= new reply since forum marked as read
It's tiresome.
Fortunately, there are those, some even here on DU, who have been carefully following the unfolding events in Ukraine since this time last year. They understand the bigger picture.
There are also some DUers who have listened to, or read, Putin's speech at Valdai and are capable of evaluating his words, accordingly. (I would encourage reading the text, as there seems to be something about the structure of the Russian language that does not lend itself well to English translation, on the fly.)
Who took the time to watch Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov give his remarks in Munich, this weekend? That would include the Q&A where that German individual asked a question and then laughed in Lavrov's face as he gave his response; which ruffled Lavrov not at all. Such childishness! And I think I saw Insane McCain in the audience. Ugh!
I am encouraged that many Americans appear to be beginning to see through the hype and propaganda. Efforts to demonize the leaders of countries who refuse to bow to the dictates of Washington are not working as well as they used to. Perhaps this tactic suffers from overuse.
I would hope that one's assessment of world events would be based on something more substantial than how many 
smilies are posted, per hour, on some internet forum.
Regards,
truth2power
Putin "apologist"
You know who ~else~ was an aspiring painter, yes?
It is worth noting who is running their mouths on this and who is not though, seriously, and who has something to say, an argument to make, and who is simply posturing and throwing insults for some supposed effect.
- I am so tired of these warmongering motherfuckers.That is the only way you can come close to that map but it is still wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
That map you keep putting up is not accurate, you know right?
Member states of NATO
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/nato_countries.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
They have the USSR's experience behind them. Things went to pieces for a few reasons.
The economy really did just collapse in the very late 1980s and early 1990s. Food production and distribution problems. Avoid that, and you're status quo for 60 years of USSR.
During most of those 60 years, nationalism, ideology, and brainwashing worked miracles. Many Russians were convinced their economy and standard of living was heads and shoulders above most in the West. New immigrants to the West would be stunned when they saw stores stocked with food and drink (alcoholic and non). The poor may not be able to purchase much, but welfare recipients had a diet not much below the USSR average. We in the US heard horror stories about poor families where they had 5 or 6 people living in 2 or 3 rooms; that was USSR "lower middle class", not "poor."
Restrictions on the press made this kind of thing not such common knowledge in the USSR. By the late '80s the exchange faculty where I was a student knew to engage in survival-level budgeting in the US--live cheap, eat cheap, etc.--and then, at the end, buy "luxury" stuff from Sears and Target or K-Mart. Consumer electronics. Make-up. Clothes. Much was for their families; some would be for the people who wrangled them the exchange, sort of a post-hoc bribe. Some would be kept in reserve for bribes as needed in the future. We'd pick them up to take them to the airport and their Soviet-made everything would be left behind in the apt., suitcases stuffed with "American" stuff and boxes of electronics.
Ideology also started to fail. Most CPSU members were there because the party was a stepping stone to better jobs. People were clearly cynical. (Just like the US ideology of education has morphed: It used to be you'd get an education to be educated; now it's a piece of paper and screw the education, or maybe it's just job training--but fairly often the goal is to get the paper and required skills while learning as little other stuff as possible.)
And nationalism had also failed--the Soviet victory in WWII was "Soviet", and Russians just weren't behind that. In some ways, it was resented, and there had been talk for decades how the Ivans couldn't get a break as all the Chingizes and others were advanced. Yup: Reverse discrimination, Soviet style.
Putin's fixed that. Now the nationalism is ethnicity based, not some sort of supranational fake identity. There's again a clear enemy: NATO and the West, and it's been billed as that by Putin straight along. All the weaknesses in Soviet history are being fixed, from Stalin's purges to the pact with Hitler, and Soviet history is being recast as Russian history. Russians died in WWII--no matter that more Ukrainians actually died, now it's an entirely Russian affair. And what they're trying to counter by neutralizing Georgia and Ukraine is genocide: Even in the Georgia conflict the claims were that it was an attempt to wipe out Russia. The press is on board with this, with all the horrors inflicted on Russians in Ukraine by fascists (which means "anti-Russian, anti-Soviet people"
.
As a 25 year old I honestly learned something from your post!Response to Purveyor (Original post)
the bottom line is that Ukraine cannot defend itself and should just surrender.
We supplying weapons to Ukraine gives a perfect excuse for Russia to supply the separatists and their supply route is short. They will overtake most of Ukraine before our first C-130 is loaded. Who is going to put boots on the ground to protect Ukraine? Germany? France? UK? Canada?
