Libmonster ID: U.S.-1976
Author(s) of the publication: Lev VINOGRADOV, retired captain of the 1st rank


Ending. Beginning in No. 5 for 1999

III. Military-technical cooperation in the post-war years

In the first post-war years, the Engineering Department of the People's Commissariat of Foreign Trade, along with some departments of the People's Commissariat of Defense, worked to provide weapons and military - technical equipment to the armies of the people's democracy countries established in Central and South - Eastern Europe. In addition, the People's Commissariat of Foreign Trade was charged with carrying out lend-lease payments, participating in ensuring the supply of reparations and receiving captured military equipment.

According to the decision taken at the Potsdam Conference in 1945, the captured German ships were divided into three equal parts and drawn by lot between the USSR, the United States and England. The Soviet Union got 155 warships, including a cruiser, 10 destroyers, 10 submarines, minesweepers, and torpedo boats. After the end of the war with Japan, the USSR received 7 destroyers, 17 escort ships, minelayers, minesweepers and some other vessels from its fleet.

The main proceeds of reparations from Germany came at the expense of its industry. As part of the reparations, 676 enterprises were dismantled and their equipment removed in 1945, some enterprises were transferred to Soviet joint-stock companies, and 3,800 enterprises were transferred to German self-government bodies. However, obtaining products from German industry was fraught with great difficulties, as the factories left on the ground were cut off from traditional suppliers of raw materials and semi-finished products. As a result of this situation, the USSR was forced to provide its zone with ferrous and non-ferrous metals, rolled products, cotton, etc. In addition, in order to receive finished products from German companies, they had to deliver a lot of components that they had to make at home or buy in Western countries. Electric locomotives, railway cranes, walking excavators, metal cutting machines, compressors, optics, cable products and much more were supplied under the reparations.

Over time, the supply of reparations was reduced to help develop the economy of the newly formed German Democratic Republic. In August 1953, in agreement with Poland (which also received reparations) The GDR was exempted from paying the remaining part of the reparations in the amount of about $ 2.5 billion.

The post-war structure of the armed forces in the European countries that were in the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union (with the exception of the Soviet zone in Germany) did not follow a single recipe, but depending on the situation that developed in them when they left the war. This was largely determined by the terms of the peace treaties that were concluded with the countries.

In the Soviet occupation zone of Germany, the People's Police was created, then the border police. After the formation of the German Democratic Republic in October 1949, for the first time it had no army, only various types of police. The Law on the creation of the National People's Army was adopted by the People's Chamber of the GDR in January 1956. In the same month, it was decided to include this army in the Joint Armed Forces of the Warsaw Pact countries.

The countries of Central and Southeastern Europe, as well as China and North Korea, armed their armies independently, without a single plan. By the beginning of the 50s, all of them began to experience an acute need for additional weapons. In this regard, in Moscow in January 1951, a meeting of representatives of the countries was held, at which it was decided to provide all armies with weapons according to the norms of wartime until the end of 1953.

This issue was solved through supplies from the USSR, as well as through the development of its own military industry, which depended on the economic development of the countries. In the second case, the transfer of relevant technical documentation for the production of weapons from the USSR was envisaged. Czechoslovakia had a more developed industry. In 1953. it has produced more than one and a half thousand aircraft, tanks, guns and other equipment. But even she said that rearmament can be made no earlier than 1955-1956. At that time, Polish industry could not ensure the rearmament of its army, and therefore an agreement was signed with the USSR on the supply of weapons in the amount of 1,800 million rubles.

Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania could produce only the simplest weapons, the rest of the weapons and military equipment were supposed to be received from the USSR. Before 1950, the Chinese army was armed mainly with captured weapons, and there was no military industry of its own. But in the 1950s, dozens of military factories were built there. Assistance in their creation was provided by the USSR. Before the start of production of its own products from the USSR, it was supposed to receive weapons for more than fifty divisions. In North Korea, the industry was not developed enough, and the army's weapons had to be supplied from the USSR.

Thus, by the beginning of the 50s, the supply of weapons for the armies of friendly countries and components for their military industry began to grow sharply and significantly. Since 1947, annual exports had increased about tenfold, and the trend to increase it continued.

