I agree that there are many holes in the rationales provided. We should be able to say this without being accused of supporting either side.
I'm not sure this would be as controversial if posters considered that it is possible for both 'sides' to be wrong. Of course the article has a way to frame the issue. It exists on one 'side' of the issue.
Similar to how these shortages are largely blamed on the war, rather than the sanctions or the pandemic restrictions.
It isn't just the (perhaps misplaced) controversy that I find interesting here. It is the constant transitioning from one crisis to the next, each one with economic implications. A cynical conspiracy theorist might even wonder if these crises are manufactured to suit these economic ends. Is attributing motive even important? We are here now, dealing with the results.
Just the same, the constant state of emergency demanded by these fear promotions and the short attention span of those who indulge them does remind me of a cat chasing a laser pointer.