Out of interest, what do you then call US leaders who reacted the way they reacted and continue to act when Castro took power in Cuba in an overthrow of massively unpopular US-supported dictatorship then? Or when he took USSR nuclear missiles?

That country didn't even have direct ground access to US, nor had been used as staging ground for assault on US heartland several times before in the history. Let me remind you of an obvious fact: all countries do things that Russia does and much worse when they feel their survival is threatened.

The best part is that you're massively anti-democratic with that statement - overwhelming majority of Russian people specifically support the current policy of Russia. Not the leader but his policy. Even pro-Western organisations doing polling in Russia are in full agreement with this. How would you feel about comparing US leaders to North Korean ones in terms of "sanity"? Because one could easily make the point that they are far more crazy. Whereas North Korean leaders are quite logical in their actions being driven by survival of their dictatorship in their country, US leaders are often driven by severely conflicting interests that end up hurting the country itself as they feud with one another.

Please remind yourself that "insanity" and "not being pro-Western" are only synonyms in propaganda.

That is wildly unrealistic with our current capabilities and well in the realms of fiction. In space you have countless problems when trying any kind of significant production, ranging from access to work force, access to hardware, having to lift all components and all machinery from the planet's gravity well into orbit, to things like power supply problems, cooling problems, highly hostile environment problems, and countless others.

Even if we had the technological capability to do what you suggest, the costs would outstrip making same things on the ground and then lifting them to orbit by what is likely order(s) of magnitude.

One should not throw stones when one lives in a house of glass. US is currently massively leading in top politicians making stupid talking points just to advance certain agenda, ranging from the entire Iran ordeal to the current conflict between branches of government that made country half-ungovernable.

A gaming mouse should be tailored to a user's hand. That means a slanted one handed mouse. The entire point of the exercise is to get a mouse that is suitable for YOU, not "suitable for everybody".

Ambidextrous mouse is definitely not on the list of requirements for being a gaming mouse, and if anything is one of the factors that will work against said mouse when being selected as a good gaming mouse.

Full disclosure: I haven't used ambidextrous mouse in over 15 years and I will NEVER use one again now that I'm used to one handed mice. I'm also the key target audience for the sellers, and buy high cost premium mice, my current one being Logitech G700s.
I actually ended up dragging my mouse to work when I wasn't offered a proper right handed mouse there. Ambidextrous models are simply far too uncomfortable once you're used to a proper one handed mouse.

Of course we did. A small nation fighting a super power, all you can hope is to fight to a draw.

The point of course being that we were the only state in Molotov-Ribbentrop that remained independent. But when you're a hysterical propagandist with task of creating fear, I suppose that detail is just too detrimental to the cause to even bother to mention. Nevermind it being the elephant in the room.

But even your argument had any truth to it, the question then becomes: where will the Russia gets the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and huge amount of materiel to lose again stepping on the same rake?

No. I mean the actual preparation that would suggest a change in status quo.

Bases you're talking about are clearly aimed at securing the northern region. They would be quite bad at functioning as staging areas for attacking us for a number of reasons and nearby Finnish towns have been extremely happy to have those bases to the point of staging events to show soldiers that they are welcome to their new bases near border.

It's good business in the otherwise fairly quiet region.

Of course, hysterical people such as yourself don't see it that way.

Have you tried applying reading comprehension being hitting the mindless rage button?

That's the point of these flights. Any kind of long term installation would be visible, as would major troop movements. These flights are about showing both sides that neither side is making any significant changes to status quo around the border.

Finland has a very long history of living with Russia on its borders, and unlike our hysterical neighbours in the West and South, we actually know how to communicate with them to defuse conflicts. Comes with being a neutral European state with huge border with Soviet Union that isn't a part of NATO, as well as fighting USSR off twice during 1939-1944 period.

The cases listed show no evidence of the only violation of international laws that you suggest (invading international space without reason such as avoiding a storm), instead showing that US aircraft did in fact commit to territorial airspace violations during those actions.

Specific example, straight from material linked by you:
On 18 July 2014 an American surveillance plane conducting operations near Kaliningrad was chased into Swedish air-space after being approached by Russian fighters. This evasive action took place without Sweden’s prior approval that the US aircraft could enter Swedish airspace.

Note how "surveillance plane conducting operations" is viewed as a neutral, but aircraft scrambling to intercept it are apparently a hostile move if intelligence aircraft is US one and intercepting aircraft is Russian. And if it's the other way around, it's "oh those evil Russians in the international airspace".

Quite a good demonstration of the severe propagandist bias in related reporting. Thank you for providing such clear example.

Reminder: Finland is not a member of NATO. It's not an enemy of Russia like NATO is. It's not looking for venues to attack Russia and therefore looking to scout out defensive positions already in place. As a result, it's goals are completely different and while I would probably agree that for a NATO this would be mostly "wasted fuel", for us it's not.

Because this is about ensuring peace on the long border by letting both sides know what medium and long term installations are already in place and that no agreements already in place are being violated. With no reason for any kind of tensions or conflict on the border and around it, these kinds of actions ensure peace and stability in the region.

Present day economists do not agree on any such thing, unless you only follow a very specific school of economists and dismiss everyone else.

Ocean acidification is directly linked to CO2 emissions and global warming and are a CONSEQUENCE of it. As a result, just like global warming itself would suggest, it's a global problem.

At the same time, ocean acidification related to other forms of pollution is highly localized around polluters due to extreme oceanic ability to dilute anything that is pushed into them in concentrated amounts. Which is a great thing considering the sheer volume of extremely toxic materiel that was dumped into various seas and oceans over last century.

Particulate emissions are also highly localized to the point where they effectively ceased being a problem in many regions around Europe after being a severe problem over the continent for a long time. This is mainly related to introduction of various emissions rules and quotas which in turn forced most of the polluting plants to switch to cleaner burn cycles coupled with various filters on exhaust, intake quality controls and other methods of pollution control. Catalytic filters both on burner plants and automotive ICEs also helped clean it up a great deal. At the same time countries with no such rules such as China experienced significant worsening.
This is because of highly localized nature of this kind of pollution. Particulates that get into upper atmosphere and spread into jet streams are more mobile, but they are far less harmful to surface dwellers in general as most particulates never get that high in significant concentrations. You angle of "being detected" is utterly ignorant of difference between "ability to detect" and "being harmful". Differential here is typically counted in millions and billions of times.

The obvious problem being that world economy is already taking a massive hit from current problems associated with rise of CO2 emissions.

"Natural evolution of economy" leads to crashes because it chases short term gains that are often vastly damaging to itself in long term.

Citations: 1930s recession, currently ongoing credit crunch crisis.

Suggesting this as a viable solution to a long term problem is akin to suggesting burning your house down as a solution to warming yourself for the upcoming winter.

Do you know WHY all of that took a back seat?

Risk.

All of thse things you mention are:

1. Localized.
2. Cumulatively far less dangerous for survival of our entire society and species than just that one issue of global warming.