IV. Centralization of the military-technical cooperation system

At that time, arms exports to the USSR were carried out by the departments of the Ministry of Defense, the General Staff, the Engineering Department of the Ministry of Foreign Trade, and the department of the General Staff of the Navy, which operated quite independently during the existence of the Ministry of the Navy (1950-1953). There was no parent organization in this area, which created additional difficulties and led to delays in considering requests from foreign States for the supply of weapons. All this required certain organizational changes.

The immediate reason for the reorganization was another request from Mao Zedong for the supply of weapons, addressed to Stalin. The bureaucratic machine delayed the response. Mao was outraged by the delay and complained to Stalin. At the beginning of 1953, the issue was considered at the Politburo, where they decided to make the engineering Department of the Ministry of Foreign Trade the main organization for military-technical cooperation, transforming it into the Main Department. Documents for implementing the decision were prepared after Stalin's death. They were presented to the Presidium of the Council of Ministers by A. I. Mikoyan with N. A. Bulganin's visa. The documents were reviewed, and on May 8, 1953, a corresponding government decree was issued, according to which the Ministry of Foreign Trade took over from the Ministry of Defense the functions of preparing and considering issues related to the supply of weapons and military equipment to the countries of popular democracy, submitting proposals to the Government on these issues and monitoring the implementation of these deliveries.

The Ministry of Defense was left to consult on the feasibility of supplying certain types of weapons, as well as organizing their military acceptance at enterprises and sending them to their destination. On the basis of the Department of the Ministry of Defense, the corresponding departments of the General Staff and the Engineering Department of the Ministry of Foreign Trade, the Main Engineering Department (SMI) of the Ministry of Foreign Trade was created. Over the next 40 years, SMI will gain a well-deserved reputation all over the world.

It should be noted that the decision limited the range of countries that the SMI was supposed to work with - only the countries of popular democracy, as they were then called. But the government's further decisions significantly expanded this circle, and in 1990 the SMI cooperated with 51 countries (13 socialist, 35 developing, and 3 capitalist-in the then-accepted terminology) and 7 national liberation movements.

According to the staffing table, which A. I. Mikoyan approved on May 13, 1953, the SMI was supposed to have 238 employees, most of whom were military personnel. The first head of the SMI was Major-General of the tank forces G. S. Sidorovich, his deputies were Engineer-Colonel M. A. Sergeychik and engineer-counter-admiral G. V. Yurin.

SMI was engaged not only in the export, but also in the import of military-technical equipment. With the development of industry in friendly countries, the USSR began to buy a significant part of finished products from them. Thus, in 1965, we imported about 500 AN-2 aircraft, 400 L-29 aircraft, 100 Mi-1 helicopters, a certain number of boats, pilot vessels and other equipment. Most of them were made according to Soviet documentation.

In addition, the SMI provided friendly countries with assistance in carrying out repairs of previously delivered equipment in the USSR, in creating military facilities and defense industry enterprises, in training specialists, as well as in a number of other issues. The supply of weapons and other services in those years was made on credit, on trade turnover, or free of charge. In 1946-1957, the ratio between these types of payments was as follows: on credit - 57.6%, on turnover-37.6% , and gratuitously-4.8%.

Work in the field of arms export and import and the need for prompt resolution of issues arising from this required constant contacts between suppliers and recipients of equipment. For this purpose, representative offices of organizations that were engaged in military-technical cooperation in their countries were established in the USSR. In turn, the SMI also had its own representatives in the countries with several employees. Short-term business trips of employees of both Soviet and foreign organizations were also practiced.

It should be noted that when traveling abroad, SMI officers wore civilian clothes, and their rank was not mentioned in the documents. For casual acquaintances, they were just merchants. The work in zaranapparat was very diverse and required a good knowledge of many issues, great resourcefulness and the ability to take reasonable risks. It was necessary to speak the language of the host country, drive well (including in left-hand traffic), and be able to establish relations with local officials.

