first five-year plan allocates no more than a quarter of the funds declared for the program, and the second five-year plan becomes the first in the new program with all the ensuing consequences. Nobody canceled it yet. And nevertheless, if the state succeeds in finding a specified amount with a large volume of other socio-economic obligations, then it will be money that is simply unprecedented in Russia's recent history.

It is appropriate to recall one of the statements of Russian President Vladimir Putin: “In order to really increase the country's defense capability, we need the most modern and best equipment in the world, and not mastered billions and trillions.” How to achieve this, try to understand the specific problems of modern military-technical policy.

Regulatory

All enterprises involved in the performance of the state defense order must operate in a single financial, economic and regulatory field. At the same time, special attention during its formation should be paid to ensuring close interaction of various structures involved in the implementation of the state defense order - from the customer to the contractor.

According to experts of the Federation Council, 13 laws, 8 decrees of the President of Russia and 11 government decrees, all direct 32 documents are in force in the sphere of the military-technical policy of the state. They literally cover all aspects of the activities of defense enterprises as market participants, mainly restricting their rights, without offering any advantages or compensation measures.

What does this mean? Nothing else but a substantial dispersion of the vertical of responsibility for the fulfillment of the state defense order, as well as the emergence of many private development strategies and interests dictated by the market, and not by the systemic interests of the defense sector as a whole.

Thus, today the industry lives simultaneously on several different systems of rules and verticals of subordination. And the state also regulates it according to several completely different principles.

Hence the proposal - legislative initiatives in the field of "defense" should be aimed at first of all changing the system of its state regulation. Industry enterprises do not have to be torn between the mutually exclusive requirements of various departments, structures and regulatory systems.

Pricing is one of the key instruments of economic regulation

It is noteworthy that if the principles of pricing and contracting in the state order for civilian products are in effect and generally suit all participants in the process, then almost the same system in the state defense order after a number of transformations does not suit anyone.

It must be admitted that in recent years the systematic destruction of the structures responsible for pricing in the country was carried out: the State Committee on Prices was abolished, the Pricing Research Institute was liquidated as a basic scientific center on this issue, the scientific and educational base that provided scientific research and qualification personnel was eliminated economic management.

Prices and pricing in the country actually turned out to be outside the field of state strategic management, deprived of any systemic economic base. And in relation to the MIC, prices turned out to be an obstacle to its normal development. In turn, in developed countries, as a rule, a systematic legislative and legal framework has been formed, ensuring state pricing policy.

Pricing mechanisms for defense products due to the peculiarities of the conditions of production and sales are regulated by the federal law “On State Defense Order”. There is an urgent need to update them. It is necessary to recognize the sharp differences in the formation of prices for civil and military products.

First of all, the very procedure for concluding contracts for the GOZ should be changed, in which it is advisable to provide for its clear parameters, timely advance payment, as well as appropriate penalties for both the customer and the performer.

In order to develop a weighted, equally understood pricing system in the field of state defense, it is necessary to create an interdepartmental working group consisting of scientific forces of industry and the Ministry of Defense, which should prepare for the approval of the country's leadership a pricing concept, as well as an ideology and a plan for developing mutually agreed regulatory documents on state defense pricing. Independent organizations within the framework of the current interdepartmental conflict, which include, for example, the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, which has the necessary scientific potential, can provide substantial assistance in this work.

State support for the defense industry

In order for the defense industry to effectively fulfill its role, to be competitive, it is the state that must create the appropriate conditions. Prospective products require long-term investments. Therefore, in addition to the already existing methods of state support for the technical re-equipment of the defense industry, additional legal acts on innovation activities are needed, which should contain clear mechanisms that allow enterprises to attract long-term financial resources under benign conditions.

The arsenal of means not only of state support, but also of other state influence on the defense industrial complex is very wide. For example, you can exclude from the tax base for income tax that part of it that is used to finance R & D (by the way, this investment benefit was provided for by the regulatory documents in force before the adoption of the Tax Code in 2000). At the same time, defense industry enterprises will have to direct a significant part of their profits to the financing of capital investments and innovative developments.

The current Federal Target Program (FTP) for the development of the defense industry complex, unfortunately, does not fully solve the program for restoring mass production destroyed in 90-s - the beginning of 2000-s. In fact, it was reborn as a means of financing measures to improve the output of only individual enterprises.

