https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba8XdDqZ-Jg
It seems like you are conflating the role of private and public debt, which is a very common mistake. Private debt does cause economic crises, public debt is a misnomer - it's generally speaking not even correctly referred to as debt. It's referred to as a debt for historical reasons, its not owed to anyone, for example.
A paper by the CATO institute showed that world hyperinflations have not historically arisen from monetary policy changes. They have more to do with... eh, its complicated. Collapses of industry in wartime, famines, militarily-imposed foreign debts and single-resource economies living beyond their means. The understanding you are demonstrating is called the Quantity Theory of Money and its being more and more called into question. The Theory of Ricardian Equivalence is toast. Not sure if you know that those are the high-falutin names of the theories you are describing as being patent fact.
No, it can be quite beneficial. However, it’s more dangerous to borrow in foreign currency because exchange rates are outside of complete government control.
> You think government spending necessarily precipitates a currency crisis
No, the inability to borrow in their own currency is one possibility. Bad monetary policy is another, losing a war for existence is another.
There is a little wiggle room. Governments do get to create a little money as their economies grow or if it’s used in foreign economies without causing significant inflation, but it’s dangerous to just spend it directly. The issue of course excessive printing or any economic contraction.
PS: Foreign debt is of course a closely related issue, but countries don’t create foreign debt unless they are forced to. You can’t get hyper inflation with a currency actually pegged to another currency or gold, those ties break long before hyper inflation happen.