This is an interesting take that some institutions have interest in keeping a slow and low level conflict going indefinitely. I have to admit I haven’t heard or considered this perspective. Most of the evidence provided though can quite easily be described by pure reactionary measures to the situation though. The examples provided like grain and oil speculation do not require a conspiracy of interests prolonging the conflict to explain why we saw those markets respond that way.
I do t doubt that some groups could benefit from a prolonged conflict, but I don’t see any direct evidence from your post, just a narrative that implies it’s possible. I think it’s a great idea to pursue this line of thinking, but I’m not personally convinced at this point.
Fantastic post, even though I don’t agree with your conclusions!