Producing a rocket, then selling it to Russian army who fires it at an Ukrainian hospital is not going to make Russia wealthier.
I don't think I responded to this, or at least directly... but instead talked about military Keynesianism.
What you say is wrong, though I understand your meaning.
What happens when the Russian ministry of defense, wires the Votkinsk Machine Building Plant $200M for some new missile?
1) The factory uses the forward advance to pay its employees. The employees go and spend this money on consumer goods, on real estate, on services, and so on and so forth.
2) The factory further uses the advance to order raw materials and other inputs throughout its supply chain. These could be composite materials, or wire harnesses, or pumps, or whatever else. The vendors will likely send the money further through their own supply chains.
3) From the profits earned from selling the missile - the factory has to pay taxes. These funds return to the government.
4) Finally, the plant itself is owned by the government. So the government is sort of paying itself, and most importantly in rubles - a currency it controls. Not dollars.
I don't think that it would occur to all those American congressmen that fight for budget appropriations for military programs - that these do not create "wealth". Why else would they want Lockheed to build a plant in their state? Not because it may create a few thousand jobs, and then these people might vote favorably?
So... though this may not be a very popular thing to say - making stuff that can only kill people and do nothing else can still be very profitable and can create far reaching ripples throughout the economy.