Contrary to the popular view, significant superiority in the quantity of weaponry does translate into the military victory. The military output delta is a great predictor of whether you win or not, and the longer a war lasts, the better it works
You outproduce -> You win
One major Russian advantage is the sheer quantity of air defence missiles. Countering the enemy airforce & projectiles, air defence systems cover the Russian ground forces from every possible aerial threat. They also allow Russian airforce to bomb Ukrainians without distractions
Now how can Russia produce so much? Let's follow some of the key production operations in the manufacture of S400 missile at the MMZ Avangard. Part of the Almaz Antey corporation, it is a major Russian producer of air defence missiles
1. Casting
Casting = pouring liquid metal into a form (mould/die). This is the cheapest way of mass production by far. It is seldom automated and typically involves a lot of manual operations, like this
Primitive it looks, it is unbeatably cheap & efficient for mass production
2. Pressing/forging
Serves to increase the strength of metal, and/or to give it a desired shape.
Still involves a fair deal of manual work. That is because transition to the computer control affected pressing/forging less. Thus ancient Soviet equipment can work perfectly well
Casting & pressing work great for mass production. There is however a problem. They can seldom produce a component of high precision or convoluted geometry. And that is where you need another metalworking process: machining
What is machining all about? As Michelangelo said:
"The sculpture is already complete within the marble block. I just have to chisel away the superfluous material"
And that is exactly how machining works. You take a workpiece, cut off the excess material -> get a precise part
3. Machining
And that is how machining is being conducted at the Avangard plant. Notice the contrast with the casting/pressing. Fully automated, no manual operations at all. That is because transition to the computer control revolutionized this specific process completely
Machining is how you make a missile (for most part). It is the very high precision machining capacity that determines the Russian ability to outproduce it enemies. And the Avangard Plant's machining base does not include imported machines. It consists of them
Let's consider the Avangard's corporate report for 2012. Why 2012? Well, because it was published in 2013. And starting from 2014 (=Crimea), the plant became very much less transparent. So this is the very, very last glimpse into its high transparency era
That's what they had on balance/in lease in 2012
Full list of machining equipment:
🇨🇭Switzerland: Center lathe machine tool “SCHAUBLIN” model 150A; Universal milling machine tool “SCHAUBLIN” model “53N”; Spark-erosion machine tool “AGIE” model “AGIETRON 370C” [now “GF machining solutions”]
🇩🇪 Germany: universal milling machine “DECKEL” model “FR3”; Five Axis Vertical Milling Machining Center "Spinner U5-620" with CNC "Heidenhain TNC 620+HSCI" panel
🇮🇹 Italy: Flat grinding machine “ROSA” model “RTRC 1200”;
🇪🇸 Spain: Spark-erosion machine tool “ONA” model “KE 500”;
🇺🇸 USA: Coordinate boring machine “SIP” model “MP 3 K” [“Hauser”], coordinate grinding machine “HAUSER” model “S 50 DR”;
Leadership of Western Europe. High capacity, high capability
Learning progress of Taiwan and South Korea. Still limited capability, but already high capacity
Quantitative decline of the USA. Still high capability, but already limited capacity
The absence of Russia-made machining equipment is not very surprising The post-Soviet collapse ruined Russian machine tool production and the technological disruption (transition to computer control) finished it. So starting from 2003, Putin just outsourced the production abroad
What is really interesting, and somewhat unexpected in this list is the brilliant absence of China
There was apparently nothing Chinese at the Avangard Plant in 2012
Nothing at all
Some relevant context:
1. Manufacturing chain: Does China produce everything?
Yes, and that is super duper quadruper important to understand
Koreans are poor (don't have an empire) and, therefore, must do productive work to earn their living. So, if the Americans want to learn how to do anything productive they must learn it from Koreans etc
There is this stupid idea that the ultra high level of life and consumption in the United States has something to do with their productivity. That is of course a complete sham. An average American doesn't do anything useful or important to justify (or earn!) his kingly lifestyle
The kingly lifestyle of an average American is not based on his "productivity" (what a BS, lol) but on the global empire Americans are holding currently. Part of the imperial dynamics being, all the actually useful work, all the material production is getting outsourced abroad
Reading Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Set in southwest England, somewhere in the late 1800s. And the first thing you need to know is that Tess is bilingual. He speaks a local dialect she learnt at home, and the standard English she picked at school from a London-trained teacher
So, basically, "normal" language doesn't come out of nowhere. Under the normal conditions, people on the ground speak all the incomprehensible patois, wildly different from each other
"Regular", "correct" English is the creation of state
So, basically, the state chooses a standard (usually, based on one of the dialects), cleanses it a bit, and then shoves down everyone's throats via the standardized education
Purely artificial construct, of a super mega state that really appeared only by the late 1800s
There's a subtle point here that 99,999% of Western commentariat is missing. Like, totally blind to. And that point is:
Building a huuuuuuuuuuge dam (or steel plant, or whatever) has been EVERYONE's plan of development. Like absolutely every developing country, no exceptions
Almost everyone who tried to develop did it in a USSR-ish way, via prestige projects. Build a dam. A steel plant. A huge plant. And then an even bigger one
And then you run out of money, and it all goes bust and all you have is postapocalyptic ruins for the kids to play in
If China did not go bust, in a way like almost every development project from the USSR to South Asia did, that probably means that you guys are wrong about China. Like totally wrong
What you describe is not China but the USSR, and its copies & emulations elsewhere
What I am saying is that "capitalist reforms" are a buzzword devoid of any actual meaning, and a buzzword that obfuscated rather than explains. Specifically, it is fusing radically different policies taken under the radically different circumstances (and timing!) into one - purely for ideological purposes
It can be argued, for example, that starting from the 1980s, China has undertaken massive socialist reforms, specifically in infrastructure, and in basic (mother) industries, such as steel, petrochemical and chemical and, of course, power
The primary weakness of this argument is that being true, historically speaking, it is just false in the context of American politics where the “communism” label has been so over-used (and misapplied) that it lost all of its former power:
“We want X”
“No, that is communism”
“We want communism”
Basically, when you use a label like “communism” as a deus ex machina winning you every argument, you simultaneously re-define its meaning. And when you use it to beat off every popular socio economic demand (e.g. universal healthcare), you re-define communism as a synthesis of all the popular socio economic demands
Historical communism = forced industrial development in a poor, predominantly agrarian country, funded through expropriation of the peasantry
(With the most disastrous economic and humanitarian consequences)
Many are trying to explain his success with some accidental factors such as his “personal charisma”, Cuomo's weakness etc
Still, I think there may be some fundamental factors here. A longue durée shift, and a very profound one
1. Public outrage does not work anymore
If you look at Zohran, he is calm, constructive, and rarely raises his voice. I think one thing that Mamdani - but almost no one else in the American political space is getting - is that the public is getting tired of the outrage
Outrage, anger, righteous indignation have all been the primary drivers of American politics for quite a while
For a while, this tactics worked
Indeed, when everyone around is polite, and soft (and insincere), freaking out was a smart thing to do. It could help you get noticed