Is helping Ukraine worth risking WW3?
Last Updated: 01.07.2025 00:53

Sending HIMARS is surely WW3.
All they have to do is to withdraw their troops.
Sending Abrams tanks is absolutely WW3.
Letting Ukraine strike targets in Crimea is WW3.
Please kindly ask Mr Putin to avoid the WW3.
Sending weapons to Ukraine is certainly WW3.
Ukraine’s incursion into Russia is undeniably WW3.
Russia can stop this any time.
Just in the last 5 years:
Any day of the week — including Sundays.
Trump approving to kill Soleimani is WW3.
“It’s going to be WW3!” is the most notorious notion used by fear-mongers for years.
For Anyone Trying To Be The "Fun" Aunt Or Uncle, 31 Birthday Gifts Kids Will Love - BuzzFeed
Sending F16s to Ukraine is WW3.
Letting Ukraine fire ATACMS at Russian air bases is patently conclusively unequivocally WW3.
Ukraine getting Javelins is WW3.
NBA Draft will have tons of international talent, which is to be expected - NBA
Ukrainians are so tired of hearing all this nonsense.
Sending ATACMS is WW3.
Let’s just make it real clear:
‘Smash’ abruptly announces final show after Tony Awards drama in Broadway shocker - New York Post
Supplying Ukraine with Tomahawks is WW3? Stationing western troops in Odesa is WW3?
Ukraine’s getting invitation to NATO is WW3?
Sending MANPADS/ATGMs to Ukraine is undoubtedly WW3.
Ukraine kicking Russia out of Ukraine is WW3?
Letting Ukraine strike Russia with their home-made weapons is WW3.
What’s next?
BlackRock removed from Texas blacklist after climate policy rollback - Financial Times
Ukraine refusing to surrender to Russia in February 2022 is WW3.
Sending Stormshadow/Scalp missiles is WW3.
Thank you.
Poland election: Conservative historian Nawrocki wins presidential vote - BBC