No one ever said that they can't. But going from zero to being able to buy replacement Boeing (or whoever the OEM was) brakes off the shelf is a process of many months (in the optimistic case) or years, not weeks.
After all, even the simplest analysis for an aviation supplier has to be "can we make enough money selling these replacement brakes to cover the cost of setting up a manufacturing, quality control, and distribution system?"
Also, Russian manufacturing may have other urgent priorities right now. Wars (fought outside of the homeland) may be good for employment and industrialization broadly, but they often are the opposite for application of industry to civilian ends.
This would have made sense 12 months or even 9 months ago, but we're now 18 months into a war that Russia's government had otherwise been preparing domestically for. Again: what gives?
> 18 months into a war that Russia's government had otherwise been preparing domestically for
Eh, I think we all saw how "prepared" Russia was.
In any case, I think the following factors are definitive here:
- No one really considers the current situation as "permanent". The war will be over at some point and life will go on. So investing in manufacturing of those specific parts might prove a waste.
- This is specifically an issue with parts for foreign aircrafts. Is it even worth producing parts for foreign crafts?
- There are ways to evade sanctions and smuggle parts and right now, to some degree
- Russia passed a legislation allowing 3rd-party parts and signed a contract with Iran on airplane maintainance and parts supply - Iran already has an expertise and industrial capacity operating in somewhat similar conditions. Iran also has more experience smuggling.
Obviously, that work had started many months ago, not just now.
They hadn't been preparing for it to last 18 months, and part of their preparation had been oriented at influence operations to preemptivelt disrupt Western unity and political response when the war qas launched. While I won't say that categorically failed (it still has tangible effects), it has been far from a complete success.
Firstly, if you understood that this is a reference, why are you trying to interpret separate words literally?
And secondly, there was no constructive criticism or even any mention of "fascism" or "invasion".
Following your own logic, I could - just for the sake of example, mind you - claim that you come from hellish slave-hole where people eat babies and then justify it with actually literally the same slogan as you did. Would that be as fucking stupid? Yes, it would.
Now, should I expect you to accuse me of whataboutism for trying to build a consistent logical framework?
It's pretty clear that the war was planned under the assumption that they'd just march straight into Kiev, maybe shoot a few hardcases, scare the rest with how awesome they were, and basically be welcomed as liberators by most.
When that failed to work, they didn't seem to have any idea what to actually do next, besides claiming the attack on Kiev was always supposed to have been a feint and the real goal was always to grab a few chunks of eastern Ukraine.
After all, even the simplest analysis for an aviation supplier has to be "can we make enough money selling these replacement brakes to cover the cost of setting up a manufacturing, quality control, and distribution system?"