No sane person wants a war with Russia -- she has nukes and is not afraid to use them in self defense.
This whole "we are the sole superpower" chest thumping is stupid bravado and we have to respect other countries' security concerns.
A deal can be made with a promise to keep Ukraine out of NATO and out of EU.
Ukraine remaining neutral has advantages to both sides.
Whether Putin is a madman/dictator/belligerent nut/megalomaniac is all irrelevant.
I see the same warmongering, demonization and slogans like I saw before the Iraq war. Remember, Russia is no Iraq and Putin is no Saddam.
Ukraine doesn't come close to fitting the economic criteria for acceptance into the EU. I don't know why this idea even came into the general conversation over the Ukraine issue. The majority of Europeans already think the EU is too large and unwieldy as it stands.
France only came back into NATO in 2009 because of Sarkozy, which was a very unpopular decision. Of course France joined up immediately after WWII, but then President de Gaulle took her out of the alliance in 1966, to remain an independent military power, to great public approval.
The French public will not be pulled into this conflict by NATO. There would be a general strike and the public will shut the country down, and Hollande should know this. I can't speak for Europe, but I live in France, and the French are sick of the USA Team America war-mongering.
Regardless, Ukraine joining the EU is preposterous.
Cheers
The only port still held securely by the present Ukrainian Government is Odessa, which is 40% Russian Speaking at home (and what people speak at home in the Ukraine is a better indication then what they claim is their nationality on their Internal passports, or whatever the Ukraine is calling their IDs today).
For this reason Odessa is a dangerous town for the Ukrainians. While 62% of the population claim to be Ukrainian, most speak Russian at home. 29% of the population are Russian. Thus you have the population base to have a spy network in the port and right now that is all the rebels need and want from the people of Odessa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odessa#Demographics
To get the supplies to Odessa you have to go through the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, both in Turkey, a Country depended on Russia Natural Gas and gets half of its oil from Iran (and close ally of Russia) and Russia (35% and 17% respectively).
http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=tu
Turkey gets 56% of its Natural Gas from Russia and 17% from Iran (Total 73%).
Unlike Oil, which can be routed from some place else (Through most of the oil import terminals are in the Black Sea, geared for Russia) the Natural gas supplies from sources other then Iran and Russia are very limited. Thus Turkey has great incentive NOT to permit any weapons go go through the Straits to get to the Ukraine. Thus Russia have a double check on any supplies from that direction.
That leave Rail and while there are three rail crossings into Poland and another into Hungary, all of them have to go through Kiev (there is a way around Kiev, but it is more in theory then reality).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Railways
Anti Tanks weapons can be flown into the Ukraine, but tanks and other tracked vehicles have to go by rail and right now that means via Poland (The route via Hungary goes via Vienna and then to Germany, the better route is via Warsaw where you can switch to a track to the seaport of Gdansk or via Berlin and then to Hamburg. Given this route, it will be easy to the Russian to find out if such tracked vehicles are being shipped.
Thus US options are limited. Even if the Poles and/or Turks agree to permit such movement of Tracked vehicles, getting them together and on a train will be difficult thing to do.
Furthermore the Ukraine is still using Soviet 5 foot gauge (1520mm) NOT European 4 Foot 8 1/2 inch gauge(1435 mm), which is what POLAND uses. Thus on top of moving by rail to the Ukrainian Border you have to move the tracked vehicles from one set of flat cars to another do to the break in the gauge.
There is one 1520mm rail line in Poland, but it goes to the South east of Poland, it transport Iron Ore to Polish Steel Mills and hauls Coal and Sulphur back to Russia with a brief trackage in the Ukraine, but then through Belarus to Russia itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKP_rail_line_65
If I was the Rebels I just have someone look at the area where the break in gauge exists and have them report each day on how trains go from one set of gauges to the other. Some change wheel, other are unloaded and loaded onto new cars. If any tracked vehicles are seen report them immediately.
Now, you can say, we can fly in Anti-Armor weapons into the Ukraine, but such weapons already exists in the Ukraine. The problem is how to get such weapons to where the fighting is? In some places it is easy, but those locations can be bypassed and surrounded and to prevent that you have to be able to fight in the surrounding countryside. That is the problem.