Thus, the rules of the Federal Program require mandatory co-financing of such works. However, a number of defense enterprises have an extremely narrow specialization (for example, the production of ammunition), therefore for them the SDO is often the only source of funding. In this regard, attempts to take away bread from such enterprises that are on a starvation ration worsen their already difficult situation. At the same time, the “sacred” market principle of restricting monopolism triumphs over common sense and, most importantly, it is clearly detrimental to the common cause, undermining the country's defense potential.

It also seems expedient to focus the task of the Federal Target Program on supporting the defense industrial complex on the creation of new productions or the deep modernization of existing ones on the basis of technological processes, which step over a generation. The organization of such work should be entrusted to specific people with personal responsibility for finances and results of work. The selection and nomination of such persons is a matter that must be addressed within the framework of the federal contract system.

The incoherence of the State Armaments Program and the Development Program of the Military-Industrial Complex became a talk of the town. The problem has been raised many times in the press, when at the final stage of creating new types of weapons and military equipment, which required significant expenditures, the customer often corrects the tasks and concludes that it is not advisable to adopt the developed models. In essence, this means that taxpayer money was wasted. Such situations arise in conditions of weakening the effectiveness of the military-industrial policy and control instruments of civil society, the underestimation of the professional capabilities of professionals, as well as the lack of continuity in the requirements of the main customer during the personnel change in leadership.

Frequently, the solution of such important tasks encounters the absence of professionally trained personnel in the field of long-term forecasting and strategic planning both among officials and in the management of defense enterprises.

Frames - a separate problem

Only high utilization of production capacities and rhythmic orders can ensure social stability in labor collectives, an increase in prosperity in the regions. In turn, to fulfill the program of industrial modernization, the country needs engineers, designers, technologists, and not managers and graduates of business administration schools. Skilled workers are also required, which you will not find now with fire in the afternoon.

We are talking about highly skilled engineering and working personnel. You can endlessly try to increase the prestige of engineering professions, natural science specialties, but if a young entrant and young man’s parents do not see prospects in his career path, then the defense industry can hardly count on the best applicants and, as a result, on the best specialists.

The key issue for any enterprise is profitability.

Some experts believe that the profitability of the Russian defense industry should be no lower than 15 – 20 percent of the total cost of production, and in order to implement innovative projects in certain areas, it must be no lower than 30 percent. It is clear that without government intervention, such indicators of profitability "defense" can not independently achieve.

For the R & D subsystem as the basis of the DIC, value determination is even more important. In determining the expenditure side, the state customer must participate, which should increase the responsibility of both him and the contractor. Previously, there was a measure in the form of state reimbursement of the cost of prospecting in the amount of 5 – 10 percent of R & D. I see no reason for refusing to restore such practices, and I also consider it appropriate to move away from a fixed fixed price for research and development, which, as a rule, does not reflect the actual costs associated with changes in tariffs of natural monopolies, the introduction of tax innovations and etc.

MIC information environment

It should be noted that the problem of creating a single information space in the defense industry complex is far from being resolved and leads to the duplication of scientific developments, the invention in some cases of what has been done in the neighboring design bureau.

In previous years, as is well known, under the conditions of ensuring high regime requirements, there were various coordination councils, thematic and abstract collections were published, and topical issues were discussed at conferences and methodological gatherings for the exchange of experience. Currently, the closeness has become much more, and this is understandable - your achievements and positive experience can be transformed by competitors into real financial results.

Nevertheless, the creation of end-to-end data registries, the development of uniform standards, the development of deep integration between various defense enterprises, the unification of production capacities are urgent tasks. The problem of protection of copyright and intellectual property acquires particular urgency and relevance.

Another issue is that often private investors, especially those representing small and medium-sized businesses, do not know what their capabilities may be needed by the defense industry and where they can invest their own strength and capital. It is advisable to entrust this task to the network of situational centers used both in government bodies and in business.

One of the main problems of the defense sector is the imperfection of the control system.

It is necessary to establish a clear system of strategic planning, determining priorities and directions of development, and also significantly increase the efficiency of budget spending, which goes towards the modernization of the defense industry.

The scale and specificity of the problem raise the question of creating a specialized body for its management and coordination responsible for the results of the activities of this important sector for the state. In this regard, it seems timely to significantly expand the functions of the Military Industrial Commission (MIC) under the Russian government.

