Putin Met with the Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation with Foreign States
A short overview of Russian military exports
Russian Arms Expo
We don’t get to learn everything discussed at this meeting as it goes private after Putin’s 8-minute introductory remarks, but there’s some useful information. It must be recalled that Russia’s arms sales were greatly reduced during the SMO being limited mostly to fulfillment of existing contracts. Once the SMO ends, Russia’s military equipment will be in high demand. But since it’s not overpriced, the monetary amount might not overtake the Outlaw US Empire, although I can’t see why any military wanting to get the best edge would by those woefully performing too highly priced weapons the Empire and its vassals produce.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Dear Colleagues, good afternoon!
Today we will summarize military-technical cooperation activities for 2024, We will discuss the current situation in this strategically important area, determine which issues need to be corrected, and on which, new decisions may need to be taken, including taking into account the strategy approved in December last year for military-technical cooperation between Russia and foreign countries for the period up to 2030.
I think it is important to emphasize that last year Russia, our enterprises had their own export We have generally fulfilled our obligations. In some cases, together decisions have been made with foreign partners that satisfy both parties, and the forms and methods of interaction are flexible and promptly adjusted.
The military-industrial complex continues to operate in an enhanced mode almost throughout nomenclature of products. And the key, priority task invariably is the provision of all necessary subdivisions and units participating in a special military operation.
At the same time, Russia continues to remain in the top five leaders of the world arms market and maintains its leading export position in many areas. This once again confirms the quality, reliability and efficiency by our gunsmiths of military products.
Of course, there’s interest to it, and we understand why. After all, almost the entire line of Russian weapons--from means of detection and destruction to air defense systems, aviation, unmanned systems and armored vehicles—shows its effectiveness, passes rigorous tests not only at training grounds or at exercises, and, most importantly, "on the ground", in front-line conditions, in real combat.
And it is natural that our experience in conducting a special military operation–-both in terms of changing tactics, and technical improvement of weapons—is also studied carefully by the political leadership, army command, and experts of the military-industrial complex of foreign states.
I will add that most of the weapons and equipment is assessed by close soldiering, the joint work of combat units and teams of enterprises, design bureaus and are promptly and constantly improved and modernized. This significantly increases their tactical and technical characteristics in terms of range, accuracy and power of fire damage, security and other indicators.
We should also consider military-technical cooperation as an important tool for the technological renewal of the Russian army and navy. Herewith of course, it is necessary to strengthen our position in global markets. Briefcase orders for Russian military products are now serious-–tens of billions of dollars—and it is necessary to actively increase the supply and volume of exports.
At the same time, along with traditional weapons, special attention should be paid to promising models that are also needed by our Armed Forces and have the potential for export, including robotic air, land, sea and underwater vehicles, laser systems, troop control systems that use artificial intelligence technologies. Such equipment is the future of the global arms market will unfold here–-it is already unfolding–-strong competition, for which we must be prepared.
I am sure that we have significant growth potential in all areas of military-technical cooperation. Previously adopted economic, financial, organizational and other decisions have proven their effectiveness. But it is impossible to rest on our laurels of course, and therefore we need an additional set of state support measures that will allow to further develop this potential.
I ask the Government to work on this issue. Of course, in conjunction with the ongoing modernisation of the defence industry.
I’ve said more than once: we need to clearly plan the work of the defence industry for the long term in order to balance the implementation of the tasks of the state defense order and contracts within the framework of military-technical cooperation, to create the groundwork for the production of civilian products, to master dual-use technologies, and thereby to ensure the maximum and effective workload of defense enterprises and their subcontractors.
Another fundamental point is that in order to promote ourselves in a highly competitive environment, it is necessary to improve cooperation with foreign partners, taking into account the specifics of the arms market, That is, to offer them not only specific weapons and equipment, but also a wider range of services—from technological cooperation and joint development of promising samples to assistance in their repair and modernization, supply of spare parts and the training of foreign specialists.
Let's get to work.
The floor is given to the Director of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation Dmitry Evgenievich Shugaev. Please. [My Emphasis]
Given the horrendous performance of US/NATO weaponry and systems, Russia should have no problem selling its military goods. What struck me is the apparent willingness to sell cutting edge systems. Ideally, no market for weapons would exist, but Humanity has yet to attain that state of advancement. So, if weapons are required, might as well get the best available.
*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!
Have you seen the latest "horrendous performance of US/NATO weaponry and systems" in Kiev (particularly air defense)? Andrei Martyanov has a prime example: https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2025/05/404-decided-to.html
«why any military wanting to get the best edge would by those woefully performing too highly priced weapons the Empire and its vassals produce.»
Overpriced is simply imperial tribute and they work fairly well but not as well as they could because they are over-specified as they are peacetime demo weapons. The USA arms industry prioritizes executive bonuses over results but that does not matter since this is merely a proxy war planned to be lost by Ukraine so the USA have not started anything serious yet. When the USA oligarchs want to start anything serious they act quite differently and do mass production of cheap stuff (e.g. Liberty ships) pretty well, my usual example about the B29 bomber:
https://im1776.com/2024/03/18/boeing-decline/
“The project was a hideously complex and expensive weapons program with a total cost more than double that of the Manhattan Project, requiring the coordination of thousands of contractors and production facilities spread across the United States. After Boeing missed multiple deadlines to deliver combat-worthy planes to the U.S. Army Air Force, Hap Arnold empowered General Bennett Meyers to take control of the production process and do everything possible to bring out the plane; ‘The Battle of Kansas’ thus ensued. Thousands of technicians from all over the country were called into Wichita, modification centers at Great Bend, Pratt, Walter, and Salina, working in subzero weather and snowstorms. The shock force of aircraft technicians replaced the plating on the wings, the glass in the cockpit, modified the cowl flaps around the engines, and removed, replaced, and resoldered every electrical connection. The ‘Battle of Kansas’ involved direct military control over civilian workforce, and it furnished an example of how centralized authority and accountability could quickly yield results. Within weeks, the first B-29s were flying. By the war’s end, Boeing delivered more than 3,600 Superfortresses.”