Not to mention crypto can help the wealthy targets skirt sanctions.

On balance, given that we are dealing with a war of aggression and loss of life, I'm grateful for these tools. And, even to the extent it causes some pain for the Russian people, that further erodes support for the regime's unjust campaign and turns up the heat on them.

IMHO the most interesting change they did is to become self-sufficient regarding their food production, and even net exporter of wheat, corn, and other cereals. They correctly identified that was a risk and made necessary changes to reduce it to the point where they can leverage their position against other actors.

I think its more likely Putin is having to deal with a complex internal financial crisis which could affect Russian national stability. Putin may have something personal to gain from this, but there are bigger problems afoot if Russia descends into chaos. Something, mostly likely financial in nature, has happened to trigger the invasion into Ukraine. Raw access to resources?

So, whether a small portion of economic value is locked up on chain (or not) is unlikely to be relevant at this point.

> Trust between trade partners is one of the most important element of an economy but for ideological reasons crypto-currencies enthusiasts believe that should instead be delegated to a protocol.

Trust (assets) shared between trade partners which is not on-chain can be more easily manipulated as needed in a perceived crisis. We can see the US backed sanctions against Russia's interest are not being applied to Russian fuel exports, but instead target the wealth holder's stored assets. That implies a desire for control over the decision making process itself.

Cryptocurrency based assets would be more resistant to being influenced in this way and would limit the ability to manipulate the wealth holders, but only if their assets were on-chain.

I don't see how cryptocurrency changes this much, given the trust in raw assets relies on physical control of the asset, not a protocol that defines (or limits) how the asset is controlled.

It is in everyone's best interest this crisis in Russia and adjacent regions is addressed. How it is addressed, philosophically, is the real debate here.

I think he believe parts of his rhetoric. Of course the majority of what he communicates is posturing and lies but we can see recurrent themes in his speeches and articles. My understanding is that he really sees Ukraine as part of the Great Russia empire he wants to build and saw an opportunity to take action following events in the Western world from the past decade or so: instability in the US before and during Trump, Brexit and other fragmentation of Europe, NATO seen as weak and useless, US switching its focus to Asia instead of Europe, the way US left Afghanistan, rise of US and European isolationism, etc.

Regarding the ideology driving the Kremlin you can see those two Wikipedia articles: - the book "Foundations of Geopolitics ": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

- its author and "philosopher" Aleksandr Dugin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin

Those people aren't just cynical crony capitalists who want to make money for themselves. They have a clear fascist view of the world, with an ideal based on a "natural order" of the strong dominating the weak and dreams of a lost glory of the past. They developed a historical, spiritual, and political view of the world that defines their culture as the one that should dominate.