We must pay tribute: such an external activity and the effectiveness of the MIC, as of late, has not been for a long time. The positive developments of the outgoing year related to the creation of a system through which the military, engineers and production workers are trying to coordinate their actions and deal with disagreements that arise are undoubtedly the merit of its chairman Dmitry Rogozin, who has taken up the task of the 20 volunteer Komsomol of the last century .

However, a number of issues remain unresolved. Moreover, the author of these lines at one time had to work in the military-industrial complex, headed by the chairman of the government. And in that period (the beginning of the 2000-ies), the military-technical cart was not moving too fast. I do not exclude that there are some administrative obstacles that prevent the transfer of required legislative powers to the commission. Therefore, I join those who are now proposing to return to the issue of recreating the Ministry of Defense Industry as an administrative body capable of carrying out strategic forecasting and planning, production management of weapons and military equipment, a quality control system, government orders and public procurement in the defense industry. And is 23 a trillion rubles an insufficient budget for the ministry?

Political will

Unfortunately, you have to write about it. A case in point is the experience of implementing a decision to create a Russian counterpart to the US Agency for Advanced Defense Research Projects (DARPA - Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). As you know, for the first time, the ex-president of Russia Dmitry Medvedev spoke back on the need to create a structure to finance advanced and risky development as early as September 2010. At the same time, he gave the government two months to work out the status of the new structure.

In purely Russian traditions, it took two years to develop and adopt the federal law “On the Advanced Research Fund” (FPI). I guess not without willpower. According to the plan, already in 2013, FPI should become the locomotive of dual-use scientific developments of domestic origin. His budget, according to some sources, will be three billion rubles. Since there is nothing that simply cannot arise from nowhere, this money will most likely be borrowed from the budget of the Russian defense industry.

The will is needed so that the FPI does not become another bureaucratic superstructure - a structure bound hand and foot by a crowd of leading officials who will make decisions to the best of their incompetence. It should also not serve as a “scarecrow” for the Russian defense industry.

As a conclusion

Of course, in describing defense-technical problems, it was necessary to discuss (besides the noted ones) other issues. These include the state of the material and technical base of the defense industry, the expediency of returning to the state that at different times and for various reasons it was illegally removed from its control (land, buildings, capital structures, and also intellectual property - technical documentation, software security, rights to patents and inventions), a system for conducting tenders (state tenders), the place and role of state corporations in the general system of the defense industry, the creation of directorates for major positions iyam SDO with the personal responsibility of software projects. If necessary, these topics can be discussed later.

Today it is important to learn the most important thing: the development perspective of the defense industry is synonymous with the modernization of the entire national economy. And this must be understood at all levels of the Russian military-technical policy.
Author:
32 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vadivak
    Vadivak 28 November 2012 16: 10 New
    20
    Dmitry Medvedev back in September 2010. At the same time, he gave the government two months to study the status of the new structure.

