NATO has supplied Ukraine WWII-era howitzers and AAA, Ukraine's own supplies have dipped into pre-WWII stockpiles of Maxim guns and DP-27s. While NATOs own supplies are vast and the amounts of ready material much greater then what Russia can muster, this war has stretched even NATO's ability to provide military aid, especially in the area of artillery and ammunition. It is no surprise that Russia is in a bad spot. The post-Cold war dismantling of defense industries occurred in Russia as well as in the west. This is why we're seeing MT-LBs with naval AAA turrets, rather then hundreds of ZSU-23-4/57-2s. This is why the west is supplying Ukraine with M113s, and buckets of armored cars on civilian SUV chassis. Nobody was prepared for this war. Russia has fewer total supplies and especially total industrial capacity then NATO and this is a reality that cannot be escaped. If Russia is out of more modern equipment to be easily supplied and the front badly needs anything it can get, Russian T-62s are as wise a move as Ukraine's T-72M1s (or M-55S). Nothing makes LDNR reservist "snipers" (DM marksman?) Mosins any more laughable then Ukraine's Maxim guns. And while we're at it, last time I checked at least one NATO member used Mosins as sniper rifles in peacetime. None of this is to suggest Russia isn't desperate for war materiel. But to suggest that both sides are stretched thin.While we all make fun of RU trotting out relics form the cold war, they are supposedly a 1st world power. The fact they sink to such depths (T-62, S-60, Mosin-N, etc) makes it fair game for mocking. UKR on the other hand is barely even a regional power and is fighting a battle for survival. Bringing out the maxim is an act of desperation, but still a wise act.