Is helping Ukraine worth risking WW3?
Last Updated: 27.06.2025 07:21

Sending ATACMS is WW3.
Sending HIMARS is surely WW3.
Letting Ukraine strike Russia with their home-made weapons is WW3.
Tulsa, Oklahoma, plans more than $105m in reparations for America's 'hidden' massacre - BBC
Sending F16s to Ukraine is WW3.
Ukraine’s getting invitation to NATO is WW3?
Please kindly ask Mr Putin to avoid the WW3.
Twins reinstate Byron Buxton from concussion injured list - Sports Illustrated
Ukraine getting Javelins is WW3.
Any day of the week — including Sundays.
Sending Abrams tanks is absolutely WW3.
Let’s just make it real clear:
Ukraine kicking Russia out of Ukraine is WW3?
What’s next?
Phew: Apple fixed the Finder icon in macOS Tahoe 26 - The Verge
Letting Ukraine fire ATACMS at Russian air bases is patently conclusively unequivocally WW3.
Trump approving to kill Soleimani is WW3.
Letting Ukraine strike targets in Crimea is WW3.
'Mission: Impossible 8': Inside How They Shot Underwater Submarine - IndieWire
“It’s going to be WW3!” is the most notorious notion used by fear-mongers for years.
Supplying Ukraine with Tomahawks is WW3? Stationing western troops in Odesa is WW3?
Russia can stop this any time.
Simulations find ghostly whirls of dark matter trailing galaxy arms - Ars Technica
Sending weapons to Ukraine is certainly WW3.
Ukrainians are so tired of hearing all this nonsense.
Ukraine refusing to surrender to Russia in February 2022 is WW3.
Which is better, a naked picture of some one you know or porn videos?
Sending Stormshadow/Scalp missiles is WW3.
Sending MANPADS/ATGMs to Ukraine is undoubtedly WW3.
Thank you.
Just in the last 5 years:
All they have to do is to withdraw their troops.
Ukraine’s incursion into Russia is undeniably WW3.