    And I forgot .....
    1. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 28 November 2012 16: 35 New
      23
      While the Central Bank of the Russian Federation will depend on the World Bank and obey it, there will always be an opportunity to influence Russia. It is necessary to gain independence in this area, this is a national issue. security!
      1. Committee
        Committee 28 November 2012 16: 43 New
        +2
        With banks - to the point. But then they put the DM in order to preserve their interests, not so much as not in Russia's favor
      2. mogus
        mogus 28 November 2012 16: 59 New
        +1
        national law.rf there are some gestures ... but I want it faster angry
      3. bart74
        bart74 29 November 2012 01: 02 New
        +2
        But how to do it? It is clear that Mr. Kudrin and his tricks are sculpted friends over the hill. We sell oil the most, but we do not have the political will and financial resources to demand gold rubles for oil. I know this situation, the company has no money, and the gene. deer asks me not to * go down and sign a contract at dumping prices, because I NEED! otherwise the company kapets! Endure? I personally for! But you know, if in Soviet times it was joked that the best porridge is sausage, then now mom will be sold for sausage. (I do not mean the conscious majority). Now, after all, who is our frontrunner is representatives of pop music and étiligence, for whom the gulag archipelago is like our father! And where am I asking you engineers, military, proletariat? Interesting all the same listen to the recipe, how to gain independence from the world bank?
        1. bart74
          bart74 29 November 2012 05: 33 New
          -1
          Here, this option does not work for me. Who is the minus? You are a hamster mummers generals. When the option works, I can smell all of you * I feel it, but only on business, since you have nothing to do with objective comments, enemies!
    2. Botanologist
      Botanologist 28 November 2012 17: 43 New
      +3
      You can create many structures. Just let’s honestly say that if the military-industrial complex is regulated by the state, then there should be a state and price control body at the state level, but most importantly - employee control body. . And then they gave rise to holdings where top managers pay salaries of 5 million for themselves, and are surprised - where are these prices coming from?
      As for the Government, one expert correctly said, "our Government considers theft to be its main activity."
      And all these games of loans and guarantees are a crime. Give the stabilization fund, the reserve fund to infrastructure and industry - anyway, your American stocks will disappear in the first crisis!
      1. bask
        bask 28 November 2012 18: 37 New
        +5
        By creating at least thousands of committees and commissions on any issues. And also organs of control, and anti-control. Everything is behind everything. The result under this system of power will always be 0000000. Why? Because we have in Russia in the 21st century in economics and politics are dominated by a primitive COURT - OLIGARCHIC CAPITALISM. Which leads only to the degradation of the country. Because it is imprisoned only for the personal liberation of the oligarchs and bureaucrats serving them ... For the people for defense and for the most part and for the country they are oh .... Because they live over the hillock where they keep their capital .. For them, Russia is only a source of enrichment ...... But we generally .......
    3. Machingver
      Machingver 29 November 2012 00: 49 New
      -2
      Vadivak,
      By the way, something your Medvedev said about presidential ambitions. That back hurts so much, as they say?
      1. bart74
        bart74 29 November 2012 01: 04 New
        -2
        This is just in case Putin suddenly does not want to, or will be thrown off. Well, a fallback (by the way, a purely feminine approach).
        1. Machingver
          Machingver 29 November 2012 01: 36 New
          -2
          No, they say differently.
  2. VadimSt
    VadimSt 28 November 2012 16: 22 New
    10
    All is correct. But, all the problems that have arisen have grown for a reason.

    1. Privatization, or rather "grabbing" of defense industry enterprises by those who today are associated as the richest bankers, managers, entrepreneurs, etc. And it all began with the democrat Yeltsin. Was it not under him, the caste of oligarchs grew up? Was it not under him that people like Berezovsky were admitted to the higher echelons of power? Was it not his family that participated in the division and privatization?
    2. High-ranking officials, under such leadership, not only believed in impunity, but also put themselves above the law.
    3. Further more. An unspoken principle has been established in the state - whoever did not steal from the state trough and didn’t give a part “to the top” is a bad, ineffective leader.
    4. How effectively, all these years, the State Duma, the Ministry, etc., have influenced the fight against corruption? No way. Both of them lobbied the interests of private companies - there was no state at all ... there was lobbying for their interests.
    5. Why should the state now invest in private structures? Apparently the decision to build state-owned factories for the production of S-400 "got out" for a reason.

    It is possible to guess and reason for a long time and under different "sauce". The main thing is that the current "oprichchina" does not become a mere show.
    1. Karabin
      Karabin 28 November 2012 20: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: VadimSt
      The main thing is that the current "oprichchina" does not become a mere show.

      Feature film "oprichchina".
      Cast: Ivan the Terrible ............ Vova Fluffy.
      Malyuta Skuratov ...... Dimon Balabol.
      Governor ..................... Tolyan Furniture.
      The Duma boyars, the clerks of the Accounts Chamber and investigative orders, the voivode of the woman, archers, buffoons with swamp, dashing people.
      1. bask
        bask 28 November 2012 20: 59 New
        +1
        Karabin And who is the director ????????
  3. NAV-STAR
    NAV-STAR 28 November 2012 16: 24 New
    15
    Only a nationally oriented elite can save the country and economy, while the existing one needs global cleaning.
    1. 1946095andrey
      1946095andrey 28 November 2012 17: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: NAV-STAR
      nationally oriented elite,

      to the very point) +
    2. alexng
      alexng 28 November 2012 18: 00 New
      +2
      Quote: NAV-STAR
      Only a nationally oriented elite can save the country and economy, while the existing one needs global cleaning.