During WWII, the US and the Germans used Half Tracks. The US Half Tracks were converted White Medum Duty trucks with a after market half track to replace the rear wheels. It worked well in North Africa and did decent job in France. It started to fail when winter came in November 1944. The German Half Track is some times called a 3/4 track for it was custom made for military purposes. Its wider longer tracks where more then adequate for the Mud of the Russian Winter. It did not do as well as the US Half Track during the Summer of 1944 for the US Half Track had powered front wheels (i.e. "Four wheel Drive" while the German Half Track did not, but that shortcoming did not come into play much during winter campaigning (The Soviet solution to Russian Mud was to transport Infantry on their Tanks AND to have Cavalry ride with the tanks and act as infantry when engaging the Nazis).
I bring the story of the Two WWII era Half Tracks to show the problem is the need for TRACKED Vehicles is what the Ukrainians need. They have the weapons to stop the rebels, they just can NOT get the Weapon to where they are needed for they do to NOT have sufficient tracked Vehicles. Tanks would be fine, but Armored Personal Carriers (APC) like the US era M113 would be ideal. If the Ukrainian could get Polish BMPs, would help. Even the eight wheeled APCs the Soviet Union used would help (they are better off road they the trucks the Ukranians are using today). I am assuming the Poles will keep for themselves they recently purchased eight wheel combat Vehicles, but ex Soviet eight wheel vehicles and even ex Soviet four wheel BRDM's would be a huge help.
I bring this up, for it is these off road vehicles that the Ukrainians need right now. They have the ability to fight in the Cities and along paved roads, but no to far from such pavement. The Rebels are using Tanks and Russian tracks and eight wheel off road vehicles to get their men to where the fighting is occurring. Anto-Tank Weapons will help reverse this to a degree, but the need for ground transport is what is really needed. Such Equipment had to come by barge, ship or rail. All three methods are restricted when it comes to the Ukraine and that seems to be the main reason no one is giving supplies to the Ukrainian, not that they do not want to give them supplies, but how to do it.
Wasn't it TR who said that diplomacy was saying nice doggie while looking for a big stick... Well it doesn't make any sense to shake your big stick if the dog knows it's actually Styrofoam.
The Red Army was on its way to adopt a Semi-Automatic rifle at the start of WWII. The Red Army had "Adopted" a semi-automatic rifle in 1935, the AVS-36, but it failed in actual use and was withdrawn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVS-36
In turn the Soviets opt for its compeitor, and in 1938 what would bcome the SVT-40 was adopted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVT-40
Unlike the AVS-36, the SVT-40 was very successful, but it had problems. First it was expensive to make and maintain compared to the Mosin-Nagant the Russian Army had been using since 1891. Mosin-Nagant fired a RIM round known as the 7.62x54R. The R means teh round has a rim unlike the rimless rounds like the US 30'06, the 7.62x52 NATO Round and the 7.62x39 AK round. Those are all rimless rounds and require a finally complex bolt head to make a proper seal when the rifle is fired and be extracted. Rimless Cartigrades also require very tight ammunition control as to the length of the round, for setting them in the chamber is determined by the neck of the round, the part just behind the bullet. On the other hand, rimless rounds sit on top of each other in a magazine and thus easier to operate in an automatic weapon with a box magazine.
Rim Cartridges, on the other hand, have a rim that extends outside the rest of the round at the end of the round where the primer is located. This rim when in a box magazine causes them to sit at different length in the box magazine, which requires any bolt to adjust to those different lengths. Not a problem in a heavy machine guns, you just adopt a heavier bolt. It is a problem with a rifle for weight is a concern. One way around this is to stay with a bolt action rifle, something the Russians did with their Mosin-Nagant AND it was what the British did with their .303 British round, another rimmed round.
On the other hand a rim round is less picky on ammunition, for the RIM sets the round in the firing Chamber NOT the neck.
Here is a drawing of a 7.6cx51 NATO Rimless Cartridge. Notice the end opposite the bullet. It has a rim, but it is the same size as the rest of the brass cartridge. IT is called rimless, for the round is held by the bolt by the grove just before the rim:
Here is a drawing of a RIM cartridge, note the extra piece of metal on the bottom, that is the riim. Notice NOT grove in front of the rim, for the rim of the Cartridge does the job the grove in the rimless round does, permit the bolt to extract the round once it is fired:
The SVT-40 was a fairly successful design, the Germans even issued it to some of their own troops. The SVGT-40 was picky on ammunition and took a lot of time to be manufactured for it used that Russian Rim Round and in a Semi-automatic that required some very careful design and construction. Given these two problems, both in short supply in Russia 1941-1945, the Russian ordered the SVT-40 out of production and the older, cheaper to make and less picky on ammunition Mosin Nagant back into production. Now, the Russians also produced massive numbers of Submachine guns during WWII. Submachine guns made up 1/3 of the weapons of the Russian army was the War progressed, but the Russian found that number to be to high. Sub Machine guns were cheap to make (Firing pistol ammunition), but lack any range beyond about 85 meters. Infantry engagements tended to be about that distance with 1/2 of all injuries to small arm fire being done beyond 85 meters, and 1/2 under. Thus submachine guns were good 1/2 of the time. Submachine guns were better then sending in troops with just ammunition with orders to pick up the rifles of dead comrades that they were following (Used by Russia in both WWI AND WWII, but less in WWII then it had been done in WWI).
