Is an effective partnership of the state and private business in the implementation of the state defense order possible?

19
Recently, the issue of public-private partnership in the defense industry has been actively discussed. Numerous spears on this topic are breaking down because some declare the long overdue need to bring a legal basis for the development of the defense industry complex of the Russian Federation under a public-private partnership (PPP), while others are sure that military production can strike a country’s security system.

Is an effective partnership of the state and private business in the implementation of the state defense order possible?


The arguments of opponents of the development of the PPP system with the creation of a legal framework are based on the following thesis: if it comes to public-private partnership, then ultimately expect large-scale privatization of defense enterprises. And the word "privatization" from the beginning of 90-s in our country has acquired the equivalent of such terms as "theft" or "theft".

However, the authorities warn opponents of the idea of ​​developing a public-private partnership system in the defense industry against hasty conclusions. In particular, Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Government Dmitry Rogozin, in his interview with the journalists of the TV channel “Zvezda” and the radio station “Echo of Moscow”, said that in the development of the described PPP system, both the government and the business are interested parties. According to the Deputy Chairman of the Government and the Chairman of the Military-Industrial Commission under the Cabinet of Ministers, today he himself takes an active part in the work aimed at identifying the structures of private business that can use their potential to create military equipment and high-precision weapons. Dmitry Rogozin says that such work today is performed in a strictly individual manner under his (vice-premier) personal control. This should lead to the fact that some random companies, trying not to engage in real production business in the field of defense, and to have a hand in the funds allocated, can not appear in the system of public-private partnership. And frankly, I want to believe in it, because lately the system of theft, or, let's say, inappropriate spending of allocated funds, has managed to flourish in our country.

Dmitry Rogozin cites specific examples when private companies are already organizing the production of equipment that the Russian army needs. As such examples, the deputy chairman of the Russian government cites the work of several businessmen. Let us dwell on business representatives who are able, let's say, to promote the development of public-private partnership in the defense industry in Russia, as well as their work in this direction.

Vladimir Evtushenkov is the chairman of the board of directors of Sistema JSFC, a man who is one of 200’s richest people in Russia according to Forbes. Sistema JSFC is an industrial and financial group with a wide range of activities: from retail trade in children's goods and the provision of telephony and television broadcasting to investing in a dual (and, military, and civil) industry. Sistema JSFC is the main shareholder of SITRONICS JSC, which in turn invests funds, for example, in NIIME and Micron. Mikron plants specialize in the creation of Russian microelectronics, which today is actively used in a wide variety of domestic military equipment. In fact, OJSC NIIME and Micron is one of the models of public-private partnership in the structure of the military-industrial complex, since in addition to Vladimir Yevtushenkov’s company, the state owns a stake of shares (about 9,9%) through the Federal Property Management Agency.

Konstantin Nikolaev is an investor in Promtekhnologiya Group of Companies, the owner of N-trans, a company specializing in cargo transportation. His investments helped create a factory in Moscow for the production of high-precision full-cycle weapons. Today, the plant produces sniper rifles T-5000 "Orsis", which not the first year in a row allow Russian special forces to win at prestigious international competitions in sniper skills among military personnel and policemen.

Igor Kesaev is another Russian billionaire who is called the tobacco king of Russia due to the fact that Kesaev owns the company Mercury with its tobacco distributor Megapolis. Eight years ago, Kesayev acquired controlling stakes in such Russian enterprises as Degtyaryov Plant OJSC (Kovrov city) and the Kovrov Mechanical Plant. The latter was combined in 2006 with the Degtyarev plant. Today, the former KMZ produces centrifuges to enrich uranium. OJSC “Plant named after Degtyarev” manufactures products for both civilian and military needs. The quality of products for military needs can be noted such as the grenade launcher complex "RGS-50", anti-sabotage grenade launcher "DP-64", PAGK "AGS-30", as well as machine guns and sniper rifles. Dmitry Rogozin declares that the plant named after Degtyarev is one of the successful implementers of the state defense order. The company has managed to recommend itself, and therefore now negotiations are underway with Igor Kesayev about the possible creation of an experimental platform of the Advanced Research Fund on the subject of robotics on the basis of Degtyaryov Plant OJSC.