      And the current one must be thoroughly bled and expelled from Russia as pests. Where is the yo-mobile? Where's the e-party? where is yoshkin cat?
    3. Karabin
      Karabin 28 November 2012 20: 11 New
      +3
      Quote: NAV-STAR
      Only a nation-oriented elite can save a country and economy

      Change of elites is possible only in the process of revolution. If the old elite has grown decrepit, the change takes place with relatively little blood, as at the turn of the 80s and 90s (Further criminal wars, this is already a matter of forming a new elite at that time). If the old elite is able to resist, we get 1918-1922. The current elite is strong, the national-patriotic forces are scattered and disoriented. Much confusion in the ranks of patriots is brought about by the paradox of Putin, a politician with the image of a patriot-statesman, during whose rule an essentially anti-state elite was finally formed and strengthened. Attempts by national forces capable of forming a new elite will encounter, and are already facing tough resistance. The real actions of the national forces to change the elite will receive a rebuff comparable to "Year 18".
    4. koksalek
      koksalek 29 November 2012 07: 28 New
      0
      Yes, not in cleaning, but in burning with a red-hot iron with a stamp on the forehead with the inscription "Thief" with all the consequences
  4. Begemot
    Begemot 28 November 2012 16: 41 New
    +5
    Under Medvedev, Serdyukov began to dictate to producers prices for even mbr. Apparently, he wanted to buy a batch of Minutemen or Tridents from Amers if he did not agree with his own. It's like sausages or buns with poppy seeds. A profitability of 30% is not enough. It’s even on those. re-equipment is not enough, especially with unstable orders and partial loading. And even for development, R&D at least technological - even more so. In my region, most of the defense industry factories with great difficulty survived democratization, none of them rose to the level of 1990, many technologies were simply lost, and high-quality personnel were sprayed. Izhmash completely fell. Units feel less stable.
    1. Anthrax
      Anthrax 28 November 2012 20: 10 New
      0
      Where did the Americans come from the new Tridents and Minutemen? What to buy from them?
      They have long been making strategic missiles.
      The newest Minutman is already 34 years old.
      And communal in the US for some reason, too, no
      1. wolk71
        wolk71 28 November 2012 21: 27 New
        +1
        Of course, there are no communal apartments, they each have a 5-room apartment of 150sq.m. We've seen enough TV sets, they have a housing problem no less than ours. You watch TV here, modern movies, everyone works in offices and everyone has luxury apartments and cars. Now the hero of our time, not a worker and a peasant, but a manager of various levels, who sits in the office and receives a huge salary. Although in fact these are bloodsuckers who suck blood from the "working man". This is our year. But they didn't do a damn thing for this man. Not a year, not two, not the last 25 years. They only use their tongues. I apologize out of topic.
        1. Anthrax
          Anthrax 30 November 2012 16: 22 New
          -1
          14.02.2008
          Moscow will reach the level of housing in the United States in 104 years

          Director General of the International Academy of Mortgage and Real Estate (IAIN) Tatyana Nikitina said that in Moscow the gap between the average salary and the cost of housing is increasing annually.

          According to her, from 2002 to 2007, the cost per square meter grew on average by 35,6% per year, while wages increased by 28% per year. In 2002, with an average salary of 6,4 thousand rubles, the average cost per square meter was 24,3 thousand rubles. In the following years, the ratio was as follows: 2003 - 8,6 (thousand rubles, salary) and 35,6 (thousand rubles, square meter), 2004 - 10,6 and 47,1, 2005 - 14,4 and 58,4 , 2006, 17,9 - 88,6 and 2007, 22 - 109,6 and XNUMX.

          MAIN predicts that in 2008 the average Muscovite will be able to purchase 0,187 square meters of housing for his salary, since in 2008 the average cost of a “square” in Moscow will be 147 thousand rubles with an average salary of a Muscovite of 27,5 thousand rubles.

          The provision of housing for Russians (per person) is 20,5 square meters. In the Netherlands, for example, this figure is 74 square meters, in the USA - 65 square meters, in the UK - 62 square meters, in France - 37 square meters, in China - 22,7 square meters.

          In order to achieve a level of housing in the United States, the capital must build 470 million "squares" of living space. The construction of this amount of housing at the current pace of construction will take 104 years.

