Reforms of the late 1980s-1990s had serious implications for Siberia where the number of defense enterprises was significant and in some areas they constituted backbone production. Consequently, problems of the military-industrial complex (MIC) had not only the production and technology-related dimension but also the territorial and, more broadly, social and economic one. To stabilize the situation, territorial authorities, being then held accountable for the situation on the ground, started to develop interregional cooperation. Initially, based on the territorial self-support concept, Siberian regions embarked on the development of interregional industrial cooperation and the conduct of mass conversion that was to saturate local markets with consumer goods and ease social tensions. However, the launch of the radical market reform led to the acute shortage of state investment. At the same time, it was impossible to solve the problems of defense enterprises through corporatization, and their conversion to civil production required significant financial resources. The regions came to have a critical attitude toward the continuation of conversion and advocated the promotion of military production. Gradually, the Siberian Accord association switched its emphasis from the all-Siberian to the all-national importance of the Siberian military-industrial complex which resulted in the need for the state support. In the second half of the 1990s, it became noticeable that the central authorities sought to limit the influence of the regions in the spheres falling within the federal control including the MIC. Along with certain confrontation, there was also readiness to find ways of cooperation. Thus, the government started to involve Siberian enterprises in the implementation of national programmes. Large-scale interregional projects, which were related to the conversion and military production and acquired the status of the all-Russian ones, started to be carried out in Siberia. The general interest on the part of federal and regional bodies in the solution of the MIC problems resulted in the mutual delegation of power that allows speaking of the practices of building real federalism. Yet, the centre made only temporal concessions without introducing corresponding legislation. Thus, despite the regional leaders repeatedly stating the need for the development of a Siberian conversion programme, such a programme was never prepared. Here, the regions faced direct opposition of the centre, which is indicated by the development of the Concept of 'Siberia' federal targeted programme. Nevertheless, through the practices of interregional cooperation, the ideology and mechanisms of defending Siberia's interests were formed, which allowed Siberian Accord association members to influence the central authorities in order to correct reforms, develop the regional policy and build federal relations.