Thus the Russians knew they needed a RIFLE, but decided cheap was the way to go and thus dropped the SVT-40 and replaced it with the older and cheaper Mosin-Nagant. The Mosin-Nagant was want most Russians fought with. It was cheap and reliable and it had range beyond 100 yards so it could operate in situations where the submachine gun was out of range.
When the Soviet Army had time to look at its weapons needs again in 1943, it decided it needed a long range sub-machine gun. There are conflicting reports on the effect of the German adoption of the Mkb 42 in 1942 and the Soviet Adoption of the 7.62x39 round in 1943. Some reports say the Soviet Adopted ithe 7.62x39 round because of the Mkb-42, other said it was an independent decision going back to the dropping of the Japanese 6.5mm round from Soviet Inventories in 1938 (after the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, the Russian adopted the Japanese 6.5mm round as an alternative to their own 7.62x54R round, the 6.5 round was closer to the 7.62x39mm round in power then the 7.62x54R round and some commentators said it would have been an ideal assult rifle round). Stalin seems to have some influence on this for he ended up favoring the SKS over the AK in 1945. SKS was more like the American M1 rifle, design as what people today cal a "Battle Rifle" as opposed to the AK, which appears to have been adopted in 1947 as a replacement for the Submachine guns in the Soviet Army.
The Russia reports on the German 7.92x25mm round was it was to weak. There are German WWII reports that makes the same suggestion. The same reports all say the 7.92x57 round, like the Russian 7.62x54R round were to powerful thus they wanted something in between the two. Thus the 7.62x39mm Round was born.
The SKS and AK not only shared the same ammunition, they also share some other characteristics, both are CHEAP to make (one of the advantages of adopting a Rimless round), cheap to maintain and reliable even with questionable ammunition (NOT as reliable as a bolt action rifle, but better then any other Semi-Automatic or Automatic Rifle).
I bring this up for when it came time to fight a long war, Russia opted for a Cheap but Reliable weapon in place of what on paper was a more effective weapon on the grounds two cheap weapon was better then one better weapon. When it became possible to replace those older cheap and reliable weapons with better weapons just as cheap and reliable the Soviets did it. This required the Soviets to adopt a new round, the AK 7.62x39 Round, but the adoption of that round solved most of the problems the Soviets had had in developing a semi-automatic rifle.
comments about US Contractors wanting more expensive toys for a short war reminded me of the above situation during WWII. Another example of this was the replacement of the 1970 introduced TOW Anti-tank missiles, the Dragon Anti-Anti-Tank Missiles with they much cheaper to use and operate 106 mm and 90mm Recoilless rifles from the 1950s. During WWII, the US fielded the Bazooka, it ended up being the most effective portable anti-tank weapon of the war. The Bazooka had become marginal by 1945 but it had ben supplemented by 75mm and other recoilless rifles by that time period.
After WWII, the US cut back on the Army and concentrated on the Air Force and Navy, then came Korea. In Korea the Bazooka, while still fairly effective, had clearly seen better days as had the 75mm recoilless rifle. In response the US introduced a 106mm Recoilless rifle as its "Heavy" anti-tank weapon and the 90mm Recoilless Rifle as its "Medium" Anti-Tank Weapon (Replacing the older 105 mm and 75 mm WWII era Recoilless rifles AND the remaining conventional AT Weapons). These weapons were extremely effective cheap to produce (Through they Barrels had high wear rate, i.e. new barrels liners had to be installed after so many rounds. I have NOT heard of the rate of replacement in these weapons, but I have read the 100mm tube on a T-55 tank only last 2000 rounds, similar replacement levels on these weapons I would expect to be the norm). New Liners are NOT that expensive compared to a new tube or weapon.