It should be noted that by the government's decision of January 15, 1955, the SMI was removed from the Ministry of Foreign Trade and transferred to the newly created Main Directorate for Economic Relations with the Countries of People's Democracy (GUES) under the Council of Ministers. Then, on July 1, 1957, the USSR State Committee for Foreign Economic Relations (SCEC) was established, and the Main Engineering Department was transferred to it. This practically did not affect the current work of the SMI.

V. Further development of military-technical cooperation

In connection with the improvement of weapons, the equipment necessary for preparing weapons for combat use and their" daily operation " became increasingly difficult. Requirements for runways and berths for ships increased, and equipment for repair shops, training centers, command posts, and other facilities became more complex. The scope of SMI's work in this area has grown significantly, and specialists of narrow profiles were required to perform it.

In this regard, the Government decree of April 8, 1968 established the Main Technical Department within the framework of the State Hydroelectric Power Station. He was charged with providing technical assistance to countries in the creation of military facilities, supplying certain materials and components for enterprises built abroad, repairing our ships abroad, and also supplying products for general industrial use (electric lamps, cylinders, measuring devices, etc.).

By the same decision of the government, it was established that SMI and GTU are transferred to economic settlement and will operate at the expense of 0.3 percent of the selling value of their operations. In the future, SMI and GTU fully paid for their activities, not exceeding the established norm. Foreign currency receipts exceeded the volume of expenditures of the national economy on the production of weapons and military-technical equipment for export. For example, in 1973 SMI's foreign currency revenue exceeded one and a half billion rubles. So military-technical cooperation brought tangible economic benefits, despite the gratuitous and preferential supplies of weapons.

There is no way to tell you about all the SMI employees, officers and civilians, who with their dedicated work ensured the fulfillment of complex and responsible tasks. Therefore, we will only list managers. The first head of the SMI was General G. S. Sidorovich. In 1959, he became the Deputy chairman of the State Committee for Economic Cooperation, and received the rank of Colonel - General. He was replaced by Colonel M. A. Sergeychik, who soon became a general. In 1975, he was appointed Deputy Chairman of the SCEC, then first deputy, and received the rank of Colonel-General. In 1984, he became Chairman of the SCEC, and at the end of 1985, he retired. In 1975, Rear Admiral Yu.P. Grishin became the head of the SMI. In 1984, he was appointed Deputy Chairman of the SCEC, received the rank of admiral. The last head of the SMI was Rear Admiral V. A. Vlasov. All managers had extensive experience in the field of military-technical cooperation prior to their appointment.

In the early 1990s, the volume and effectiveness of military-technical cooperation noticeably decreased. The main reasons were the political and economic changes taking place in the country and the world - the collapse of the USSR and the disruption of internal economic relations, the elimination of the COMECON and the Warsaw Pact, the unification of German states, changes in the balance of power in the international arena, sanctions against some countries, the reduction of the world arms market, and the fierce competition in it.

In an attempt to bring together the interests of manufacturers and sellers of weapons and streamline the military-technical cooperation, in 1992 the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade formed the Russian State Foreign Economic Association for the Export of Military Products and Services, Oboronexport, instead of SMI, and the State Foreign Economic Company for the Export and Import of Weapons and Military Equipment, Spetsvneshtechnika, instead of GTU. GUSK did not change the name, but also had to adjust the methods of his work. According to the press, the volume of arms supplies for export had decreased by 3-4 times by that time.

It became clear that the partial reorganization did not produce the expected results. In this regard, the decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 18, 1993, on the basis of these three organizations, the State Company for the Export and Import of Weapons and Military Equipment "Rosvooruzhenie" was established, which was removed from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Economic Development and Acquired sufficient independence. The state monopoly on the export and import of weapons was confirmed. Control over the observance of state interests in the activities of the State-owned Company was entrusted to the Presidential Security Service. Lieutenant General V. Samoilov, little known in the circles of arms exporters, was appointed General Director of Ros Armament . At the same time, some enterprises also received the right to enter the foreign arms market. However, it was soon announced that the state-owned Company had failed to implement the tasks set during its creation, and Colonel A. I. Kotelkin, who had some experience in this field, was appointed the new general Director in November 1994. At the same time, the struggle that took place in the highest spheres for the right to influence Rosvooruzhenie, which brought considerable income, also affected it.