          http://homeweek.ru/news/1252
      2. bart74
        bart74 29 November 2012 01: 11 New
        -3
        There are no communal communes because they did not build communism and did not even try. Utilities are different. It happens, by the way, a native family lives under one roof, and the relationship there is UUUUU! in a communal apartment this never dreamed of. This comment is so simple, it’s just all your dialogues, and then I thought maybe you meant something else under communal apartments?
      3. Begemot
        Begemot 29 November 2012 11: 08 New
        0
        And why did he need new Leopards, too, not much younger than the T-90, but they talked about the abandonment of our tanks in favor of the Teutons.
    2. koksalek
      koksalek 29 November 2012 07: 34 New
      0
      We have very correctly noticed about the cadres, one can say with my own eyes that I have seen enough of this bacchanal for 20 years. One of the topical issues is when workers get 15 for leadership in the workshop 100-200 (higher position, higher salary), then the attitude of those who remained relevant, which I think is not necessary to explain
  5. Manager
    Manager 28 November 2012 16: 48 New
    0
    Well, at least in Our Country, the country is ruled by the president and not by the family of billionaires as in the USA. But how they manage it is already a question. In any case, at least something is being done now. Let it be done by the Estonian race as well.
    Let's hope that they nevertheless take oligarchs and some politicians for the eggs.
  6. glmozart
    glmozart 28 November 2012 16: 53 New
    0
    Russia is an island of stability among very smart, but very poor countries, which are getting smarter and poorer every day. Hence the tendency - clever people who are not in demand anywhere, who live on free coupons spend the day and spend the night in kammenty rassusolivaya on the topic "as it should". Look for the fool. The country is investing in the economy. It's fine. It will come in handy on the farm. Of course, the investments are excessive, but from a social point of view, this is also great. About the army. For ami, there is a strategist. I. with., for vpopuasov tactical y.s. But the best T90 tanks and excellent samoli Su27,30,35, PAKFA, Mig31, A100, superjet and MC21, aircraft carriers, frigates, escorts and spare parts, etc. etc. is a billion-dollar export profit. Those. it is not so redundant.

    As for commentators - analysts, this is fashion. Not long ago everyone was programmers, now the analyst is in vogue and everyone has become a cook who "can run the country." But he is a ram and a ram in Africa. You can only strive for perfection.

    But you need to take into account the difference in mentality - Arabs are better off discussing Arab weapons, (a silk dome, merkavs, Kassams), ami - colonial private enterprises, 70-year-old B52, in Asia to improve work with photocopiers, etc. It is necessary to make discounts on the difference in mentality, otherwise all these analysts are just anecdotal characters and that’s it. It is clear that every cook can steer the country, but not all cooks immediately try to steer, even in the next guide park. Follow the line and measure.
    1. mogus
      mogus 28 November 2012 17: 09 New
      0
      glmozart,
      It is necessary to make discounts on the difference in mentality - this is the essence. we are Russians such that even Hitler was brought to suicide. hi
  7. askort154
    askort154 28 November 2012 16: 59 New
    +4
    We write everything correctly, show, Very right - we say, we say,
    talking. And the cat Vaska listens and eats! I am more and more convinced that liberal democracy is death for Russia. Russia will be saved by the "Stalinist
    democracy "., in modern processing.
    1. valokordin
      valokordin 28 November 2012 17: 22 New
      +6
      We are not actually an independent state, the country has rotted internally, especially with regard to public relations and morality. Only a harsh dictatorship will save the country. At one time, Stalin in his works warned of an aggravation of the class struggle during the further construction of a socialist society. Nikita Sergeevich laughed this thesis of Stalin, called him harmful, justifying repression. However, what we see now. Enemies of the people seized commanding heights, made a counter-revolution. They seized state property and began to mercilessly exploit the population, completely not caring about the social rights of workers. Unions have turned yellow; they do not at all protect the rights of their members. See how unions defend workers' rights around the world. Strikes, demonstrations. In our country, foreign agents turned out to be the most revolutionary. They were able to oppose the authorities, and where is the snickering chairman of independent trade unions, he is completely independent of his members. The law on strikes is such that no one can go on strike, therefore there is SOMEONE to defend the rights of workers, and the bourgeoisie themselves defend their rights. The executive branch and private security agencies help her in this. One can only hope because hope dies last.
    2. merkel1961
      merkel1961 28 November 2012 17: 46 New
      +3
      That is why, on the one hand, loot-suckers are afraid of the name "Stalin" until they urinate involuntarily, singing an old song about repressions against their own kind, and on the other hand, the Stalinist industrialization plan, tied to a new technological order and due to modern problems, is increasingly in demand "war and peace" with the same content as 80 years ago.
  8. glmozart
    glmozart 28 November 2012 17: 42 New
    -2
    valokordin'u
    ====
    All this (word for word) was written in proclamations starting from 1905 and will be written in them as 3005. And in Russia and in other places. Who benefited from this?

