> The solution was a market and "currency" for units to buy equipment and supplies. Brigade-level units purchase drones directly from the manufacturers using the "Brave" marketplace. The currency in the marketplace is points that units earn from video-confirmed kills of Russians. Drones flow to the most effective units, those units work closely with the manufacturers, and they can choose from a range of options depending on their current mission and Russian tactics.
Get out of the way, Pentagon, and let the best field grunts do procurement. How does the US military industrial complex react to that idea?
I guess that can work if the major battles are concentrated only at a few point. But what happens when it is spread out along a huge frontline? You can't really prioritise for "effective" if you also need to prioritise for "necessity"?
I expect they would tell the units that they get more points for results in zone A than in zone B, and allow teams to move (or move their drone operations) towards zone A.
They seem flexible enough to do that, tweaking the system fairly frequently.
Seems like a way to purposly implement Goodhart's Law in a war bureaucracy. Like, the law is a warning but neoliberals might read it differently I guess...