Dmitry Rogozin calls the name of Mikhail Gutseriev as a businessman who is ready to implement the program of public-private partnership. The personality of Gutseriev, of course, is not at all unequivocal, but here it should be noted that in Russia there is no such billionaire at all who would be perceived by the majority of the population exclusively on a positive wave

According to Rogozin, Gutseriev bought a controlling stake in the enterprise of OJSC MZ Arsenal (St. Petersburg). The main focus of this company is the production of space technology and naval artillery. Today, Gutseriev is among the 100 richest people in Russia with a fortune of approximately 7 billions of dollars.
On the one hand, the news that Russian billionaires are increasingly taking on enterprises working on the release of military equipment and small arms is alarming. Guards in connection with, say, the peculiarities of the mentality of the average Russian person. And these features suggest that if the country's defense capability passes into the power of “money bags”, then nothing good can be expected in the future.

But on the other hand, most of the above-mentioned industrial enterprises, unlike many that are strictly under state financing, have been showing their effectiveness for years now and do not appear in reports on the disruption of state defense orders. Accident? Hardly. Just a private owner, who has his own interest in marketing products to the state, understands the benefits of such cooperation, and therefore does everything to do the work with high efficiency. The system is very simple: the state enables such a company to do the work, and if the work is done efficiently and on time, then there will be other orders from the state, and therefore profit for the business. If a company breaks a job or provides a frank "hack," then the state has every right to refuse such cooperation.

Systemic punctures of the defense order begin where it is a question of large monopolists, which the state simply cannot get away from using production services, unless, of course, you remember the foreign option. But to buy weapons and military equipment for the Russian army abroad - from the evil one, there is no internal alternative to monopolists (for that they are monopolists), and therefore there are failures and frictions on prices, and frank delays in the implementation of orders.

It turns out that if the state manages to build a quality control system for private companies operating in the defense industry - for the needs of the Russian army, then the military segment of PPP in our country has a future. At the same time, the state should not confuse effective control over the work of such companies with frankly pressing a business, and business should understand that not only its own profits and the possibility of development, but also the increase in Russia's defense capability depend on the quality and transparency of its work. And here we cannot do without fine-tuning the interaction between government and business. And with such a setting, both one and the other is important not to start engaging in the blanketing of the “blanket”, and not to move on to options for arranging both parties affiliation. Let's hope that the fine tuning will be carried out "perfectly."

PS There are a lot of examples of effective public-private partnership in the defense industry in the world. Will we (Russia) be able to achieve efficiency in solving this problem?
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    19 December 2013 08: 58
    "Konstantin Nikolaev is an investor in the Promtechnologia Group of Companies, the owner of N-trans, a company specializing in cargo transportation. His investments helped create a full-cycle high-precision weapons plant in Moscow."

    Still, the name "precision weapons" as applied to sniper rifles (no matter how paradoxical it sounds) is not entirely correct. what
  2. +4
    19 December 2013 09: 35
    I think that it is possible to attract private business for the production of dual-use products to the level of presence that is not critical for the country's defense. The positive side is that private companies will not let the state companies "relax".
  3. makarov
    +5
    19 December 2013 09: 44
    "Is an effective partnership between the state and private business possible in the implementation of the state defense order?"

    It is certainly possible in the presence of proper control by representatives of the institution of military representative, as well as the absence of corruption and localism by the latter. Is it possible to achieve this in modern conditions (?), And this is a vital issue.
    1. +3
      19 December 2013 23: 43
      Quote: makarov
      "Is an effective partnership between the state and private business possible in the implementation of the state defense order?"

      It is certainly possible in the presence of proper control by representatives of the institution of military representative, as well as the absence of corruption and localism by the latter. Is it possible to achieve this in modern conditions (?), And this is a vital issue.


      The whole question rests on corruption, "is it possible" - not a question, but a proven fact, all over the world it works - and works well. So with the correct execution and control of the process, I see no reason why this should not work in Russia.
    2. +1
      20 December 2013 02: 16
      Quote: makarov
      "Is an effective partnership between the state and private business possible in the implementation of the state defense order?"

      It is certainly possible in the presence of proper control by representatives of the institution of military representative, as well as the absence of corruption and localism by the latter. Is it possible to achieve this in modern conditions (?), And this is a vital issue.

