The US warned repeatedly that Russia was going to invade.

1. This isn’t happening in Cuba.
2. It’s an extension from a countries ability to decide who it trades with. Lots of secondary sanctions on companies doing business with Russia, they have to pick a side.

Why shouldn’t a country be able to decide not to trade with another country?

There are no secondary sanctions on Cuba.

Anyone who mentions BRICS like it’s a coherent organisation disqualifies themselves from being taken seriously.

This isn’t the first time this group has done something like this and they seem to have been pretty consistent in their messaging.

The hacktivist group SN_BLACKMETA has claimed responsibility and cites US support of Israel as the motivation.

There are also no exponentially growing power demands. Germany and the EU at large have had flat power consumption over the last 20 years. This guy, like the average nuclear shill, has no idea what he’s talking about.

You are drawing sweeping conclusions from very limited evidence. None of this shows a large part of the population voting for radical climate action, a few more people voting a little bit more centre left doesn’t mean much. It’s particularly telling that you’re trying to use the last EU election as evidence. Are you not aware that there was a right-ward shift in the European Parliament? The Greens in particular lost a lot. The EU continuing its course is far more indicative of technocratic governance over a democratic mandate.

You are deliberately obfuscating, to manufacture the appearance of support where there is too little. The issue is not that there is no climate action, the issue is that there is not enough of it. People, at least broadly, get the climate action that they vote for. Until climate swings elections in the way that the economy or migration does, the message to politicians will continue to be that people have other priorities.

No shit people are for fighting climate change in the abstract. But we’re not living in an abstract world, we are living in an actual one. One, where needs and desires compete. And consistently, other desires take priority over fighting climate change. There obviously isn’t as much support for actually combating climate change in the real world, with real consequences for real humans as you people assume.

This is terminal murica-brain. My condolences.

If they have such high public support why doesn’t the public vote accordingly?

only 30% thought disruptive tactics were effective for issues with high awareness but low support

This is completely insane and no economist agrees with your conspiracy theory.

Why would job cuts be temporary if demand stays low?

“Never thought I’d fight side by side with a Russian”

“What about side by side with a homophobe?”

As if this is what was needed to prove it. Trump once answered a question about the failings of western liberalism by talking about how liberal cities on the west coast were doing badly.

Please lead by example

The argument isn’t that they’re “evil”, it’s that they could be used as tools by strategic rivals.

Nvidia is already profitable and has been for over a decade.