This is a compelling analysis of how crypto has emerged not just as a speculative asset, but as a real-world financial tool during times of crisis. The Russia-Ukraine war truly exposed the fragility of traditional banking under geopolitical stress
When life presents us with a situation, we usually decide what meaning the situation has for us almost immediately. That meaning is the ‘frame’ we give it. We don’t have to continue viewing it in that frame, though. Instead, we can give it a different meaning by changing the way we think and feel about it.
I must commend your dedication to academic rigor. Citing 27 sources for a single article? That’s an impressive commitment to making a simple point look complex. It’s almost as if you’re hoping that sheer volume will mask the fragility of your argument.
Let’s take your claim that “stablecoins like USDT became a central tool in international transactions, especially in the energy sector.” You present this as though Russia seamlessly circumvented sanctions using crypto. Yet, as of late 2022 and throughout 2023, reports from Chainalysis and the Financial Times confirmed that Russia's reliance on stablecoins was a desperate workaround, not a masterstroke. The European Union had already imposed restrictions on crypto transactions involving Russia in October 2022 (European Commission, 2022), and major exchanges like Binance and Coinbase began restricting Russian users from trading large amounts in early 2023 (CoinDesk, 2023).
The reality is, yes, some Russian firms attempted to use stablecoins to move money, but it was far from a revolutionary economic strategy. In fact, data from the Blockchain Transparency Institute suggests that the overwhelming majority of Russia’s crypto transactions in 2023 involved peer-to-peer platforms and shadow exchanges—not state-backed enterprises like Gazprom (Forbes, 2023). So much for your grand claim of an efficient, state-led financial workaround.
Now, let’s talk about Ukraine. You highlight how “Ukraine leveraged blockchain for national databases, improving transparency in land registries.” Sounds great, except you fail to mention that the Ukrainian government itself imposed severe restrictions on crypto purchases using local currency in April 2022. The reason? To prevent capital flight and speculation that was draining much-needed reserves. The National Bank of Ukraine explicitly stated that these restrictions were necessary to stabilize the economy during wartime (National Bank of Ukraine, 2022).
So, rather than a story of seamless crypto adoption and financial sovereignty, Ukraine's crypto use was tightly controlled out of necessity, not embraced as an ideal solution. Much of the funds raised through crypto donations, like the $70 million you mention, were converted into fiat currency as quickly as possible because crypto was too volatile to be a practical financial foundation. (Elliptic, 2023).
The bigger picture? Your article reads less like an insightful analysis and more like an attempt to cram every crypto-adjacent fact into a single piece—regardless of relevance or accuracy. Crypto certainly played a role in both Russia and Ukraine’s wartime economies, but not in the exaggerated, over-simplified way you present it.
Perhaps next time, rather than bombarding your readers with an avalanche of sources to make your argument appear airtight, you could focus on building a case that actually holds up under scrutiny.
When life presents us with a situation, we usually decide what meaning the situation has for us almost immediately. That meaning is the ‘frame’ we give it. We don’t have to continue viewing it in that frame, though. Instead, we can give it a different meaning by changing the way we think and feel about it.
This is a compelling analysis of how crypto has emerged not just as a speculative asset, but as a real-world financial tool during times of crisis. The Russia-Ukraine war truly exposed the fragility of traditional banking under geopolitical stress
When life presents us with a situation, we usually decide what meaning the situation has for us almost immediately. That meaning is the ‘frame’ we give it. We don’t have to continue viewing it in that frame, though. Instead, we can give it a different meaning by changing the way we think and feel about it.
Dear Jacob—oh, excuse me, Oded,
I must commend your dedication to academic rigor. Citing 27 sources for a single article? That’s an impressive commitment to making a simple point look complex. It’s almost as if you’re hoping that sheer volume will mask the fragility of your argument.
Let’s take your claim that “stablecoins like USDT became a central tool in international transactions, especially in the energy sector.” You present this as though Russia seamlessly circumvented sanctions using crypto. Yet, as of late 2022 and throughout 2023, reports from Chainalysis and the Financial Times confirmed that Russia's reliance on stablecoins was a desperate workaround, not a masterstroke. The European Union had already imposed restrictions on crypto transactions involving Russia in October 2022 (European Commission, 2022), and major exchanges like Binance and Coinbase began restricting Russian users from trading large amounts in early 2023 (CoinDesk, 2023).
The reality is, yes, some Russian firms attempted to use stablecoins to move money, but it was far from a revolutionary economic strategy. In fact, data from the Blockchain Transparency Institute suggests that the overwhelming majority of Russia’s crypto transactions in 2023 involved peer-to-peer platforms and shadow exchanges—not state-backed enterprises like Gazprom (Forbes, 2023). So much for your grand claim of an efficient, state-led financial workaround.
Now, let’s talk about Ukraine. You highlight how “Ukraine leveraged blockchain for national databases, improving transparency in land registries.” Sounds great, except you fail to mention that the Ukrainian government itself imposed severe restrictions on crypto purchases using local currency in April 2022. The reason? To prevent capital flight and speculation that was draining much-needed reserves. The National Bank of Ukraine explicitly stated that these restrictions were necessary to stabilize the economy during wartime (National Bank of Ukraine, 2022).
So, rather than a story of seamless crypto adoption and financial sovereignty, Ukraine's crypto use was tightly controlled out of necessity, not embraced as an ideal solution. Much of the funds raised through crypto donations, like the $70 million you mention, were converted into fiat currency as quickly as possible because crypto was too volatile to be a practical financial foundation. (Elliptic, 2023).
The bigger picture? Your article reads less like an insightful analysis and more like an attempt to cram every crypto-adjacent fact into a single piece—regardless of relevance or accuracy. Crypto certainly played a role in both Russia and Ukraine’s wartime economies, but not in the exaggerated, over-simplified way you present it.
Perhaps next time, rather than bombarding your readers with an avalanche of sources to make your argument appear airtight, you could focus on building a case that actually holds up under scrutiny.
Best,
(Just a reader who prefers facts over fluff)
When life presents us with a situation, we usually decide what meaning the situation has for us almost immediately. That meaning is the ‘frame’ we give it. We don’t have to continue viewing it in that frame, though. Instead, we can give it a different meaning by changing the way we think and feel about it.