      In general, I agree, there is one more point - obligations on the product life cycle, so that the new oborontruyagy do not disappear when tired or transfer technology before closing or reprofiling. This in the conditions of the contract should be monitored for large orders.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Airman
      0
      20 December 2013 16: 30
      Quote: makarov
      "Is an effective partnership between the state and private business possible in the implementation of the state defense order?"

      It is certainly possible in the presence of proper control by representatives.


      If PERSONAL ROGOZIN took control, then FULL uncontrolledness is guaranteed. Rogozin suffers from verbiage.
    5. timer
      0
      22 December 2013 00: 31
      Firstly, I am categorically against such a partnership! The military-industrial complex is gos.polyana, and there is no place for a private trader here!
      Secondly, the delay of time and attempts of state. enterprises to increase prices for manufactured models of military equipment to be treated with an effective method - introducing into the criminal law articles on sabotage and financial crimes (shot with confiscation).
      Thirdly, I have repeatedly proposed and am proposing to create, on the basis of science-intensive enterprises of the military-industrial complex, primarily scientific, industrial and educational consortiums that group around themselves including scientific inventors and rationalizers, which can be used to increase the efficiency of production. and improved efficiency.
      This experience, in the second place, to apply in the field of civil industry.
  4. wanderer_032
    0
    19 December 2013 10: 51
    If the authorities decide to take such a step, then here they need tight control over the quality of the products.
    In Tsarist times, for example, Mosin rifles when accepting a batch, they were dismantled in parts, stacking them together, and then they were assembled and fired from. If there was at least one failure or defect, they rejected the entire batch of rifles (with all the ensuing consequences for the manufacturer).
    Today, something similar is needed as a quality control measure, but based on modern realities.
    To fool around and thoughts did not arise. Only so.
    In general, it should be state-owned enterprises, then the quality will be at the level.
    The country will spend less nerves and money. (IMHO)
  5. 0
    19 December 2013 11: 55
    it’s possible, it’s possible, only corruption will be necessary and who the hell will defeat this corruption, and even Stalin would not be able to cope with the current conditions.
    I would give private traders only specialized sectors, for example sniper rifles, special uniforms and shoes, tools, etc., but no more.
    1. Vovka levka
      0
      19 December 2013 12: 53
      Quote: just EXPL
      maybe it’s possible, only corruption will be necessary and who the hell will defeat this corruption.

      Do you think that now it does not exist and was not even in the days of the USSR? She was always, but in a slightly different light. Factories sometimes drove such hack-work into the troops, which is incomprehensible to the mind. Airplanes sorted out completely in parts completely so that they could fly, this list is very long. And nothing, everything was fine and this is also corruption.
      1. 0
        19 December 2013 21: 16
        I don’t argue here, corruption has different types, and even sekas for information about something is also a form of corruption, but if there is a private component, the number of corrupt components increases.
  6. +2
    19 December 2013 13: 29
    Everything is fine, but when people like Gutseriev are already climbing into the defense. Become somehow uncomfortable. We understand that our so-called oligarchs. Nouveaux riches - they just grabbed enough money in the times of the 90s. But as entrepreneurs, they are none. Therefore, they don’t have business when they were squeezed out of an oil pipe. So they sensed - GOZ tidbit. They read that here they can profit. And what is BB. He does not decide everything in the country. Therefore, such conversations began. What a patriot from Gutseriev when he keeps everything abroad and in offshore. And the rest of the oligarchs-have long spit on our homeland with you. Only loot and do not need illusions. Therefore, 100 times to think when to let these jackals at the GOZ. Although there are already all sorts of Poghosyan enough. But do not aggravate the same. am
  7. Yarosvet
    +1
    19 December 2013 13: 54
    Perhaps ... Impossible ... Why is this needed - that is the question.
  8. +2
    19 December 2013 14: 13
    Quote: Yarosvet
    Perhaps ... Impossible ... Why is this needed - that is the question.

