[x3874]

The US needs Stingers to defend either themselves or a current NATO member exactly how?

Because clever replies like "got news to catch up":

Hint: neither the US or NATO members are directly involved in the war between UA and RU, or any other war (yes, the US is always at war with other nations.)

US giving away billions in equipment for a foreign actor and thus creating the need to replenish stock is all on them.

[elteto]

You have roughly a year and a half of news to catch up to. Start with European news.

[nradov]

Degrading the Russian military through a proxy war is the cheapest and safest way to defend our NATO allies in Eastern Europe. Regardless of whether Russia eventually wins or loses in Ukraine, their military capabilities are being shattered and will take decades to rebuild.

[hans_castorp]

https://cepa.org/article/its-costing-peanuts-for-the-us-to-d...

[hackandthink]

It is not cheap. It costs many lives.

[ceejayoz]

It is incredibly cheap in terms of dollars spent by NATO to kneecap the Russian military and prevent future expansion.

The US spent trillions for decades preparing for this sort of fight, all the way up to Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars stuff… and it turned out that something like 20% of one year’s US military budget (and some very brave, determined allies) does the trick.

[nradov]

Cheap for the USA. It's for the Ukrainians to decide whether the cost in lives is worth paying. As long as they're willing to keep fighting there's no downside for us in supplying weapons.

[murkt]

If US and NATO countries did nothing and Ukraine would lose the war, next step Russia would attack Poland or Baltics, and China would attack Taiwan.

[slim]

in this case correct action would have been to attack russia preemptively /s