Since the late 1800s, larger cannons have been design from multiple tubes inside each other. If you ever see the barrel of post 1900 artillery piece, you can see these tubes by slight color differences between them (Best seen where the round goes OUT of the barrel not the firing mechanism). The Inner most liner is the one that is rifled (if the weapon is a rifled weapon) and is the one replaced. The whole tube has to go back to the factory but then it is rebuilt with a new inner liner and the rest of the barrel are checked for flaws. The Longer the tube, the higher the velocity of the rounds being fired and the faster the tube wears out. I read one report that the 60mm US Mortar has a tube life of over 60,000 rounds but the 60mm mortar does NOT fire any high velocity rounds.
Anyway, the 106mm and 90mm Recoilless weapons were replaced by Anti-Tank Missiles in the 1970s, anti-tank missiles that cost $50,000 to $100,000 a round but promise higher hit and kill ratios. During the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US army went in with these missiles and saw that the Troops were using them extensively, bu mostly against buildings and fortifications NOT tanks. A round from a 106mm Recoilless rifle ran about $20 through the fuze would run $150 to $300 dollars (Time Fuzes and Proximity fuses are much expensive then Point Detonator fuzes but the later is what would be mostly used in such weapons). Yes the Fuze cost more the the round it is to set off, but still cheaper then the Anti-Tank Missiles.
Given these numbers, the US Army withdrew the Anti-Missiles and replaced them with the 1950 era Recoilless rifles (The US Army had kept the Recoilless Rifles in Reserves for the AT Anti-Missiles did NOT work in extreme cold weather, thus US Troops in Alaska always had Recoilless rifles for use in any winter fighting). If I remember right the cut off is about 20 degrees below zero, but that is from memory.
Thus to save money the US Army replaced the 1970 to 1990 Anti-Tank Weapons with older Recoilless rifles while lobbying congress for new even more expensive Anti-Tank Missiles needed to fight the latest Russian and Chinese Tanks, which we will probably never face for most of the fighting most people are predicting is in places like Afghanistan, Iraq etc, where US, Russian and Chinese trade relations overlap, NOT any direct fight between the US, Russian or Chinese military.
Yes, in actual combat the Cheap 1950 equipment has turned out to be the most cost effective weapons, but instead of expanding the use of such weapons, the US wants to go back to its high tech military to defeat the non-existent Red Army of the 1980s.
Thus even the US has opt for cheap weapons that it had technically replaced with more expensive "better" weapons, just like the Russians in WWII.
As to the Ukraine, what is needed is tracked vehicles (or such vehicles chief competitor is such mud, horses) and both take a lot of RAIL to get them to where they are needed. The US has a lot of old M113 and the Poles have some Polish versions of the old Soviet BMP-1 and 2s that could provide the tracked vehicles, but both would need to be hauled to the Ukraine by Rail. At the Polish-Ukrainian border the vehicles (or horses) would have to be moved from one set of trains to another do to the difference in rail gauge.
Sidenote: Horses are actually better to be shipped by aid, no need to feed them OR deal with the waste horses produce, put them on a plane, do not feed them, fly them then unload them. Horses take up the space and weight of four men and thus shippable by air, unlike Tracked Vehicles which need special planes design to take such heavy and bulky items. I do NOT think they are enough Ukrainians who know how to use a Horse for a horses to be an effective alternatives to tracked vehicles, but horses can do in such mud and in certain situations better then Tracked Vehicles.
Helicopters are another alternative to tracked Vehicles, provided you understand that you can not move the troops to close to the combat area so to avoid to many being shot down AND once the troops are on the ground, they have to wait there to be picked up again, or go by foot, if they are needed elsewhere. I suspect one of the problems for the Ukrainians is that Russia has restricted oil flow to the Ukraine, Helicopters take up as much fuel as Tanks, thus the problem may NOT be a lack of tracked Vehicles or Helicopters but a lack of fuel. If fuel is the main restriction (and the more I think of it, the more such a shortage would explain the recent losses), the Ukrainian Government better look into its horse population.
I've been seeing WWI level saber-rattling on this thread and others for a week. References to Neville Chamberlain, by people who know nothing about the run-up to WWII and Chamberlain's role in it - other than he is a code word for capitulation. Lots of idiot commentary about Putin, as if Russia and her interests don't exist. What is worse is that the USA has no skin in this game. Peace can't happen without commitment to it.
Luckily for the planet, nobody on this board has the slightest influence on the outcome.