    To completely kill the defense industry.
    In the days of the USSR, my plant did not have problems with picking, and what was needed was what factories did according to the state plan. But, excuse me, we need one chip, highly specialized and in the amount of only 10 - 12 pieces per year, in the USSR the production of this chip was not a problem, and what private enterprise will be able to produce such chips? An example, by the way, from the current life. Due to the lack of such mikruhi, we had to completely redo the circuitry and were forced to use imported element base - there are no analogues of ours at all. The plant, which used to produce the mikruhu we needed, completely closed this line - for it is unprofitable.
    1. Yarosvet
      +1
      19 December 2013 15: 02
      Quote: AlexAsmi
      To completely kill the defense
      This is a consequence of creating feeders, not a goal.

      I agree with the rest.
  9. Volkhov
    0
    19 December 2013 16: 22
    http://www.gazeta.ru/auto/news/2013/12/19/n_5827777.shtml
    Is an effective partnership of the state and private business in the implementation of the state defense order possible?

    Of course it is possible - private traders who confiscated the car with great care can repair armored personnel carriers and other equipment for their native country.
  10. +1
    19 December 2013 16: 42
    At the moment, I can’t imagine how and what private owners can produce, even in the auto business we have such enterprises. And there is no such practice, there are mobilization enterprises, and I had one, the state helps depending on the direction of activity, and basically they, such enterprises, are food enterprises.
  11. +1
    19 December 2013 17: 13
    Maybe. And for a long time. A healthy private trader is always ready to help the republic, however, when it has money. For example, "VPK" LLC, any wheeled armored vehicles for your money, a typical gasket is an intermediary. Authorized capital 8349 rubles. Founder Deripaska & Co. They crushed the Russian Machines corporation and parasitize on it.
  12. +1
    19 December 2013 17: 48
    Is an effective partnership of the state and private business in the implementation of the state defense order possible?

    Maybe. As soon as the state defense order ceases to be a sphere of private business.
  13. 0
    19 December 2013 18: 34
    Quote: Vovka Levka
    even in Soviet times? She was always, but in a slightly different light. Factories sometimes drove such hack-work into the troops, which is incomprehensible to the mind. Airplanes sorted out completely in parts completely so that they could fly, this list is very long. And nothing, everything was fine and this is also corruption.

    That’s complete nonsense, at least under Stalin, and even during the Second World War, then everyone knew what it would be.
    I generally consider that state enterprises should be engaged in armaments and only, moreover, with good military acceptance (as it was before). Then no hack will pass, and secrecy is still.
  14. 0
    20 December 2013 00: 19
    Private enterprises are engaged only in making quick profit. Let us recall a similar example, private airlines. Did they improve the situation on the air transportation market? Yes, the first thing they did was to stop performing routine maintenance so as not to pay money for it, and the planes began to buy in landfills. The order should be put in place at defense enterprises, and not build illusions about a private entrepreneur.
  15. Dim btv
    +1
    20 December 2013 00: 38
    At many defense plants, the situation is difficult. Personnel, equipment, consequences of crushing, "optimization", a mess. I myself work in private production. Sometimes colleagues from the defense industry contact us with requests to make something from components or individual machine-tool operations. They do not turn from a good life. How can I help. The issues of admission, licenses, military representatives are decided by the customers themselves. So it’s too late to discuss “do-it-yourself” PPPs. The defenders themselves cannot do without it. The question is how to make such cooperation honest, recoilless (as target number 9, who remembers) and ensure quality control. I can vouch for my quality, but the system must work. It is not yet available, but its necessity is beyond doubt.
  16. +1
    20 December 2013 01: 16
    No impossible. The goals are not even different - just the opposite.
  17. +3
    20 December 2013 02: 07
    The gun was developed by the young company Arsenal Firearms, whose headquarters are in Russia, and production facilities are located in Russia, Austria and Italy.
    Arsenal is led by Dmitry Streshinsky, a well-known Russian weapons collector, and Nikola Bandini, an Italian.
    Read more: http://www.arms-expo.ru/057051057051.html

