Is helping Ukraine worth risking WW3?
Last Updated: 03.07.2025 00:16

Letting Ukraine fire ATACMS at Russian air bases is patently conclusively unequivocally WW3.
Sending MANPADS/ATGMs to Ukraine is undoubtedly WW3.
Any day of the week — including Sundays.
New Pill Slashes “Bad” Cholesterol and Heart Attack Risk in Just 12 Weeks - SciTechDaily
Letting Ukraine strike Russia with their home-made weapons is WW3.
All they have to do is to withdraw their troops.
Sending Stormshadow/Scalp missiles is WW3.
I'm British and I hate my glasses. Are prescription glasses better in New York City?
Let’s just make it real clear:
Please kindly ask Mr Putin to avoid the WW3.
Ukraine kicking Russia out of Ukraine is WW3?
Recursion lays off 20% of staff in wake of pipeline cutbacks - Fierce Biotech
Supplying Ukraine with Tomahawks is WW3? Stationing western troops in Odesa is WW3?
What’s next?
Trump approving to kill Soleimani is WW3.
Sending Abrams tanks is absolutely WW3.
Sending ATACMS is WW3.
Letting Ukraine strike targets in Crimea is WW3.
If people in the UK hate Trump so much, why does he own golf courses there?
Sending HIMARS is surely WW3.
Russia can stop this any time.
“It’s going to be WW3!” is the most notorious notion used by fear-mongers for years.
Sending weapons to Ukraine is certainly WW3.
Ukraine getting Javelins is WW3.
Ukraine’s getting invitation to NATO is WW3?
What is the most gay experience with your dad?
Thank you.
Ukrainians are so tired of hearing all this nonsense.
Ukraine refusing to surrender to Russia in February 2022 is WW3.
Just in the last 5 years:
Sending F16s to Ukraine is WW3.
Ukraine’s incursion into Russia is undeniably WW3.
PS5 shooter goes from 5 players to bestseller after devs defend game - Polygon