Is helping Ukraine worth risking WW3?
Last Updated: 28.06.2025 00:35
Sending Abrams tanks is absolutely WW3.
Thank you.
All they have to do is to withdraw their troops.
Can a cop pull you over walking home asking why you are out so late?
Sending F16s to Ukraine is WW3.
Sending MANPADS/ATGMs to Ukraine is undoubtedly WW3.
Please kindly ask Mr Putin to avoid the WW3.
‘Uber for Getting Off Antidepressants’ Launches in the US - WIRED
Supplying Ukraine with Tomahawks is WW3? Stationing western troops in Odesa is WW3?
Sending weapons to Ukraine is certainly WW3.
Ukraine’s incursion into Russia is undeniably WW3.
Whole-body movement play shows promise for children with autism - PsyPost
Sending ATACMS is WW3.
What’s next?
Ukraine’s getting invitation to NATO is WW3?
Any day of the week — including Sundays.
Ukraine kicking Russia out of Ukraine is WW3?
Let’s just make it real clear:
The Simple Rule That Seems To Govern How Life Is Organized On Earth - IFLScience
Russia can stop this any time.
“It’s going to be WW3!” is the most notorious notion used by fear-mongers for years.
Letting Ukraine strike Russia with their home-made weapons is WW3.
Women like what they hear while men like what they see, it that true?
Ukraine refusing to surrender to Russia in February 2022 is WW3.
Ukrainians are so tired of hearing all this nonsense.
Just in the last 5 years:
Sending Stormshadow/Scalp missiles is WW3.
Ukraine getting Javelins is WW3.
Trump approving to kill Soleimani is WW3.
Seven years later, Nintendo fans beat Switch game even the devs didn’t - Polygon
Letting Ukraine fire ATACMS at Russian air bases is patently conclusively unequivocally WW3.
Letting Ukraine strike targets in Crimea is WW3.
Sending HIMARS is surely WW3.
Since the Brits can't steer their oil tanker, what makes them think they can take on Russia?