    Shout, shout further "don't let it go!"
    The gun "Black Swift" / Strike One applied several innovations in the field of weapons. One of the most important is the design of the barrel and the locking mechanism of the gun. So far, six locking systems have been introduced in the world. Arsenal Firearms introduced the seventh, in which the trunk is locked by a larva and walks linearly,
    Read more: http://www.arms-expo.ru/057051057051.html
  18. vladsolo56
    0
    20 December 2013 22: 06
    Of course, such types of weapons as knives, pistols or rifles, let private owners let them out, let alone competition in these areas. However, in the production of sophisticated high-tech weapons, private enterprises will wrap up prices such that not a single military budget can stand it. You need to understand that for a private trader, there is no concept of patriotism, for him there is only profit and the more, the better. Russia will not buy it will sell it over a hill, and he does not care that this weapon can be directed against the interests of Russia. And even if the MO finds funds and pays, the following samples will certainly be more expensive, even with minor modifications. So you want to ruin the state, transfer the military-industrial complex to private hands. With this approach, it is possible not only to ruin, but also to destroy, a wonderful prospect for Russia.
  19. Dim btv
    0
    21 December 2013 11: 52
    You are a colleague of vladsolo56 who go overboard on the "private trader" you hate and patriotism. Officials have the greatest problems with patriotism. It is especially unpleasant that some of these officials wear pagons. There is no patriotism among those who are rich not in earned money, but in appropriated ones. I work in Russia and this is my patriotism. If I change machines in Russia for a palace in France, then you will not call me a patriot. The patriotism of gorlopanov and political politicians, not backed up by actions, is also not pleasant to me.
    On the issue of PPP, you need to ask the technologist what we produce at the defense plant, what we outsource. Technologically sound decisions are approved by the military representative and the 1st department. And the whole question. Keeping a subsistence economy within the military-industrial complex is nonsense. To squander production capacity to privatizers is the same nonsense.
    A reasonable compromise is needed, preferably without loopholes for theft. To a greater extent I am afraid of the theft of the "generals" of the armchair branch of the armed forces.
    The private owner you hate. The report is completed.
    1. vladsolo56
      0
      21 December 2013 13: 13
      you misunderstood me, I never had and have no hatred for private traders. I am simply convinced that the state planned economy is much more efficient than the market, private one. And this is not only my conviction, as many well-known economists around the world think, both in Russia and abroad. The fact that a private trader may be a patriot is quite possible. However, this is rather an exception to the rule. I had to deal with private traders a lot. as soon as his income exceeds a certain level, (everyone has a different one), then profit is definitely more important for him than patriotism. And this cannot be changed; such a rule works all over the world.
  20. Dim btv
    0
    21 December 2013 18: 55
    Accepted.
    Well-known economists think about the effectiveness of a planned economy with great reservations. It is not possible to plan everything in advance even on the scale of one enterprise, and on a national scale it is not possible in principle. The state can and should set priorities in accordance with the development strategy. Private business is more mobile, more dynamic and more efficient. You can not choose between wild capitalism and total planning as in the late USSR. Both models are not effective. We come to PPP. The state determines the strategy and rules of the game, the business bakes pies, and builds machines, if necessary, is involved in some defense orders. Here is such a modern utopia.
    About the fact that wealth kills patriotism is not sure. Marx wrote that Rembrandt must first have breakfast, and only then engage in great art. Modern psychologists also consider the satisfaction of vital needs, and already social ones, primary.
    Your observation may indicate that people who are ready for anything often seek it for their sake of wealth, and this is usually disgusting.
  21. Dim btv
    0
    22 December 2013 00: 56
    Answer for Timer.
    Now I do not need orders from the military-industrial complex, but the defense industry is my help. What should I send them away or help if they ask and need to do business?
    And state-owned factories do not always raise prices because of corruption; with a small volume of production, they cannot survive without excessive prices.
    Sometimes this can be conditionally considered a measure of state support. Your fantasy proposal to shoot everyone who can’t work for cheap will certainly destroy several bastards + those who are completely innocent, but the situation in the economy will not change. Oh for the better will not change for sure.
    To collect all the remaining brains in the research institute or CLUSTERS or SHARASHKI-requires discussion. Skolkovo also gave some hope, perhaps there will be positive results.
    There are no simple solutions. The country has no resources for simple solutions.
  22. 0
    23 December 2013 00: 21
    Of course available. And the positive thing will be that they will not focus on classifying everything and everything, but will produce the same military products in civilian modifications. As an example of a means of communication and location. sights, transport, weapons.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"