Around the end of the cold war I worked briefly in a Russian design bureau, and a thoroughly educational experience it was - the Russians train superb Engineers, arguably a training system far better than the British, European or American models.
However, in general, they don't design significantly different aeroplanes, just reach the design by a different route. They are far more evolutionary, and less revolutionary than we're used to in "the West". What I mean by that, is that whilst a Western trained Engineer will start with a blank sheet of paper and design exactly the aeroplane they want - a Russian will start with an existing design, and modify it to get what they're after. The result is generally that over "here" we achieve more radical designs quickly - and have more problems with them, whilst the Russians achieve less radical designs - which work better straight off.
Which doesn't answer the question really. There are differences between Western (FAR based) and Eastern (soviet based) airworthiness requirements - in general the Eastern approach tends to incorporate much higher structural reserve factors. However, in this instance frankly it's irrelevant - aerial collision, or in-flight break-up loads are so great that the reserve factors aren't a player.
I've seen Western flying machines of the same type either disintegrated into tiny bits, or come down almost intact. It's very much a function of the accident.
So, from a slightly different perspective, I agree completely with Wino.
G