Military acceptance will be responsible for the disruption of the state defense order

Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov said on July 24 that now the enterprises of the military-industrial complex (DIC) “need to provide maximum assistance in carrying out the really difficult tasks that have been set for them.” Despite the successes – for example, the monthly output of ammunition exceeded their production for the whole of last year – the defense industry is experiencing personnel (it needs another 16,000 specialists just to produce the most sought-after weapons) and other difficulties, Manturov said.

Among these problems is the uneven responsibility for the disruption of the state defense order (GOZ), says the manager of one of the defense industry holdings. This should be overcome by a bill submitted to the State Duma last week that introduces administrative punishment for actions that hinder the implementation of the state defense order for officers of the Ministry of Defense who serve in military representations – military acceptance bodies. Their duty is to check the produced military equipment for compliance with the requirements of the customer – the Ministry of Defense and other law enforcement agencies.

“We are talking about the balance of responsibility between the customer and the contractor, between the Ministry of Defense and defense industry enterprises, because the imbalance deforms the situation,” says Vladimir Gutenev, one of the developers of the amendments, chairman of the State Duma committee on industry. According to him, the situation is dangerous, “when there is not enough motivation for representatives of the Ministry of Defense and other departments, and all responsibility, and very serious, up to criminal responsibility, falls on the shoulders of the heads of enterprises, who, among other things, are responsible for delaying salaries to prosecutors.” Moreover, representatives of the ordering bodies of the Ministry of Defense and other departments bear responsibility, but military representatives do not. Therefore, the coordinating group of deputies and senators on NVO issues, which includes Gutenev, proposed introducing a fine for military representatives in case of violations in the implementation of the state defense order in the amount of 30,000 to 50,000 rubles, if there is no criminal offense in their actions.

Military representatives use the peacetime regulatory framework and, if the products presented to them do not comply with some outdated provisions, they may not accept them, says a top manager of the OPK holding. If the activity of the military representative, who does not want to deviate from his instructions, carries very big risks for the implementation of the plan, then the issue with him has to be resolved through the military prosecutor’s office, which is absolutely tough, he continues. Therefore, to have a lever of administrative punishment, in addition to equalizing military representatives and directors in terms of responsibility, is the right idea, he says. Without such levers, it will not be possible to rebuild the industry for a military regime and achieve a multiple increase in production, he says. “The thing is that, unlike representatives of the ordering structures of the Ministry of Defense, military representatives have the authority to take an active position throughout the entire production cycle – from the development of new types of weapons and ending with the work of industrial cooperation. Therefore, in our opinion, this bill will be enthusiastically adopted both among defense industry enterprises and among those who deal with orders from industry within the Ministry of Defense,” says Gutenev. According to him, during the development of the bill, specific facts of problems in the implementation of the state defense order related to military representatives were mentioned, but he refused to talk about them.

The industry has already been “taught to live under conditions of almost wartime,” and some military representatives are playing “peaceful life,” says a top manager of one of the defense industry holdings. It gets out of hand, but still occurs, he continues. In conditions when it is customary to blame industry for all problems with the state defense order, at least some administrative leverage on military representatives will be useful, he concludes.

Claims for military acceptance are meaningless – they must accept what is laid down in the contract between the Ministry of Defense and industry, objected Viktor Murakhovsky, editor-in-chief of Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine. So if mistakes were built into the contract, they have to accept what they have, along with the results of the wrong decisions, he says.