Under A. I. Kotelkin, the style of export activity changed in many ways, extensive advertising of our weapons abroad began, industrial enterprises began to receive certain investments, and other innovations appeared that gave positive results. According to foreign sources, Russia has become the second largest arms exporter in the world. If in 1994 the total volume of arms exports was approximately $ 1.7 billion (the entire amount was practically received by Rosvooruzhenie), then in 1995 it was $ 3.05 billion. (the share of Rosvooruzhenie - 2.8 billion), and in 1996 - 3.5 billion dollars (the share of Rosvooruzhenie - 3.4 billion). A. I. Kotelkin was awarded the rank of Major General.

However, the struggle for influence on Rosvooruzhenie continued and even intensified. As a result, in August 1997, a number of presidential decrees were issued that made significant changes to the system of military-technical cooperation. The state-owned company Rosvooruzhenie was renamed the Federal State Unitary Enterprise (FSUE) "State Company Rosvooruzhenie". Promexport and Russian Technologies were also established. The Ministry of Defense was allowed to sell weapons and military equipment released from stock through Promexport. Lists of weapons approved for export and countries to which these weapons can be delivered were introduced, approved by the President. Certain enterprises were granted the right to export their products, the regulations on the Interdepartmental Coordination Council for Military-Technical Cooperation were approved and its composition headed by the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation was determined. Many cooperation procedures were clarified (in the direction of complication). E. N. Ananyev, who previously worked in a commercial bank, was appointed General Director of the Rosvooruzhenie State Company. But things haven't improved under the new way of working and the new CEO. Arms exports in 1997 fell to about $ 2.5 billion, while Rosvooruzhenie's economic performance for the first 10 months of 1998 was 40 percent lower than planned.

In July 1998, the State Duma adopted and signed by the President on July 19 of the same year Federal Law No. 114-FZ "On Military-Technical Cooperation of the Russian Federation with Foreign States". He defined the basic principles of military-technical cooperation, including the state monopoly. Lieutenant-General G. A. Rapota, who had previously worked as Deputy Secretary of the Security Council and had previously worked in foreign intelligence, was appointed the new Director General of Rosvooruzhenie in November 1998.


© libmonster.com

Permanent link to this publication:

https://libmonster.com/m/articles/view/PRIORITY-IS-GIVEN-TO-THE-INTERESTS-OF-THE-STATE-Military-technical-cooperation-and-arms-trade-with-foreign-countries

Similar publications: LUnited States LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Libmonster OnlineContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://libmonster.com/Libmonster

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

Lev VINOGRADOV, retired captain of the 1st rank, PRIORITY IS GIVEN TO THE INTERESTS OF THE STATE. Military-technical cooperation and arms trade with foreign countries // New-York: Libmonster (LIBMONSTER.COM). Updated: 02.05.2025. URL: https://libmonster.com/m/articles/view/PRIORITY-IS-GIVEN-TO-THE-INTERESTS-OF-THE-STATE-Military-technical-cooperation-and-arms-trade-with-foreign-countries (date of access: 06.03.2026).

Publication author(s) - Lev VINOGRADOV, retired captain of the 1st rank:

