(0)
 
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed
on April 4th, 1949. In some ways, it is the real beginning of the Cold War; at
the time of the formation, Stalin was alive and as well as he ever was, the
Berlin blockade was heating up, and the narrative had completely changed from
being anti-Fascist and German to anti-Communist, and by extension anti-Russian.
Twelve countries joined NATO originally; Greece and Turkey, despite ancient
enmity, joined in '52, and West Germany, completing the cycle of change, joined
in 1955. In response to the absorption of West Germany by NATO, and,
ideologically the West, the Warsaw Pact was formed as a direct Soviet
counterweight.
Certainly it aligned groups of countries in mutual defense treaties,
essentially forcing countries to choose their side; S.E.A.T.O. did the same
towards the east, with many countries in the Pacific allying themselves in just
the same way with the United States. But the creation of these treaties did as
much on the logistical level as they did on the ideological level, and maybe
more so: no more did new small arms development center around whatever
cartridge the country chose. Rather, to eliminate supply problems across the
countries who had aligned themselves, certain calibers were designated “NATO
calibers” and after a certain point – usually by the first generation of
weapons developed after the war, but sometimes a bit later – more or less all
of NATO used the 5.56 NATO (also called the .223 round, although there are some
slight differences); the 7.62 NATO, which differs from the Warsaw Pact 7.62…the
9X19mm NATO pistol round, often and previously referred to as the 9mm Parabellum,
and more: here is a list of the basic NATO calibers, including cannon and
howitzer rounds: Small arms Autocannons o 25×137mm and 25×184mm, both of the 25 mm caliber o 30×113mmB, 30×173mm (STANAG 4624), both of
the 30 mm caliber o 35x228mm, see 30 mm caliber Tank guns and artillery o 155 mm The
Warsaw Pact had a similar, if not quite as extensive scheme. But while the
theme of NATO was military defense and mutual protection of the signatory
countries, the logistical problems that standardization of allied arms solved
were likely just as big a boost to the power of the treaty and the countries
who were signatories. Resupplying an American infantry unit trapped with an
airborne unit from the French Foreign Legion could be done without sorting,
fumbling, SNAFUs of all military varieties and much, much cursing by the NCO's
trying to undo what the officers did. Le Clarion – “the bugle” - is what the
French soldiers call their standard rifle, a bullpup (magazine behind the grip
and trigger assembly) assault rifle; it is chambered in 5.56 NATO. So are the
M-4's or M-16 variants carried by the Americans (and so many others), and the
British L1A1. The same is true for the larger 7.62 x 51, which our light
machine guns fire; so do those of the Belgians, who make many of them, and the
British, the French, the Germans… Wars,
generally, are won by less than gallant things: supply and logistics are the
engines that keep armies moving, even when the individual heroic exploits of
Audie Murphy make better stories than recounting the entire tale of how we kept
the soldiers supplied during WW2. Goering's failed promise to resupply the
Wehrmacht by air caused the loss of Stalingrad, and by extension the entire
Eastern Front; our ability, just a few years later, and under admittedly less
onerous conditions, to keep Berlin supplied
by air - the famous Berlin
airlift – was the first substantial blow we traded with the USSR in the longest
war…the Cold War, fought by proxy armies,
by assassin's bullets, by victories of morale, and eventually by the
most potent of weapons: money, when Reagan bankrupted the “Evil Empire,” not so
long before our friends, and caused them to get involved in an unsustainable
arms race that caused them to build bullets and not bread, widely causing
disruption of civilian life, and thus the end of the great standoff. That
is the lesson: the real hero of the war is the supply genius, making sure that
proper gun lubricant reaches a SpecOps forward operating base regularly, along
with the other mundane things that keep men active and alive on the battlefield.
We
just sent some 800 million dollars worth of materiel to Ukraine. Much of it was
small arms and small arms resupply; even 400 shotguns, useful in very
particular military situations were sent, and that is the kind of thing that
shows that somewhere, some smart supply gunnery sergeant or senior NCO of the
other services, a guy who has been on the ground and seen the elephant, sat
back and thought about what the needs of the guy on the ground. Too bad he
doesn't have plenary power over it. What
Ukraine needs is the raw material of war: guns, bombs, bullets and body armor.
It needs medical kits, bandoliers and light, man-portable antitank rockets. It
needs a lot of everything, but because Ukraine is not a member of the NATO
resupply system, where all of the rifles of the countries fire the same thing,
we can't just raid our armories for bullets…or can we? Well, we can, if done in
a particular way: we have incredible, massive stockpiles of things that go back
as far or farther than Korea, and by choosing carefully, we can accomplish a
lot. Some of the guns we use were used during ww2; our best sidearm, the
1911a1, was used in WWI. Of course, it was replaced when we went to a NATO
round pistol, but that is an odd dark spot in the wisdom of standardizing
supply across allied nations, and a question for firearm geeks to argue about
late into the night and never resolve. So the question of Ukraine joining NATO
and why Mr. Putin is so opposed, is not so simple as Article 5, which means
that had Ukraine been a member, the US would already be at war; rather, NATO
membership opens up an entire front that right now, had Ukraine already
converted to NATO calibers, we would be fighting: the resupply battle of Kyiv,
of Mariupol, of the Donbas. We would not have had to pick and choose and
carefully tease out the right things, things we deem them capable of using.
Rather, the first massive supply would have been accomplished by sending the
simplest staple of war: the things you do, said the fighting chaplain of
Manila, right after you praise God: you Pass the Ammunition. Incredibly
effective resupply could have been carried out already and could be currently
taking place if they all carried rifles chambered in the 5.56 or 7.62 NATO (as
opposed to the 7.62 Warsaw Pact). Putin knows this, and knows that without the
guns to win, all the fighting spirit in the world (and the Ukrainians don't
seem short on it) won't help a bit. One
short, ironic note: our great singer, Woody Guthrie, of “This Land in Your
Land” fame, whose guitar famously bore a sign that said “This Machine Kills
Fascists” wrote a song about a deadly Ukrainian sniper, who fought for the USSR
in WW2. Her name – yes, HER name – was Ludmilla Pavlichenko, and even though
she was Ukrainian through and through, Woody sings “Russia's her Country,
Fighting's her Game.” Let us remember this: that the Ukrainians and the
Russians are close ethnic relatives; that Kiev was once the center of Rus
culture, the progenitor of modern Russian culture; and that they fought
together, like demons, against the fascist hordes in WW2. So remember when you
see the Russian tanks, manned by 19-year-old commanders, that they aren't so
different from the Ukrainian tank commanders, driving the same machines…or our
sons and daughters, keeping us safe. Who they are different from are the
oligarchs, who want this war; the 19 year old tank commander wants to see his
girlfriend, play soccer on Sunday, and dream of children and a good life.
It's Putin and Co. we need gone…not the Russian conscript who wants to be nowhere near the place. The writer is a former military man, now researching and writing about the Ukrainian Conflict. Questions can be sent directly to lhaesten@gmail.com
| |||||||||||||||
Welcome to the discussion.
| |||||||