    You have to make discounts for the difference in mentality, but you don't. This is taking into account the fact that earlier, in order to squeeze such a paragraph, it was necessary to lead an underground life, change addresses, turnouts, contacts, work in an underground printing house, cook paste, glue Iskra at night, then drive a wheelbarrow on Sakhalin for a long time, walk constantly with stuffed muzzle, etc. etc.

    And Russia now is an island of stability among very smart, but very poor countries, which are becoming smarter and poorer every day. In Israel or UWB, such statements of yours are simply a statement of fact and you are needed there. Before you change something (based on the principle of the best enemy of the good), you must first eliminate the danger to Russia from the outside.
  9. david210512
    david210512 28 November 2012 19: 07 New
    +3
    NAV-STAR,totally agree with you
  10. Serg_Y
    Serg_Y 28 November 2012 20: 00 New
    0
    The departmental approach to the corporate system is the way to inflation, I hope that at least the profits of the corporations will be nullified, due to state guarantees of orders. Tanks should not be ordered in rubles and trillions, but in pieces and gently smeared over the service life. Mass rearmament already took place in the 80s, it ended with the collapse of the union, it seems history does not teach anything. Russia at 17 also fell apart due to unrealistic military orders to implement the will of the emperor. When unrealists will be punished is not clear, the consequences of their decisions are catastrophic.
  11. Lecha57
    Lecha57 28 November 2012 20: 16 New
    0
    Recently I learned from the Internet that the Central Bank is not subordinate to either the government or the president. - This means there is no sovereignty as such. Starting from the 91st, the country is a colony of world imperialism and it is unlikely that one will have to rely on high-quality rearmament. And all high-tech developments will go there, at best, will remain at the level of experiments.
    1. nickname 1 and 2
      nickname 1 and 2 28 November 2012 21: 39 New
      0
      Lecha57,
      Quote: Lecha57
      The central bank is not subordinate to either the government or the president.

      Yes! Before the image of GDP
      red cows are sitting
      with a wart on the nose
      guzzle our income!

      And GDP sits with tied hands
      because how to change the constitution
      And hto give him (ЗУ, ЖИ, MI)
      All the authorities want.

      Well, etc. wassat
      What did you think?
  12. Serg_Y
    Serg_Y 28 November 2012 20: 50 New
    0
    Not imperialism, but world capital, this is a payment for economic integration, due to the naturally partial loss of sovereignty. There are no national restrictions on world oligarchs, the main thing is control of resources and material flows, tanks are also suitable for this. I am confused by the pomposity of the decision, because In my opinion, strategic issues are effectively resolved in a quiet.
  13. PSih2097
    PSih2097 28 November 2012 23: 02 New
    +1
    Only a nationally oriented elite can save the country and economy, while the existing one needs global cleaning.

    And why do we need this "ELITE" in a renewed version, we need people who will never consider themselves above the law, while the elite is considered a priori above the law. IMHO
  14. survivor
    survivor 28 November 2012 23: 23 New
    +1
    the elite needs to be educated. Who was the elite under Stalin? Yes, those who were ready to spend the day and spend the night in the factories, who studied and taught, who pushed our country forward with all the truths and falsehoods! who now? grabber, thief, embezzler? ugh. I almost said goznoblud, and the Vedt was such in Russian history. just watch the films of THOSE times and compare with the films of THESE. who are the youth really alike at? earlier on Chkalov, Baidukov, Paul Armand. and who now? on what heroes? ....
  15. Egen
    Egen 29 November 2012 12: 13 New
    +1
    There is a large list of the author's merits at the end of the article, but the sense of the article is IMHO 0 :( Well - and what? This is - as they say, “not roads, but directions.” Your layout is almost correct, but anyone understands this ... not the general staff officer: ) Is there any point in writing about the understandable? What's next? This is not even a development strategy for the military-industrial complex, let alone a program, with graphs of what to whom to do in what time frame and what should come of it. What is it, we have such a level of the General Staff - to indicate the direction, and then let the lieutenants pore over the maps how to get there? Unfortunately, I did not study at the Academy of the General Staff, but I read textbooks and works. For some reason, I imagined that they taught careful strategic calculations and analyzes, but it turns out on the fingers, far from even my lieutenant training 20 years ago: ((Sorry did not want to offend anyone, but the most insulting that the most important power questions are written according to the reference book) .Fonareva :(