Lev VINOGRADOV, retired captain of the 1st rank → other publications, search: Libmonster USALibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Libmonster Online
New-York, United States
581 views rating
02.05.2025 (307 days ago)
0 subscribers
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
This article examines the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime artery connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman, which holds critical importance for global energy supplies. Based on analysis of geographical characteristics, economic statistics, and current events from February-March 2026, the article reconstructs the comprehensive significance of the strait and the consequences of its blockade. Particular attention is devoted to the geopolitical context of the ongoing conflict between Iran and the US-Israel led coalition, as well as the potential impact on global oil, gas, and related product markets.
Catalog: География 
8 hours ago · From John Oppenheimer
Foreign Leaders Whose Elimination Has Been Attributed to the United States
Yesterday · From John Oppenheimer
Which heads of state were killed by the United States?
Yesterday · From John Oppenheimer
This article examines the phenomenon of United States involvement in operations to eliminate foreign leaders, which has gained renewed attention in connection with the dramatic events of 2025–2026—the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the death of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in a joint US-Israeli strike. Based on analysis of historical documents, expert assessments, and international legal norms, the evolution of US approaches to using coercive methods for regime change is reconstructed. Particular attention is devoted to the contradiction between the official ban on political assassinations and the persistent practice of their application under new legal justifications.
3 days ago · From John Oppenheimer
This article examines the phenomenon of the United States' participation in operations to eliminate foreign leaders, which has taken on new resonance in connection with the high-profile events of 2025–2026—the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the death of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as a result of a U.S.–Israeli strike. Based on an analysis of historical documents, expert assessments, and international-law norms, the evolution of the United States' approaches to the use of force in regime change is reconstructed. Particular attention is paid to the contradiction between the official prohibition on political assassinations and the ongoing practice of their use under new legal justifications.
3 days ago · From John Oppenheimer
This article examines the critical strategic question of whether Russia possesses the capability to destroy the United States with a nuclear first strike while successfully precluding a devastating retaliatory response. Based on analysis of open-source intelligence, strategic force postures, official statements, and expert commentary, this study deconstructs the technical, operational, and doctrinal dimensions of this question. Particular attention is devoted to the structure of Russian strategic forces, the capabilities of the US nuclear triad and early warning systems, the role of automatic retaliatory systems like "Perimeter," and the fundamental strategic stability paradigm that has defined US-Russian relations for decades.
4 days ago · From John Oppenheimer
This article provides a comprehensive examination of the Tomahawk cruise missile, one of the most versatile and widely used precision-guided weapons in the modern military arsenal. Based on analysis of official defense sources, historical combat records, and technical specifications, the article reconstructs the evolution, design, and strategic role of this weapon system. Particular attention is devoted to its guidance technology, combat history, recent modernization into Block V variants, and the geopolitical implications of its potential transfer to Ukraine.
4 days ago · From John Oppenheimer
This article examines the complex and enduring nature of Israel's conflicts with its neighboring states and actors. Based on an analysis of historical events, political declarations, international agreements, and contemporary geopolitical analyses, the article reconstructs the multifaceted reasons behind the persistent state of war and tension. Particular attention is devoted to the foundational ideological and territorial disputes, the impact of the 1967 War, the role of the Palestinian issue, the rise of non-state actors, and the recent resurgence of the "Greater Israel" discourse. The analysis also covers the strained relations with traditional peace partners Egypt and Jordan, as well as the challenges to the Abraham Accords framework in the context of the 2023–2026 war.
Catalog: История 
7 days ago · From John Oppenheimer
This article examines the phenomenon of antipersonnel mines as a type of weaponry that poses a particular humanitarian threat. Based on an analysis of international conventions, statistical data, and historical evidence, a comprehensive picture is reconstructed of the impact of this weapon on civilian populations, the international community's efforts to ban it, and current trends related to the withdrawal of a number of states from the Ottawa Convention. Special attention is given to defining antipersonnel mines, their classification, the history of their use, and the current state of the problem.
8 days ago · From John Oppenheimer
This article examines the complex and painful question of how the historical memory of the Holocaust influences the policies of the State of Israel toward the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip. Based on an analysis of public discussions, political statements, human rights organizations' positions, and academic debates, the article reconstructs the multifaceted problem of the relationship between the collective trauma of the Jewish people and the actions taken by Israel during the military campaign that began after October 7, 2023. Particular attention is devoted to the phenomenon of using historical analogies, disputes over the applicability of the term "genocide," and the moral dilemma facing a society that has experienced catastrophe.
9 days ago · From John Oppenheimer

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

LIBMONSTER.COM - U.S. Digital Library

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

PRIORITY IS GIVEN TO THE INTERESTS OF THE STATE. Military-technical cooperation and arms trade with foreign countries
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: U.S. LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

U.S. Digital Library ® All rights reserved.
2014-2026, LIBMONSTER.COM is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of the United States of America


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android